Actually,
Pioneer makes a DVD Player that plays both SACD and DVD-A and it's dirt cheap. ($170)

I just bought this DVD player last week and I have only one regret. There aren't that many releases available...yet. I'm glad I bought this player. It's an outstanding value and I compare it to watching Standard Definition television vs. High Definition television. It's that good. The rest of my Home Theater system is pretty good so of course this DVD player alone isn't the reason for the amazing sound but this player helps bring out its full potential.

Not all SACD & DVD-A discs are created equal. Some titles should never have been mixed to either format because they've been done horribly. But many titles that have been released sound like you're listening to them for the first time regardless of how old they are. Dark Side of the Moon for instance is pefect for SACD because it was originally recorded in Quadrophonic sound.
And the DVD-A disc of Pet Sounds from The Beach Boys sounds like it was recorded yesterday!

The discs can be expensive. As low as $15 for some titles but I just paid $27 for The Who's 'Tommy'. But it's a two disc set and the second disc is all outtakes and demos.

As I said, the problem is that I can think of hundreds of other titles that should be mixed immediately to SACD or DVD-A...

I think SACD and DVD-A are going to end up being kind of a niche market for audiophiles. So many people nowadays are content to listen to mp3s, but I (and I'm assuming many people on this site) can easily tell the difference between hearing a song in mp3 format and on CD. With that said, at some point in the future when I (hopefully) may have some disposable income, I'll probably invest in a high quality stereo, including SACD/DVD-A. I've only listened to said formats at Circuit City and Best Buy (the Circuit City people got mad at me for turning up their display stereo so loud) but I've been quite impressed. One of the songs I heard was from a Rolling Stones live album, and the 5.1 is perfect for concerts and such, it felt like I was there, not to mention the amazing clarity of the format. It does cost though, not just the equipment, but the discs as well.

I'd much rather buy a DVD full of music videos in 5.1 sound then just a DVD with super rich audio. It's hard for me to contemplate a better sound quality then CD though... I'm guessing all they did waslower the low frequencys and highten the high frequencys?

Heavy Metal Man excellent point. I have made the same argument myself. I can always hear the difference between an mp3 and a cd, while my friends cannot and really dont care. Will they actually want to invest in all this new more technical stuff when mp3 and cd are so available and easy? Maybe if it sounds that good. I'm going to get the Pioneer player that was mentioned here. I can justify it cause ive wanted a standalone cd player to complement my dvd changer as well as a dvd a/ sacd player. It can play both so if one dies then it will still play the surviving format. And if they dont pan out i have a cd and dvd player to use.

P.S.- great quote, my favorite band, we need some hi res Incubus in our lives

yeah, interestin point... as when it comes down to it, surely the only way it could sound better is by increasing the frequency bandwidth.... but that will only be demonstrated if you have very decent speakers... this whole system would cost a fortune!!!

ok.....my info is old but doesn't the SACD format have a sampling rate of 2 MHz. and a 128 bit range? Compared to the CD of 44KHz at 16bit range...... that would be awsome....but who records dog whistles?

Exactly, 44khz/16 bit perfectly caters for the human ear. Course, I wouldnt be against upping it to 96KHz/24 bit....

Keep listening and contemplating...most CDs suck.

SACD & DVD-A are big improvements on standard CD as well as better than HDCD & XRCD.
Unfortunately a lot of SACDs are upsampled sort of from the 44khz/16 bit and not the master tapes.

Don't forget though, the 44khz/16 standard developed straight out of 'what the human ear can hear'- so expanding the frequencies to improve sound quality isn't really an efficient method.

Any shitty sounding CD's you've heard have probably been produced by idiots. 44khz/16 is only fully optimized when the music has been compressed and eq'd profesisonally. Of course, the setup you're using will greatly depend on the end esound quality- think that $50 CD player uses the same technology as that $1000 Kenwood? Mechanically it's probably very similar, but any CD player made after the 1990's will contain... 'software' containing algorithims to make sense of both the 1's and 0's on the disc and then the codec those 1's and 0's make. The more efficient 'codecs' cost more money; and they're efficient in terms of completely using the full range of 44khz/16 bit technology. 96khz/24 is really just for idiot producers who cannot make the most of the technology available to them. Instead of professionally filling the 'audible human sound' range of 44khz/16, they bump up the sound quality to 96khz/24 and then pretty much anything they throw in there will sound beautifully recorded and mastered.