Arny Krueger wrote:

Only that in quite sujective A-B tests, only those with a tin ear
could not hear the vast difference between CD and SACD.

There are no known CDs and SACDs that were mastered identically and
comparably, subject only to the differences in the media. . It would be
quite easy to do this, but in fact there are no known instances of it.

It is quite easy to switch back and forth between CD and SACD on
hybrid SACDs. The difference is dramatic. Nice try, though.

Therefore the vast difference in sound between a CD and SACD is something
that was unecessarily and artifically put in place, presumably to conceal
the fact that if all other things are equal, there are no audible
differences between the mediums.

Man, what a pile of convoluted logic. Yeah...IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

GT~ wrote:

Only that in quite sujective A-B tests, only those with a tin ear could
not hear the vast difference between CD and SACD. This isn't "oxygen
free copper" Monstercable marketing stuff. This is easily heard. I feel
sorry for those whose hearing defeciency prevents them from hearing the
difference.

My hearing is just fine, ric. And yes, there is a difference, I never said
there wasn't. But not enough for me to justify replacing my current
collection with expensive SACD versions that might not be supported in 5
years should Sony lose out to DVD-A.

Man, you change your point, again. Let's address cost first. The retail
price of SACDs is often the same as for the CD of the same disc. Let's
take Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" for example. Both the CD and
the hybrid SACD retail for the same price, $18.98 according to Amazon.
Amazon is selling the CD version for $13.99. They are selling the SACD
for $13.49, 50 cents *LESS* than the CD. SACD prices are coming down as
more players support the format and more SACDs are sold. Many other SACDs,
such as Norah Jones' "Come Away with Me", are being sold for $13.99 or
less.

No one has suggested replacing your existing CD collection with SACDs,
so this argument is not valid, either (but that doesn't seem to matter
to you.) Only that DVD-A and SACD is an alternative for someone looking
for great sound, as was the OP.

And this is not Sony's battle. About every manufacturer that makes DVD
and/or CD playing equipment makes at least one model of DVD/SACD,
CD/SACD, or DVD-A/DVD-V/SACD/CD player. The SACD format has as good of
a chance of being supported in 5 years as does standard CD.

And how many hybrid players are out there ric? That will support ALL
formats. That will play them back in an equal way?

There are dozens of DVD-A/SACD combo players on the market. What do
you mean by "play them back in an equal way" ?? Do you really know,
or are you just parroting an earlier post by another reader? Post
the reviews if you have them.

My DVD-A/SACD combo player plays CDs, DVD-V, and SACDs just fine. I
haven't tried DVD-A on this machine since I don't have any, and believe
the SACD format is superior.

Or does one have to buy a rack of different players in order to get the
maximum *aual* benefit that comes out of each format?

And you accuse others of being anal retentive audiophiles?

Careful. Your ignorance is showing, again. Most SACD players *are* DVD-V
players. And *all* combo CD/SACD/DVD-A players that I'm aware of will do
DVD-V, too.

And do they play them all to the maximum benefit you would get, as you would
with seperate stand-alone players for each format?

Dunno. Are you talking about $70 stand alones, or $1000+ units?

All of the above (except maybe DVD*R/RW, I'm not sure) being included
is the norm. Kinda kills your above statement that "...And what happens
when one format wins out over the other? You'll be stuck with the
equivalent of an old laserdisc or DAT player." Are you suffering from
"foot in mouth" disease?

ALL of the ABOVE?? Sounds too good to be true. Probably is.

Yep. It's a specification conspiracy. A typical combo player:

http://www.amusicdirect.com/products...ku=AMARADV6400

No. I was just making a suggestion to the OP, who was on a quest for
great sound. You changing your stance from your original "

No, you were making a suggestion that by default, he go out and spend lots
of money and turn himself into an audiophile.

Nothing could be further from the truth. He was looking for great
sound, and I said, "If your system doesn't support SACD or DVD-A,
you are missing out on great sound." And, "As far as a great sounding
regular CD, try a CD demo disk or a XRCD, such as any of the selections
at:"

So how is the above suggesting that "he go out and spend lots of money
and turn himself into an audiophile" ?? SACD players can be had for $150
or less, and SACDs are getting to be the same price as regular CDs.

You'd make an adequate shill for Sony. But only an 'adequate' one.

As you've been told, Sony is but one of dozens of SACD player
manufacturers. But that is a fact, and you've shown little interest
in facts.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

ric wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Only that in quite sujective A-B tests, only those with a tin ear
could not hear the vast difference between CD and SACD.

There are no known CDs and SACDs that were mastered identically and
comparably, subject only to the differences in the media. . It would
be quite easy to do this, but in fact there are no known instances
of it.

It is quite easy to switch back and forth between CD and SACD on
hybrid SACDs. The difference is dramatic. Nice try, though.

The layers aren't the identical same recording. Nice try, though.

Therefore the vast difference in sound between a CD and SACD is
something that was unecessarily and artifically put in place,
presumably to conceal the fact that if all other things are equal,
there are no audible differences between the mediums.

Man, what a pile of convoluted logic. Yeah...IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

It's called business as usual.

ric wrote:
But this argument doesn't hold water because SACD/DVD-A combo players
also play standard CDs and DVDs (which most people have now.) And hybrid
SACDs play in regular CD players. So, where is the risk?

The risk is that another format comes along that trumps SACD and DVD-A,
or worse yet the formats fade and the "combo" players disappear (look at
what DivX users have to deal with). Then there is the hassle of deciding
which format to buy recordings in (if I buy the CD today will an SACD
version come out in two months?), whether to replace existing recordings
(you know, the ones I bought first on LP, then later bought on CD,
them....), etc.

One other hassle of hybrid players is more and more of them require a
video screen to operate. I don't (and don't want to) own a home theater
setup. My DVD player isn't suitable to be used to replace a CD player
because all of the navigating menus are on-screen. These players are
also SLOW as they have to waste time figuring out what kind of disc they
are trying to read (even my CD recorder is a dog as a player because of
this). Then there is the issue of compatibility with all the OTHER
players I own...can I play them in a boombox, the car, a Walkman, my
computer, etc. If not, can I easily copy them to a compatible fomrat
(CD-R, MiniDisc)?

Multiple digital formats are keeping me out of the stores, I am waiting
until the smoke clears, thank you.

--

Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.

************************************************** ********************

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:51:38 -0400, Brian Rost
wrote:

Multiple digital formats are keeping me out of the stores, I am waiting
until the smoke clears, thank you.

I've read all your arguments and, though they seem somewhat petulant
to me, they have some validity. However, with today's technological
pace, the smoke will probably never clear.

Kal

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
There are no known CDs and SACDs that were mastered identically and
comparably, subject only to the differences in the media.

This is incorrect. In fact, I have just finished producing such a
disc. The new Musical Fidelity SACD of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto
has 4 versions of the same mike feed. The DSD layer contains a pure
DSD version and a DSD dub from analog tape; the CD layer contains a
Red Book PCM version prepared from the DSD master and a straight
PCM dub from the analog tape.

This disc will be available for sale from www.stereophile.com at
the end of June, and an article on its making, including an
interview with engineer Tony Faulkner, will appear in the August
issue of Stereophile.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger wrote:

Only that in quite sujective A-B tests, only those with a tin ear
could not hear the vast difference between CD and SACD.

There are no known CDs and SACDs that were mastered identically and
comparably, subject only to the differences in the media. . It would
be quite easy to do this, but in fact there are no known instances
of it.

It is quite easy to switch back and forth between CD and SACD on
hybrid SACDs. The difference is dramatic. Nice try, though.

The layers aren't the identical same recording. Nice try, though.

Of course not. One is SACD, and one is regular CD. The regular CD layer
is equal to or better sounding than that on a regular CD. (I've compared.)
The SACD layer blows it away. So the SACD layer is superior sounding to
the CD layer or to the sound on a regular CD. What's your point?

Man, what a pile of convoluted logic. Yeah...IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

It's called business as usual.

What business? To substitute a superior sounding format for an inferior
one? At roughly the same price? THOSE *******S!

Look out for the black helicopters!

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

Brian Rost wrote:

The risk is that another format comes along that trumps SACD and DVD-A,
or worse yet the formats fade and the "combo" players disappear (look at
what DivX users have to deal with).

Yeah, technology keeps improving. What a bummer. When I went to SVHS
for video, people asked, "What will you do when a better technology
comes around?" Well, it's been 15+ years that I've been enjoying SVHS.
Now comes PVRs and recordable DVDs. Did I make a mistake? I don't think
so. I've been enjoying SVHS quality for over 15 years.

Any technology that "trumps" SACD will also "trump" standard CD. We
will all be forced to make those decisions at a later date. In the
meantime, I'm enjoying the far superior sound of SACD at roughly the
same cost as regular CD.

Then there is the hassle of deciding
which format to buy recordings in (if I buy the CD today will an SACD
version come out in two months?), whether to replace existing recordings
(you know, the ones I bought first on LP, then later bought on CD,
them....), etc.

I have not purchased a SACD when I already have a CD copy of the same
recording. More and more new releases are offered in CD and SACD at
the same time, and some hybrid SACDs are not being released as CDs
at all (since they play fine on regular CD players.) I buy CDs (and
SACDs if available) to replace worn LPs, or to add to my collection
of music.

One other hassle of hybrid players is more and more of them require a
video screen to operate. I don't (and don't want to) own a home theater
setup. My DVD player isn't suitable to be used to replace a CD player
because all of the navigating menus are on-screen. These players are
also SLOW as they have to waste time figuring out what kind of disc they
are trying to read (even my CD recorder is a dog as a player because of
this). Then there is the issue of compatibility with all the OTHER
players I own...can I play them in a boombox, the car, a Walkman, my
computer, etc. If not, can I easily copy them to a compatible fomrat
(CD-R, MiniDisc)?

SACD players that are also DVD players require a video screen for initial
setup only, IIRC. My player requires no video screen for normal operation.
It loads and starts playing CDs and SACDs in about the same time as my
regular CD player. (A few seconds here or there makes little difference
to me when playing a 60 minute recording.) And yes, hybrid SACDs will
play in your boombox, car, Walkman, computer, etc. (GT's "experience"
notwithstanding.)

SACDs offer superior sound to CDs at about the same price. Why some
people treat them as the AntiChrist is beyond me.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

ric wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Only that in quite sujective A-B tests, only those with a tin ear
could not hear the vast difference between CD and SACD.

