I think we're attempting to achieve excellence by meters here...

Not regarding the "sound" as the final arbitor.

From years ago there was a "Crown" amplifier that was the
epitomy of technical excellence..all measured great..but,
the sound was, let us say, "HARSH"...a classic case of
getting the "cart before the horse"..or rather, the numerics
ahead of the sound........sad commentary.

Leonard...
__________________________________________________ __



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:

Snipped due to being irrelevant...snipity snip...


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:

....but how do they sound?..huhhh..do they not vary widely in
coloration? Each individual will have a preference...do accept these
variable preferences. The numbers don't reflect much of anything.

Is this about "mean ole" Stereophile?.hinting the tube based unit
sounds a bit more mellow, therefore not ruler line straight on the
stats...how long have we been attributing value to this nonsense?
You should know better at your age. Get over it..some prefer the
arrogant distortion of the tube domain..that is just the way it is.
Many ears are not linear...even the left side from your right..
gads...do study a bit more. Drat! these variables! And the worse
thing of it all...some cannot extend the beauty of the numbers
into perfect reproduction. Hated variables! Some humans with
this lack of ability...oh the frustration of it all! Maybe our
ear-brain constructs might not be the same? Hmmmm.


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.

The
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.

...still the numbers rule..short sighted...not realistic..and
"mean ole" Stereophile again...misleading us all..but, of
course some have numerical insight..which overrules common
sense most of the time.



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

Mercy...who would want to know the residual noise situation on any
decent soundcard? The RF floating around in a PC environment is a
variable..with it is noise variables...emitted by other components
within the system. And who could detect the variables you espouse
so many words about. Simply not relevant to what an individual might
decide in his own little audio environment...illogic prevails
here. One can get hung up in a numbers world..gads!

Leonard...

P.S. We get the message..nasty Stereophile. Beauty in numbers
indicate how everything sounds. Yeah right!! Sorry it all
all just does not work out this way. The audio world is just
not that tidy and neat..the variable man, variables. They
puncture the Objectivist balloons all the time..maybe they
will go away! Should we now get into the highly techincal
"bias". A great Engineering subject!

But ya see ric, I saw where your last response was leading. You were more
concerned with attacking me personally than you were with defending SACD.

I started to attempt to answer your questions but as I got further down the
page, I saw where you were heading with all this, so I didn't even bother
finishing it. Your questions were getting more and more silly as I went
along.

However, I hope I did plant a seed of doubt the future of SACD and the
multitude of propritary formats that are being developed out there. I hope
there's a consumer backlash against it, and at the very least, accept one
format to eventually replace the CD format, the way DVD is now replacing VHS
and is now become the standard in video field.



"ric" wrote in message ...
-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...

Head-shaking..... (tsk...tsk...tsk...)

I suppose we could go on for another 30 or 40 posts on this, but why
bother.....

(yawn....)


"ric" wrote in message ...
-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.

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

[...snip]

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.

So you compared two players that were tested using vastly different
equipment, calibrated to different standards (if your setup was even
calibrated), and different test conditions. How scientific!

In addition, the Apex model has been discontinued, had quality issues
(based on what was reported to various online sites), and sold for
$50-$60 online.

I didn't check the accuracy of your measurement transpositions, but the
reviewer was more impressed than your posted numbers indicate. He wrote:
"The AH! Njoe Tjoeb 4000's measured performance is generally good, with
some areas of excellence. Only its unflat response and the presence of
supply-related spuriae caused my eyebrows to rise." —John Atkinson

Add to that, an actual *listening* test at:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/tjoeb4000_e.html

It concludes in part, "For the money, you will be really hard pressed
to find much (if anything) that makes better music."

So, maybe you transposed your numbers poorly, or maybe you didn't. But
the listening test of the AH! Njoe Tjoeb 4000 speaks quite well of the
player.

Next.....

Of course now I see ric is strangely silent about these latest developments
below....

Oh well....


"-GT-" wrote in message ...

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)

ric wrote:
So you compared two players that were tested using vastly different
equipment,

That's not a problem.

calibrated to different standards

That's not true.

(if your setup was even calibrated),

All your insults show ric, is that this isnt' about any kind of search for
truth on your part.

You asked a reasonable question, I tried to provide a reasonable answen, and
now all you've got is false claims and insults.

End of discussion.

-GT- wrote:
Of course now I see ric is strangely silent about these latest
developments below....

Oh well....


"-GT-" wrote in message
...

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

Gee, ric. What's going on?

What's going on is that after more than enough years for DVD-A and SACD to
make an impression on the marketplace:

SACD market share is 1.3 / 756 or 0.17%

DVD-A market share is 0.4 / 756 0.065%

What is not clear is how many of these discs are being played on players
that support only the legacy compatibility modes.

There are said to currently be about 2000 SACD titles.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=16666776

The average SACD title therefore sold about 650 copies, per RIAA statistics.

There are said to currently be about 730 DVD-A titles.

http://miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?fo...temaid=1935829

The average DVD-A title therefore sold about 548 copies, per RIAA
statistics.

"sum1" wrote in message
om...
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


Old Italian erotica films are the bomb. Lighten up summy.

-JC

dave weil wrote:

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?

That's a good question, Weil. You need to answer it yourself.

I didn't "go after" anybody or anything at all, I just answered a technical
question that was asked of me, and pointed out some documented facts about
the performance of various pieces of audio gear.

