Buy a CD now or wait new technology

Do yourself a favor and go buy a Marantz SA-1 SACD player.
I've had mine for the past week and finally in heaven with digital.

Psjulian,Sorry you take the post as an attack ,but i won,t apoligise for it as you still provide no backup, just a bunch of i heard this and that for your reason on why the original poster should not buy into sacd.I will have to set a few things strait for you 1 There are no multi channel sacd players available,only software for consumers to buy.2 Your opinion on sacd vs cd as a musician might be a good one,if you actually had sacd to compare and did not go with what some dealer said.3 sacd is two years old,and can hardly be considered new technology.4 There are pure dsd recordings and even the 200 year old dead guys sound better on sacd than any redbook, and you will not find a soul to disagree,who has actually compared the two.5 As a buiseness owner i can tell you that the suits don,t know squat about half the stuff they sell.6 I can walk into at least half of the hi end dealers in the world,and tell them more about sacd than they care to know and it will all be based on facts,not well because my freind told me or some suit told me.As far as your little pissing contest about a new house,i am on my third custom home,also in michigan and at a much younger age than you,and i could buy the accuphase sacd tommorow for cash, but this is an audio board,not a pissing contest.Sacd, does not require any special room or studio to get a lot closer to the master than redbook,just put it in place of your current setup and add your tatse in music and presto ,instant better sonics to enjoy the music with,This advice is free and fact,and this includes even you Psjulian.

ears, i've heard sacd, & i agree w/ewe about its sonic improvements over cd - it's almost analogue-like! ;~) however, there's not enuff software presently awailable for me to entertain taking the plunge into the hardware. (mebbe if i was on to my 3rd custom home, i mite tink differently, tho!) i'm perfectly happy w/my winyl, & my cd-collection is quite small, so i'm ok w/this, too. i dint get into cd 'til only a few years ago, due to its sonic shortcomings, and i felt little hardship - i'm sure i can comfortably get by w/o a sacd player until it turns out (if it does) to be the next dominant digital medium.

regards, doug s.

Good for you Doug S. As far as ears is concerned since we both live in Michigan why don't we get together and discuss our opinions face to face. This was not meant to be a pissing contest. The one fact you missed, is, what Doug S. mentioned, the software. Other labels are waiting for the smoke to clear. Trust me the suits are having a ball. High - end audio is a small market. They needed to do this to generate sales. Home Theater is not enough for their greed. My debate is not that SACD is not a better medium. It's what the big boys are doing to us. My advice is the same as most writers in TAS and some in the other publications both print and the net. If you need a killer CD player get it now and enjoy your current music collectin NOW!!!! If the new format flies the market will be ripe for the other players to produce their machines. This is better for us. If we jump on board blindly then they have us right where they want us.If we make them earn our support then we win. Thats my point!! Look at Xmas and what Sony did with the games. The average consumer went nuts. I pray we in this hobby are wiser than that. Peace and good listening.

I DON'T GET IT!
The sides are;
1)SACD machines sound better than any or most cd players in "redbook cd" playback
2)SACD sounds great but there are better "redbook cd" players
3) there is still a small group that don't want to know the answer until it's announced at the next Lakers game.
What the heck is this argument even about?

Linn came out with a $20,000 single box player, and Burmester's has it's $33,000 processor and their $27,000 transport, and hey let's add a $7000 d to d converter, and now let's compare this system to a $2000 SACD player. O.K. that was unfair, just stay with the $16,950 Levinson processor and a $9495 transport and compare.
What is the purpose of this argument. Just for fun, I'll say anything over the benchmark $26,500 Levinson without up-sampling will beat SACD redbook playback, even though this is being challenged.
I still ask, what is the argument? Let's see, $2000 vs $25,000 for the same redbook cd playback, forget the SACD bonus so we can stay out of the nothing is available discussion.

Why don't Levinson, Burmester, Linn and the rest just get trashed on this site? We'll argue $500 vs $1500 power cords and interconnects and call the manufacturers every name for stealing from us. The SACD player comes along at 5% of the cost of the reference systems and arguably beats out most of them, and we question the "suits"?

Am I missing something or is there such a fear of progress that we'll come up with any argument just to keep the status-quo?
Please help me here, is it me, or is it you? J.D.