There are no known CDs and SACDs that were mastered identically and
comparably, subject only to the differences in the media. . It
would be quite easy to do this, but in fact there are no known
instances of it.

It is quite easy to switch back and forth between CD and SACD on
hybrid SACDs. The difference is dramatic. Nice try, though.

The layers aren't the identical same recording. Nice try, though.

Of course not. One is SACD, and one is regular CD.

That's obvious, but thanks for trying to turn this trivial and obvious
information into a debating point.

What I'm talking about is that the mastering is different.

The regular CD layer is equal to or better sounding than that on a regular
CD. (I've
compared.)

It sounds different, no doubt. That was the plan. You ever hear of "brighter
is better"? You ever hear of "louder is better"?

Believe it or not, many of these CD layers are more highly compressed (i.e.,
less real-world dynamic range) than older versions. In other cases the
original recordings were made in formats that have more distortion, less
dynamic range and more spurious variations than the CD format, by far. You
can put SACD *lipstick* on an old pig of a recording, but its still gonna be
a pig.

The SACD layer blows it away. So the SACD layer is
superior sounding to the CD layer or to the sound on a regular CD.

What's your point?

My point is that they are different artistic works, because the mastering
for the two formats is generally different in other ways than merely the
format.

Indeed, you must have seen the big brag by John Atkinson. He's bragging like
this because of the problem I just described.

Man, what a pile of convoluted logic. Yeah...IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

It's called business as usual.

What business?

The business of making minor changes to legacy masters and getting people
who think that every change has to be a vast audible improvement, to buy the
same old basic recordings again and against.

To substitute a superior sounding format for an inferior one?

Superior distribution formats can't provide an audible advantage when the
older format wasn't the weakest link.

At roughly the same price? THOSE *******S!

There's no audible difference due to the formats because of the technical
limitations of the original recordings, the limitations of even the finest
home systems, and the limitations of the human ears.

The CD audio format is just fine as a distribution format. It's raw
capabilities are far in excess of the original recordings regardless of
format. Furthermore, the CD audio format has more dynamic range than
virtually any home system can handle. Finally, believe it or not, your ears
can't hear every technical difference.

Look out for the black helicopters!

Whatever winds your clock!

"ric" wrote in message ...
GT~ wrote:

However, reviews of many "universal" players have revealed that most
are
better at playing one format than another.

Personally, as someone who has seen one format war after another, I'm
sick of this crap. Just to keep playing music I have amassed over the
years I need a turntable, open reel deck, cassette deck, MiniDisc
deck,
CD deck...and now I need even more stuff? Forget it...

And that was my whole point, which totally blew right by the
audiophile's
ears.

And just when was that your point? Your first statement was "They are
formats for anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note",
followed by "The new blue-ray technology that will be coming out in a
couple of years will put both of those formats to shame" followed by
"Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
everything" and "You'll be stuck with the equivalent of an old
laserdisc or DAT player" [ignoring the fact that combo players play
DVD-V and standard CDs as well as DVD-A and SACD.]

Later you complained (ignorantly so) that there weren't enough combo
models to meet your needs, claimed that Japanese marketers were selling
us a "bill-of-goods" with DVD-A and SACD, claimed that combo players
wouldn't play DVD-V, DVD-R, MP3, VCD, etc. (again, ignorantly so), and
finally (for the first time) saying that you don't want to get stuck
with obsolete *software*, a dilemma that all VHS users will be facing
in the not so distant future.

You got it. I think Brian Rost summed it all up, perfectly.

"ric" wrote in message ...
Brian Rost wrote:

The risk is that another format comes along that trumps SACD and DVD-A,
or worse yet the formats fade and the "combo" players disappear (look at
what DivX users have to deal with).

Yeah, technology keeps improving. What a bummer. When I went to SVHS

Improving? There's only so much the human ear can hear.


for video, people asked, "What will you do when a better technology
comes around?" Well, it's been 15+ years that I've been enjoying SVHS.
Now comes PVRs and recordable DVDs. Did I make a mistake? I don't think
so. I've been enjoying SVHS quality for over 15 years.

Well that's nice. So?

All you had to do was buy SVHS blank tapes and copy off the TV. So what?
How many pre-recorded SVHS did Hollywood make?


Any technology that "trumps" SACD will also "trump" standard CD. We
will all be forced to make those decisions at a later date. In the
meantime, I'm enjoying the far superior sound of SACD at roughly the
same cost as regular CD.

The longer the wait, the better. I held off buying DVD until very recently
when I sensed the format was going to be around for awhile. Not like the
laserdisc fiasco I experienced a few years back.


Then there is the hassle of deciding
which format to buy recordings in (if I buy the CD today will an SACD
version come out in two months?), whether to replace existing recordings
(you know, the ones I bought first on LP, then later bought on CD,
them....), etc.

I have not purchased a SACD when I already have a CD copy of the same
recording. More and more new releases are offered in CD and SACD at
the same time, and some hybrid SACDs are not being released as CDs
at all (since they play fine on regular CD players.) I buy CDs (and
SACDs if available) to replace worn LPs, or to add to my collection
of music.

But not everybody's an audiophile like you are, ric. When I'm convinced
SACD (Or DVD-A) is around to stay, then I'll make the investment. Just like
I did with CDs. Just like I did with DVD. It has to reach critical mass
out there in the marketplace, first. The general consumer will know. Not
just a bunch of fringe audiophiles hyping the latest electronic candy.


One other hassle of hybrid players is more and more of them require a
video screen to operate. I don't (and don't want to) own a home theater
setup. My DVD player isn't suitable to be used to replace a CD player
because all of the navigating menus are on-screen. These players are
also SLOW as they have to waste time figuring out what kind of disc they
are trying to read (even my CD recorder is a dog as a player because of
this). Then there is the issue of compatibility with all the OTHER
players I own...can I play them in a boombox, the car, a Walkman, my
computer, etc. If not, can I easily copy them to a compatible fomrat
(CD-R, MiniDisc)?

SACD players that are also DVD players require a video screen for initial
setup only, IIRC. My player requires no video screen for normal operation.
It loads and starts playing CDs and SACDs in about the same time as my
regular CD player. (A few seconds here or there makes little difference
to me when playing a 60 minute recording.) And yes, hybrid SACDs will
play in your boombox, car, Walkman, computer, etc. (GT's "experience"
notwithstanding.)

Bull****. It won't play properly in my Kenwood and I'm not gonna take it
back. Not for a fringe format.

And I seriously doubt it's just my player, either...


SACDs offer superior sound to CDs at about the same price. Why some
people treat them as the AntiChrist is beyond me.

They are. Laserdisc became the AntiChrist. I don't forget that.

"ric" wrote in message ...
GT~ wrote:

As far as SACD hybrids are concerned, they won't play properly on my
new
Kenwood CD changer. I avoid them like the plague.

Ever thought about seeing why your new Kenwood is defective?

It's not defective. It only happens on the new Bob Dylan and Rolling
Stones
remasters I borrowed that I've tried so far. Plays everything else
great.
Even MP3s.

The "Highway 61 Revisited" hybrid SACD played great in my old Sony CD
player, my Kenwood portable CD player, and as either a CD or SACD on
my combo player. Sounds like your player is defective.

There's nothing wrong with my player. Everything else PLAYS JUST FINE.
It's the format, not the player.


Nope, it's not the player. It's just another example as to why
manufacturers don't have their **** together in the multitude of the
format
wars.

You have a faulty CD or player, yet you make the above statement.
What a leap!

Absolutely. I bought the top of the line 10 CD changer and when I asked the
dealer about it, he said some players have a problem reading hybrids.
That's just the way it is.

"ric" wrote in message ...
GT~ wrote:


Man, you change your point, again. Let's address cost first. The retail
price of SACDs is often the same as for the CD of the same disc. Let's
take Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" for example. Both the CD and
the hybrid SACD retail for the same price, $18.98 according to Amazon.
Amazon is selling the CD version for $13.99. They are selling the SACD
for $13.49, 50 cents *LESS* than the CD. SACD prices are coming down as
more players support the format and more SACDs are sold. Many other SACDs,
such as Norah Jones' "Come Away with Me", are being sold for $13.99 or
less.

Dude, I can find "Dark Side of the Moon" for $8.99. ****, I could probably
get it for even less than that if I buy it used. Just for your information,
the costs of laserdiscs went down as well in the months before the format
was discontinued. Hmmm.... A yard sale?


No one has suggested replacing your existing CD collection with SACDs,
so this argument is not valid, either (but that doesn't seem to matter
to you.) Only that DVD-A and SACD is an alternative for someone looking
for great sound, as was the OP.

No, you're being a shill for Sony. You bought the player. You think
everybody else out there should make change, even though there's no critical
mass out there amoung general consumers. It's a fringe format.


And this is not Sony's battle. About every manufacturer that makes DVD
and/or CD playing equipment makes at least one model of DVD/SACD,
CD/SACD, or DVD-A/DVD-V/SACD/CD player. The SACD format has as good of
a chance of being supported in 5 years as does standard CD.

Well that's just dandy. Then you should have no problem if many consumers
out there (like me) hold back for 5+ years in order to make sure.


And how many hybrid players are out there ric? That will support ALL
formats. That will play them back in an equal way?

There are dozens of DVD-A/SACD combo players on the market. What do
you mean by "play them back in an equal way" ?? Do you really know,
or are you just parroting an earlier post by another reader? Post
the reviews if you have them.

What Mr. Rost said about playing them all in an equal way, isn't the first
time I've heard about that particular point. If I went and found a review
right now to back up that claim, I'd have no doubt you'd nit-pick it to
death. Unless what Mr. Rost said was totally false.


My DVD-A/SACD combo player plays CDs, DVD-V, and SACDs just fine. I
haven't tried DVD-A on this machine since I don't have any, and believe
the SACD format is superior.

You just said "you don't have any". How do you know it's superior? Because
of the hype coming out of Audiophile magazine?

Each corporation has it's own propritary catalog. Sony has it's Columbia,
Epic, etc... SACD catalog, and Warner has it's own catalog for DVD-A. If
you're so into audiophile recordings, then you'll either have to listen to
the standard Warner CD, or the DVD-A version.

So even with that premise, and based on the logic you just now mentioned up
above, you would only (theroretically) have access to Sony's catalog as far
as SACD is concerned. And yes, I'm aware that some other labels have signed
on to SACD. But only *some*, ric. Not all.

That still leaves out a hell of a lot of recordings not picked up in the
SACD format. Not much of a choice as far as I'm concerned, since there's no
clear winner out there.


