"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....

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...

~GT~ said:

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.

Or not.

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

Because not every product on the market is aimed at the utilitarian
niche. This is not unique to electronics, you know. Ford just came out

Or maybe it more a matter of which corporation wins the marketing war. And
those that are stuck with the losers product, wind up with a pile of
unstandardized junk.


with a hybrid SUV that gets much better mileage than the gasoline
ones. If technology that yields improved fuel economy is workable, why
aren't all cars so equipped? You tell me....

They'll have to. We have no choice.

Within the next 10 years, I predict all autos will be either hybrids or
fully electric, with hydrogen cars on the horizon after that.

Will all CD players come standardized with DVD-A or SACD? Or will another
technology come along immediately thereafter and render these two obsolete
within a short period of time?

With LPs, we had 60 years. With CDs we've had almost 25.

How long will DVD-A or SACD be around?

Who will win?

~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...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...

~GT~ said:

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

Because not every product on the market is aimed at the utilitarian
niche.

Or maybe it more a matter of which corporation wins the marketing war.
And
those that are stuck with the losers product, wind up with a pile of
unstandardized junk.

BZZZZZZT! Wrong answer.

No an answer you don't want to hear, is more like it....

It's sounds like you've already made that investment, I put it down, you
took it personally, so now you're ****ed off. Right?

Or can you answer the question without leaving your CAPS set on, 'on'?


This is not unique to electronics, you know. Ford just came out
with a hybrid SUV that gets much better mileage than the gasoline
ones. If technology that yields improved fuel economy is workable, why
aren't all cars so equipped? You tell me....

They'll have to. We have no choice.

Excuse me, O Omniscient One. We have the choice NOW. The carmakers could

Excuse me pal, but as long as we're dependent on finite middle-eastern oil,
then we have NO choice BUT to change. NONE. It'll either go fairly
smoothly or it will go fairly painfully. One of the two.


deliver a fleet that gets at least one-third better mileage within 18
months or less. The technology exists NOW. If they were to combine
hybrid engines with the better gasoline tech that's now getting dusty in
the storerooms, new cars would get double the mileage they get today.
This is reality, not drawing-board schemes.

Because the government isn't pushing it right now. CAFE standards are down
which is why so many big, gas-guzzling SUVs are being sold. With gas prices
the way they are, why change?

The current marketplace IS dictating it right now, not giving automakers an
even greater incentive to change. But that will change. It has to.


Within the next 10 years, I predict all autos will be either hybrids or
fully electric, with hydrogen cars on the horizon after that.

I predict you're wrong. Time will tell.

Yes when gasoline hits $10 a gallon, time will tell. The world isn't filled
with infinite gasoline supplies. My prediction still stands.


Hydrogen powered engines are at least 25 years away, according to
experts in the industry and academe.

I think it's sooner than that, which is why hybrids and full-electrics will
be the standard between today's fully gasolined cars and tomorrow's
hydrogen-powered ones. Already, there's a waiting list for the few hybrids
that are already on the market, with auto makers starting to offer even more
models on the horizon.

Have you been to any auto shows, lately? You'll see what I mean.


Will all CD players come standardized with DVD-A or SACD? Or will
another
technology come along immediately thereafter and render these two
obsolete
within a short period of time?

Maybe from the viewpoint you're espousing -- that the only
differentiator between optical drives is the quantity of features. The
divide you're contemplating is not about technology, though.

No, it's about marketing, which was my whole point to begin with in the last
post.


With LPs, we had 60 years. With CDs we've had almost 25.

How long will DVD-A or SACD be around?

Who will win?

Why torture yourself? Kal was right about the plethora of multi-format
players on the market. They start at $50 or so.

I'm not "torturing" myself. What is it with these flowery words, anyway?
It's not my money I'm going to waste on a format that I consider still up in
the air. If one format loses out in the format wars, or manufacturers
decide to drop a hardware format in their players, then you'll be stuck with
a bunch of unplayable CDs. It doesn't take rocket-science to figure that
one out.

When all the makers agree on one format, OR all players are at least fully
multi-formated as standard, then I'll consider a change.

There are other factors to consider besides instant aural gratification. I
take those into account.

~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...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...

Or maybe it more a matter of which corporation wins the marketing
war.
those that are stuck with the losers product, wind up with a pile of
unstandardized junk.

BZZZZZZT! Wrong answer.

No an answer you don't want to hear, is more like it....

No, it was a dodge, an evasion, a pusillanimous pussy-footing.

Nope. I answered your question. You didn't like the answer. Fine. Just
say so. If you can't then that's fine too.


It's sounds like you've already made that investment, I put it down, you
took it personally, so now you're ****ed off. Right?

Wrong. I was correcting your brainless take on issues you don't
understand.

Hmmm...ad hominem attacks. The speech of last resort.

Gee are 'we' getting ****ed off because I don't see things the same way you
see them?

