Vote

I hope so!

The threats from without are few. The threats from within are many. No strategy + no commitment + no software = No Interest. I bought Beta, so I'm still waiting to see how this whole thing ends up.

It's kind of like buying a car. My 20-year-old pontiac will still run on the same roads and use the same gas (pretty much) as a brand new BMW. There is no compatibility issue or having to have duplicate roads, rebuilding my garage or any of that. High-rez needs to be a natural extension of what we already have. I'm willing to pay extra for high-rez, but not if I have to face another incompatibility issue or more duplicate music (extra licenses also). It's about the music, right?

I don't know but I hope so. I really like the sound from a good SACD. You can hear something is missing on CD when you compare to SACD.

I do not own any high-rez discs. My interest is almost entirely classical music, mostly CDs of older analog recordings. Availabilty of artist/ensemble is my sole criteria. High-rez obviousely fails miserably. What would induce me to purchase high-rez? Most of these older recordings were made multitrack, and then mixed down to stereo. Remaster the original multitrack recordings into three channel (LCR) and I would gladly switch to high-rez. Frankly, however, I do not see that happening. So I continue to expand my Red Book CD collection with no intention of switching. It's availability of content at a reasonable price which drives demand, not sound. Just look at MP3!

The only way to get high-rez audio into the hands of consumers is by releasing them in hybrid (or DualDisc) formats only, at prices comparable to CDs. Then, all music outlets will have to carry them, and consumers can decide if they want to invest in the hardware to play the high-rez layer.

I still believe it's possible if an encoding scheme was done to put Hi Rez on cd. Kinda like stereo on FM. Perhaps lopping off stuff below 10 Hz on CD and placing Hi Rez data there for example.

Not when people aren't satisfied with the pricing of the red book CD's that they are already hesitant to buy. In my opinion Hi-Rez medium doesn't offer the average consumer anything that they can immediately appreciate, and our culture has already reduced its consumerism to "fast-cheap-easy" with quality as an after thought for most. Designer labels count for status, but that is difficult to apply towards the music medium.

Perhaps eventually, but if the current balkanization of product offerings between competing technologies isn't stemmed soon, it will take a long time and a huge investment on someone's part to make it happen. The marketplace is currently choosing convenience (and compression) over fidelity, and only if high-resolution becomes at least that simple to buy and use will it be able to become more than a marginal factor in the marketplace.

I think the DVD camp will force the production of high-rez. Formats such as the upcoming lossless and high-rez DTS and Dolby formats, as well as MLP, I believe will drive the high-rez market. Also, yes, downloadable files such as those from iTunes, currently do not sound very great, but they are getting better. Apple is going to be releasing U2's entire catalogue for download as a "digital box-set." Well, dammit, if we have the time and bandwidth to download over 400 tracks of U2 at once, I think they can supply high-rez and lossless audio files for us to download! I would certainly hope so, anyway.

It depends on what your defintion of "hi-rez" is. If you compare the earliest CDs to current CD masters, it is not a stretch to call today's CD offerings "hi-rez". And one need not spend an arm and a leg to retreive much of what exists on the CDs in your current library- and they sound much better than you think. Products like April Music Stello 220 dac (MSRP-$1195), or the Lector CD player (MSRP-$3800) are tough to beat at 5Xs their prices. The shame is that Stereophile hasn't been reporting on such affordable, and remarkable entries. Don't you wonder why? Could it be because these manufacturers have not spent money to advertise? Sure seems suspecious.

Remove it from a media. Offer hi-rez audio as downloads or streams.

Probably many years down the road, using a format and hardware that have not even been invented yet. Remember when they produced two-channel stereo on an LP using two pickups and tracking two side-by-side sets of bands? Who would have dreamed of optical being so cheap for household use? High-rez as the "standard"? In our lifetime—or not?

High-rez music will always have a future as long as the price, format, and availability is right.

