Like I said... as a HIGH-RES format. And I didn't say it was a winner,
I said it "has a good chance". If I were going to purchase a new CD
player, i.e., a player for listening to audio CDs, and had to choose
between a player that had SACD or not, I would likely choose an SACD
player even if it did not also support DVD-A. Subject, of course, to
some extensive and critical testing.
I don't really care about what the general public accepts in this area.
Earl
Steve Dropkin wrote:
>Earl Dunbar wrote:
>
>
>
>>SACD? Hardly unsucessful as far as high-res music optical discs go.
>>I'd say it has a good chance to win vs DVD-A.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe within its niche it's a "winner," though it had about a year's
>headstart over DVD-A and it still is not decisively in the lead.
>
>Among the general public, both SACD _and_ DVD-A are non-starters. MP3,
>AAC, QuickTime, and Windows Media have done far better as far as public
>acceptance, number/variety of devices for playback, etc.
>
>Steve
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|