Kelly, I auditioned from a dealer (did not end up purchasing) the Sony XA777ES - stock, of course, though I would be interested in hearing - and hearing about - the Dan Wright mods.
I want to emphasize that I am not against SACD or DVD-A in and of itself. I very much would like a high-rez digital format (one that delivers, not a mere hype), but you hit the nail on the head by asking the correct question here: is it stillborn? There's a very simple reason why Van Alstine is not dealing with SACD or DVD-A at all at the present moment. He believes that it's going nowhere, if not entirely dead in the water. If the software doesn't readily exist, if the selection is practically nil, then what's the point? One could just as easily buy a hydrogen powered car in order to "support the technology" and then wait for the hydrogen fueling stations to be built all around your town.
Back to reality. Again, if the redbook layer of a hybrid SACD sounds superior through one of his (Van Alstine's) DACs than the SACD layer sounds through one of the most highly regarded SACD players out there, then, well, we must really stop and think. Which isn't to say that maybe one day Van Alstine may produce THE killer SACD DAC, but he sure as hell isn't going to waste his time on such a thing unless SACD is a viable, real world format. Let's face it, at this point all you really have are some old Stones albums and a handful of Telarc discs and some odds and ends. That's IT. Repeat slowly - the currently available SACD and DVD-A selection WORLDWIDE is miniscule compared even to the prerecorded MD market. And when was the last time (if ever) you saw a prerecorded MD in a shop? "Coming sometime maybe" isn't good enough. Show me the selection and then I'll revise my views accordingly.
By the way, I am the one who is making the claims and singing the praises of Van Alstine's DAC in comparison to SACD. So please consider my opinion just that - my opinion and mine only, and NOT Frank Van Alstine's or the Van Alstine company. To my knowledge, his only public utterance concerning hi-rez formats thus far has been that they have been going nowhere, so he has seen no need to deal with them. What he really thinks of SACD and how his redbook DAC compares to it is something I have absolutely no idea about.
Onwards, then. Note to loyal consumers on this thread: Sony is not infallible and Kelly is absolutely right stating that it is not OUR duty to show early-adoptee "faith" in their technology. Too many posts in this thread imply (or state overtly) that it is incumbent upon us to do so, and I find this very curious indeed. As for the implications that "if a behemoth like Sony is behind it, then it can't fail!" - well, Sony are in fact responsible for so many huge marketing blunders, and if Sony markets SACD as well as they marketed MD (a format that I am rather fond of and one that SHOULD have been much bigger than it ever was/is in North America), then you can forget all about SACD conquering the world. A hi-fi dealer friend of mine had a very astute answer to the question of "DVD-A or SACD?" He said, "If any of these hi-rez formats pan out at all, my money would be on DVD-A - and only because Sony will be certain to screw up their marketing of SACD so badly, like they invariably do with everything else." (Keep in mind that this is from the mouth of a man who once sold [or tried to sell] Sony's Elcaset machines - a technology he actually liked, I should add - if you're old enough to remember those.)
Multi-channel I can do without. Now I'm old enough to remember (although I was a young kid then, I had a stepfather who was suckered into the mess) the quadrophonic fiasco in the 1970's. Doesn't this industry recall their own history?! Will they ever learn from past mistakes? Apparently not. I remain convinced that multi-channel sound for music will never be any more than a gimmick - and probably a badly done one at that. Does anyone really find the promise of 5.1 surround a truly viable idea? Or a preferable one? It is and will always be a circus trick. I really don't care to hear some hack engineer's butchering of Beatles/Stones/et al. parlayed into 5.1 surround (you know it will happen if the market dictates), nor do I look forward to hearing badly compressed mixes (i.e. - most contemporary pop releases) spread out over 5 channels (shudder). And who really has the money and the space to set up a decent surround system? In my house, that would only be a logistic (not to mention financial) nightmare. And I am not alone in this. To bet on surround sound is a losing proposition on any level, I believe. It's simply not practical, it's prohibitively expensive, it's something no one really wants (save for the select few) and perhaps just an aesthetically rotten idea in the first place (feel free to disagree, of course).
Now certainly we have to deal with things as they are dealt and not as they should be. In an ideal world modern recording consoles would sound better than an Ampex 600 (they don't), modern mixing engineers would know something about the existence of a concept called "dynamic range" (or maybe they do know and are insteadl part of a sinister conspiracy to stamp it out wherever they find it), the dominant video technology would surpass 35mm film (the best HD video doesn't even challenge 16mm) and Macs would be the dominant computer platform (and not a mere 5% of the market).
So who really knows how all of this will shake out? Time will tell (and soon). At this point in time, I wonder if the era of physical media is itself dead in the water. It's not a notion that I particularly like, but there are plenty of people - younger people - who are quite satisfied with downloadable, virtual file formats, damn the resolution. I do not own one, but it's easy to see the advantage of a device like the ipod - easily adaptable to the latest changes: a simple software and firmware update is all it needs to support the new this or that. This is something redbook CD, vinyl records or any upcoming hi-rez format cannot do. And in an era of rapid technological development and change, this flexibility is all the more important. Who knows where hi-rez technology is going to be in a year, two years from now? I can, however, guarantee you that even if SACD and/or DVD-A are still present in the marketplace, the cutting edge of resolution will be present and in use on computer platforms. Don't believe that this foreknowledge isn't in the minds of an entire generation, who undoubtedly (and quite rightly) see the elephantine "progress" and the inept, laughably half-assed (yes) marketing attempts of the latest hi-rez formats as the joke it really is.
The proponents of SACD (or DVD-A), the true believers, if you will, have only faith to expound, and the mere *promise* of a pay-off - an impending trip to (hi-rez) heaven - just doesn't ring true. Sony isn't the church and SACD isn't a religion, but I do wish the evangelists well, because without faith, you currently don't have a leg or a valid argument to stand on.