"Chris Isbell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:09:30 +0100, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:


"malcolm" wrote in message
. ..
should be SACD or not SACD

let's save that for DVD Audio or not DVD Audio

Having tried DVD-Audio my experience is that any difference between it
and a CD is very small - nothing like that between, say, cassettes and
CDs. (I'm trying to avoid the v word. ;-)

The only substantive difference is multi-channel. Since I listen
largely to classical music this is unimportant to me.

I really can't see SACD or DVD-Audio catching-on. What advantage does
it provide to the record-buying public with their 'music
centres'/stacking units? It is not helped by having two incompatible
formats.

I can't either. The public must be getting fed up with yet another
format war and these formats will only have a hope in hell with the mass
market if hybrid CD/DVD/SACD/DVD-A players become the norm. Given the
publics love of DVD I don't think pre-recorded SACD has a hope. Sony
should have learnt from MD and DCC that it takes more than a single
company to promote a format and make it a success.

SACD seems to the Sony equivalent of IBM trying to regain control of the
PC market by introducing the PS/2, MCA architecture and OS/2. From
Sony's POV SACD was designed in an attempt to sell more hardware and
regain control of the software business by introducing DRM functions
such as watermarking. I don't know anyone with an SACD player and I've
never seen an SACD disc - by comparison even DAB is a rip roaring, hot
cake selling success.



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.