OTOH, you have obviously gone after me.

So Weil, why are you going after for me?

lcw999 wrote:
I think we're attempting to achieve excellence by meters here...

Not regarding the "sound" as the final arbitor.

From years ago there was a "Crown" amplifier that was the
epitomy of technical excellence..all measured great..but,
the sound was, let us say, "HARSH"...a classic case of
getting the "cart before the horse"..or rather, the numerics
ahead of the sound........sad commentary.

Given the abject vagueness of your claims, they obviously have zero
substance, and should be and are immediately dismissed.

That's still very puny percantages, overall.

Especially compared to DVD which grew by leaps and bounds, the first couple
of years it was on the market, and has grown to the point where it now makes
sense to invest in a DVD player.



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
-GT- wrote:
Of course now I see ric is strangely silent about these latest
developments below....

Oh well....


"-GT-" wrote in message
...

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

Gee, ric. What's going on?

What's going on is that after more than enough years for DVD-A and SACD to
make an impression on the marketplace:

SACD market share is 1.3 / 756 or 0.17%

DVD-A market share is 0.4 / 756 0.065%

What is not clear is how many of these discs are being played on players
that support only the legacy compatibility modes.

There are said to currently be about 2000 SACD titles.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=16666776

The average SACD title therefore sold about 650 copies, per RIAA
statistics.

There are said to currently be about 730 DVD-A titles.

http://miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?fo...temaid=1935829

The average DVD-A title therefore sold about 548 copies, per RIAA
statistics.

-GT- wrote:

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

Gee, ric. What's going on?

You tell me. This seems to contradict what your other post claims:

"SACD sales were tracked for the first time in 2003, showing 1.3 million
discs sold during the year. 2003 marked the year where high-profile
“hybrid” SACD titles (which play on CD players and were marketed in the
CD bins of many record stores) from Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones and
Bob Dylan. The backwards compatibility of SACD, more aggressive marketing
and PR, coupled with big name albums being released in 2003, helped SACD
outsell DVD-Audio by 3.25 times in 2003, according to RIAA year-end sales
numbers."

So...who are you gonna believe? Year end sales numbers (which say SACD
outsold DVD-A by 3.25 times), or a survey of just 2900 music buyers
(which say DVD had a 2.7 to 0.5 advantage in market share.)

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

-GT- wrote:

Of course now I see ric is strangely silent about these latest developments
below....

Oh well....

"-GT-" wrote in message ...

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

Gee, ric. What's going on?

No, just took a break for some McLaughlin. I think you'll enjoy my
response to your latest nonsense.

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

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:14:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

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?

That's a good question, Weil. You need to answer it yourself.

Which question?

I didn't "go after" anybody or anything at all,

Sure you did.

I just answered a technical question that was asked of me, and pointed out some documented facts about
the performance of various pieces of audio gear.

Now, how about the audible differences? Oh wait, that doesn't matter
to you when it suits you...

OTOH, you have obviously gone after me.

Obviously.

So Weil, why are you going after for me?

Because you're full of ****, maybe? Because you use statistics for
evil purposes, maybe?

By the way, I heard really good live music tonight. It was very much
unlike the live music you heard today. No horrible echo.

-GT- wrote:

But ya see ric, I saw where your last response was leading. You were more
concerned with attacking me personally than you were with defending SACD.

I'm concerned with neither, lest you consider exposing your illogical
and contradictory statements as attacking you personally.

I started to attempt to answer your questions but as I got further down the
page, I saw where you were heading with all this, so I didn't even bother
finishing it. Your questions were getting more and more silly as I went
along.

Translation: You couldn't come up with an answer that made sense.

However, I hope I did plant a seed of doubt the future of SACD and the
multitude of propritary formats that are being developed out there.

Yeah, posting the URL of an article that quotes the RIAA as saying that
SACD outsold DVD-A 3.25 to 1 is surely planting a seed of doubt. And
SACD isn't a "propritary [sic]" format. It is a backwards compatible
format.

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

So you compared two players that were tested using vastly different
equipment,

That's not a problem.

calibrated to different standards

That's not true.

(if your setup was even calibrated),

All your insults show ric, is that this isnt' about any kind of search for
truth on your part.

What insults? You want insults? You're a PHONY! There. That was an insult.

You asked a reasonable question, I tried to provide a reasonable answen, and
now all you've got is false claims and insults.

You seem to have selective amnesia, Arny. What about the qoute from
the review that *you* provided? Or the actual listening test article that
I provided? Anybody can post some numbers he said he measured and say
that it proves his point. I choose to place more belief in published
articles.

End of discussion.

You were never interested in discussion. You were more interested in
stroking your own ego and extracating your foot from your mouth.
(Oops...another insult.)

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

-GT- wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

-GT- wrote:

Of course now I see ric is strangely silent about these latest
developments below....

Oh well....


"-GT-" wrote in message
...

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

Gee, ric. What's going on?

What's going on is that after more than enough years for DVD-A and
SACD to make an impression on the marketplace:

SACD market share is 1.3 / 756 or 0.17%

DVD-A market share is 0.4 / 756 0.065%

What is not clear is how many of these discs are being played on
players that support only the legacy compatibility modes.

There are said to currently be about 2000 SACD titles.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=16666776

The average SACD title therefore sold about 650 copies, per RIAA
statistics.

There are said to currently be about 730 DVD-A titles.

http://miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?fo...temaid=1935829

The average DVD-A title therefore sold about 548 copies, per RIAA
statistics.

