The plight of SACD....

Neither is replacing hi-end 2k analog rigs...but only a few are at that level anyways...the solution will be a universal player...we will have to see if there is enough software to make it stick...however...with new "blue" laser technology just around the corner...and who knows what else...afterall...what ever hits the "consumer" level is probably 5yrs. behind the times anyways...and like Cd...there is plenty of room for new hi-rez, vinyl, and whatever else....

I feel the average consumer is happy with redbook cd,and they could care less about SACD!

I have no idea if sacd will live or die a slow death.
Most people dont even know what sacd is,at least the people I know.
Who in their right mind would buy a player when there are only 200 or so sacds to buy? Plus in my opinion 75% or more of these suck!!
I guess Im not one in "their right mind" as I just bought a sacd player and I own 2 sacds and 1 sucks!

I don't care what the public buys. Hey, most buy $199 stereo systems, or MP3 compatiable computers. With this equipment, I would buy CSs as well.

There's now over 800 SACDs, not 200. www.aMusicDirect.com currently lists 594 SACDs for sale at their site alone. There's more SACDs than I'm willing to buy.

I now own 100 SACDs. I have a couple that sound similar to the CD version, but I've never found a poor sounding SACD. I find poorly recorded CDs and DVD-Vs often. Buying a SACD is insurance that the recording is well engineered.

By the way, the same can't be said for DVD-A. Many DVD-As do not equal the CD counterpart. I bought two DVD-A players, but returned them both.

Now you may not like certain type of music that is recorded on SACD (e.g. Jazz, classical, etc.), but that's not a reason to pu-pu SACD. I don't like Rap. That does not make CD technology inferior because most Rap is on CDs.

If one needs to worry about a dying format, they should worry about vinyl. I can find SACDs at Circuit City and Best Buy. Can't find any vinyl. The public doesn't seem to care about buying vinyl--especially the younger generation.

Completely IMO, the most insightful points in this thread are:

SACD is not about sound quality with regards to it's ultimate purpose and/or acceptance. It's about corporate profits, consumer cost and convenience.

There are many many more people today with SACD capability in their home than there were a year ago, due to exactly the phenomena Treyhoss describes - "I need a new DVD player, the Sony's have a killer picture and, whoa, it looks like I got SACD capability to boot!". Only many people probably have absolutely no idea or interest in what SACD is or does, or whether it's a better quality sound or whatever.

I read Michael Fremer's proud statements of all the TT's sold in Europe last year (while admitting most of them are the $199 models, clearly bought by people who have an old collection and a broken TT), as he promotes the notion (that is quite possibly true, today) that "vinyl is enjoying a resurgence". How many people bought a Sony DVD player last year that was SACD capable? Given that all but their cheapest models are, I'm guessing the number dwarfs the number of TTs sold. Only difference is that no SACD-zealot is holding up these numbers saying "SACD is steamrolling!"

It is absolutely true that the public is not clamoring for, nor particularly wants, SACD. It's also true that SACD doesn't represent the same clear consumer benefit that CDs had (again, for Joe Public, not for high-end consumers). But I don't think Sony is surprised by this, or intended that to be the catch. What Sony wants is for everybody to seamlessly go from buying CDs to SACDs.

Sony has released dozens of models of devices that are SACD capable that are in the process of replacing incompatible units in consumers' hands that break down over time. SACD is not going to sell at $19.95 a disc, but all Sony has to do is to sell the SACD dual-layer (ie, backward compatible) version of the latest Eminem release for cheaper than the CD version, and they'll get people's attention. Yes, they'd lose money, but gigantic corporations do it all the time to gain market share, and have the pockets to see it through. How much did you pay for your copy of Internet Explorer?

Finally, Treyhoss' point that the future format is quite likely higher-resolution than anything we have today, and more accessible to boot (due to cheaper storage and bandwidth) is undeniable true, in my opinion. Everybody chastises MP3 for it's "low bandwidth and crappy sound" but that's just today's usage of it, due to how people can interact with it. There's nothing about MP3 itself, or a backward compatible MP4 of the future, that keeps it from supporting a higher-resolution format than SACD in the future.

I think the whole focus on formats is something that only a group like this thinks about. Most of the public doesn't care at all (unless it doesn't work). Cheap, convenient, and what I want quickly is all that matters.