Vote

It will never get off the ground. The "average" consumer doesn't give a rat's ass about DVD-A or SACD. The current CD format meets their needs already.

Sony and Philips need to to aggressivly market SACD's. I have waited for DVD-A, and when they came out, they were in a bigger CD case, plus they are $25. Since SACD's are $20, I am willing to buy, love the sound. I think this needs to be made know to the general public, and cheap SACD single tray units need to be avail in USA. There is still time to make a marketing blitz. Love the fact I can play Hybrids on my CD player. EMI needs to make SACD their standard, plus release all Beatles on SACD in a marketing blitz. Such an opportunity, please sieze it.

Continue to increase hybrid SACD production. Use the Rolling Stones Remasters as a model. Release popular albums as hybrids only. Consumers will be purchasing SACDs by default and a percentage of them will be enticed to purchase an SACD player in order to hear the SACD versions of their favorite music.

I kept hearing that it was "almost as good as vinyl," so I've been buying more vinyl! Why pay more for second best? An example, I recently purchased the new release from Bruce Springsteen, The Rising,it was $19.99 on CD—if available on SACD I guess it will be $35—on vinyl it was $13.99! Sorry SACD!

In my area, SACDs are only available at Best Buy and Circuit City. The CD stores need to carry them also.

Ask any non-audiophile whether they have heard of SACDs and you will probably get a blank look.

SACD has done a little better than DVD-A. The limited catalog for both sucks. But the main problem with this format is the same as for DVD-A: Hardware. Both DVD-A and SACD players sound wonderful when playing their respective softwares. But try to play standard CD in one and the sound becomes harsh—so much so that I know several of my audiophile who just flat-out returned their players.

Come on, guys! Demoing a $300 player on a miserable Sony HT-in-a-box rig at Best Buy? Sony, you should know better! The only people buying discs at the display are the knowledgable few who drop by to see if they can get a good price on a recent release that isn't carried anywhere else in town. As a surround demo, it's miserable. As an optical media quality demo, it's even worse—need I elaborate? And Sony making virtually ONLY SACD-only discs? What are they thinking? Even I have been restricting most of my recent purchases to hybrids. They're great recordings, and if you compare a really good CD rig (think Theta, Ayre, high-end DIY) to 99% of the available SACD players, (ie under $10K), the SACD player isn't competitive. I speak from having walked the walk and bought one of Sony's top models. I enjoy it, but mostly play the CD layers of hybrid disks. At least the recording and mastering quality is fairly top flight in most cases.

Old reissued titles are not what I want to buy unless they were exceptionally mastered from the onset. Many reissues are not much better than their redbook counterparts & do not represent the exceptional sound the SACD format is capable of (are you listening Sony). It would be terrific if great recordings like M&K's "For Duke" were reissued in the SACD format. It's really a no-brainer, If you do it they will buy!

It's impressive how consistent the SACD marketing machine has been. Not hysterical or intense, just consistent.

Sony has done a better job on making waves with SACD than the DVD-A folks, that's for sure. Now, the shootout at the "format corral" needs to settle it once and for all. I'm sticking with "perfect sound forever" until the smoke clears.

They could do much better I think. Except for the marketing efforts at big electronics chains like Best Buy, SACDs can only be found on Tower Records, and this is San Diego! Sony has a great product and should be much more aggressive in its marketing.

What about current titles and affordable software prices?

I'd say they've done better than DVD-A but not by a lot. In addition Sony keeps a list of all SACDs on their website.

I have yet to be presented with the technical attributes describing why I should dump my Levinson transport and DAC and buy SACD. What's the hoopla about? Before I trash my 500 CD (Red Book) collection, I need solid information. SACD? I doubt it!