That's still very puny percantages, overall.

No lie!

They represent ludicrously small sales for each format, and sales per title.

Especially compared to DVD which grew by leaps and bounds, the first
couple of years it was on the market, and has grown to the point
where it now makes sense to invest in a DVD player.

Exactly!

ric wrote:
-GT- wrote:

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

Gee, ric. What's going on?

You tell me. This seems to contradict what your other post claims:

"SACD sales were tracked for the first time in 2003, showing 1.3
million discs sold during the year. 2003 marked the year where
high-profile "hybrid" SACD titles (which play on CD players and were
marketed in the CD bins of many record stores) from Pink Floyd, the
Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan. The backwards compatibility of SACD,
more aggressive marketing and PR, coupled with big name albums being
released in 2003, helped SACD outsell DVD-Audio by 3.25 times in
2003, according to RIAA year-end sales numbers."

So...who are you gonna believe? Year end sales numbers (which say SACD
outsold DVD-A by 3.25 times), or a survey of just 2900 music buyers
(which say DVD had a 2.7 to 0.5 advantage in market share.)

You've missed the most important point, which is that after several years in
the marketplace, the sales for either SACD or DVD-A is ludicrously small.
In another post I showed that the average title in either format sold less
than 800 copies. There's no way that a major record company can be making
money will sales of under 1,000 copies per title. If you compare the RIAA
statistics (which are tracked independently and audited) to record company
statistics, the record company statistics appear to be wildly inflated.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=16666776

Record company statistics for sales that appear to be mostly in 2003:

"As evidence of the continuing strong sales of the SACD format, Sony cited
the Rolling Stones Remastered Series (over 2.2 Million units sold) and the
recent Sam Cooke Remastered Series (300,000 units sold) on ABKCO Records as
well as the 30th Anniversary Edition of Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the
Moon from EMI/Capitol Records which is now at 800,000 units sold."

This sums up to 3.3 million copies sold for just a small number of titles.

But the independent professional-audited (Price Waterhouse Coopers) RIAA
numbers seem to tell a different story:

"Also cited was the recently announced RIAA report by Price Waterhouse
Coopers which shows over 1.3 million Super Audio CDs shipped in the U.S.
market during 2003."

The record companies claim 3.3 million sales for a small number of titles,
while the independent, audited figures show 1.3 million sales for all titles
in a similar period of time.

What's wrong with this picture?

dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:14:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

So Weil, why are you going after for me?

Because you're full of ****, maybe? Because you use statistics for
evil purposes, maybe?

Thanks for proving my poiint, Weil.

Enjoy your little vendetta. You don't appear to have much else.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:15:33 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

lcw999 wrote:
I think we're attempting to achieve excellence by meters here...

Not regarding the "sound" as the final arbitor.

From years ago there was a "Crown" amplifier that was the
epitomy of technical excellence..all measured great..but,
the sound was, let us say, "HARSH"...a classic case of
getting the "cart before the horse"..or rather, the numerics
ahead of the sound........sad commentary.

Given the abject vagueness of your claims, they obviously have zero
substance, and should be and are immediately dismissed.
__________________________________________________ _______

Mercy...

Thank you! Understanding that you committed yourself to the
beauty of the 16/44 structure many moons ago and all newcomers
such as SACD are bogus...your claims have zero substance
and should be and are immediately dismissed. The "Flat Earth"
Society still has some chapters lurking...populated by hard line
Objectivist that have difficulty with an advancing society. Oh well!

Again..thanks for the humor disguised as factual..its been a
hoot all these many years. Do continue in your normal fashion.
Oh yes..do keep the numbers flowing..this adds so much to the
"facts"...particularly in this audio domain. We all look at the
numbers and hear "sheer beauty"...thanks for those insights.

Leonard...

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

But ya see ric, I saw where your last response was leading. You were
more
concerned with attacking me personally than you were with defending
SACD.

I'm concerned with neither, lest you consider exposing your illogical
and contradictory statements as attacking you personally.

When your questions started to get inane and petty, I saw where you were
going with it. Lie all you want to about it. That's not going to change
anything.


I started to attempt to answer your questions but as I got further down
the
page, I saw where you were heading with all this, so I didn't even
bother
finishing it. Your questions were getting more and more silly as I went
along.

Translation: You couldn't come up with an answer that made sense.

Translation: After 40 posts or so, you were beginning to bore me with your
semantics and silly details. Even going after my spelling, one of the ad
hominem attacks of last resort.


However, I hope I did plant a seed of doubt the future of SACD and the
multitude of propritary formats that are being developed out there.

Yeah, posting the URL of an article that quotes the RIAA as saying that
SACD outsold DVD-A 3.25 to 1 is surely planting a seed of doubt. And

The *other* one I cut and pasted here said quite the opposite. Two articles
that say the opposite thing. Who are we to believe? You?

That's a 'seed of doubt' as far as I'm concerned.... They can't even agree
on anything amongst themselves.


SACD isn't a "propritary [sic]" format. It is a backwards compatible
format.

It's a format for *audiophiles* that I predict, will sink just the way the
Betamax did. They can't even get the whole recording industry on board with
them to produce one standard. That's how pathetic they are.

As I said, I hope there's a consumer backlash against this nonsense.