I have had a SACD player for about a year and have about 110 titles. Over the same year I purchased about 500 CDs. Why the difference? No software, no release of new titles on SACD the same day and last but least cost. There is no reason for the outrageous cost of some SACDs. Are you listening all of you labels?

I'd say that less than 1% of the music systems in use in this country are 'hi-fi' enough for anyone to be able to distinguish high-rez from CD quality. Where's the market?

I have seen a single high end store featuring either format. They speak of the formats as a sourround sound . How many years must a format be around before a music lover with a $40,000 system visit a shop and hears it.

I'm hoping & praying (or should that be "wishing & hoping"?) it has a future.

I'm a person who doesn't say "I told you so" at least 90% of the time. However, I just cannot contain myself on this one. Never! It never had a chance and I first expressed this view on this website over two years ago. The reasons are too many to name, but last week's vote responses covered it pretty well. SACD and DVD-Audio may not be dead yet, but it has been clear to me from the beginning that they were terminally ill.

It sounds so much better!!

It will be MP3 or an enhanced version of it. You can choose your songs, put them in whatever order and have enough on your iPod or hard drive to take on trips and never hear the same song twice. Unless you want to. You can record a CD onto an iPod but why waste the space on your hard drive? High-rez formats or CDs have missed the point. People want to be able to assemble their own music. That's why cassettes had such a good run. The music industry has ben wringing their hands about loss of sales but, they were the cause. Apple went on to the next thing. Dead, hell. Software bought from stores like CD's, SACD or DVD-A are history. Hey, recording industry! The ship sailed, the train left the station and Elvis has left the building. Wave buh bye.

Can you reallly trust a greedy music company to actually release true SACD quality software? Most releases are PCM converted to SACD. Marketing SACD titles which actually only contain CD quality sound is just plain fraudulent. The consumer gets ripped off while record company execs line their pockets. The consumer loses and the man wins— again. This deception and the fact that SACDs cost way more than movie DVDs is killing the SACD movement. Why should I blow my hard-earned cash on warmed over PCM labeled as SACD when I can buy a good movie DVD for $7.99 that the whole family will like. DVDs are everywhere. When CDs came out, the market was flooded with them. My local music store has only a handful of SACDs at sickening prices. Even if most people knew about SACDs, they probably couldn't find one. Ever try to find an SACD at Wal-Mart, KMart, or Barnes & Noble? You'd have better luck gambling. Price true SACDs at $7.99, market the hell out of the format, and flood the market. This will ensure the success of SACD. And don't tell me record companys can't make a profit at $7.99—that's bullshit.

Too little, too late. Add poor marketing, a dearth of product, high prices and all too often, poor sound quality and you're left with the first sentence. Sony is going to take a really big hit over the next few years and won't be able to do a damned thing about it. It will be like the comet that wiped out the dinosaurs.

As long as there are audiophiles, (people who sit down and really listen, as opposed to those that use it as background), there will always be a demand for good sound.

As long as there is demand, there will be a product. If demand increases, the costs will at least stabilize. If demand shrinks, the product likely will not disappear, just cost more. If you want really high resolution, try 45rpm vinyl—it will blow your socks off!

The only way it will catch on in the main stream is if it becomes hip again to "listen" to music. It will always be here as long as audiophiles choose it and some one makes it availble.

As long as there's a desire there will be a future, just not a profitable one. Unless someone gets on the ball and starts SELLING it!

Hard-disk based high-rez formats are very likely the wave of the future. Eventually, losless data will become as cheap as current "lossy" data (such as MP3 and AAC) on services such as iTunes, and it will slowly replace the lossy market.

For the few that feel a high-rez audio music medium is needed, I suggest they create some sort of computer-based format that they can share amongst themselves. For myself and most of the general public, we already have a high-resolution format. It's what you would call the Red Book CD standard.

SACD sounds better. LPs sound better. LPs are still for sale. SACDs will continue to be for sale.