Since the new discs will require new hardware and "obsolete" what we have, a lower price (compared to the $15 or so we now pay for Red Book CDs) is necessary.

What I think doesn't matter so much---if it costs more than a buck or so more than a CD, the mainstream won't support the format. How many boomboxes can provide enough fidelity for anyone to notice?

I'll look for mine in the used racks. I'll spend my hard-earned bucks on vinyl until someone can show me a better medium for audio playback.

The question is not well enough defined. I presently pay at several different price levels, depending on the particular disc (CD). If I feel the music I want warrants it, I will pay the going rate; it is only when the disc is substandard that I become disappointed.

I would be unwilling to pay more than a $5 premium over CD, especially as an audio DVD would not cost more to manufacture than other DVDs and CDs.

If DVD can offer better-than-laserdisc quality for half the price, why should a DVD-Audio disc cost any more than $15?

I would only pay a premium if there was an audible difference.

Since I am paying $18-25 for DVDs, I wouldn't mind paying the same for audio DVDs.

$15 - $18, but then I've never heard a DVD disc.

I'll wait for the DVD mail-order clubs. Retail store prices are artificially inflated.

Tell me how much music I'm getting.

It would fantastic if it came is 5.1 dolby digital else who cares.

24 bit 96mhtz. Maybe DTS

To maintain its competitive advantage, the price of it should not exceed that of an HDCD disc.

I'm sure Naxos and the BMG Music Club will get into the DVD audio market at some point. Until then, it'll probably be too rich for my blood.

A DVD-Audio standard would be great, but my growing cynicism at ever getting consistant at-or-near quality master tape sound is growing. How about tying in standards for producers, recording engineers and production people for getting a pristine transfer - right down the line!

Most of us almost certainly have not had a chance to hear a DVD-audio disk, much less do a critical comparison between DVD and standard CD, much less with the most likely alternative, DSD, which offers 20 bits of resolution, and IS backward compatible. As none of the other equipment I own -- amp, preamp, or speakers -- is capable of anywhere NEAR 140 dB of resolution, the benefits of the extra 4 bits of resolution would appear to be precisely $0.00. My opinion could, however, change once I have a chance to listen to the medium.

Who came up with this absurd range of suggested prices? In the psychometrics business, this would be construed as an obvious attempt to skew responses toward the high side. Any ulterior motives here? And why no mention of the competing SACD standard that is backward compatible?

Uncertain future.Wait and see!

It's hard to generalize because recording quality will vary depending on the quality of the master tape more than anything else. All other factors remaining the same, DVD-Audio will sound better; but how often does that occur?

These new discs will cause another format war, like VHS-Beta. Since people have already adopted the audio CD, there is little chance for DVD audio to catch on, even if the 'niche' audience has major interest.

As a long time collector of CD's, with a collection of over 1500, I still think it's silly to replace CD's. It makes me sick and sad to think that I will once again have to buy my favorite albums for a new format. I could definately hear the difference between CD's and LP's. Is this new format worth it?