Besides, I think in the next 10 years or so, the CD format will be no more.
We'll be downloading all our music (for a fee) and listening to it off our
hard-drives. That will be *the standard* for music listeners and it's
already happening as we speak. And it will go way beyond what current mp3
technology has to offer. Not this primitive format mess that the consumer
has to wade through.

The future is now and it's not SACD.


--

lcw999 wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:15:33 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

lcw999 wrote:
I think we're attempting to achieve excellence by meters here...

Not regarding the "sound" as the final arbitor.

From years ago there was a "Crown" amplifier that was the
epitomy of technical excellence..all measured great..but,
the sound was, let us say, "HARSH"...a classic case of
getting the "cart before the horse"..or rather, the numerics
ahead of the sound........sad commentary.

Given the abject vagueness of your claims, they obviously have zero
substance, and should be and are immediately dismissed.
__________________________________________________ _______

Mercy...

Thank you!

You are welcome!

remainder of irrelevant comments snipped

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
-GT- wrote:

That's still very puny percentages, overall.

No lie!

They represent ludicrously small sales for each format, and sales per
title.

Especially compared to DVD which grew by leaps and bounds, the first
couple of years it was on the market, and has grown to the point
where it now makes sense to invest in a DVD player.

Exactly!


You can't tell the audiophile that, Arny.

They live in another dreamworld universe and resort quickly to ad hominem
attacks whenever anybody disagrees with them.

I've noticed some of the vicious responses you got from the SACD peanut
gallery. Proof enough as to what I say.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:51:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:14:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

So Weil, why are you going after for me?

Because you're full of ****, maybe? Because you use statistics for
evil purposes, maybe?

Thanks for proving my poiint, Weil.

And what "poiint" was what? That I have you pegged for the dishonest
peddler of numbers?

Enjoy your little vendetta. You don't appear to have much else.

Have had two lovely live shows in the past 4 days, and tonight another
one with Aimee Mann.

Life is good.

Arny Krueger wrote:

[snip]


Record company statistics for sales that appear to be mostly in 2003:

"As evidence of the continuing strong sales of the SACD format, Sony cited
the Rolling Stones Remastered Series (over 2.2 Million units sold) and the
recent Sam Cooke Remastered Series (300,000 units sold) on ABKCO Records as
well as the 30th Anniversary Edition of Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the
Moon from EMI/Capitol Records which is now at 800,000 units sold."

[snip]

But the independent professional-audited (Price Waterhouse Coopers) RIAA
numbers seem to tell a different story:

"Also cited was the recently announced RIAA report by Price Waterhouse
Coopers which shows over 1.3 million Super Audio CDs shipped in the U.S.
market during 2003."

The record companies claim 3.3 million sales for a small number of titles,
while the independent, audited figures show 1.3 million sales for all titles
in a similar period of time.

What's wrong with this picture?

Neither sales claim is very impressive. But the picture is
even more dismal than either claim would indicate. Would
anybody care to guess how many of the people who purchased
the Stones, Dylan, Cooke, and DSOTM re-releases (i.e., the
titles that account for the bulk of the format's sales)
actually made the purchase because of the SACD layer? I'd be
surprised if more than a fraction of a percent of buyers
knew about, cared about, or utilized the SACD feature.

GZ

Glenn Zelniker wrote:

Neither sales claim is very impressive. But the picture is
even more dismal than either claim would indicate. Would
anybody care to guess how many of the people who purchased
the Stones, Dylan, Cooke, and DSOTM re-releases (i.e., the
titles that account for the bulk of the format's sales)
actually made the purchase because of the SACD layer?

Not I, but I think we share the same concern here.

I'd be surprised if more than a fraction of a percent of buyers
knew about, cared about, or utilized the SACD feature.

As would I. I checked out some of these products during Christmas 2002, when
they were first released. The packaging was pretty coy about the fact that
there was even a SACD layer present. I think a lot of people took them at
face value - they were first and foremost Stones CDs.

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 02:51:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:14:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

So Weil, why are you going after for me?

Because you're full of ****, maybe? Because you use statistics for
evil purposes, maybe?

Thanks for proving my poiint, Weil.

And what "poiint" was what?

That you are have this little vendetta going against me, Weil.

That I have you pegged for the dishonest peddler of numbers?

You've shown no dishonesty in my presentation of the numbers.

Enjoy your little vendetta. You don't appear to have much else.

Have had two lovely live shows in the past 4 days, and tonight another
one with Aimee Mann.

Apparently all that good music did nothing for the hatred that festers
inside you, Weil.

Very sad.

Life is good.

-GT- wrote:

I'm concerned with neither, lest you consider exposing your illogical
and contradictory statements as attacking you personally.

When your questions started to get inane and petty, I saw where you were
going with it. Lie all you want to about it. That's not going to change
anything.

Translation: When I insisted that you actually answer the questions,
you decided to call them "inane and petty."

After 40 posts or so, you were beginning to bore me with your
semantics and silly details.

Translation: I wouldn't let you get away with posting statements that
were very hazy in meaning, or outright falsehoods. Example, from "Bad
news for ric." [Message-ID: :

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

Yet nothing in the article even concerned what I have said, much less
proved me wrong. So, *exactly* what were you referring to? (I know...
another silly detail.)

Yeah, posting the URL of an article that quotes the RIAA as saying that
SACD outsold DVD-A 3.25 to 1 is surely planting a seed of doubt. And

The *other* one I cut and pasted here said quite the opposite. Two articles
that say the opposite thing. Who are we to believe? You?