Or does one have to buy a rack of different players in order to get the
maximum *aual* benefit that comes out of each format?

And you accuse others of being anal retentive audiophiles?

Careful. Your ignorance is showing, again. Most SACD players *are*
DVD-V
players. And *all* combo CD/SACD/DVD-A players that I'm aware of will
do
DVD-V, too.

And do they play them all to the maximum benefit you would get, as you
would
with seperate stand-alone players for each format?

Dunno. Are you talking about $70 stand alones, or $1000+ units?

I thought you were the 'expert'. You mean you DON'T KNOW?


All of the above (except maybe DVD*R/RW, I'm not sure) being included
is the norm. Kinda kills your above statement that "...And what
happens
when one format wins out over the other? You'll be stuck with the
equivalent of an old laserdisc or DAT player." Are you suffering from
"foot in mouth" disease?

ALL of the ABOVE?? Sounds too good to be true. Probably is.

Yep. It's a specification conspiracy. A typical combo player:

http://www.amusicdirect.com/products...ku=AMARADV6400

Ok there's ONE player. $549.00 plus tax. How many others?

Does it play ALL formats equally, or just some better than others?

Gee, I could buy a good, standard CD player for 6 times less. Probably
get good sound out of it, too.


No. I was just making a suggestion to the OP, who was on a quest for
great sound. You changing your stance from your original "

No, you were making a suggestion that by default, he go out and spend
lots
of money and turn himself into an audiophile.

Nothing could be further from the truth. He was looking for great
sound, and I said, "If your system doesn't support SACD or DVD-A,
you are missing out on great sound." And, "As far as a great sounding
regular CD, try a CD demo disk or a XRCD, such as any of the selections
at:"

"You are missing out on great sound...." How 'bout saving on the
pocketbook, ric. Maybe you have a lot of disposable income but I don't. I
still have a mortgage to pay.


So how is the above suggesting that "he go out and spend lots of money
and turn himself into an audiophile" ?? SACD players can be had for $150
or less, and SACDs are getting to be the same price as regular CDs.

But they're not total multi-combo players, ric. $549.00 is more like it.


You'd make an adequate shill for Sony. But only an 'adequate' one.

As you've been told, Sony is but one of dozens of SACD player
manufacturers. But that is a fact, and you've shown little interest
in facts.

Facts about what? A new format that I have right to be skeptical about?
That might not be around in 5 years?

You're not ****ing listening dude. Not everybody out there's biting the
teat of Sony.


--

ric wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:


Only that in quite sujective A-B tests, only those with a tin ear
could not hear the vast difference between CD and SACD.

There are no known CDs and SACDs that were mastered identically and
comparably, subject only to the differences in the media. . It would
be quite easy to do this, but in fact there are no known instances
of it.

It is quite easy to switch back and forth between CD and SACD on
hybrid SACDs. The difference is dramatic. Nice try, though.

The layers aren't the identical same recording. Nice try, though.


Of course not. One is SACD, and one is regular CD. The regular CD layer
is equal to or better sounding than that on a regular CD. (I've compared.)
The SACD layer blows it away. So the SACD layer is superior sounding to
the CD layer or to the sound on a regular CD. What's your point?


Man, what a pile of convoluted logic. Yeah...IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

It's called business as usual.


What business? To substitute a superior sounding format for an inferior
one? At roughly the same price? THOSE *******S!

Look out for the black helicopters!

test reply

GT/ wrote:

Yeah, technology keeps improving. What a bummer. When I went to SVHS

Improving? There's only so much the human ear can hear.

Same argument I heard in the LP/cassette to CD transition. I hear a
vast difference. You even stated that you heard a difference, but not
enough to justify the cost increase (which is basically nil.)

for video, people asked, "What will you do when a better technology
comes around?" Well, it's been 15+ years that I've been enjoying SVHS.
Now comes PVRs and recordable DVDs. Did I make a mistake? I don't think
so. I've been enjoying SVHS quality for over 15 years.

Well that's nice. So?

Not using a new technology because you're afraid a newer technology will
"trump" it is stupid. That's what.

All you had to do was buy SVHS blank tapes and copy off the TV.

Well, no. You don't copy "off the TV." The TV displays the video. It
doesn't provide the video.

I have not purchased a SACD when I already have a CD copy of the same
recording. More and more new releases are offered in CD and SACD at
the same time, and some hybrid SACDs are not being released as CDs
at all (since they play fine on regular CD players.) I buy CDs (and
SACDs if available) to replace worn LPs, or to add to my collection
of music.

But not everybody's an audiophile like you are, ric. When I'm convinced
SACD (Or DVD-A) is around to stay, then I'll make the investment. Just like
I did with CDs. Just like I did with DVD. It has to reach critical mass
out there in the marketplace, first. The general consumer will know. Not
just a bunch of fringe audiophiles hyping the latest electronic candy.

Didn't know that Amazon catered to "fringe audiophiles." And what
investment? Betcha you could have picked up a CD/SACD player for
about the same price as your Kenwood. Maybe even one that worked
correctly!

SACD players that are also DVD players require a video screen for initial
setup only, IIRC. My player requires no video screen for normal operation.
It loads and starts playing CDs and SACDs in about the same time as my
regular CD player. (A few seconds here or there makes little difference
to me when playing a 60 minute recording.) And yes, hybrid SACDs will
play in your boombox, car, Walkman, computer, etc. (GT's "experience"
notwithstanding.)

Bull****. It won't play properly in my Kenwood and I'm not gonna take it
back.

If a disc plays in 9 out of 10 players, and yours is the player it won't
play in, I'd think you'd wanna investigate the quality of that player.
Yours is the first complaint I've heard regarding problems with hybrid
SACDs in standard CD players.

Not for a fringe format.

Now it's a fringe format that Amazon and others are supporting. Fringe
audiophiles and fringe formats. Radicals, they are.

And I seriously doubt it's just my player, either...

Did you try that disc on any other players. Nah, that might point
suspicion towards your new Kenwood. Can't have that.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

GT/ wrote:

No, you're being a shill for Sony. You bought the player.

But my DVD-A/SACD universal player is not a Sony. So how am I a Sony
"shill" ??

You think
everybody else out there should make change, even though there's no critical
mass out there amoung general consumers. It's a fringe format.

Supported by major retailers such as Amazon. Those radicals!

And this is not Sony's battle. About every manufacturer that makes DVD
and/or CD playing equipment makes at least one model of DVD/SACD,
CD/SACD, or DVD-A/DVD-V/SACD/CD player. The SACD format has as good of
a chance of being supported in 5 years as does standard CD.

Well that's just dandy. Then you should have no problem if many consumers
out there (like me) hold back for 5+ years in order to make sure.

Sure, but 5 years from now you'll be moaning that a new technology is
just around the corner. You're comical.

There are dozens of DVD-A/SACD combo players on the market. What do
you mean by "play them back in an equal way" ?? Do you really know,
or are you just parroting an earlier post by another reader? Post
the reviews if you have them.

What Mr. Rost said about playing them all in an equal way, isn't the first
time I've heard about that particular point.

Fine. Then explain what it means.

My DVD-A/SACD combo player plays CDs, DVD-V, and SACDs just fine. I
haven't tried DVD-A on this machine since I don't have any, and believe
the SACD format is superior.

You just said "you don't have any". How do you know it's superior? Because
of the hype coming out of Audiophile magazine?

Your reading skills are lacking. Read again. I said "I haven't tried
DVD-A on this machine." I have heard DVD-A/SACD comparisons on other
players, and prefered the sound of the SACD. Technically, the DVD-A
PCM process adds steps that are not needed in SACD's DSD process. BTW,
I've never read Audiophile magazine. Is it still published?

So even with that premise, and based on the logic you just now mentioned up
above, you would only (theroretically) have access to Sony's catalog as far
as SACD is concerned. And yes, I'm aware that some other labels have signed
on to SACD. But only *some*, ric. Not all.

I don't know how many labels now produce SACDs, but it is quite a few,
and increasing rapidly. Thumb through the Jazzmatazz listings if you
really want to know.

I don't even own a Sony SACD, as none of theirs are hybrid, IINM. But
even though neither my SACD player is a Sony, or that I don't own any
Sony SACDs, I'm just a Sony shill, right?

Dunno. Are you talking about $70 stand alones, or $1000+ units?

I thought you were the 'expert'. You mean you DON'T KNOW?

I admit I can't read your mind. *YOU* made the comment about stand alones.
*I* asked if you meant $70 or $1000+ stand alones. *YOU* should have the
answer. But you don't even understand your own question!

Yep. It's a specification conspiracy. A typical combo player:

http://www.amusicdirect.com/products...ku=AMARADV6400

Ok there's ONE player. $549.00 plus tax. How many others?

Does it play ALL formats equally, or just some better than others?

Gee, I could buy a good, standard CD player for 6 times less. Probably
get good sound out of it, too.

But it won't play DVD-V, DVD-A, DVD-R, DVD-RW, VCD, etc., as you demanded.

The URL I gave you was for viewing typical specs. I didn't claim it
was the cheapest model. And, what does "6 times less" mean? There is
no such term.

Nothing could be further from the truth. He was looking for great
sound, and I said, "If your system doesn't support SACD or DVD-A,
you are missing out on great sound." And, "As far as a great sounding
regular CD, try a CD demo disk or a XRCD, such as any of the selections
at:"

"You are missing out on great sound...." How 'bout saving on the
pocketbook, ric. Maybe you have a lot of disposable income but I don't. I
still have a mortgage to pay.

Heh, reminding a person of SACD/DVD-A is hardly suggesting he sell his
kids. He understood that. You do too, but your ego won't let you admit it.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

"ric" wrote in message ...
GT/ wrote:

Yeah, technology keeps improving. What a bummer. When I went to SVHS

Improving? There's only so much the human ear can hear.

Same argument I heard in the LP/cassette to CD transition. I hear a
vast difference. You even stated that you heard a difference, but not
enough to justify the cost increase (which is basically nil.)

Sure, I get more unwanted frequencies. Like tape-hiss....


for video, people asked, "What will you do when a better technology
comes around?" Well, it's been 15+ years that I've been enjoying SVHS.
Now comes PVRs and recordable DVDs. Did I make a mistake? I don't
think
so. I've been enjoying SVHS quality for over 15 years.

Well that's nice. So?

Not using a new technology because you're afraid a newer technology will
"trump" it is stupid. That's what.

No, jumping at the next latest trendy gadget and wasting money on it, is
stupid.


