Is SACD a dead format?

Having posted before you got back in Cinematic your claim of 70 CD's bought in the last three weeks contradicts most of your argument.

Now why didn't you buy 70 DVD-A's?

Cinematic Systems said:

"Since my two channel system easily surpasses yours Danlib, you may want to think about why I listen too 2 channel CD's in surround

PS: Don't bring a knife to a gunfight."

First of all, it's not Danlib- it's Danlib1.

Second- it's listen to- not listen TOO.

Third- Personal digs about another's music system are really not necessary. I could not care less how big your penis is- oops I mean how much your system surpasses mine. I stated my opinion in the post. That's all.

Fourth- "Knife to a gunfight"? Dude- what grade are you in?

Anything Redbook can do, DVDA can do better. Because it's the same darned PCM format but with more bits and faster sampling. This is not to say that every DVDA is recorded and mastered well enough for the improvement to be evident. SACD comparison is a lot more difficult because the format is so very different. Theoretically, it should also be better.

Cinematic, i gotta say i really enjoy yer posts. I think yer full of hot air, but it is always entertaining to see you put yer foot in yer mouth and try to find a way to smooth things over.
Keep posting!

Not dead, but not mainstream. It is morphing into a niche market for audiophiles only--just like vinyl. With universal machines proliferating, those who are willing to pay will get SACDs. Sadly, few people are willing to pay for sound quality, so we are going to see a lot more MP3's and even less SACDs. I like vinyl, but I really do prefer a well recorded SACD. Unfortunately the blinkin record companies, looking for the fast buck, don't often make an effort to make a decent SACD. A good example is Norah Jones 1st album, the SACD is awful. I just wish people would be willing to pay for fidelity. SAd thing is a lot of "audiophiles" won't pay extra.