See? There you go again! I haven't even speculated on the subject of
SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003 (the subject of both stories.) What
have *I* said about SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003? (Oops...another
silly detail.)

That's a 'seed of doubt' as far as I'm concerned.... They can't even agree
on anything amongst themselves.

No, it just shows you how you can use numbers to bolster both sides of a
story. The *survey* (done with 2900 phone calls) favored DVD-A, but *sales
figures* favored SACD by a 3.25 to 1 margin. The more accurate barometer
should be obvious, even to you.

[BTW...I was taught in a "Statistics" class that the result of any
survey or poll should include the *exact* wording of the questions
asked in that survey or poll. The RIAA results omit this.]

SACD isn't a "propritary [sic]" format. It is a backwards compatible
format.

It's a format for *audiophiles* that I predict, will sink just the way the
Betamax did.

And that (your opinion) has nothing to do with your calling it a
"propritary [sic]" format. Do you know what a proprietary format is?

Besides, I think in the next 10 years or so, the CD format will be no more.
We'll be downloading all our music (for a fee) and listening to it off our
hard-drives. That will be *the standard* for music listeners and it's
already happening as we speak. And it will go way beyond what current mp3
technology has to offer. Not this primitive format mess that the consumer
has to wade through.

So for the next 10 years you will be a Luddite? You gonna stop buying
CDs because they will be "no more" in 10 years? Figures....

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

-GT- wrote:

I've noticed some of the vicious responses you got from the SACD peanut
gallery. Proof enough as to what I say.

Any port in a storm, eh GT?

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

-GT- wrote:

It's a format for *audiophiles* that I predict, will sink just the
way the Betamax did. They can't even get the whole recording
industry on board with them to produce one standard. That's how
pathetic they are.

AFAIK Betamax never tanked in the marketplace the way that DVD-A and SACD
have.

As I said, I hope there's a consumer backlash against this nonsense.

Not really any backlash, just no sales to speak of.

Besides, I think in the next 10 years or so, the CD format will be no
more.

Could be.

We'll be downloading all our music (for a fee) and listening to
it off our hard-drives.

A clearly emerging trend. There have been something like 5 million portable
hard drive players sold in the last year.

That will be *the standard* for music
listeners and it's already happening as we speak. And it will go way
beyond what current mp3 technology has to offer. Not this primitive
format mess that the consumer has to wade through.

Hopefully.

The future is now and it's not SACD.

Agreed.

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

I've noticed some of the vicious responses you got from the SACD peanut
gallery. Proof enough as to what I say.

Any port in a storm, eh GT?

--

I call it as I see it, dude...

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

I'm concerned with neither, lest you consider exposing your illogical
and contradictory statements as attacking you personally.

When your questions started to get inane and petty, I saw where you were
going with it. Lie all you want to about it. That's not going to
change
anything.

Translation: When I insisted that you actually answer the questions,
you decided to call them "inane and petty."

Because they WERE, ric. I knew where you were going. I know when
somebody's trying to wear me down. I've played that game before....


After 40 posts or so, you were beginning to bore me with your
semantics and silly details.

Translation: I wouldn't let you get away with posting statements that
were very hazy in meaning, or outright falsehoods. Example, from "Bad
news for ric." [Message-ID: :

Translation: I already posted them so I already got away with it, anyway.
It's really that you didn't like my attitude more than anything.


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

Yet nothing in the article even concerned what I have said, much less
proved me wrong. So, *exactly* what were you referring to? (I know...
another silly detail.)

Good grief, I have to repeat it to you again? More wearing down your
opponent...


Yeah, posting the URL of an article that quotes the RIAA as saying
that
SACD outsold DVD-A 3.25 to 1 is surely planting a seed of doubt. And

The *other* one I cut and pasted here said quite the opposite. Two
articles
that say the opposite thing. Who are we to believe? You?

See? There you go again! I haven't even speculated on the subject of
SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003 (the subject of both stories.) What
have *I* said about SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003? (Oops...another
silly detail.)

You didn't have to say anything. I used that as an EXAMPLE.

Do you know what an EXAMPLE is, ric?


That's a 'seed of doubt' as far as I'm concerned.... They can't even
agree
on anything amongst themselves.

No, it just shows you how you can use numbers to bolster both sides of a
story. The *survey* (done with 2900 phone calls) favored DVD-A, but *sales
figures* favored SACD by a 3.25 to 1 margin. The more accurate barometer
should be obvious, even to you.

That's right. You have your numbers and I have mine. And the 'twain no
meet', which means it's up in the air as far as I'm concerned. There's no
consensus.


[BTW...I was taught in a "Statistics" class that the result of any
survey or poll should include the *exact* wording of the questions
asked in that survey or poll. The RIAA results omit this.]

You taught a statistics class? Well no wonder you're anally-rententive.


SACD isn't a "propritary [sic]" format. It is a backwards compatible
format.

It's a format for *audiophiles* that I predict, will sink just the way
the
Betamax did.

And that (your opinion) has nothing to do with your calling it a
"propritary [sic]" format. Do you know what a proprietary format is?

Sure, it's an attempt by company to generate (in this case) their own audio
format. The reason for developing a proprietary format is pretty simple.
It's called "profit". You build up business and try to develop a revenue
stream behind it. It's something you get to call your own and you can issue
licences to others so they can be able to use it.

Do I have the exact $$ and %% for all this SACD garbage?