All you had to do was buy SVHS blank tapes and copy off the TV.

Well, no. You don't copy "off the TV." The TV displays the video. It
doesn't provide the video.

You mean to say you never copied TV programs? Or are 'we' splitting hairs
with semantics again....


I have not purchased a SACD when I already have a CD copy of the same
recording. More and more new releases are offered in CD and SACD at
the same time, and some hybrid SACDs are not being released as CDs
at all (since they play fine on regular CD players.) I buy CDs (and
SACDs if available) to replace worn LPs, or to add to my collection
of music.

But not everybody's an audiophile like you are, ric. When I'm convinced
SACD (Or DVD-A) is around to stay, then I'll make the investment. Just
like
I did with CDs. Just like I did with DVD. It has to reach critical
mass
out there in the marketplace, first. The general consumer will know.
Not
just a bunch of fringe audiophiles hyping the latest electronic candy.

Didn't know that Amazon catered to "fringe audiophiles." And what
investment? Betcha you could have picked up a CD/SACD player for
about the same price as your Kenwood. Maybe even one that worked
correctly!

I'd rather have a Kenwood changer that'll play every other widespread
format, than an SACD format CD player that hasn't proven itself to have any
staying power in the marketplace, I'll tell ya that.

And so what if Amazon caters to audiophiles. Is everyone who shops at
amazon an audiophile?


SACD players that are also DVD players require a video screen for
initial
setup only, IIRC. My player requires no video screen for normal
operation.
It loads and starts playing CDs and SACDs in about the same time as my
regular CD player. (A few seconds here or there makes little
difference
to me when playing a 60 minute recording.) And yes, hybrid SACDs will
play in your boombox, car, Walkman, computer, etc. (GT's "experience"
notwithstanding.)

Bull****. It won't play properly in my Kenwood and I'm not gonna take
it
back.

If a disc plays in 9 out of 10 players, and yours is the player it won't
play in, I'd think you'd wanna investigate the quality of that player.
Yours is the first complaint I've heard regarding problems with hybrid
SACDs in standard CD players.

So you ^say....^


Not for a fringe format.

Now it's a fringe format that Amazon and others are supporting. Fringe
audiophiles and fringe formats. Radicals, they are.

And I'm sure Amazon would've supported laserdisc while they were still
around. Maybe they did in the first couple of years.

So?


And I seriously doubt it's just my player, either...

Did you try that disc on any other players. Nah, that might point
suspicion towards your new Kenwood. Can't have that.

I don't currently have a home CD system. All my music's in the car.


--

"ric" wrote in message ...
GT/ wrote:

No, you're being a shill for Sony. You bought the player.

But my DVD-A/SACD universal player is not a Sony. So how am I a Sony
"shill" ??

It's their technology. Even though the faceplate has a different brand,
you're still paying Sony indirectly for their technology through your
purchase.


You think
everybody else out there should make change, even though there's no
critical
mass out there amoung general consumers. It's a fringe format.

Supported by major retailers such as Amazon. Those radicals!

So what. I could probably go down to Best Buy and find at least two or
three SACD players out of the 75 or so different models that they carry. It
wasn't too difficult finding a Sony Betamax back in 1985, either. 1986-1987
was a different story.


And this is not Sony's battle. About every manufacturer that makes DVD
and/or CD playing equipment makes at least one model of DVD/SACD,
CD/SACD, or DVD-A/DVD-V/SACD/CD player. The SACD format has as good of
a chance of being supported in 5 years as does standard CD.

Well that's just dandy. Then you should have no problem if many
consumers
out there (like me) hold back for 5+ years in order to make sure.

Sure, but 5 years from now you'll be moaning that a new technology is
just around the corner. You're comical.

Will I? How do you know? The technological advances are happening at such
a fast pace now than they were 5 or 10 years ago. Which format will have
staying power? Which will be cast aside? That's the key. The general
consumer out there will decide, not some fringe market of technoid
audiophiles.


There are dozens of DVD-A/SACD combo players on the market. What do
you mean by "play them back in an equal way" ?? Do you really know,
or are you just parroting an earlier post by another reader? Post
the reviews if you have them.

What Mr. Rost said about playing them all in an equal way, isn't the
first
time I've heard about that particular point.

Fine. Then explain what it means.

Meaning are you going to get the same total aural experience from a hybrid
player as you would a stand-alone SACD player. Meaning are you going to get
the same total aural experience from a hybrid player as you would a
stand-alone DVD-A player. Didn't I mention that before?


My DVD-A/SACD combo player plays CDs, DVD-V, and SACDs just fine. I
haven't tried DVD-A on this machine since I don't have any, and
believe
the SACD format is superior.

You just said "you don't have any". How do you know it's superior?
Because
of the hype coming out of Audiophile magazine?

Your reading skills are lacking. Read again. I said "I haven't tried
DVD-A on this machine." I have heard DVD-A/SACD comparisons on other
players, and prefered the sound of the SACD. Technically, the DVD-A
PCM process adds steps that are not needed in SACD's DSD process. BTW,
I've never read Audiophile magazine. Is it still published?

Is it? You tell me.... Should I have said Stereophile? High Fidelity?

You probably know more about the electronic ins and outs of it than I do. I
don't doubt that.


So even with that premise, and based on the logic you just now mentioned
up
above, you would only (theroretically) have access to Sony's catalog as
far
as SACD is concerned. And yes, I'm aware that some other labels have
signed
on to SACD. But only *some*, ric. Not all.

I don't know how many labels now produce SACDs, but it is quite a few,
and increasing rapidly. Thumb through the Jazzmatazz listings if you
really want to know.

Does that mean Time/Warner and it's associated labels will throw in the
towel and jump on the SACD bandwagon?

Man, you are *optimistic*, aren't you....


I don't even own a Sony SACD, as none of theirs are hybrid, IINM. But
even though neither my SACD player is a Sony, or that I don't own any
Sony SACDs, I'm just a Sony shill, right?

Read my first response up above.


Dunno. Are you talking about $70 stand alones, or $1000+ units?

I thought you were the 'expert'. You mean you DON'T KNOW?

I admit I can't read your mind. *YOU* made the comment about stand alones.
*I* asked if you meant $70 or $1000+ stand alones. *YOU* should have the
answer. But you don't even understand your own question!

I don't have the answer. That's why I was asking you 'o audiophile sage...


Yep. It's a specification conspiracy. A typical combo player:

http://www.amusicdirect.com/products...ku=AMARADV6400

Ok there's ONE player. $549.00 plus tax. How many others?

Does it play ALL formats equally, or just some better than others?

Gee, I could buy a good, standard CD player for 6 times less.
Probably
get good sound out of it, too.

But it won't play DVD-V, DVD-A, DVD-R, DVD-RW, VCD, etc., as you demanded.

Well there ya go.... My point, exactly...


The URL I gave you was for viewing typical specs. I didn't claim it
was the cheapest model. And, what does "6 times less" mean? There is
no such term.

Well let's see 549.00 divided by 6...that equals about $91.00. Yup, I could
probably get a decent CD player for that price. Even a Sony one. (laughs)


Nothing could be further from the truth. He was looking for great
sound, and I said, "If your system doesn't support SACD or DVD-A,
you are missing out on great sound." And, "As far as a great sounding
regular CD, try a CD demo disk or a XRCD, such as any of the
selections
at:"

"You are missing out on great sound...." How 'bout saving on the
pocketbook, ric. Maybe you have a lot of disposable income but I don't.
I
still have a mortgage to pay.

Heh, reminding a person of SACD/DVD-A is hardly suggesting he sell his
kids. He understood that. You do too, but your ego won't let you admit it.

Oh I have no doubt at all you know what you're talking about when it comes
to audiophile products. None whatsoever, ric. No ego there. Honestly.

But as a general consumer, I choose to look at the longer term (based on
past experience) and I would venture to guess most other consumers out there
would be skeptical of any new format that comes along, just as I am. And I
don't care how 'good' it sounds. It's all relative to the listener, anyway.

All one has to do is look back and see what happend to formats like Beta,
DAT, MiniDisc (in the U.S.), Laserdisc, Videodisc (and maybe some others
that I can't remember offhand) where consumers thought they had a good
thing, only to see it ripped out from under them after only a few years.

I sucked Pioneer's teat, once. I won't do it again....


--

-GT- wrote:

I'd rather have a Kenwood changer that'll play every other widespread
format, than an SACD format CD player that hasn't proven itself to have any
staying power in the marketplace, I'll tell ya that.

Careful, your ignorance is showing again. SACD players play regular
CDs just fine, usually better than normal cheap CD players. And they
are made by manufacturers with equal or better reputations than Kenwood.

And so what if Amazon caters to audiophiles. Is everyone who shops at
amazon an audiophile?

Did you read these questions after you wrote them? They don't make any
sense.

Did you try that disc on any other players. Nah, that might point
suspicion towards your new Kenwood. Can't have that.

I don't currently have a home CD system. All my music's in the car.

So what? You have no friends (figures) or neighbors with CD players?

Credibility meter: ....\....

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

-GT- wrote:

No, you're being a shill for Sony. You bought the player.

But my DVD-A/SACD universal player is not a Sony. So how am I a Sony
"shill" ??

It's their technology. Even though the faceplate has a different brand,
you're still paying Sony indirectly for their technology through your
purchase.

And that makes me a "shill" ??

No, SACD was jointly created by Phillips and Sony. Are you familiar
with the licensing agreement between Phillips/Sony and other manufacturers?
Please elaborate if you do.

So what. I could probably go down to Best Buy and find at least two or
three SACD players out of the 75 or so different models that they carry.

I would bet that 2-3 out of 75 (2.7-4 %) is a very low estimate.

Sure, but 5 years from now you'll be moaning that a new technology is
just around the corner. You're comical.

Will I? How do you know? The technological advances are happening at such
a fast pace now than they were 5 or 10 years ago. Which format will have
staying power? Which will be cast aside? That's the key. The general
consumer out there will decide, not some fringe market of technoid
audiophiles.

Oooh, now we're *technoid* audiophiles. Didn't know that "audiophile"
CD players were available for under $150.

Meaning are you going to get the same total aural experience from a hybrid
player as you would a stand-alone SACD player.

Meaning are you going to get
the same total aural experience from a hybrid player as you would a
stand-alone DVD-A player. Didn't I mention that before?

