First, many SACDs are priced the same as Red Book and there are many affordable ones. Even when they are a dollar or two more, I happily pay it. The difference is worth it.Second, most SACD players have excellent internal DACs. Thinking that you "need" an external DAC is snobbery. Digital conversion is a solved problem. The biggest difference between digital sources is power output. If you level match digital sources, they're eerily similar. So you don't have to run a DAC unless you actually need one, like when using a computer-as-source. Even then, paying a lot for a DAC is mostly a waste. That is unless you're trying to impress people with how much you paid for your rig. In that case, buy the most expensive stuff you can afford and a certain segment of the audiophile community will be jealous. That's worth the money, right?Third, SACD is a successful niche product. You don't have to sell to everyone to turn a profit. But SACD sells enough to justify its existence. It has taken over the role that reel-to-reel had. Reel was never a monstrous commercial success, but it sounds great and sold enough to exist for a long time as a high-end format. Today, SACD is the high-end format.If you think the demand isn't there, go look at prices for OOP discs on eBay. The prices wouldn't be climbing if people didn't want them. SACD will be around for awhile more. No, you won't get the latest Bieber disc on SACD, but high-quality classical and jazz will keep coming. A lot of us happily pay for it - something that can't be said of popular music.
but also a strong center of information i depend on