Nope.

But I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some. I have no doubt about
that.

This is all obvious, ric. You already know this. More wearing down your
opponent, I see...


Besides, I think in the next 10 years or so, the CD format will be no
more.
We'll be downloading all our music (for a fee) and listening to it off
our
hard-drives. That will be *the standard* for music listeners and it's
already happening as we speak. And it will go way beyond what current
mp3
technology has to offer. Not this primitive format mess that the
consumer
has to wade through.

So for the next 10 years you will be a Luddite? You gonna stop buying
CDs because they will be "no more" in 10 years? Figures....

Nope. For the next 10 years, they'll be plenty of non-SCAD hybrid material
being reissued. There's no rush out there (for SACD) like you seem to
believe there is.

Besides, most of my music I now download as mp3s anyway, so it's a moot
point.

I also believe many labels aren't gonna bother with the added expense of
putting an SACD layer in their CDs, except with certain audio titles. The
ones that do are small in numbers. You think it'll grow, fine. We'll see.

When I see an explosion of hybrid CDs and players, then I'll come on board.
But I'm gonna waste my money listening to a bunch of shills hyping the next
latest thing.

I used to go over to stevehoffman.tv a lot until it became a 'crybaby forum'
for SACD audiophiles begging for the next thing to be issued in their
precious format. Blah... I wanna know what's out NOW, not what's not
there. All this ridiculous begging and wishing got sickening so I left and
never looked back.

Until now.... (laughs)


--

-GT- wrote:

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

Yet nothing in the article even concerned what I have said, much less
proved me wrong. So, *exactly* what were you referring to? (I know...
another silly detail.)

Good grief, I have to repeat it to you again? More wearing down your
opponent...

Repeat it again? This is one of the questions you have refused to answer.
Keep delaying until you think of an answer, GT? Answer the question and
you won't be "worn down" any more. Quit the tap dancing.

The *other* one I cut and pasted here said quite the opposite. Two
articles that say the opposite thing. Who are we to believe? You?

See? There you go again! I haven't even speculated on the subject of
SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003 (the subject of both stories.) What
have *I* said about SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003? (Oops...another
silly detail.)

You didn't have to say anything. I used that as an EXAMPLE.

An example of *what*, GT?

No, it just shows you how you can use numbers to bolster both sides of a
story. The *survey* (done with 2900 phone calls) favored DVD-A, but *sales
figures* favored SACD by a 3.25 to 1 margin. The more accurate barometer
should be obvious, even to you.

That's right. You have your numbers and I have mine.

Wrong again, Einstein. All of the above numbers were the RIAA's numbers.
None of them were mine.

[BTW...I was taught in a "Statistics" class that the result of any
survey or poll should include the *exact* wording of the questions
asked in that survey or poll. The RIAA results omit this.]

You taught a statistics class? Well no wonder you're anally-rententive.

I see you have a reading comprehension problem, as well. It clearly says:
"...I WAS TAUGHT IN a statistics class..." not that I taught a class.
Any other learning disabilities we should consider when reading your
posts?

This is all obvious, ric. You already know this. More wearing down your
opponent, I see...

OK. I'll "stop wearing you down." Just provide an answer to the following:

Given that:

* SACD compatible players will also play CDs and often DVDs, and
* Hybrid SACDs also play on normal CD players, and
* The current retail price of SACDs is about the same as normal CDs,

the downside in making your next DVD or CD player SACD compatible is

_____________________________.

So for the next 10 years you will be a Luddite? You gonna stop buying
CDs because they will be "no more" in 10 years? Figures....

Nope. For the next 10 years, they'll be plenty of non-SCAD hybrid material
being reissued. There's no rush out there (for SACD) like you seem to
believe there is.

Never said there was a rush. Just that your reasons for avoiding SACDs
were idiotic.

Besides, most of my music I now download as mp3s anyway, so it's a moot
point.

Legally?

I also believe many labels aren't gonna bother with the added expense of
putting an SACD layer in their CDs, except with certain audio titles. The
ones that do are small in numbers. You think it'll grow, fine. We'll see.

I've already found 60 labels that support SACD, and I just looked at
one site, including a few releases from Time Records. Go figure....

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

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

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

Yet nothing in the article even concerned what I have said, much less
proved me wrong. So, *exactly* what were you referring to? (I know...
another silly detail.)

Good grief, I have to repeat it to you again? More wearing down your
opponent...

Repeat it again? This is one of the questions you have refused to answer.
Keep delaying until you think of an answer, GT? Answer the question and
you won't be "worn down" any more. Quit the tap dancing.

That SACD is the future. That everything we'll be released as hybrids. How
can that be with a small market share like that?

These articles tell me that the future isn't as rosy as you would have me
believe

Capice?


The *other* one I cut and pasted here said quite the opposite. Two
articles that say the opposite thing. Who are we to believe? You?

See? There you go again! I haven't even speculated on the subject of
SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003 (the subject of both stories.) What
have *I* said about SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003? (Oops...another
silly detail.)

You didn't have to say anything. I used that as an EXAMPLE.

An example of *what*, GT?

The subject of SACD vs. DVD-A popularity. A theme I've been going back to
for the last 40 posts or so. Who will win out in the format wars. I've
also been to some of these audiophile forums, recently. There's a lot of
'wishing' on there that DVD-A would just go away...

Why won't it, ric? Why won't DVD-A just go away....


