Yes we do because technology is all about timing. SACD failed because Sony released it to early. If they would have waited another year or two the format might have been successful. The space needed for 7.1 surround sound is quite large and with prices for a 7.1 sound system lowering and becoming more and more affordable the more of the general population will want support for it. 

Yes, but HD DVD studios have to license Dolby Digital codecs for audio, which costs money. Studios on the Blu-Ray side, however, don't. They can put uncompressed PCM on a disc for free. In the end, it all evens out.

So people are trading 192kbs mp3 tracks (which even to my deaf ears are far worse than CD audio) but secretly are dreaming about high quality audio? Are you kidding me? CD audio represented a great improvment in the quality of audio and yet people abandoned it in favour of an easier to use (more portable) format.

Man, I swear that Videophiles/Audiophiles must just assume that the rest of the world cares as much about this stuff as they do regardless of the evidence against that assumption ...

 SACD and DVD-A failed because the average joe doesn't give a shit about audio quality.  It's sad , but true.  This is why many people now download mp3s via the internet rather than buying uncompressed 2.1 CDs.  

So it's really all about either "Free", "Cheap", or "freedom of purchase" (not FORCED to buy ALL 10-13 songs on a CD if you only like 1 or 2 of the songs).  That's all it matters.

W00t.  My Transformers HD DVD just shipped today too.  Can't wait till I get it. :D

@makingmusic476:

Virtually all Blu-ray discs contain a Dolby Digital or DTS-HD track in addition to or in place of any uncompressed PCM track, and the spec requires that all players support them. That said, it does appear that the cost differences have become relatively negligible. It's not like studios don't already have to license codecs for standard DVD releases anyway.

I just picked this up on HDDVD, cannot wait to watch it tonight!!