Vote

I think that SACD is actually superior, but it will go the way of Beta movies. DVD stands a better chance because there will be common players for DVD movies and DVD-audio. I don't expect either of them to have the success of the CD. MP-3 or some similiar development will steal most of the business; only audiophiles will pay the premium prices that DVD-audio will require.

SACD aims at audiophiles and most audiophiles cares about sound quality and they have the budget to spend. On the other hands, DVD-A seems to aim at mass market and mass maerket often does not care much about sound quality.

Sony had the opportunity to make SACD the winner when DVD-A was stillborn last year, but they made no effort to produce a mass-market player. I would be playing SACDs now if they had. There is no way I would buy an SACD player now unless it also played DVD-A.

A single Chassie triple format player (CD/SACD/DVD-A) will come to market and a couple years after that better engeneering companies will make a decent sub $2000 player.

Sorry, Sony, but DVD already has the name recognition.

It's win, win, win, and here's why: Both DVD-A and SACD play regular CDs. A lot of people don't seem to know this. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPLACE YOUR CDS! But if you really love a recording, you will want to replace it! Also, I read an interview with a Sony designer, and ALL Sony CDs players, even cheap portables being designed now, will be SACD-compatible, and in three years the cost of a dual-layer (SACD and CD layers) will be the same as a regular CD. In other words, people who have never heard of SACD will have them in their collections, just as now, when people who have never heard of HDCD have them in their collections. I don't understand all the naysayers—do they get bent out of shape every time DCC, Classic Records, or the late Mobile Fidelity releases one of their favorites on gold CD? Keep your 1000s of CDs, but don't you want your NEW CDs to sound better? Also, in "you are there" realism, 24/96 DVDs and SACDs are about 50 times better than gold CDs. This makes them a real bargain!

They will both survive! The unwashed masses will be drawn to a machine that can play movies and music. Saves them some bucks. The rest of us snobophiles will hang with SACD to keep the two-channel tradition alive and well. (Now, if I could only get remote volume and a mono switch on it.)

Based on their current track record of rolling out standards, hardware and software, they will both fail if the past is any indication of the future.

We are living in the age of video junkies. Video and special effects are more important than the music. Buyers will use their DVD players to play their CD's without regard to music playback specs. Nobody will ever know what SACD was.

I hope they both go broke. I am so tired of these devisive battles for our money. I am not going to endorse either format. If they were not in it just for the money, it might be different, but the only reason they will try to advance technology is to make more green. I'd rather invest in military technology; at least you know where that money goes—right down the drain.

After reading extensively about SACD and the different approach its creators took to develop it—by acknowledging the PCM technology's limitations—I'm convinced that it is THE format of the future. I only hope DVD-Audio survives so that its adopters have something to upgrade to when they get serious about MUSIC listening. By the way, what a bunch of whiners last week, especially that Tellig guy!

No contest, SACD is the only format for audiophiles.

The era when one manufacturer could create its own proprietary format is over. We live in the age of open standards now, and the (relatively) open DVD-Audio standard thus has the compelling advantage over SACD, regardless of its technical merits. Of course, this is largely academic, since it's going to be quite a while (probably at least a decade) before DVD-Audio makes any real impact on the marketplace. Essentially, I don't see any real consumer demand for the format outside of the audiophile sphere; nobody's going to go out and buy a DVD-Audio player just so they can enjoy some (nonexistent, on the average home system) increases in sound quality. And without the installed base of machines, nobody's going to make the software. Eventually, everyone will have a DVD-Audio player (probably integrated with their DVD-Video player), and then the format will slowly start replacing CDs; but that won't happen overnight.

See lasts weeks rant.

Although DVD-A will be limited to hi-end for awhile, SACD will diminish as DVD-A takes hold.