No, it just shows you how you can use numbers to bolster both sides of
a
story. The *survey* (done with 2900 phone calls) favored DVD-A, but
*sales
figures* favored SACD by a 3.25 to 1 margin. The more accurate
barometer
should be obvious, even to you.

That's right. You have your numbers and I have mine.

Wrong again, Einstein. All of the above numbers were the RIAA's numbers.
None of them were mine.

But it's what YOU want to believe in, ric.


[BTW...I was taught in a "Statistics" class that the result of any
survey or poll should include the *exact* wording of the questions
asked in that survey or poll. The RIAA results omit this.]

You taught a statistics class? Well no wonder you're anally-rententive.

I see you have a reading comprehension problem, as well. It clearly says:
"...I WAS TAUGHT IN a statistics class..." not that I taught a class.
Any other learning disabilities we should consider when reading your
posts?

Patronizing me again, ric? Another ad hominem attack of last resort?


This is all obvious, ric. You already know this. More wearing down
your
opponent, I see...

OK. I'll "stop wearing you down." Just provide an answer to the following:

Given that:

* SACD compatible players will also play CDs and often DVDs, and
* Hybrid SACDs also play on normal CD players, and
* The current retail price of SACDs is about the same as normal CDs,

the downside in making your next DVD or CD player SACD compatible is


It probably won't be around in the next five years, so why bother.... Just
like the DIVX disc. Another stupid scam. And if DVD-A just happens to win
out in the marketplace, what then....

_____________________________.

So for the next 10 years you will be a Luddite? You gonna stop buying
CDs because they will be "no more" in 10 years? Figures....

Nope. For the next 10 years, they'll be plenty of non-SCAD hybrid
material
being reissued. There's no rush out there (for SACD) like you seem to
believe there is.

Never said there was a rush. Just that your reasons for avoiding SACDs
were idiotic.

Call it my own personal consumer boycott, ric. How's that....


Besides, most of my music I now download as mp3s anyway, so it's a moot
point.

Legally?


P2P software isn't illegal and not everything out there is copyrighted.

The cops haven't broken down my door. All those trades I do result in a lot
of CD-Rs that I and others enjoy.

So bust me....


I also believe many labels aren't gonna bother with the added expense of
putting an SACD layer in their CDs, except with certain audio titles.
The
ones that do are small in numbers. You think it'll grow, fine. We'll
see.

I've already found 60 labels that support SACD, and I just looked at
one site, including a few releases from Time Records. Go figure....

60 labels isn't very much, ric. It's a drop in the bucket.

There are thousands out there who probably couldn't be bothered with the
added expense of putting an extra layer on their CDs. Just to please the
audiophile spectrum of the population.

But I've told you that before. You don't want to listen.


--

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Glenn Zelniker wrote:

I'd be surprised if more than a fraction of a percent of buyers
knew about, cared about, or utilized the SACD feature.

As would I. I checked out some of these products during Christmas 2002,
when
they were first released. The packaging was pretty coy about the fact that
there was even a SACD layer present. I think a lot of people took them at
face value - they were first and foremost Stones CDs.

Good point. If you go to amazon.com and look up these new reissues, the
SACD feature is buried down in the middle of their webpage liner notes.
It's not even in the headline, right next to the title. I guess it isn't
even considered a big selling point.

The makers of SACD know it can't survive on it's own, unless it piggybacks
on to another format. Those Stones CDs would've sold as is, without the
SACD layer.

But don't tell that to the elitist audiophile.

Besides, I already have most of the European CD versions of the Stones
catalog that I bought in the early 90s. They sound good enough for me, and
far better than those crummy ABCKO domestics.

But once again, don't tell that to the elitist audiophile. 'That's not
good enough'

-GT wrote:

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

That SACD is the future. That everything we'll be released as hybrids. How
can that be with a small market share like that?

These articles tell me that the future isn't as rosy as you would have me
believe

And this has *what* to do with your assertion that you "thought you said
you were 'right'" ?? I *never* said that SACD is *the* future, or that
everything will be released as hybrid SACDs. What I have *constantly*
said was since SACD players also play normal CDs and/or DVDs, and since
hybrid SACDs play on normal CD players, that there is no risk in getting
involved in SACDs. I also said that most *SACDs* will be released as
hybrid SACDs. Those "articles" address NONE of these issues, and your
assertion that they somehow prove me wrong is just ludicrous.

You didn't have to say anything. I used that as an EXAMPLE.

An example of *what*, GT?

The subject of SACD vs. DVD-A popularity. A theme I've been going back to
for the last 40 posts or so. Who will win out in the format wars. I've
also been to some of these audiophile forums, recently. There's a lot of
'wishing' on there that DVD-A would just go away...

Again, this has *nothing* to do with your statement "Who are we to
believe? You?" since I have not offered an opinion on the subject.
I obviously don't know which format will become dominant, since I
got a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD. I have only said that
I prefer SACDs over DVD-As. But you know this. You've been told
countless times. You just enjoy acting obtuse.

That's right. You have your numbers and I have mine.

Wrong again, Einstein. All of the above numbers were the RIAA's numbers.
None of them were mine.

But it's what YOU want to believe in, ric.

Why? I have no vested interest in either format. Again, and you know
this already, my player plays BOTH formats. The only comment *I* have
is that the actual sales figures are a better barometer than is a poll
of 2900 consumers (much like telephone election polls versus the actual
election results. Only the actual results really count.) But, again, you
already know this.

