Several more "boo boos":
1. Often a new recording will be release on CD, and then a few months later on SACD. I am now nervous to buy new releases in fear that it will soon be released in a better format.
2. One of the real beauties of the SACD format is that it is backward compatable. If the big record lables came out with many hybrid discs at a reasonable cost, than mainstream would buy them, only later to realise that they owned a lot of SACD's, and would consider purchasing a new player. Instead, many of the releases are SACD only, or if in Hybrid, very expensive.
3. Labeling: Why do the manufacturers insist on such poor identification of the format. (The Stones series doesn't say anything about the SACD format.) I have some discs that are SACD only, but other than a SMALL symbol, it is impossible to tell that it is an SACD. I pitty the poor schmuck that buys them with only a CD player at home.
I have a very large CD collection with most of the titles that I want. Over the last couple of years, my purchasing of CD's has really dropped off. With the new SACD format, I am again buying more discs, but the releases that I want a few and far between.
I agree that the SACD format will stick around for the audiophiles amoung us, but the manufacturers have blown the marketing of it as a big seller. .. both as a medium and as hardware.
Oh, and by the way, the sound of the SACD, is definitely superior to the CD! ... and my SACD player surpassed any CD player in it's price range and beyond.
As I see it,
Richard
1. Often a new recording will be release on CD, and then a few months later on SACD. I am now nervous to buy new releases in fear that it will soon be released in a better format.
2. One of the real beauties of the SACD format is that it is backward compatable. If the big record lables came out with many hybrid discs at a reasonable cost, than mainstream would buy them, only later to realise that they owned a lot of SACD's, and would consider purchasing a new player. Instead, many of the releases are SACD only, or if in Hybrid, very expensive.
3. Labeling: Why do the manufacturers insist on such poor identification of the format. (The Stones series doesn't say anything about the SACD format.) I have some discs that are SACD only, but other than a SMALL symbol, it is impossible to tell that it is an SACD. I pitty the poor schmuck that buys them with only a CD player at home.
I have a very large CD collection with most of the titles that I want. Over the last couple of years, my purchasing of CD's has really dropped off. With the new SACD format, I am again buying more discs, but the releases that I want a few and far between.
I agree that the SACD format will stick around for the audiophiles amoung us, but the manufacturers have blown the marketing of it as a big seller. .. both as a medium and as hardware.
Oh, and by the way, the sound of the SACD, is definitely superior to the CD! ... and my SACD player surpassed any CD player in it's price range and beyond.
As I see it,
Richard