If the demo at an audio king is any prediction of sacd they both die. Overall a 5 grand system plus the 3+ grand sony sacd player, didn't sound impressive. It didn't sound horrible, but did some things less satisfactory then cd and lp. It had good dynamics, good range and tonality, also had good ambiance. However it just had a fake plastic sound. I would prefer to listen to a 300 buck JVC Kaboom boombox, which has flaws, but at least has some life to it.

R2R sounds great! Let's go back.

I hope that quality two channel dominates the market. It's hard to imagine the general market accepting anything but gimmicky mult-channel. The surround crowd does not seem interested in anything but dramatic effects. Subtle hall acoustics won't please enough home theater people to be successful.

It s time that the commen sens take his place. The sacd is the better technology and the marketing sould not influence or have too much place in the debate. Sacd is better for me because this tech is simpler so less manipulation of the waves.

DVD-Audio will eventually win out because of the popularity of the DVD format already and within the next year most new players will probably be upgraded to play the higher sampled discs. John Q. Public is also pretty bullheaded and stupid and won't understand why anyone would even come up with something like SACD when everything is alright just the way it is.

Multi channel sound will allow DVD-Audio to win since most people already have some kind of Home Cinema system that they can use to reproduce the sound. There is no mass-market for audiophile stereo so you might as well get used to CD for a few years yet. Multi-channel "pop" music played on $1000 home cinema hardware. Wait and see.

DVD-Audio will survive, as it is more versatile (has video) and will most likely have more manufacturers behind it (which should lead to lower prices and more software availability). Also, how many theaters have you seen switch back to two-channel sound?

Why yet another format? DVD has more value since you can play video too.

SACD is easier to protect; the new DVD-A protection will soon be cracked. Philips and Sony are major players. When they start mass-producing SACD hardware (and incorporating it in all new products), the production of SACD software will get a major boost. Prices will drop, etc. When this happens, DVD-A is history. All audiophiles will hope for this.

DVD AUDIO WILL SIMPLY WIN THE BATTLE DUE TO THE FACT THAT SO MANY DVD-VIDEO PLAYERS HAVE BEEN ALREADY SOLD. THUS MAKING THE MANUFACTURERS MARKETING JOB A CINCH FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CONSUMERS. MOST PEOPLE WILL SIMPLY CONFUSE BOTH TECHNOLOGIES AND BUY THE UNIT MOSTLY DUE TO THE VIDEO PORTION OF THE PLAYER.

DVD-audio get my vote by a small margin. But, I see a strong possibility for bith to fail. DVD-A players are out at a lower price point and also play video DVDs. Success will only go to the technology with pervasive and cheap software. Successful players will have compatibilty with DVD video, DVD-RW, HD-DVD, CD, CD-R, CD-RW; and will cost about $300 or less for a mainstream unit.

From what I've heard, SACD is the better format. DVD-A, however, will have better sofware support, it seems, given that many of the major labels are backing this format. Sony has quite an impressive back catalog, and will be able to offer plenty of interesting titles on the SACD format. My prediction? I'm going to be optimistic: they'll both survive. For this to happen, though, we must have universal players that will play our CDs, SACDs, and DVD-As, and—very important to me—this hardware must have the capability of upsampling our current CDs to 24-bit/192kHz performance. That would be enough, I think, to secure the survival of all three digital standards. Regardless of what happens on the digital front, I'll still buy the great vinyl reissues from Classic and DCC, which have been pretty amazing in the last three years. RTI now presses discs that exceed the best that the Japanese pressing plants had to offer during "the vinyl years."

I feel that SACD is the better product, but the the winner will be the one who gets in first with a good selection of low-priced hardware and software.

It's obvious that the corporate big-wigs (SONY, Etc) will attempt to push a new and "better" audio format. However, like Betamax, this will go South - and quickly. DVD drives are everywhere and hold massive amounts of quality audio - why fix the wheel? This is surely the format for future audio formats. And besides, I have a Sony 5 DVD caroucel at home just aching to play 5 DVD audio discs crammed with days worth of pure digital audio!

The record labels control who wins!