No, you didn't get that specific. There is no such thing as a stand-
alone DVD-A player, so there is no answer to your second question. As
for your first question, there really aren't stand alone SACD players
either. There are DVD-V/SACD compatible players, there are cheap ($150)
CD/SACD players, and there are expensive ($1000+) CD/SACD players. I
would say that the performance of any of these would differ greatly.
But since you think that there is very little difference between normal
CDs and SACD or DVD-A, they would all sound the same to you.

Your reading skills are lacking. Read again. I said "I haven't tried
DVD-A on this machine." I have heard DVD-A/SACD comparisons on other
players, and prefered the sound of the SACD. Technically, the DVD-A
PCM process adds steps that are not needed in SACD's DSD process. BTW,
I've never read Audiophile magazine. Is it still published?

Is it? You tell me.... Should I have said Stereophile? High Fidelity?

Stopped reading "High Fidelity" many years ago. I figured you would
know. You keep referring to these magazines. I figured you must know
if they even still existed. Again, I don't.

I don't know how many labels now produce SACDs, but it is quite a few,
and increasing rapidly. Thumb through the Jazzmatazz listings if you
really want to know.

Does that mean Time/Warner and it's associated labels will throw in the
towel and jump on the SACD bandwagon?

Don't know what Time/Warner has to do with it (did they invent DVD-A?)
I wouldn't even know what record labels are associated with Time/Warner.
Please list them for me. Thanks.

I admit I can't read your mind. *YOU* made the comment about stand alones.
*I* asked if you meant $70 or $1000+ stand alones. *YOU* should have the
answer. But you don't even understand your own question!

I don't have the answer. That's why I was asking you 'o audiophile sage...

You don't know if you are referring to $70 or $1000+ stand alones?

The URL I gave you was for viewing typical specs. I didn't claim it
was the cheapest model. And, what does "6 times less" mean? There is
no such term.

Well let's see 549.00 divided by 6...that equals about $91.00. Yup, I could
probably get a decent CD player for that price. Even a Sony one. (laughs)

So "6 times less" means divide by six? I thought that was what "one sixth"
meant. Oh well... [Ebonics].

But as a general consumer, I choose to look at the longer term (based on
past experience) and I would venture to guess most other consumers out there
would be skeptical of any new format that comes along, just as I am. And I
don't care how 'good' it sounds. It's all relative to the listener, anyway.

All one has to do is look back and see what happend to formats like Beta,
DAT, MiniDisc (in the U.S.), Laserdisc, Videodisc (and maybe some others
that I can't remember offhand) where consumers thought they had a good
thing, only to see it ripped out from under them after only a few years.

But you continue to ignore the fact that hybrid SACDs play fine on normal
CD players, and that SACD players also play normal CDs. That is where your
comparison to the above falters. Your argument, as usual, is all wet. And
with SACD prices near or equal to that of standard CDs, there is no down
side.

I sucked Pioneer's teat, once. I won't do it again....

You're kinky as well as ignorant. Just as well, I guess.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT- wrote:

I'd rather have a Kenwood changer that'll play every other widespread
format, than an SACD format CD player that hasn't proven itself to have
any
staying power in the marketplace, I'll tell ya that.

Careful, your ignorance is showing again. SACD players play regular
CDs just fine, usually better than normal cheap CD players. And they
are made by manufacturers with equal or better reputations than Kenwood.

What ignorance, ric? I have a point of view that's different from yours,
you don't like it. Fine. But don't patronize me, ok?

I doing my best not to treat you like dum1. (laughs)


And so what if Amazon caters to audiophiles. Is everyone who shops at
amazon an audiophile?

Did you read these questions after you wrote them? They don't make any
sense.

Absolutely, but I think the point was lost on you. I'm fully aware that
most retailers (on-line or in-store) out there carry at least one SACD
player in their inventory. You're absolutely right. I'm not disputing
that. So?


Did you try that disc on any other players. Nah, that might point
suspicion towards your new Kenwood. Can't have that.

I don't currently have a home CD system. All my music's in the car.

So what? You have no friends (figures) or neighbors with CD players?

Nope, didn't bother with them since they were the only discs that I had a
problem with. And because there are so few SACD hybrids out there, I'm not
gonna worry about it, anyway.

Plus the fact they were borrowed, so I didn't have to fork out any dough
over them. The only other thing was that I did have some problems playing
certain CD-Rs on my changer, but that was because they were accidently
unfinalized before I burned them.


--

"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT- wrote:

No, you're being a shill for Sony. You bought the player.

But my DVD-A/SACD universal player is not a Sony. So how am I a Sony
"shill" ??

It's their technology. Even though the faceplate has a different brand,
you're still paying Sony indirectly for their technology through your
purchase.

And that makes me a "shill" ??

No, SACD was jointly created by Phillips and Sony. Are you familiar
with the licensing agreement between Phillips/Sony and other
manufacturers?
Please elaborate if you do.

Yes I am little bit familiar with that, ric. But everytime you buy a
machine, you paying a built in cost for that licence. It's built into the
price of the machine, so by default, you are shilling for their technology.
I remember a lot of people shilled for the Betamax, too. Even as Sony was
beginning to license out that technology to other brands. Too bad they
still lost....

What about Matsu****a and Time/Warner? How come they didn't pay a licensing
fee to Sony?

^Hmmmmm....^


So what. I could probably go down to Best Buy and find at least two or
three SACD players out of the 75 or so different models that they carry.

I would bet that 2-3 out of 75 (2.7-4 %) is a very low estimate.

Well let's see, ric. I went over to Amazon.com last night and found five
SACD/DVD-A hybrids (out of the 200 or so odd CD players they offer). Four
of them were Denons, the cheapest one was $600 and the most expensive was
$2,000. I also found one cheapo Pioneer hybrid for $129.95. There were
four positive reviews for it, but none of the reviews had anything to
compare it against.

So my point is this, ric. If this audiophile technology is so cheap, how
come not everybody's biting?
And if I'm not mistaken, hasn't Warner also lowered the price on their
DVD-As? Another price war in order to further alienate customers? And may
the better format win?


Sure, but 5 years from now you'll be moaning that a new technology is
just around the corner. You're comical.

Will I? How do you know? The technological advances are happening at
such
a fast pace now than they were 5 or 10 years ago. Which format will
have
staying power? Which will be cast aside? That's the key. The general
consumer out there will decide, not some fringe market of technoid
audiophiles.

Oooh, now we're *technoid* audiophiles. Didn't know that "audiophile"
CD players were available for under $150.

Read my response at the top, again. It's a moot point.


Meaning are you going to get the same total aural experience from a
hybrid
player as you would a stand-alone SACD player.

Meaning are you going to get
the same total aural experience from a hybrid player as you would a
stand-alone DVD-A player. Didn't I mention that before?

No, you didn't get that specific. There is no such thing as a stand-
alone DVD-A player, so there is no answer to your second question. As

Technically, you're right. They also play video DVDs. So if you really
wanna get anal about it, they are DVD/DVD-A hybrids.

for your first question, there really aren't stand alone SACD players
either. There are DVD-V/SACD compatible players, there are cheap ($150)
CD/SACD players, and there are expensive ($1000+) CD/SACD players. I
would say that the performance of any of these would differ greatly.
But since you think that there is very little difference between normal
CDs and SACD or DVD-A, they would all sound the same to you.

Technically, you're right again, ric. There are SACD/DVD hybrid players out
there as well. The performance amoung these would differer greatly? Well
now were getting into audiophile territory again. Spend beaucoup bucks in
order to get the 'perfect' sound, which I don't believe the original poster
to this whole thread was asking. Instead you wanted to lead him into SACD
territory and to a format that has no proven staying power.


Your reading skills are lacking. Read again. I said "I haven't tried
DVD-A on this machine." I have heard DVD-A/SACD comparisons on other
players, and prefered the sound of the SACD. Technically, the DVD-A
PCM process adds steps that are not needed in SACD's DSD process. BTW,
I've never read Audiophile magazine. Is it still published?

Is it? You tell me.... Should I have said Stereophile? High Fidelity?

Stopped reading "High Fidelity" many years ago. I figured you would
know. You keep referring to these magazines. I figured you must know
if they even still existed. Again, I don't.

I'm not an Audiophile, ric. I could care less who's still printing
magazines or not....


I don't know how many labels now produce SACDs, but it is quite a few,
and increasing rapidly. Thumb through the Jazzmatazz listings if you
really want to know.

Does that mean Time/Warner and it's associated labels will throw in the
towel and jump on the SACD bandwagon?

Don't know what Time/Warner has to do with it (did they invent DVD-A?)
I wouldn't even know what record labels are associated with Time/Warner.
Please list them for me. Thanks.

Well let's see, I believe we are talking about
Warner/Elektra/Asylum/Reprise/Sire/Atlantic for starters. Big back catalogs
that may never see the light on SACD.

Gee, that means I won't be able to listen to people like Sinatra or Neil
Young on SACD. Too bad. (sob)


The URL I gave you was for viewing typical specs. I didn't claim it
was the cheapest model. And, what does "6 times less" mean? There is
no such term.

Well let's see 549.00 divided by 6...that equals about $91.00. Yup, I
could
probably get a decent CD player for that price. Even a Sony one.
(laughs)

So "6 times less" means divide by six? I thought that was what "one sixth"
meant. Oh well... [Ebonics].

Same thing. And I'm not black, ric. Oh well....


But as a general consumer, I choose to look at the longer term (based on
past experience) and I would venture to guess most other consumers out
there
would be skeptical of any new format that comes along, just as I am.
And I
don't care how 'good' it sounds. It's all relative to the listener,
anyway.

All one has to do is look back and see what happend to formats like
Beta,
DAT, MiniDisc (in the U.S.), Laserdisc, Videodisc (and maybe some others
that I can't remember offhand) where consumers thought they had a good
thing, only to see it ripped out from under them after only a few years.

But you continue to ignore the fact that hybrid SACDs play fine on normal
CD players, and that SACD players also play normal CDs. That is where your
comparison to the above falters. Your argument, as usual, is all wet. And
with SACD prices near or equal to that of standard CDs, there is no down
side.

Yes there is because once again, you refuse to look at the big picture.
Will it be around in 5 years? I said it before and I'll say it again
because it hasn't sunk in with you. That's the bottom line.


I sucked Pioneer's teat, once. I won't do it again....

You're kinky as well as ignorant. Just as well, I guess.

No I just refuse to get burned again, ric. And I hope our little debate
here makes *a few* others out there think twice before they know what
they're getting themselves into.


--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

"GT/" wrote in message ...
"ric" wrote in message
...
GT~ wrote:

As far as SACD hybrids are concerned, they won't play properly on
my
new
Kenwood CD changer. I avoid them like the plague.

