"ric" wrote in message ...
chris lee wrote:


If your system doesn't support SACD or DVD-A, you are missing out on
great sound.

I've heard those demonstrated up at Meyer-Emco. They are formats for
anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note. And if it's an old
recording, you get a lot of tape-hiss to go along with it.

The new blue-ray technology that will be coming out in a couple of years
will put both of those formats to shame.

Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover everything.
Do you have the time, money and space for 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.

I suggest holding off until you know for certain what format will win out in
the marketplace and will be around for awhile.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:55:41 -0400, "~GT~" none wrote:

Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover everything.

Or an inexpensive universal player.

Kal

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:55:41 -0400, "~GT~" none wrote:

Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
everything.

Or an inexpensive universal player.

And how many models are out there that'll cover everything?

One? Two? Three?

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:31:31 -0400, "~GT~" none wrote:

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:55:41 -0400, "~GT~" none wrote:

Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
everything.

Or an inexpensive universal player.

And how many models are out there that'll cover everything?

One? Two? Three?

Cheap ones, probably. Without regard to budget, a dozen or more. How
many do you need?

Kal

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:31:31 -0400, "~GT~" none wrote:

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:55:41 -0400, "~GT~" none wrote:

Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
everything.

Or an inexpensive universal player.

And how many models are out there that'll cover everything?

One? Two? Three?

Cheap ones, probably. Without regard to budget, a dozen or more. How
many do you need?

If this is the way the industry is going, then it should be standard on ALL
players.

If not then why not? You tell me....

~GT~ wrote:

If this is the way the industry is going, then it should be standard on ALL
players.

I've seen SACD capability on DVD players costing less than $150. SACD
is a relatively new thing, but there are now over 2,000 titles available
in SACD, with more being released every Tuesday. Even Amazon now has a
SACD section. Besides, *any* CD player can play hybrid SACDs.

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

~GT~ wrote:

If your system doesn't support SACD or DVD-A, you are missing out on
great sound.

I've heard those demonstrated up at Meyer-Emco. They are formats for
anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note. And if it's an old
recording, you get a lot of tape-hiss to go along with it.

Ah...the ignorant vote has been cast.

Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover everything.
Do you have the time, money and space for 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.

So the players that play CD, SACD, DVD-A, et. al. don't really exist?
Hmmm...either my player really isn't there *or* this is another ignorant
comment from someone who specializes in making same.

I suggest holding off until you know for certain what format will win out in
the marketplace and will be around for awhile.

I suggest you find a topic about which you know something, or stick to
your ****ing contests with sum1.

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

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

If your system doesn't support SACD or DVD-A, you are missing out on
great sound.

I've heard those demonstrated up at Meyer-Emco. They are formats for
anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note. And if it's an
old
recording, you get a lot of tape-hiss to go along with it.

Ah...the ignorant vote has been cast.

Ah, another anal-retentive audiophile. No, my subjective opinion has been
cast.


Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
everything.
Do you have the time, money and space for 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.

So the players that play CD, SACD, DVD-A, et. al. don't really exist?

Did I say that they didn't exist at all? Sure there are plenty of players
that will play CD and SACD. Or CD and DVD-A, but are there many that'll
play all three?

And how about throwing video DVD in there as well. Oh and...let's
see...MP3, DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD+RW, DVD-RW, VCD, etc...

After all, they're all the same size with the same size spindle hole in the
middle.

Gotta save on all that shelf space, ya know....

Hmmm...either my player really isn't there *or* this is another ignorant
comment from someone who specializes in making same.

Or you have a player that will play both and you are one of the lucky (sic)
few and because you have one you think everybody else out there has one, or
is supposed to have one.


I suggest you find a topic about which you know something, or stick to
your ****ing contests with sum1.

Or better still, stay out of this discussion if you don't have anything
constructive to say.

~GT~ wrote:

I've heard those demonstrated up at Meyer-Emco. They are formats for
anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note. And if it's an
old
recording, you get a lot of tape-hiss to go along with it.

Ah...the ignorant vote has been cast.

Ah, another anal-retentive audiophile. No, my subjective opinion has been
cast.

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.

Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
? everything.
Do you have the time, money and space for 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.

So the players that play CD, SACD, DVD-A, et. al. don't really exist?

Did I say that they didn't exist at all?

Well, you said "Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to
cover everything." Yes, that's what you said in your own eloquent way.

Sure there are plenty of players
that will play CD and SACD. Or CD and DVD-A, but are there many that'll
play all three?

Dozens. With more being released every day.

And how about throwing video DVD in there as well.

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.

Oh and...let's
see...MP3, DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD+RW, DVD-RW, VCD, etc...

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?

Gotta save on all that shelf space, ya know....

I did.

Or you have a player that will play both and you are one of the lucky (sic)
few and because you have one you think everybody else out there has one, or
is supposed to have one.

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 "



I suggest you find a topic about which you know something, or stick to
your ****ing contests with sum1.

Or better still, stay out of this discussion if you don't have anything
constructive to say.

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

ric 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.

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.

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...

"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

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

I've heard those demonstrated up at Meyer-Emco. They are formats
for
anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note. And if it's
an
old
recording, you get a lot of tape-hiss to go along with it.

Ah...the ignorant vote has been cast.

Ah, another anal-retentive audiophile. No, my subjective opinion has
been
cast.

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.


Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
? everything.
Do you have the time, money and space for 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.

So the players that play CD, SACD, DVD-A, et. al. don't really exist?

Did I say that they didn't exist at all?

Well, you said "Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to
cover everything." Yes, that's what you said in your own eloquent way.

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

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?

I suspect even that even with the few hybrid machines available, that the
latter point I made in my previous sentence is probably still the case....


Sure there are plenty of players
that will play CD and SACD. Or CD and DVD-A, but are there many that'll
play all three?

Dozens. With more being released every day.

And how about throwing video DVD in there as well.

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?


Oh and...let's
see...MP3, DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD+RW, DVD-RW, VCD, etc...

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.

Are you sure you're not suffering from "Consumer Lemming" disease?


Gotta save on all that shelf space, ya know....

I did.

I'll 'bet'....


Or you have a player that will play both and you are one of the lucky
(sic)
few and because you have one you think everybody else out there has one,
or
is supposed to have one.

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.

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

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...

~GT~ wrote:

I've heard those demonstrated up at Meyer-Emco. They are formats for
anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note. And if it's an
old
recording, you get a lot of tape-hiss to go along with it.

Ah...the ignorant vote has been cast.

Ah, another anal-retentive audiophile. No, my subjective opinion has been
cast.

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.

Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
? everything.
Do you have the time, money and space for 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.

So the players that play CD, SACD, DVD-A, et. al. don't really exist?

Did I say that they didn't exist at all?

Well, you said "Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to
cover everything." Yes, that's what you said in your own eloquent way.

Sure there are plenty of players
that will play CD and SACD. Or CD and DVD-A, but are there many that'll
play all three?

Dozens. With more being released every day.

And how about throwing video DVD in there as well.

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.

Oh and...let's
see...MP3, DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD+RW, DVD-RW, VCD, etc...

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?

Gotta save on all that shelf space, ya know....

I did.

Or you have a player that will play both and you are one of the lucky (sic)
few and because you have one you think everybody else out there has one, or
is supposed to have one.

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 "They are formats
for anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note" ???

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