Completely IMO, the most insightful points in this thread are:
SACD is not about sound quality with regards to it's ultimate purpose and/or acceptance. It's about corporate profits, consumer cost and convenience.
There are many many more people today with SACD capability in their home than there were a year ago, due to exactly the phenomena Treyhoss describes - "I need a new DVD player, the Sony's have a killer picture and, whoa, it looks like I got SACD capability to boot!". Only many people probably have absolutely no idea or interest in what SACD is or does, or whether it's a better quality sound or whatever.
I read Michael Fremer's proud statements of all the TT's sold in Europe last year (while admitting most of them are the $199 models, clearly bought by people who have an old collection and a broken TT), as he promotes the notion (that is quite possibly true, today) that "vinyl is enjoying a resurgence". How many people bought a Sony DVD player last year that was SACD capable? Given that all but their cheapest models are, I'm guessing the number dwarfs the number of TTs sold. Only difference is that no SACD-zealot is holding up these numbers saying "SACD is steamrolling!"
It is absolutely true that the public is not clamoring for, nor particularly wants, SACD. It's also true that SACD doesn't represent the same clear consumer benefit that CDs had (again, for Joe Public, not for high-end consumers). But I don't think Sony is surprised by this, or intended that to be the catch. What Sony wants is for everybody to seamlessly go from buying CDs to SACDs.
Sony has released dozens of models of devices that are SACD capable that are in the process of replacing incompatible units in consumers' hands that break down over time. SACD is not going to sell at $19.95 a disc, but all Sony has to do is to sell the SACD dual-layer (ie, backward compatible) version of the latest Eminem release for cheaper than the CD version, and they'll get people's attention. Yes, they'd lose money, but gigantic corporations do it all the time to gain market share, and have the pockets to see it through. How much did you pay for your copy of Internet Explorer?
Finally, Treyhoss' point that the future format is quite likely higher-resolution than anything we have today, and more accessible to boot (due to cheaper storage and bandwidth) is undeniable true, in my opinion. Everybody chastises MP3 for it's "low bandwidth and crappy sound" but that's just today's usage of it, due to how people can interact with it. There's nothing about MP3 itself, or a backward compatible MP4 of the future, that keeps it from supporting a higher-resolution format than SACD in the future.
I think the whole focus on formats is something that only a group like this thinks about. Most of the public doesn't care at all (unless it doesn't work). Cheap, convenient, and what I want quickly is all that matters.
SACD is not about sound quality with regards to it's ultimate purpose and/or acceptance. It's about corporate profits, consumer cost and convenience.
There are many many more people today with SACD capability in their home than there were a year ago, due to exactly the phenomena Treyhoss describes - "I need a new DVD player, the Sony's have a killer picture and, whoa, it looks like I got SACD capability to boot!". Only many people probably have absolutely no idea or interest in what SACD is or does, or whether it's a better quality sound or whatever.
I read Michael Fremer's proud statements of all the TT's sold in Europe last year (while admitting most of them are the $199 models, clearly bought by people who have an old collection and a broken TT), as he promotes the notion (that is quite possibly true, today) that "vinyl is enjoying a resurgence". How many people bought a Sony DVD player last year that was SACD capable? Given that all but their cheapest models are, I'm guessing the number dwarfs the number of TTs sold. Only difference is that no SACD-zealot is holding up these numbers saying "SACD is steamrolling!"
It is absolutely true that the public is not clamoring for, nor particularly wants, SACD. It's also true that SACD doesn't represent the same clear consumer benefit that CDs had (again, for Joe Public, not for high-end consumers). But I don't think Sony is surprised by this, or intended that to be the catch. What Sony wants is for everybody to seamlessly go from buying CDs to SACDs.
Sony has released dozens of models of devices that are SACD capable that are in the process of replacing incompatible units in consumers' hands that break down over time. SACD is not going to sell at $19.95 a disc, but all Sony has to do is to sell the SACD dual-layer (ie, backward compatible) version of the latest Eminem release for cheaper than the CD version, and they'll get people's attention. Yes, they'd lose money, but gigantic corporations do it all the time to gain market share, and have the pockets to see it through. How much did you pay for your copy of Internet Explorer?
Finally, Treyhoss' point that the future format is quite likely higher-resolution than anything we have today, and more accessible to boot (due to cheaper storage and bandwidth) is undeniable true, in my opinion. Everybody chastises MP3 for it's "low bandwidth and crappy sound" but that's just today's usage of it, due to how people can interact with it. There's nothing about MP3 itself, or a backward compatible MP4 of the future, that keeps it from supporting a higher-resolution format than SACD in the future.
I think the whole focus on formats is something that only a group like this thinks about. Most of the public doesn't care at all (unless it doesn't work). Cheap, convenient, and what I want quickly is all that matters.