Vote

Hmmm . . . yet another format. I will take a universal high-end player for a real price, but if I had to spring for an SACD-only player, I 'd want it as cheapo as possiblo.

i will buy it when i have at least 50 SACD-s

Only a player that can handle the full DVD-Audio/SACD/CD range would truly get my attention.

By most accounts thus far, SACD (DSD)appears to be a conscientiously high-quality, two-channel, audiophile-oriented audio format. DVD-A (24/96) appears primarily to be a multichannel format with two-channel audio as an option, but as an afterthought, especially if the DVD-A player must execute some sort of synthetic mixdown to two audio channels.

What about those who feel they don't want one at ANY price?

I have their fantastic $3k (list) XA7ES CD player. So if a SACD player were slightly more than that, I would buy it.. except that I would wait to see who wins the format wars.

Two-channel SACD is simply not compelling enough; DVD-A is more promising due to its support for various formats. DVD is a "converged platform for home entertainment." Universal DVD-A/V players, multichannel audio support, software back-compatibility combined with reasonable improvement for sound reproduction—I'll buy it!

From a market perspective, SACD is a dead-end technology. All the marketing muscle in the world will not overcome the facts that: a) most people are satisfied with CD sound, b) those who are not will be more impressed by the flexibility of DVD, and c) only a handful of record labels and music resellers will ever commit to the format.

The answer to the SACD question is: "It depends." SACD would seem to have the greatest chance of becoming an orphan in the format wars, due to market acceptance of DVD in non-audio formats and the yet-to-appear "universal" DVD format. With that in mind: Quality and pricing will have to be pretty remarkable to induce me to buy. Sony does have a significant presence in the music-making and distribution side, and they will need it unless and until they can convince other labels to put out SACD versions of discs. It is definitely an uphill battle for SACD, especially since John Q. Public will soon be able to buy a "universal player" that will still play his favorite movies regardless of who wins the format wars.

And why can't Warner Brothers hear that SACD is superior to "that other format"? I am referring to WB VP Ed Outwater's arrorant referral to that to SACD as "that other format" at the January AES LA Section meeting.

Actually, I wouldn't buy one if they were given away, unless they are compatible with DVD-Audio. Why doesn't Sony get with the program? Don't they remember Beta?

It's a chip for goodness sake! Of course it has to go cheap to make it a real product.

You can still buy a good CD player for around $300. Sony keeps trying to bump off the status-quo formats (remember MD?). I'll wait until DVD-Audio arrives. Sorry, Sony.

I don't care for any CD/digital format with the exception of DAT. I am willing to fork any capital into whatever analog-audio that I can afford, especialy real vinyl !

SACD needs to be a free feature in my DVD-Audio player before I care about it.

IF I was in the market for a SACD player, I would expect to pay $1500-$2000 for a very nice piece of equipment. I am NOT in the market for any higher resolution format now or in the near future.

I learned from my experience of buying Sony's first CD player, the CDP-101, many years ago. It cost me a "princely" $750 and lasted 15 months before it broke down, just outside the warranty period. So I'll wait a little this time, not be "first on the block," and will probably buy Naim's offering, whatever format(s) that might cover.

A music format HAS to be mainstream if it is going to take off. It MUST be affordable for those of us who do not have Martin Logan speakers and Krell amps! :) The music must also be affordable, no more than what we pay now for those overpriced CDs!

Actually, "zero." If the sound quality of SACD and DVD-Audio are at least close, sonically, I do not believe SACD will survive the format war with DVD-Audio. I predict the major problems will be: 1) a lack of interesting titles (software), 2) the cost of SACD (they sell for $24.99 in Washington, DC), and 3) resistance from store owners to invest in four formats (CD, DVD-Audio, SACD, and cassette).

I thought that this new technology was meant to be simpler. So why shouldn't it be cheap too?

No software, no hardware! I would rather put my money in a CDR recorder and transfer my vinyl to CD's.

$3500 may get my attention, but it would have to drop to $499 to get my wallet.

I would pay more than $1500, but higher than that and I think the format is a non-starter. And it would have to drop to $999, then $499 pretty rapidly.

SACD needs to be both accessable and affordable to everyone, just as CD always was; not priced for audiophiles as some kind of sacred group of 'only haves/appreciates'. If Sony/Phillips make it available as they had originally indicated, for all, as a CD replacement, as a dual layer CD/SACD disc, then we are all served well by this format which finally realizes a 'digital reproduction' of unequaled reproduction of music.

Never!! Waiting for DVD-A.

The only way to get my attention would be if there were a number of SACD recordings available, of performances that I actually wanted to hear, delivering the performance that SACD promises, and, ideally, although I'm afraid I'm dreaming on this one, priced reasonably.

Until the format war is over, I wouldn't pay more than $100 for an SACD player. The risk of ending up with obsolete hardware and software is just too great. I'd rather spend the money on more CDs, thank you.

Would prefer a universal player that played CD, SACD stereo, and SACD surround, as well as DVD-Audio. Otherwise, who wants two different music-format players?

TOO MANY FORMATS... NOT ENOUGH CASH.... NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE SOUND.. AND SUPPORT????

A price of $2000 might get my attention, but there have to be enough titles to make it worthwhile. Who knows when that will be? Until then, we'll have to be content with 16/44 at its best and, of course, good 'ol LP's.