You taught a statistics class? Well no wonder you're anally-rententive.

I see you have a reading comprehension problem, as well. It clearly says:
"...I WAS TAUGHT IN a statistics class..." not that I taught a class.
Any other learning disabilities we should consider when reading your
posts?

Patronizing me again, ric? Another ad hominem attack of last resort?

Pot - Kettle - Black.

But honestly, only a reading comprehension problem or the deliberate
distortion of what I have written can explain your posts lately.

OK. I'll "stop wearing you down." Just provide an answer to the following:

Given that:

* SACD compatible players will also play CDs and often DVDs, and
* Hybrid SACDs also play on normal CD players, and
* The current retail price of SACDs is about the same as normal CDs,

the downside in making your next DVD or CD player SACD compatible is


It probably won't be around in the next five years, so why bother....

So why bother? To enjoy better quality audio at little or no extra cost,
using a backwards compatible system. That's why.

Just like the DIVX disc. Another stupid scam. And if DVD-A just happens to win
out in the marketplace, what then....

Then you play your SACDs as SACDs on your SACD player, or as CDs on your
CD player, and continue to use your SACD player as a CD player, and/or
as a DVD player (as most are.) See, your comparison to DIVX is quite
ludicrous.

Never said there was a rush. Just that your reasons for avoiding SACDs
were idiotic.

Call it my own personal consumer boycott, ric. How's that....

Well, since you only listen in you car, perhaps MP3s are fine for *you*.

But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth
considering.

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

-GT wrote:

Besides, I already have most of the European CD versions of the Stones
catalog that I bought in the early 90s. They sound good enough for me, and
far better than those crummy ABCKO domestics.

In your car? How would you tell the difference?

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

ric wrote:
-GT wrote:

Besides, I already have most of the European CD versions of the
Stones catalog that I bought in the early 90s. They sound good
enough for me, and far better than those crummy ABCKO domestics.

In your car? How would you tell the difference?

Since we're talking different mastering jobs here, the differences could be
fairly pronounced. Therefore, the means by which differences might be heard
in a car is:

(1) A good car audio system

(2) Good ears

Well I did used to own a home stereo back then. Any more stupid questions?


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

Besides, I already have most of the European CD versions of the Stones
catalog that I bought in the early 90s. They sound good enough for me,
and
far better than those crummy ABCKO domestics.

In your car? How would you tell the difference?

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

"ric" wrote in message ...


And this has *what* to do with your assertion that you "thought you said
you were 'right'" ?? I *never* said that SACD is *the* future, or that
everything will be released as hybrid SACDs. What I have *constantly*
said was since SACD players also play normal CDs and/or DVDs, and since
hybrid SACDs play on normal CD players, that there is no risk in getting
involved in SACDs. I also said that most *SACDs* will be released as
hybrid SACDs. Those "articles" address NONE of these issues, and your
assertion that they somehow prove me wrong is just ludicrous.

Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all. Which makes
(hybrid) SACDs
sales figures even more minuscule in terms of CD sales, overall.

I still see those tiny sections up at the record store that still carry
SACD-only CDs on their shelves. They don't look like they're moving very
well, ric. Now why is that....


Again, this has *nothing* to do with your statement "Who are we to
believe? You?" since I have not offered an opinion on the subject.

Of course you haven't. You don't have an opinion on the matter because you
know I'm right.

I obviously don't know which format will become dominant, since I
got a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD. I have only said that
I prefer SACDs over DVD-As. But you know this. You've been told
countless times. You just enjoy acting obtuse.

I mentioned that in very first post I made to that thread. And then you
went off an a tangent about something else. Go back an read my first post
again, ric.


Why? I have no vested interest in either format. Again, and you know
this already, my player plays BOTH formats. The only comment *I* have
is that the actual sales figures are a better barometer than is a poll
of 2900 consumers (much like telephone election polls versus the actual
election results. Only the actual results really count.) But, again, you
already know this.

Well if you have no vested interest in either format, then why are you
arguing with me? Obviously you have something at stake here....



Patronizing me again, ric? Another ad hominem attack of last resort?

Pot - Kettle - Black.

Hey you're a pretty good patronizer. 'wow...'


But honestly, only a reading comprehension problem or the deliberate
distortion of what I have written can explain your posts lately.

Give it up, ric. You're not gonna sell me on it. You should already know
this by now.


So why bother? To enjoy better quality audio at little or no extra cost,
using a backwards compatible system. That's why.

At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and the
$10,000 + speakers to go with it?

I'm sure they'll be a great match for your $129.95 SACD hybrid player from
Wal-Mart.


Just like the DIVX disc. Another stupid scam. And if DVD-A just
happens to win
out in the marketplace, what then....

Then you play your SACDs as SACDs on your SACD player, or as CDs on your
CD player, and continue to use your SACD player as a CD player, and/or
as a DVD player (as most are.) See, your comparison to DIVX is quite
ludicrous.

Well assuming that most people already have a good CD player out there,
maybe one that isn't SACD capable, then the SACD machine would be moot.
Unless you've got plenty of rack space to go along with those $600 - $2,000
Denon players...


Well, since you only listen in you car, perhaps MP3s are fine for *you*.

It's the future, ric. Better get used to it. I know many of you
audiophiles were having withdrawl symptoms when the LP went out of style.
It was so bad, some of you all needed rabies shots.


But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth
considering.

Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.


--