Vote

I think that back-compatibility is essential to widespread consumer support of the format. I also think that SACDs need to be marked as an enhanced recording, much as Mobile Fidelity or Sony SBM discs are marked. DSD as a recording format can produce superior CDs over other higher-bit-rate formats. Marketed in this way, SACD could gain widespread acceptance over DVD-Audio and current CD in less than 10 years. Sure, dual-layer discs will cost more, but consumers aren't morons and will recognize the improvement, and the even greater improvement with an SACD player.

You missed the mark with this question. To me, the real problem is the interface! I have a Theatermaster Ovation, and a Proceed AVP. I understand that the new hi resolution formats will require a 5.1 input. Neither of my high end preamp/pros provide for this. Ironically, the only ones positioned to utilize this hi def/hi cost format will be people with inexpensive "dolby ready" receivers (and some new equipment, like Parasound's new preamp/pro). This is another example of the entertainement industry's anticonsumer tactics.

Back compatibity is critically important. Otherwise my CD collection is just so much scrap plastic!

Am I supposed to melt down 2300 CDs or sell them to the unsuspecting in the fourth world for peanuts?

Unless a person has lots of money to burn and does not care about waiting for lots of already recorded music to be put out in a new format and have to reinvest in new recordings or at least have yet another piece of equipment to deal with then backward compatibility is not important. For all of the restof us YES IT IS IMPORTANT.

Do they really think that Joe Blow Top 10 is going to run out and drop some bucks on something that looks just like a CD? The change to hi-res is not a change that most consumers care about. The change to CD was easy. It was smaller, easier to use, and looked cool too. Most Joe Blows I talk to think HR is just a scam to force them to buy new stuff. So if this HR thing is going to fly for audiophiles, back-compatibility is a must.

life would be so much better.

I don't feel that back-compatibility is THAT important. If I'm going to purchase these SACD or DVD-Audio discs, I'll most likely be playing them in the machine they were meant for. The only time I'd want to play them in a regular CD player might be in my car.

It took forever to find a CD transport that would also play my 78s. This DVD player better play cylinders as well.

Only a total dingle-berry would not want it. To may people have invested to much in there music collection to gust give it all up.

Of course, if only to enhance the (real-world) market chances of a new, better-sounding format. After all, the "masses" aren't waiting for something better than CD.

I don't see why we should even use a CD player to play a DVD-audio. It really defeat the purpose of having DVD-audio, since the CD player probably will not maximise the quality of the DVD disc.

I WILL NOT buy into any new format that will not be back compatable with my C.D. collection, period, end of story.

I'm quite happy to support a new format if it's going to give me better sound, and therefore buy a new player. But I'd still like to play my existing music library with it. So backwards compatibility of the new medium is not an issue for me, but backwards compatibility of a new machine with my old library is important.

Audiophiles probably won't care if their discs are backward compatible as they will play their new software on their new hardware. Audiophiles also spend a lot of money...but only on ways to improve the sound. If an LP sounds better...an audiophile won't go and buy the CD. In effect with licensing fees we would be doing just that. Buying both versions of a disc (which is the current equivalent of buying the CD and LP versions of the same album). Audiophiles would rather save they pennies to invest in a new set of cables that pay for an additional feature they won't use. If you need proof of this...you need only look as far as A/V preamp surround sound modes. Audiophile preamps don't have those features because audiophiles won't use them! It's pretty easy in that perspective.

I wouldn't mind two incompatible systems, as long as the following were true: 1) the new standard is significantly better than exising one, and 2) manufacturers agree to continue making (relatively) inexpensive CD players to protect the collections we have invested in for the past decade or so.

I would like it if more equipment was backwards compatible. Currently, I have a reel-to-reel deck, 2 cassette decks, 1 turntable, 1 tuner, 2 power amps, pre-amp, 1 Cd player, and a power conditioner that only has x number of sockets. My pre-amp only has selection for so many components. I am considering getting an MD unit, or a separate DAC and now I also have to add another source for consideration. My room is getting full of boxes.

can't we all just get along?

Not easy to choose between "important" and "depends if it adds to price of discs". If DVD become back compatible, the difference with SACD wont be seen by the end users. Then both DVD and SACD (if both survive together)will have 2 layers and player will need to handle, whatever if the disc is DVD, DVD dual layer, CD, SACD, or else. I think we will also need VSP (Versatile Standard Players), which are still to be manufactured (the last MUSE DVD separate is the good example to follow).

If new technology represents a significant performance improvement, then copatibility is not an issue to me. If the performance improvements are incremental, then compatibility is an important consideration.

I won't use any other format than cd so I hope there will be some great bargains if we change to DVD-audio

A lot of us have significant investments in players to bring out the best current CDs have to offer, compatibility of a new format with these players will protect our investments. Conversely, players for the new format had better be compatible with current CD technology too.

New software formats are always a problem . . .

Absolutely necessary. This is not like the switch from 78's to LP's. It is more like going from mono to stereo LP's. I would not buy a turntable that could not play my mono LP's and I would not buy a digital source that could not play my CDs. Many improvements, such as reducing jitter, apply to both digital formats and I would not want to keep upgrading two machines for the same improved technology.

Yes, I'm sorry, but I am not willing to listen to only a few titles/artists - even if it does sound better. The technology is available to be back-compatible -- use it.

Do you know anyone who doesn't own a CD player for all of those 'legacy' CDs?

I'm not willing to sacrifice performance just to have compatibility. If both can be done well, then that would be great. Otherwise, just optimize one.

Making a new format back-compatible would certainly ease transition pains---one could use the new discs without having to buy a new player first, or use the new discs in players not worth upgrading (in the car, for example). This might make general acceptance easier, and increase the chances of the new format making it. However, I am concerned at how much it might cost---or, more accurately, how much the recording industry will charge for this feature. . . .

We need a truly multi-functional player - one that can handle CD, SACD and DVD-A.

If you have a large collection of CD's, chances are that you don't need a Backwards compatible machine to play them. You would probably already have a CD player of sorts. Furthermore, past experience tells us that these new machines would not likely sound as good with CD's as our old CD players.