"Record companies are still completely out of touch with their own customer base. DVD audio costs more than CD audio?!? When you can already buy DVD movies for less than their CD soundtracks?!? I'll stick to DVDs thank you. They're more fun and don't cost as much."

I'm with Scott on pricing. But he should note that you can buy a Rolling Stones hybrid SACD for $13.98 at Amazon.

Scott does not come out and say it, but the implication is that he has not heard either DVD-A or SACD. CNN touts them without hearing, Scott rejects them. I say both approaches are wrong.

That brings me to Jim Schwab's comments. Jim sounds to me like the average consumer coming into this format war and trying to figure out what the heck is going on. His concerns are:

--Ability to rip material from the discs.
--Portability.

As far as access to the data stream, I'm not presently aware of any way to access the high resolution data stream from either DVD-A or SACD discs. I'm sure DVD-A will be cracked by someone with a DVD drive. SACD may prove a bit tougher to crack as the content may not be as easily to read on a PC. What you can access is the CD track on a hybrid SACD. They are as readable as any other CD.

On the portability front, DVD-A will never be as portable as hybrid SACD. Again, this was the deciding factor in my decision to put my money behind SACD. I like to play music in my car and on portable players. At this point only SACD allows me to do that. And only on the hybrid discs- Sony discs are still all SACD only.

Final thought- Jim hasn't heard them either, but he has an open mind about giving them a try. I promise- you don't need a high end rig to hear a difference. What is a matter of taste is whether that difference is worth paying for. As a music lover who happens to be an audiophile, it is worth it to me. I hope that when Jim does give them a listen he reports back on his findings.