>However the huge bonus of SACD is that you can have a convential CD-Audio
>layer on the disc which _will_ play in regular CD players. That is what
>will sell the format (if at all) to the public.
Yes, you can have that layer. But this feature is not used at the moment
because:
- it makes the discs more expensive
- as long as the same music is available as CD much cheaper, nobody
is going to buy the SACD just because he might upgrade in a few years
>It's something that could be an enhanced feature of regular CDs (looking at
>it from the other perspective), so if they were cheap enough to make then
>all future releases could be SACD with the CD layer
Think like somebody from the marketing department: it must never be
the price of a regular CD because it's higher quality. So they *have*
to also make it as a regular CD because many people won't buy it at
the higher price.
>Of the two though, SACD is the obvious one to back - the players are here
>now and reasonably priced, and the backwards compatibility will mean people
>will be more willing to invest in the music for it. DVD-A only has the
>strength of the DVD name - everyone will assume they can play them on their
>DVD-Video player and be very disappointed when they can't.
Uhm, I only have two Audio-DVDs and both *are* DVD-Video compatible.
The recordings are in 192/24/2ch or 96/24/5ch and the same recordings
are on the disc as 96/24/2ch/LPCM or Dolby Digital for backwards
compatibility. As a matter of fact, I only have a DVD-Video player
and the DVD-As play just fine.
So it looks like they are not aiming for compatibility with CD but
for compatibility with DVD-Video, which is just fine.
Kai
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
