Too snobbish for SACD as it exists?


Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the feeling that the reason SACD players have not been as successful as hoped lies with the fact that the very persons for whom the benefits of the higher resolution format are appreciable are hesitant to put a Sony, Marantz or Pioneer product in their systems. A product like Krell, CJ, Levinson, etc.,while usually significantly more expensive than the aforementioned "mid-fi" brands provide the purchaser with a certain cache and a greater level of satisfaction, albeit sometimes a psychoacoustic contribution to the listening experience. I, personally, would be more willing to spend more on a quality SACD player from a true high-end company, however elitist that may sound, even knowing that I may be paying for diminished returns. I just wonder if there is a large pool of high-end consumers waiting to see what marquis companies will introduce before they commit to the format.
jmslaw
JD, FYI, Sony owned the rights to VHS originally, and sold them, because they thought that Beta was the superior format. Fast forward, VHS wins the battle. Why, when video recorders were first on the market I overheard a conversation between a customer and a salesman. Customer: Which one is better? Salesman: well... this one (Beta) records 2 hours, and this one (VHS) records for 3 hours. Which one do you want? Customer, I'll take the 3 hours. Enuff said!