Ever thought about seeing why your new Kenwood is defective?

It's not defective. It only happens on the new Bob Dylan and Rolling
Stones
remasters I borrowed that I've tried so far. Plays everything else
great.
Even MP3s.

The "Highway 61 Revisited" hybrid SACD played great in my old Sony CD
player, my Kenwood portable CD player, and as either a CD or SACD on
my combo player. Sounds like your player is defective.

There's nothing wrong with my player. Everything else PLAYS JUST FINE.
It's the format, not the player.


Nope, it's not the player. It's just another example as to why
manufacturers don't have their **** together in the multitude of the
format
wars.

You have a faulty CD or player, yet you make the above statement.
What a leap!

Absolutely. I bought the top of the line 10 CD changer and when I asked
the
dealer about it, he said some players have a problem reading hybrids.
That's just the way it is.


Doesn't that make Ric's argument correct though? It's the player.
Personally, price is not the way to gauge the quality of a CD player. You
have to test them out. There are some DVD players under $170 and that
outperform some high end CD players.

-JC

JC Martin wrote:


Doesn't that make Ric's argument correct though? It's the player.
Personally, price is not the way to gauge the quality of a CD player.
You have to test them out. There are some DVD players under $170 and
that outperform some high end CD players.

There are some DVD players under $40 that outperform some high end CD
players.

"JC Martin" wrote in message
...

Doesn't that make Ric's argument correct though? It's the player.
Personally, price is not the way to gauge the quality of a CD player. You
have to test them out. There are some DVD players under $170 and that
outperform some high end CD players.

Why should I replace a perfectly fine player that suits my needs? There's
no reason for that.

NONE.

I can live without SACD. Hybrids or otherwise.



-JC

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
JC Martin wrote:


Doesn't that make Ric's argument correct though? It's the player.
Personally, price is not the way to gauge the quality of a CD player.
You have to test them out. There are some DVD players under $170 and
that outperform some high end CD players.

There are some DVD players under $40 that outperform some high end CD
players.


Actually there are some DVD players under $40 that outperform some high end
DVD players.

ric wrote in message ...
-GT- wrote:


I sucked Pioneer's teat, once. I won't do it again....

You're kinky as well as ignorant. Just as well, I guess.


You should check out his posts to rec.arts.movies.erotica

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...8%40yahoo.com+

"sum1" wrote in message
om...


You should check out his posts to rec.arts.movies.erotica


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...8%40yahoo.com+

It's a good newsgroup. You all should check it out sometime.

That is....except for you, dumcum1....

The smell of a scat queen like you would drive them all away....

(laughing)

-GT- wrote:

I'd rather have a Kenwood changer that'll play every other widespread
format, than an SACD format CD player that hasn't proven itself to have
any staying power in the marketplace, I'll tell ya that.

Careful, your ignorance is showing again. SACD players play regular
CDs just fine, usually better than normal cheap CD players. And they
are made by manufacturers with equal or better reputations than Kenwood.

What ignorance, ric? I have a point of view that's different from yours,
you don't like it. Fine. But don't patronize me, ok?

Well then, maybe you should explain what you meant by "...than an SACD
format CD player that hasn't proven itself to have any staying power in
the marketplace..." Are you saying that just because a player is SACD
compatible that it somehow has no "staying power" in the marketplace?
That it will somehow stop playing CDs *just* because it is SACD compatible?

So what? You have no friends (figures) or neighbors with CD players?

Nope, didn't bother with them since they were the only discs that I had a
problem with. And because there are so few SACD hybrids out there, I'm not
gonna worry about it, anyway.

The vast majority of new SACDs are hybrid. I think you'll see more and
more releases come out on hybrid SACD, but not on standard CD. Stretch
Records has already done that with some of their releases. If it were
me, I'd wanna no if it was my player, a bad disc, or what.

"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT- wrote:

I'd rather have a Kenwood changer that'll play every other
widespread
format, than an SACD format CD player that hasn't proven itself to
have
any staying power in the marketplace, I'll tell ya that.

Careful, your ignorance is showing again. SACD players play regular
CDs just fine, usually better than normal cheap CD players. And they
are made by manufacturers with equal or better reputations than
Kenwood.

What ignorance, ric? I have a point of view that's different from
yours,
you don't like it. Fine. But don't patronize me, ok?

Well then, maybe you should explain what you meant by "...than an SACD
format CD player that hasn't proven itself to have any staying power in
the marketplace..." Are you saying that just because a player is SACD
compatible that it somehow has no "staying power" in the marketplace?
That it will somehow stop playing CDs *just* because it is SACD
compatible?

Did you read my other post, ric? There one where I mentioned I did a search
on Amazon.com for SACD/DVD-A hybrid players? Why they only carried one
affordable model?

The reason I picked Amazon.com was because you mentioned it twice the other
day, so I went ahead and used that as an example from where to shop from.


So what? You have no friends (figures) or neighbors with CD players?

"You have no friends (figures)"? Patronizing me again, ric?

Hmmm....


Nope, didn't bother with them since they were the only discs that I had
a
problem with. And because there are so few SACD hybrids out there, I'm
not
gonna worry about it, anyway.

The vast majority of new SACDs are hybrid. I think you'll see more and
more releases come out on hybrid SACD, but not on standard CD. Stretch

Why? If the average consumer sees no reason for having it, then why include
the extra cost?


Records has already done that with some of their releases. If it were
me, I'd wanna no if it was my player, a bad disc, or what.

When I see an explosion of SACD hybrid CDs out there, then I'll be the first
to admit to you that I was wrong. But I don't see it happening. Not yet,
anyway....

Maybe never....

-GT- wrote:

No, SACD was jointly created by Phillips and Sony. Are you familiar
with the licensing agreement between Phillips/Sony and other
manufacturers?
Please elaborate if you do.

Yes I am little bit familiar with that, ric.

Then elaborate for us. (That means tell us more details about it.)

But everytime you buy a
machine, you paying a built in cost for that licence. It's built into the
price of the machine, so by default, you are shilling for their technology.

I'll ask again: Are you familiar with this licensing agreement? If so, tell
us about it. How much of the cost of each SACD goes to Phillips/Sony? How
much of each player goes to Phillips/Sony. Are you sure about this, or are
you just speculating? (That means guessing.)

What about Matsu****a and Time/Warner? How come they didn't pay a licensing
fee to Sony?

How much (if any) did the other manufacturers pay? Do you know?

So what. I could probably go down to Best Buy and find at least two or
three SACD players out of the 75 or so different models that they carry.

I would bet that 2-3 out of 75 (2.7-4 %) is a very low estimate.

Well let's see, ric. I went over to Amazon.com last night and found five
SACD/DVD-A hybrids

Oh, so you changed your above "two or three SACD players" to SACD/DVD-A
"hybrids" ?? [their called universal players, BTW.)

So my point is this, ric. If this audiophile technology is so cheap, how
come not everybody's biting?

You must learn the difference between a player that will play SACDs and
a player that will play both SACDs and DVD-A. Your "2-3 out of 75" comment
referred to the former, yet your discovery at Amazon was of the latter.
There are many more CD/SACD or DVD-V/SACD players than there are universal
(CD/SACD/DVD-V/DVD-A, etc.) players. And yes, those players that play both
DVD-A and SACD will also play CD, VCD, MP3, DVD-V, DVD-R/RW, etc.)

[And my reference to Amazon was for the SACDs themselves, not the players.
I didn't even know Amazon sold the hardware, too.]

And if I'm not mistaken, hasn't Warner also lowered the price on their
DVD-As? Another price war in order to further alienate customers? And may
the better format win?

Dunno. Why don't you elaborate on this price drop by Warner? As for
format wars, the amount of *hardware* in the consumers hands will
dictate the winner (if there is to be a "winner"), not the software.

Price wars "alienate" customers? Yeah, I get real testy when a gasoline
price war breaks out. THOSE *******S!

for your first question, there really aren't stand alone SACD players
either. There are DVD-V/SACD compatible players, there are cheap ($150)
CD/SACD players, and there are expensive ($1000+) CD/SACD players. I
would say that the performance of any of these would differ greatly.
But since you think that there is very little difference between normal
CDs and SACD or DVD-A, they would all sound the same to you.

Technically, you're right again, ric. There are SACD/DVD hybrid players out
there as well.

I wish you would stop using the word "hybrid" in respect to SACD players.
The word is "universal" player, and it is used only for SACD/DVD-A players.

As far as your SACD/DVD players, most SACD players *are* DVD players, just
not DVD-A players.

The performance amoung these would differer greatly? Well
now were getting into audiophile territory again. Spend beaucoup bucks in
order to get the 'perfect' sound,

I'm confused. You complain that "you heard" that the universal players
are somehow deficient "aurally" compared to stand alones, but you say
spending "beau coup" bucks to get sound that isn't deficient is somehow
an elitist thing {"getting into audiophile territory".) How can you
complain about deficient aural quality, yet pooh-pooh steps to eliminate
it?

which I don't believe the original poster
to this whole thread was asking. Instead you wanted to lead him into SACD
territory and to a format that has no proven staying power.

I did nothing of the sort. You keep saying that, but - again - my comment
was: "If your system doesn't support SACD or DVD-A, you are missing out on
great sound. As far as a great sounding regular CD, try a CD demo disk or
a XRCD..." So I gave him advive to try a CD demo disc or a XRCD if his
*NEWLY UPGRADED* stereo system didn't support SACD or DVD-A.

And as far as staying power, I'll remind you again (as you fail to grasp
it easily): SACD players will play CDs; hybrid SACDs will play in regular
CD players. So *how* does that format lack staying power any more than
regular CDs?

Please answer *that* question.

But you continue to ignore the fact that hybrid SACDs play fine on normal
CD players, and that SACD players also play normal CDs. That is where your
comparison to the above falters. Your argument, as usual, is all wet. And
with SACD prices near or equal to that of standard CDs, there is no down
side.

Yes there is because once again, you refuse to look at the big picture.
Will it be around in 5 years? I said it before and I'll say it again
because it hasn't sunk in with you. That's the bottom line.

Will *what* be around in 5 years? Let's say you went out tomorrow and
bought a SACD compatible player and 10 hybrid SACDs. The day after
tomorrow the SACD format failed to exist. You would simply:

*Play your existing SACDs in either your SACD player (as SACDs) or
in your CD player (as CDs.)
*Play your older CDs in either your SACD player or your CD player.

