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.
jdaniel18ee
I am very fond of my tail and do not appreciate your mockery of those different than yourself. This is by far the most blatant tailism I have witnessed on AudiogoN and I think an apology is due to all of us for your lack of feeling, consideration, and understanding. If we were Christians or any of the fundamental sects you would be able to abuse us all you like as it is currently politically correct, but to single out those with tails is beyond the pale. Were you abused at sometime in your life by someone with a tail, a parent, a teacher, a priest? Why the hatred?

Anyway, you are preaching to the choir! It is people who never frequent places like AudiogoN and buy mainly from Circuit City, Best Buy, Pep Boys that you need to convert. Most people don't care one wit about the quality of musical reproduction. Most people don't listen to music they just have it on.

They are not going to buy a DVD-A or SACD player. CDs are already perfect sound forever, why should they care? No one who thinks CDs sound good is ever going to buy a format that actually has the potential to sound good. They are sheep.
Uppermidfi: Although he doesn't mince words saying it, Wainwright is probably not far off the mark. Also, try and chill out a bit. You need to be open to others point of view and how they say it. I'm not saying you have to agree with them, but read, absorb or not, and then move on. If what is written is a personal attack on you and only you, then, perhaps you have the right to rebutal and even an apology.
I agree with Bld63 that SACD will probably become a small niche in the market only few will care. Most people just don't care about the sound quality as much as they care about the picture quality of their home entertainment center. People will rather spend 3000.00 on a new plasma screen than on a cd player that can play sacd.

Since the technology is cheap enough nowaday, why can't Sony or Phillips make every of their new DVD players able to play SACD also and this will encourage people to experience the new format with little or no cost. Once they see the benefit of the new format, then maybe there is a small chance SACD will become part of the house hold topic.

By the way, when was the last time you see a SACD comercials on TV. I don't watch TV that much but honestly I swear I have not seen any thing on SACD on TV. The only ads I've seen are on hifi magazines but that is like preaching to the converted. (Wouldn't you rather see something else on TV others then Bush trying to trash Kerry war records :-) ?.)

It's kind of funny that most home electronic stores I visit, most salesman treat their SACD players, even the cheapest ones, as some sort of sacred devices that only a few can touch. This kind of remind me of the Apple vs. IBM fight back when computer was in its infancy. There is a joke that you don't ask a man what kind of computer he uses. If he uses Apple then he will proudly announce so.

Anyway, it seems like people in the SACD marketing departments are more audiophiles than marketers.
I believe there *are* many people who care about sound. To say otherwise is specious; otherwise why would anyone every buy a stereo system over $100? The general public will catch on. Like any company trying to recoup its R&D, Sony and Co is aiming at the Who, Rolling Stones, Tommy, and Classical crowd--middle-age men (presumably) with money. Price will come down. Naxos, a budget classical company has just started releasing SACDs at $12.

And Uppermidfi, a confession: I was born with a reptilian tail and besides being laughed at in middle school, I damaged record after record when, if I turned around too fast, it would knock the needle across my Soundesign turntable. I couldn't get the tail removed until Philips perfected laser technology in the '80's. I will always have an aversion to you people, and Lp's....
I was pretty well informed on audio technology in the mid 1980s, about when CDs came out . . .went through some impoverished times with my pair of Vandersteen 2ci, a Sony Walkman as a CD player and a receiver I bought at a garage sale, and just recently got back into the hobby.

My point is, even though I didn't read the audio press during the lean years, I was a person interested in audio in general, and should have noticed the introduction of a new format or technology, had it been publicized. I read newspapers and magazines, watch a lot of TV news and am generally well-informed.

I never knew that SACD OR DVD-Audio existed until I re-entered shopping for audio hardware last December and started buying the audio press again.

This does not make me optimistic that either of these formats will succeed. You are starting to see the occasional mention of SACD players at Circuit City-type stores now that there is one that sells for $150.

And remember that there are three competitors for the very small niche market for high resolution audio sources: DVD-A, SACD and vinyl. Right now, I would almost have to say that vinyl may win. . .