Vote

Better recording and mastering would do me fine.

I think a combination of better sound quality combined with longer playing time and a multichannel option is what should be looked for in the new digital audio format. But we still need to retain the two-channel format as a standard (use 5.1 or 6.1 as an option) because most people listen to music as a background activity and rarely sit down in the sweet spot to listen.

I would like more consistently good music which may actually mean shorter playing times! Many 12-20 song single CDs have so much filler. The other method is to make a meandering 5-8 minute song out of a great 3-4 minute song. Cut the number of songs and do a better job on the recording and mastering ends.

Audiophile-quality sound with no increase in price, would be perfect.

If it doesn't sound better, it's wasting my time.

Much much better "sound quality" with no upcharge on softwear or hardwear. As technology advances, two criterias must always be met: 1)It must always be better, faster etc. 2)The price should be lower or at worst the same as what it's replacing. Greg - Ottawa, Canada The great companies will achieve these goals and the many others will not be around.

Software. I'll take any improved format, if I can get the music I want in that format at a competitive price. It would help if the players didn't cost megabucks either. But first of all, you have to have something to play on the machine.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm waiting for a digital format that plays music AT LEAST as well as my 15-year-old analog rig and costs only $3–$5 for the "software."

I would like a higher-resolution two-channel disc format. I really have no need for a multichannel audio-only format. Even with my modest Adcom-based rig, I feel all of these extra channels are probably close to sensory overload. If you can't get that feeling of envelopment from two speakers and your ears, something isn't set up correctly. Now don't get me wrong; I also greatly enjoy motion pictures, so I have an outboard Dolby processor to decode the outputs of my LD, DVD, and VCR. But the sound in motion pictures (and television, for that matter) is designed for a different effect than that of music. I love to have my socks knocked off watching Armageddon, Star Wars, or Jurassic Park. Yes, there is nothing quite like a T. rex pounding through your front room, but those films are supposed to affect you that way. It's the same way with the visual effects. The whole package (sight and sound) is artificial, and that's alright, because I have no idea what a T. rex or the surface of an asteroid look or sound like. Down the road, multichannel audio may be good thing, but I foresee it being gimmicky, with extreme channel separations, in the immediate future. And that's not my idea of accurate sound reproduction.

If I could choose more than one thing, I would add "more special features," assuming that those features aren't just stupid add-ons. I want to put in a disc and have the display tell me who the artist(s) is (are) and what they're doing. Then I can put x number of discs in and, rather than scroll through them all, just tell my player I'm in the mood for the Rippingtons and off it goes. Seriously, if any indie guys are reading, let's bring indexing into the 21st century.

I am always for better sonics in listening to my music. As I think most are here for that very reason. I want to everything in the music that I can. So be it multichannel or 2 channel if it sounds better I am all for it.

I want the recording to disappear so I can hear the music, 96/24 DVD is close to this, SACD should be even more transparent!

Great, better-than-vinyl sound, no bs—just do it.

I want better sound quality. But I firmly believe that the winner will be the one who convinces the average DVD manufacturer to include his format as a feature in every DVD player produced, then convinces the record companies to keep the price of the discs low.

Although CD's aren't perfect, they are typically better than the sound reproduction chain up to that point. Unfortunately, there is little likelyhood that this part of the playing field will improve except in a few selected instances, leaving me only to wish to be able to play a full version of many of my favorites without the break in continuity.

When LOTS better sound quality is available via SACD or DVD-A, AND there is prodigious software highly reviewed, THEN I will buy another high-end player.

BETTER SOUND QUALITY is the Holy Grail audiophiles are seeking, and at AN AFFORDABLE PRICE. If this is not the choice most readers pick, I guess that means home theater and the Bose approach to marketing sound reproduction are really taking over.

Only if it's not screwed up by the record companies. I will not buy into it if it's watermarked, copy-protected, and overpriced.

I want SACD AND the sound quality that Sony promised out of my current CD collection. For that matter, I feel that either a credit toward the latest "Perfect Sound Forever" discs, or my money back for a promise unfullfilled, is not unreasonable.

After all getting the best sound for your dollar is the passion that drive us all.

News Flash! The reason no one listens to classical music anymore is the CD. The CD format never really worked; the new digital is much better.

Anything to improve the current CD sound. Make it more like the natural accousit sound of the instruments.

Better sound forever!

The same as always, if a product is better in sound, size, price and playing time how wouldn

No need for a new format; improvements to CD should be fine. Upsampling technique shows that there is still a lot of life in the CD.

There are not enough new titles and they are too expensive. So even though the sound quality is improved with either format, that is not enough for me to go out and invest in a new player with limited titles that cost twice as much as the current format. My system sounds pretty darn good as is without giving more money to two formats that I seriously question will last.

more! yes, more dollars and a bit of stability; why change the format? i, recently experienced both dvd audio and sacd, and i wasn't impressed. i would suggest to try jvc's xrcd which doesn't require special equipment... than make a decision. that, of course, if you want to make a change from analog.

Any new format needs to excel in four areas: 1) Sound significantly better than my CD and HDCD collection, without decreasing playing time per disc (or card). 2) Bring hardware that also makes my existing CD collection sound better. (Note to Mr. Fremer: That does NOT mean by not playing them at all!) 3) Provide a "total listening solution"—meaning home, car, and portable (like a Discman) players. 4) Supply software from a variety of labels distributed through my local Tower or Coconuts, and at least one music club (like BMG).

I am looking for sound that captures the energy and excitement of a live performance—not necessarily so it sounds like there is an orchestra in my lounge room, but a sound that affects me in the same way. This, I believe, is the key to good sound. I am looking for a system that makes a big impact on me when I want a big impact, and can also help me unwind at the end of the day, if I want to unwind. To date, better sound quality seems to be what will make these possible for me.

Better sound quality is for me the only issue. Otherwise, why even bother with another format?