So, where is your devastating bottom line? If you bought a DVD-V/
SACD player, you would do the above, plus continue to use the player
for DVDs as well.

How many times must this be explained to you?

And I hope our little debate
here makes *a few* others out there think twice before they know what
they're getting themselves into.

Which is basically a no lose scenario.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

Arny Krueger wrote:

There are some DVD players under $40 that outperform some high end CD
players.

Please list the "under $40" DVD players and the "high end" CD players
that they outperform.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

What's with all the bull**** questions, ric?

Trying to wear me down because I attacked something so dear and precious to
you?


"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT- wrote:

No, SACD was jointly created by Phillips and Sony. Are you familiar
with the licensing agreement between Phillips/Sony and other
manufacturers?
Please elaborate if you do.

Yes I am little bit familiar with that, ric.

Then elaborate for us. (That means tell us more details about it.)

But everytime you buy a
machine, you paying a built in cost for that licence. It's built into
the
price of the machine, so by default, you are shilling for their
technology.

I'll ask again: Are you familiar with this licensing agreement? If so,
tell
us about it. How much of the cost of each SACD goes to Phillips/Sony? How
much of each player goes to Phillips/Sony. Are you sure about this, or are
you just speculating? (That means guessing.)

What about Matsu****a and Time/Warner? How come they didn't pay a
licensing
fee to Sony?

How much (if any) did the other manufacturers pay? Do you know?

So what. I could probably go down to Best Buy and find at least two
or
three SACD players out of the 75 or so different models that they
carry.

I would bet that 2-3 out of 75 (2.7-4 %) is a very low estimate.

Well let's see, ric. I went over to Amazon.com last night and found
five
SACD/DVD-A hybrids

Oh, so you changed your above "two or three SACD players" to SACD/DVD-A
"hybrids" ?? [their called universal players, BTW.)

So my point is this, ric. If this audiophile technology is so cheap,
how
come not everybody's biting?

You must learn the difference between a player that will play SACDs and
a player that will play both SACDs and DVD-A. Your "2-3 out of 75" comment
referred to the former, yet your discovery at Amazon was of the latter.
There are many more CD/SACD or DVD-V/SACD players than there are universal
(CD/SACD/DVD-V/DVD-A, etc.) players. And yes, those players that play both
DVD-A and SACD will also play CD, VCD, MP3, DVD-V, DVD-R/RW, etc.)

[And my reference to Amazon was for the SACDs themselves, not the players.
I didn't even know Amazon sold the hardware, too.]

And if I'm not mistaken, hasn't Warner also lowered the price on their
DVD-As? Another price war in order to further alienate customers? And
may
the better format win?

Dunno. Why don't you elaborate on this price drop by Warner? As for
format wars, the amount of *hardware* in the consumers hands will
dictate the winner (if there is to be a "winner"), not the software.

Price wars "alienate" customers? Yeah, I get real testy when a gasoline
price war breaks out. THOSE *******S!

for your first question, there really aren't stand alone SACD players
either. There are DVD-V/SACD compatible players, there are cheap
($150)
CD/SACD players, and there are expensive ($1000+) CD/SACD players. I
would say that the performance of any of these would differ greatly.
But since you think that there is very little difference between
normal
CDs and SACD or DVD-A, they would all sound the same to you.

Technically, you're right again, ric. There are SACD/DVD hybrid players
out
there as well.

I wish you would stop using the word "hybrid" in respect to SACD players.
The word is "universal" player, and it is used only for SACD/DVD-A
players.

As far as your SACD/DVD players, most SACD players *are* DVD players, just
not DVD-A players.

The performance amoung these would differer greatly? Well
now were getting into audiophile territory again. Spend beaucoup bucks
in
order to get the 'perfect' sound,

I'm confused. You complain that "you heard" that the universal players
are somehow deficient "aurally" compared to stand alones, but you say
spending "beau coup" bucks to get sound that isn't deficient is somehow
an elitist thing {"getting into audiophile territory".) How can you
complain about deficient aural quality, yet pooh-pooh steps to eliminate
it?

which I don't believe the original poster
to this whole thread was asking. Instead you wanted to lead him into
SACD
territory and to a format that has no proven staying power.

I did nothing of the sort. You keep saying that, but - again - my comment
was: "If your system doesn't support SACD or DVD-A, you are missing out on
great sound. As far as a great sounding regular CD, try a CD demo disk or
a XRCD..." So I gave him advive to try a CD demo disc or a XRCD if his
*NEWLY UPGRADED* stereo system didn't support SACD or DVD-A.

And as far as staying power, I'll remind you again (as you fail to grasp
it easily): SACD players will play CDs; hybrid SACDs will play in regular
CD players. So *how* does that format lack staying power any more than
regular CDs?

Please answer *that* question.

But you continue to ignore the fact that hybrid SACDs play fine on
normal
CD players, and that SACD players also play normal CDs. That is where
your
comparison to the above falters. Your argument, as usual, is all wet.
And
with SACD prices near or equal to that of standard CDs, there is no
down
side.

Yes there is because once again, you refuse to look at the big picture.
Will it be around in 5 years? I said it before and I'll say it again
because it hasn't sunk in with you. That's the bottom line.

Will *what* be around in 5 years? Let's say you went out tomorrow and
bought a SACD compatible player and 10 hybrid SACDs. The day after
tomorrow the SACD format failed to exist. You would simply:

*Play your existing SACDs in either your SACD player (as SACDs) or
in your CD player (as CDs.)
*Play your older CDs in either your SACD player or your CD player.

So, where is your devastating bottom line? If you bought a DVD-V/
SACD player, you would do the above, plus continue to use the player
for DVDs as well.

How many times must this be explained to you?

And I hope our little debate
here makes *a few* others out there think twice before they know what
they're getting themselves into.

Which is basically a no lose scenario.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

I'm starting to get bored with you ric.

Have you talked me into buying a SACD player yet?

(laughing)


"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT- wrote:

No, SACD was jointly created by Phillips and Sony. Are you familiar
with the licensing agreement between Phillips/Sony and other
manufacturers?
Please elaborate if you do.

Yes I am little bit familiar with that, ric.

Then elaborate for us. (That means tell us more details about it.)

But everytime you buy a
machine, you paying a built in cost for that licence. It's built into
the
price of the machine, so by default, you are shilling for their
technology.

I'll ask again: Are you familiar with this licensing agreement? If so,
tell
us about it. How much of the cost of each SACD goes to Phillips/Sony? How
much of each player goes to Phillips/Sony. Are you sure about this, or are
you just speculating? (That means guessing.)

What about Matsu****a and Time/Warner? How come they didn't pay a
licensing
fee to Sony?

How much (if any) did the other manufacturers pay? Do you know?

So what. I could probably go down to Best Buy and find at least two
or
three SACD players out of the 75 or so different models that they
carry.

I would bet that 2-3 out of 75 (2.7-4 %) is a very low estimate.

Well let's see, ric. I went over to Amazon.com last night and found
five
SACD/DVD-A hybrids

Oh, so you changed your above "two or three SACD players" to SACD/DVD-A
"hybrids" ?? [their called universal players, BTW.)

So my point is this, ric. If this audiophile technology is so cheap,
how
come not everybody's biting?

You must learn the difference between a player that will play SACDs and
a player that will play both SACDs and DVD-A. Your "2-3 out of 75" comment
referred to the former, yet your discovery at Amazon was of the latter.
There are many more CD/SACD or DVD-V/SACD players than there are universal
(CD/SACD/DVD-V/DVD-A, etc.) players. And yes, those players that play both
DVD-A and SACD will also play CD, VCD, MP3, DVD-V, DVD-R/RW, etc.)

[And my reference to Amazon was for the SACDs themselves, not the players.
I didn't even know Amazon sold the hardware, too.]

And if I'm not mistaken, hasn't Warner also lowered the price on their
DVD-As? Another price war in order to further alienate customers? And
may
the better format win?

Dunno. Why don't you elaborate on this price drop by Warner? As for
format wars, the amount of *hardware* in the consumers hands will
dictate the winner (if there is to be a "winner"), not the software.

Price wars "alienate" customers? Yeah, I get real testy when a gasoline
price war breaks out. THOSE *******S!

for your first question, there really aren't stand alone SACD players
either. There are DVD-V/SACD compatible players, there are cheap
($150)
CD/SACD players, and there are expensive ($1000+) CD/SACD players. I
would say that the performance of any of these would differ greatly.
But since you think that there is very little difference between
normal
CDs and SACD or DVD-A, they would all sound the same to you.

Technically, you're right again, ric. There are SACD/DVD hybrid players
out
there as well.

I wish you would stop using the word "hybrid" in respect to SACD players.
The word is "universal" player, and it is used only for SACD/DVD-A
players.

As far as your SACD/DVD players, most SACD players *are* DVD players, just
not DVD-A players.

The performance amoung these would differer greatly? Well
now were getting into audiophile territory again. Spend beaucoup bucks
in
order to get the 'perfect' sound,

I'm confused. You complain that "you heard" that the universal players
are somehow deficient "aurally" compared to stand alones, but you say
spending "beau coup" bucks to get sound that isn't deficient is somehow
an elitist thing {"getting into audiophile territory".) How can you
complain about deficient aural quality, yet pooh-pooh steps to eliminate
it?

which I don't believe the original poster
to this whole thread was asking. Instead you wanted to lead him into
SACD
territory and to a format that has no proven staying power.

I did nothing of the sort. You keep saying that, but - again - my comment
was: "If your system doesn't support SACD or DVD-A, you are missing out on
great sound. As far as a great sounding regular CD, try a CD demo disk or
a XRCD..." So I gave him advive to try a CD demo disc or a XRCD if his
*NEWLY UPGRADED* stereo system didn't support SACD or DVD-A.

And as far as staying power, I'll remind you again (as you fail to grasp
it easily): SACD players will play CDs; hybrid SACDs will play in regular
CD players. So *how* does that format lack staying power any more than
regular CDs?

Please answer *that* question.

But you continue to ignore the fact that hybrid SACDs play fine on
normal
CD players, and that SACD players also play normal CDs. That is where
your
comparison to the above falters. Your argument, as usual, is all wet.
And
with SACD prices near or equal to that of standard CDs, there is no
down
side.

Yes there is because once again, you refuse to look at the big picture.
Will it be around in 5 years? I said it before and I'll say it again
because it hasn't sunk in with you. That's the bottom line.