Sony is improving by just dual layering their new releases for CD RedBook and multichannel SACD. I see the problem more as a hardware issue and quality. How will Sony address this? When I see consumers willing to spend thousand(s) on a TV, but yet so unwilling to spend an equivilent amount on and great audio system I wonder where are we really? Spend $2k on a screen, but only $300 on a DVD player and $200 on 5 mini speakers and a "subwoofer?". Sony's new 999ES player and Pioneer's 47ai are superb machines, but unfortunately tight-wad, misguided American will never bite in large enough numbers to be able to really appreciate the new formats potential. Fortunately for us audiophiles the companies have not given up the quest for the Holy Grail of high end sound. I am often times amazed that they haven't come out with a great 8bit/22khz cd player. Unfortunately that would be good enough for middle America. Maybe someone can help me here: Just exactly why wasn't the vinyl LP wasn't good enough? Oh, ya...perfect sound forever. I just didn't think it was MP3! America is really musically challenged.

Here in Europe, I'm still waiting for an ad in a non-audiophile magazine, or TV-ads, or even publicity in the street about SACD (neither for DVD-A though). It's a real shame, when we know how much money Sony has to promote less than revolutionary products. It seems like if they don't believe in themselves, and that they have already scheduled their suicide. God save the LP!

Sony has advertised SACD players to audiophiles but no one has promoted SACD as a tecnhnology to a wider audience. This may be due to a shortage of titles and may change but it is clearly way ahead of DVD-A in terms of awareness.

SACD's cost twice the price of a cd, how can the average consumer justify spending the additional expense.

I visit audio shops occassionally. Except for the New York Show I have not heard the format. As a reader of several audio publications I have read many hours of script on the subject but I have not to date heard a recording of the format

They have yet to break into the market they need for success: the average consumer. I have met very few people who have even heard of SACD, outside of audio circles. Considering how divided the audio community is over the format, and no popular support, it will die as a matter of economics. I also question it's necessity, considering the sound being squeezed from existing cd's by companies like Electrocompaniet. And remember: analog lives.

The question should not be how well SACD has been promoted, but how well it has been supported—miserably to date by Sony Music, especially Sony Classics.

Everyone is saying the same thing: Sony is sitting on a goldmine of back catalogue but is only releasing obscure stuff on SACD. SACD player = Miles Davis CD Player.

What's SACD and why would anyone want it? OK, I heard the demo of "So What," remastered for the buh-zillionth time and I loved the sound. However, it might have had something to do with the $50K system it was playing on. I have yet to hear SACD on a "budget" player to know if it will actually sound better than CDs in my current system. But even if Sony sells an SACD player for $200, I would have to spend another $200 for eight SACDs! For that price, I could buy 20 CDs through my mail-order club, or 28 Naxos label CDs. With such a ridiculous price difference, I can see why it takes so long to release "new" SACD titles of 43 year old recordings. I can not evaluate the SACD surround mix because I have not heard it, and I really don't want to buy three more speakers, a "surround receiver", and all those extra cables before purchasing yet another remastering of "So What."

Sony apparently learned from it's Betamax fiasco and has worked to encompass other record producers and hardware manufacturers as allies. The persistance of Warner etal represents the huge financial benefits they would reap if DVD-A were successful, not any belief in what is best for record purchasers.

Outside of my one audio buddy I have not met one person who has heard of sacd or dvd-a. When I tell them what it is I get the same response; 'I wouldn't be able to hear the difference anyway.'

They've done a fine job of getting the message out to the niche they're aiming at (audiophiles). But they have done nothing to reach a wider audience that I've seen. It is a better job than DVD-A, but that doesn't require much effort.

They're just waiting for people to start throwing money at them.

They're not educating sales people in the popular stores, and they have not program at all for high end stores.

As much as I enjoy the SACD format I cannot bring myself to congratulate Sony on its marketing strategy. Like most audiophiles, I am a music fan first and foremost. So if I am given the music I love on a format that brings me closer to the true music experience, I am going snatch it up ASAP. But I must ask Sony where many of there big ticket stars are in their marketing strategy. Where are Simon & Garfunkel, Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, and something other than the admittedly briliant "Blonde on Blonde" from Dylan. Plus with Sony's clout within the music business where are the other major labels? EMI has a few releases for the almost laughable DVD-A format but nothing for SACD. I would collapse in ecstacy if the Beatles, early Pink Floyd, and Radiohead were released on SACD and I know for a fact that I am not alone. So enough with the 40 year old recordings of Szell and Bernstein. Yes they are great and important recordings, but I do not want importance, I want to boogie!