SACD is easily the best digital audio format available today but after 5 years or so probably 90%+ of the general music buying public doesn't know it exists or even care. It has been my experience that new releases are more readily available on vinyl than SACD. Unless Sony becomes a little more liberal with licensing and more aggressive with new hybrid releases I fear that SACD will remain a high-end niche like MFSL or DCC. Right now I can't see SACD ever becoming a mainstream format (which I find very frustrating). So I'll take my 4 to 12k and use it toward CD or vinyl playback.
High-end Universal...Why? ?
I don't understand why we're still talking about the "age of uncertainty" and the need for a universal player. After the death of DVD-A, those with high-end universals are going to look upon the vestigal circuitry in their machines with the same obsessive disdain as they would a reptilian tail sticking out of their own rear ends. You know who you are. : ) I humbly suggest using your $4 to $12K and buy an SACD player.
Sure, many people's favorite music isn't out on SACD, but that's a ubiquitous problem whenever formats change. There are many Lp's that never made it to CD. Why will SACD win over DVD-A? Let's take the surround camp: even if 50% bought DVD-A and 50% bought SACD, (it's actually 3 to 1 SACD over DVD-A), you also have 2-channel high-rez camp buying SACD also, swinging the vote even further in latter's favor.
A disclosure: I own an SACD player.
Sure, many people's favorite music isn't out on SACD, but that's a ubiquitous problem whenever formats change. There are many Lp's that never made it to CD. Why will SACD win over DVD-A? Let's take the surround camp: even if 50% bought DVD-A and 50% bought SACD, (it's actually 3 to 1 SACD over DVD-A), you also have 2-channel high-rez camp buying SACD also, swinging the vote even further in latter's favor.
A disclosure: I own an SACD player.
- ...
- 11 posts total
- 11 posts total