Too bad. Tough....

I think you're the one that doesn't understand.


Do you know what "niche" means? Do you know what "utilitarian" means?

Yes and yes. Your point? Your point?


Or can you answer the question without leaving your CAPS set on, 'on'?

Can't tell what you're grunting and straining to say. Try to ask your
question in a comprehensible dialect.

I think you understand what I've said, but since you're going to get
immature and testy about it, then we have no more to say, now do we?

"ric" wrote in message ...
~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

Sure you have. Sony and a couple of other makers have been cutting their
hardware prices in order for you to buy their standard. I'll bet the folks
over at DVD-A are doing the same.

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.

2,000 is still a drop in the bucket. Even after almost 25 years, standard
CDs still haven't caught up with LP cataloges.

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

"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.

George M. Middius wrote in message . ..


Ooops, I forget. Just a question, Half-man.
Is your boy-friend Mannii as "big-balled" as he attempted to let us
believe ? I'm just curious. )

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:48:23 -0400, "~GT~" none wrote:

BZZZZZZT! Wrong answer.

No an answer you don't want to hear, is more like it....

It's sounds like you've already made that investment, I put it down, you
took it personally, so now you're ****ed off. Right?

Or can you answer the question without leaving your CAPS set on, 'on'?

Can *you* answer the question without leaving *your* caps set on, on?

Get my point?

George M. Middius wrote:

Why torture yourself? Kal was right about the plethora of multi-format
players on the market. They start at $50 or so.

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...

--

Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.

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

~GT~ wrote:
If one format loses out in the format wars, or manufacturers
decide to drop a hardware format in their players, then you'll be stuck with
a bunch of unplayable CDs. It doesn't take rocket-science to figure that
one out.

This is why I'm holding out. I still own a pile of quadraphonic LPs and
open reel tapes from the 70s. Seen any quad playback hardware lately?
Anybody remember Elcassette, Philips DCC digital cassettes, dbx encoded
LPs, laserdisc, DivX...

--

Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.

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

~GT~ wrote:

I've seen SACD capability on DVD players costing less than $150. SACD

Sure you have. Sony and a couple of other makers have been cutting their
hardware prices in order for you to buy their standard. I'll bet the folks
over at DVD-A are doing the same.

Can you name any sub $150 DVD-A players?

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?

--
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 "



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...

~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...

Brian Rost wrote:

If one format loses out in the format wars, or manufacturers
decide to drop a hardware format in their players, then you'll be stuck with
a bunch of unplayable CDs. It doesn't take rocket-science to figure that
one out.

This is why I'm holding out. I still own a pile of quadraphonic LPs and
open reel tapes from the 70s. Seen any quad playback hardware lately?
Anybody remember Elcassette, Philips DCC digital cassettes, dbx encoded
LPs, laserdisc, DivX...

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?

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 01:48:23 -0400, "~GT~" none wrote:

BZZZZZZT! Wrong answer.

No an answer you don't want to hear, is more like it....

It's sounds like you've already made that investment, I put it down, you
took it personally, so now you're ****ed off. Right?

Or can you answer the question without leaving your CAPS set on, 'on'?

Can *you* answer the question without leaving *your* caps set on, on?

Get my point?

In that statement you quoted right above, where does it show that I left the
CAPS lock on? Tell me. Where did I leave it on?

Besides you making a stupid statement that has nothing to do with the
discussion at hand.

"Brian Rost" wrote in message
...
George M. Middius wrote:

Why torture yourself? Kal was right about the plethora of multi-format
players on the market. They start at $50 or so.

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.

They claim to be good at 'listening'.

Hah..... I'll bet.....

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Quickdraw Rost said:

This is why I'm holding out. I still own a pile of quadraphonic LPs and
open reel tapes from the 70s. Seen any quad playback hardware lately?
Anybody remember Elcassette, Philips DCC digital cassettes, dbx encoded
LPs, laserdisc, DivX...

The only thing that's permanent is change itself.


The only thing 'permanent' is being sold a bill-of-goods by the next
marketing scheme coming down the Japanese corporate pike.

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

I've seen SACD capability on DVD players costing less than $150. SACD

Sure you have. Sony and a couple of other makers have been cutting
their
hardware prices in order for you to buy their standard. I'll bet the
folks
over at DVD-A are doing the same.

Can you name any sub $150 DVD-A players?

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.

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.

"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.

"Brian Rost" wrote in message
...


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

Why am I not surprised....


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...

It's just another way of getting you to spend more of your hard earned
dollars on the next latest gadget coming out of Tokyo.

As soon as you buy something that's considered the 'ultimate', they'll come
out with the next 'ultimate' and pretty soon, you're at the starting gate
again.

Not to mention, you'll wind up buying 10 different format-versions of "Kind
of Blue" as an added 'bonus'.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

So, "And that was my whole point" means from 1734 EDT today until now,
only, right?




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

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.