Will *what* be around in 5 years? Let's say you went out tomorrow and
bought a SACD compatible player and 10 hybrid SACDs. The day after
tomorrow the SACD format failed to exist. You would simply:

*Play your existing SACDs in either your SACD player (as SACDs) or
in your CD player (as CDs.)
*Play your older CDs in either your SACD player or your CD player.

So, where is your devastating bottom line? If you bought a DVD-V/
SACD player, you would do the above, plus continue to use the player
for DVDs as well.

How many times must this be explained to you?

And I hope our little debate
here makes *a few* others out there think twice before they know what
they're getting themselves into.

Which is basically a no lose scenario.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

Oh lookie ric! Lookie!



You wanted some statistics so how 'bout these....



What's going on, ric? What's going on? I thought you said you were
'right'?



(laughing)



-----



DVD-Audio Sales Five Times that of SACD Says RIAA Survey

HighFidelityReview.com - 04/22/04



DVD-Audio sales doubled in 2003 and are more than five times that of SACD,
according to an RIAA survey - that is the news from the DVD-Audio council
circulated today:



In a world where a drop in music sales is the expected norm, DVD-Audio, the
leading high-resolution audio format, bucked the trend, more than doubling
its sales in 2003, according to the RIAA's 2003 consumer survey released
recently.



DVD-Audio offers surround sound and stereo along with images, lyrics, videos
and other extras, and is compatible with existing DVD-Video players,
delivering the highest level of quality on DVD-Audio/Video players.



The RIAA survey concludes that DVD-Audio sales in 2003 were over five times
the level of competing high-resolution audio disc formats, with a 2.7%
market share - up from 1.3% in 2002 - in comparison to SACD's 0.5%.



John Trickett President of the DVD Audio Council said "The growth in
DVD-Audio demonstrates that the format is being rapidly adopted and poised
to move into mainstream music sales. This is clearly a product that the
consumer wants to buy. The increasing number of titles being released by
many labels including releases by superstar artists such as Britney Spears,
R. Kelly, Sting, The Who and Neil Young will further help the development of
music in DVD Audio. We are very excited about the future."



The RIAA survey also showed continued growth in sales to older consumers,
with 26.6% made by buyers 45 years old and up, 35+ purchasers making up
47.8% of all sales. "They are one of the two primary markets for DVD-Audio,"
said Trickett. "DVD-Audio is also becoming popular among younger consumers
for the added-value music videos, artist commentaries and web links that are
often found on the discs - a market segment where conventional music sales
are falling."



For the RIAA survey, Peter Hart research questioned over 2,900 consumers in
the USA. Over 730 DVD-Audio titles are currently available.
http://www.riaa.com

ric wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

There are some DVD players under $40 that outperform some high end CD
players.

Please list the "under $40" DVD players and the "high end" CD players
that they outperform.

Here's an example of a reveiw and measurements of a mediocre-performing high
end CD player:

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...eb/index4.html

I am visually reading the following data from the Streophile test report as
it does not reduce many of its charts to numbers:

Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB: +0.3, -0.2
Noise level, dB (A): -80
Dynamic range, dB (A): 80.0
THD, %: 0.08
IMD, %: 0.08
Stereo crosstalk, dB: N/A

I have in my possession an Apex AD1201 DVD player that I purchased for
$39.95 from a local appliance store and measured using a WinXP PC with a
LynxTWO audio interface and freeware analytical software called RMAA.

According to the next set of measurements, the AD1201 not only vastly
outperforms the AH! Njoe Tjoeb 4000 CD player, it in fact has performance
that is basically limited by the CD audio medium.

Here is the actual measured performance of the Apex AD1201 I tested:

Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB: +0.07, -0.05
Noise level, dB (A): -95.2
Dynamic range, dB (A): 95.0
THD, %: 0.0012
IMD, %: 0.002
Stereo crosstalk, dB:-92.9

That's what you get from an appliance store $39.95 DVD player these days!
Several years ago I tested a $130 appliance store DVD player and its
performance wasn't all that different.

You can compare the nonlinear distortion of the AD1201 to just about any
high end CD player that Stereophile has posted tests for, and you will find
that it beats or closely matches them. For example, it highest harmonic
distortion level is more than 102 dB below peak levels. The following high
end players tested on the Stereophile site can't meet this spec:

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...er/index5.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...ry/index4.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...ll/index5.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...ny/index4.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...24/index4.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...40/index4.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...38/index6.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...00/index5.html

IOW of all the high end player technical test results I could find at the
Stereophile site, there were only 5 players that I thought were fully
comparable, in terms of technical performance, with the $39.95 Apex DVD
player I tested. I think the cheapest of them was like $3995. This is 100
times more $$$$, for comparable technical performance.




You can find my test equipment residuals, which are those of the same
LynxTWO sound card, by examining the 24/96 report posted at
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm . You can find a second
source that confirms my measurements at
http://audio.egregious.net/lynx_righ...4_96/24_96.htm .

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/...dvda_sacd.html

Gee, ric. What's going on?

Want me to post the article or do you think you can click on the link all by
yourself?

(laughing)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 06:55:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

ric wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

There are some DVD players under $40 that outperform some high end CD
players.

Please list the "under $40" DVD players and the "high end" CD players
that they outperform.

Here's an example of a reveiw and measurements of a mediocre-performing high
end CD player:

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...eb/index4.html

I am visually reading the following data from the Streophile test report as
it does not reduce many of its charts to numbers:

Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB: +0.3, -0.2
Noise level, dB (A): -80
Dynamic range, dB (A): 80.0
THD, %: 0.08
IMD, %: 0.08
Stereo crosstalk, dB: N/A

I have in my possession an Apex AD1201 DVD player that I purchased for
$39.95 from a local appliance store and measured using a WinXP PC with a
LynxTWO audio interface and freeware analytical software called RMAA.

According to the next set of measurements, the AD1201 not only vastly
outperforms the AH! Njoe Tjoeb 4000 CD player, it in fact has performance
that is basically limited by the CD audio medium.

Here is the actual measured performance of the Apex AD1201 I tested:

Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB: +0.07, -0.05
Noise level, dB (A): -95.2
Dynamic range, dB (A): 95.0
THD, %: 0.0012
IMD, %: 0.002
Stereo crosstalk, dB:-92.9

That's what you get from an appliance store $39.95 DVD player these days!
Several years ago I tested a $130 appliance store DVD player and its
performance wasn't all that different.

You can compare the nonlinear distortion of the AD1201 to just about any
high end CD player that Stereophile has posted tests for, and you will find
that it beats or closely matches them. For example, it highest harmonic
distortion level is more than 102 dB below peak levels. The following high
end players tested on the Stereophile site can't meet this spec:

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...er/index5.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...ry/index4.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...ll/index5.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...ny/index4.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...24/index4.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...40/index4.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...38/index6.html

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...00/index5.html

IOW of all the high end player technical test results I could find at the
Stereophile site, there were only 5 players that I thought were fully
comparable, in terms of technical performance, with the $39.95 Apex DVD
player I tested. I think the cheapest of them was like $3995. This is 100
times more $$$$, for comparable technical performance.




You can find my test equipment residuals, which are those of the same
LynxTWO sound card, by examining the 24/96 report posted at
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/index.htm . You can find a second
source that confirms my measurements at
http://audio.egregious.net/lynx_righ...4_96/24_96.htm .

Are you making a big deal about the levels of non-linear distortion or
something? Since you've said this:

"Depends how much nonlinear distortion you measure. I don't know of
any way that there is an audible difference between 0.00001%
nonlinear distortion and 0.0001%. OTOH most people can hear the
difference between 10% and 1%. Under ideal conditions 0.1% can be
audible"

what does this say about the difference between .0012 and .08 and .002
and .08? I'm guessing that if you substituted .002 for a tube amp and
..08 for a SS amp and someone was claiming that the tube amp was better
because of those specs, you'd be all over them like a cheap suit.

Of course, you've also said this, when it comes to the audibility of
CD players:

"At some point the audibility of frequency response variations becomes
highly controversial, and that point is some place around 20 KHz".

And this:

"(2) Just because you calculate an frequency response curve, you
haven't yet proven audibility or lack of it. There are general rules
for doing this analysis and I'm pretty good at implementing them, but
the most convincing means to establish audibility is a listening test
with a positive outcome".

Sooooo, would you please post the results of the listening tests
you've done comparing the AH! Njoe Tjoeb 4000 with the Apex? I think
that this is important, since you've written in reponse to this
statement (your statement in quotations):

I don't take the extreme position that if it's a graph, it's evil.
I just place listening first.

"In the end we determine enjoyment and sonic quality by listening. So
that is always the most important and "final" test".

What is it about Sunday that makes you want to go after people, places
and things? It's almost like it's a trigger for your attack mode. Are
you trying to build up confession points? Oh wait, you aren't
Catholic, are you?

-GT- wrote:

Well then, maybe you should explain what you meant by "...than an SACD
format CD player that hasn't proven itself to have any staying power in
the marketplace..." Are you saying that just because a player is SACD
compatible that it somehow has no "staying power" in the marketplace?
That it will somehow stop playing CDs *just* because it is SACD
compatible?

Did you read my other post, ric? There one where I mentioned I did a search
on Amazon.com for SACD/DVD-A hybrid players? Why they only carried one
affordable model?

And that has *what* to do with your above statement that SACD format
players (not DVD-A/SACD universal players [please stop calling them
"hybrid" players]) don't have any staying power in the marketplace?
Stop grouping SACD players and DVD-A/SACD universal players together
as the same thing. They are quite different; in numbers and function.

The vast majority of new SACDs are hybrid. I think you'll see more and
more releases come out on hybrid SACD, but not on standard CD. Stretch

Why? If the average consumer sees no reason for having it, then why include
the extra cost?

As has been pointed out to you (ad nausium), the price differential
between CD and SACD is shrinking fast. It will be nil, soon. Why
suffer the expense of manufacturing and marketing two products, when
one product will serve both markets?

When I see an explosion of SACD hybrid CDs out there, then I'll be the first
to admit to you that I was wrong. But I don't see it happening. Not yet,
anyway....

Look more closely. Almost all the current SACD releases (except for Sony
and a couple of other labels) are hybrid SACDs. Single layer (non hybrid)
SACDs are in the vast minority.

-GT- wrote:

What's with all the bull**** questions, ric?

Trying to wear me down because I attacked something so dear and precious to
you?

No, just calling your bluff when you make statements that have no
basis in fact. If your argument had any validity, you'd answer the
questions, not tap dance around them.

Enjoy your Kenwood (that won't play hybrid SACDs.)

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...