Buy a CD now or wait new technology

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.

It is probably a battle against the 'Sony' name, Jadem6. Many audiophiles seem to be having a problem with the name 'Sony' even mentioned with ML et al.

The Marantz SA-1 SACD/CD player is worth every penny. It plays regular (redbook) CDs better than my currnet $10K Wadia setup. And the SACD format, well.....I am speechless. My Goldmund TT analog setup has competition now.
No I don not work for Marantz, or a dealer that sells Marantz. I just like to pass on what I learn
from experience to my audiophile friends.