I'll go one further with the current supply of SACDs. Getting one that you like is sort of like getting a great quality audiophile disc that you like. If you don't like the content, who cares about the sound?? That's why I think DSOTM is also getting such good press. It's a good mix of music that is liked by a large percentage of the population. If you like classical, there are plenty of great SACDs out there. If you like rock, there are again plenty out there, some, of course, being better mixed than others. If you like jazz, well, again, there are plenty out there. It may not be every title in the world and it may not be your favorite album yet, but it's growing.

My major problem with the SACD format stems from a personal experience. I had the oppurtunity to work on a recording session with a popular artist. I will not name the artist as it would be detrimental to the studio I was working with. Let's just say it's a name you would recognize. I was there while they tracked to 16/44.1 hard disc. I was also standing there when the engineer said that the overdubs were being sampled at 24/96 into Pro Tools HD. Now the important comment. I was also there when the engineer said there will be a SACD of this album in the future.

This is what I believe to be the biggest issue with DSD/SACD technology. If you don't use it from the earliest stages, what's the point? Also, if you record DSD, edit in hi-res PCM, then release the disc as a SACD; isn't this the same thing? Give me a box that upsamples to DSD and I can do the same thing at home. I would love to see more pure DSD projects and direct analog master to DSD transfers. I would also love to see the record companies tell it like it is. Somehow, I don't see that day anytime soon....