SACD and DVD-A dead, but K2HD is HERE!!!?!!?!?

[jrhymeammo]

Is this old news? Well here goes,

There is this new format called K2HD that was briefly talked about below the LP CC article, BrandonH had posted. http://stereomojo.com/index.htm

According to Victor Japan site, it is capable to producing sound up to 100khz at 24/192 ib a regular CD player. Apprentely with this newest technology called K2HD, Vicotr was able to cramp in 24/192 worth of info/data into a regualr CD.

There are K2HD already being sold in Japan. Here is the link:

http://www.jvcmusic.co.jp/k2hd/disco.html#top

Could this be the next format that will exceed everything that is availble today? I wasnt able to get much more info from the site.

I will call my fam in Japan tonight and see if I can get a couple of K2HD. Hope to report back soon.


JRA

[Feanor]

Is this old news? Well here goes,

There is this new format called K2HD that was briefly talked about below the LP CC article, BrandonH had posted. http://stereomojo.com/index.htm

According to Victor Japan site, it is capable to producing sound up to 100khz at 24/192 ib a regular CD player. Apprentely with this newest technology called K2HD, Vicotr was able to cramp in 24/192 worth of info/data into a regualr CD.

There are K2HD already being sold in Japan. Here is the link:

http://www.jvcmusic.co.jp/k2hd/disco.html#top

Could this be the next format that will exceed everything that is availble today? I wasnt able to get much more info from the site.

I will call my fam in Japan tonight and see if I can get a couple of K2HD. Hope to report back soon.


JRA

Thanks for this world-rocking new, JRA.

"K2 Super Coding", which is related to "XRCD" (eXtended Resolution CD), has been around since 1995. It was from JVC too and persumably the "HD" version is mostly an evolutionary advancement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Resolution_Compact_Disc

I have a few jazz K2's, and to me they sound good but not better (or even as good), as the SACDs or HDCDs that I own. Do we need another hi-rez format? If people cared they'd buy SACD or DVD-A (which are also multi-channel): why should buy K2HD in preference? What is most absurd is that K2HD prices are likely to run higher than these proven hi-rez media. It looks like this is just another proprietary scheme to skim more money from suckers -- of course there's definitely nothing new about that.

On the other hand, they might do OK in Japan. There's a place where the domestic market seems to suck up a bizzare range of pricey products that can't be sold elsewhere in the world.

[jrhymeammo]

Do we need another format? I say yes, as long as it's not gonna further decrease SACD availability... that is not going to happen as we all know, unless something happens. Would CD still be the "standard" tangible media format, 10 years from now? I imagine it's gonna be some sort of streaming media thru subscription over some tri-optically wireless entertainment system made by Bose.

One of the thing that I'm confused about is that how can a CDP with less than 192/24 DAC gonna be able to benefit from this format? Whatever the case, I'm gonna find out for myself.

JRA

[Feanor]

Do we need another format? I say yes, as long as it's not gonna further decrease SACD availability... that is not going to happen as we all know, unless something happens. Would CD still be the "standard" tangible media format, 10 years from now? I imagine it's gonna be some sort of streaming media thru subscription over some tri-optically wireless entertainment system made by Bose.

One of the thing that I'm confused about is that how can a CDP with less than 192/24 DAC gonna be able to benefit from this format? Whatever the case, I'm gonna find out for myself.

JRA

That is, I'm confused about how you get 24/192 sound from 16/44.1. I think JVC might deliver a better way of producing standard CD, but I gather there are a good may techniques for do that. JVC has just hyped-up their method to "justify" higher prices. One clue is that no special equipment is need to play these CDs, unlike HDCD where you need a special decoder.

Will K2HD reduce SACD sales? My guess is yes, to some extend. Format competition always reduces overall acceptance of all the competing formats. A huge impediment to SACD's success has been the vinyl LP which continues to be the quasi-irrational obsession of so many audiophiles -- but at least many of those 'philes began large LP collections.

Would I buy K2HD? Certainly, if it was the music I wanted and priced no higher than SACD for the same content.

[PDN]

Just my opinion but I wouldn't place faith in any new CD format considering the way these others have gone (HDCD, DVD-A, SACD), etc. I have two CD players that both can play HDCD format. Do you know how many HDCD's I have? Two. You can hardly find any out there both on-line and retail. What a joke. Standard CD format will be around for a long time to come. Look at LP's. Folks thought they were history and now look. There's a renewed interest in them with many brands of high end turntables being manufactured. Sorry to sound this way but this seems to be what's happening. What I would like to see is many more of the older albums on CD say from the 60's & 70's digitally remastered to 24bit technology adding more bass and greatly improving the sound quality from when they were originally recorded in the studio. Take many of the early Beatles CD's. Their sound is awful, tinny if you know what I mean. Well, that's my 2 cents anyway for what it's worth.

[Feanor]

Just my opinion but I wouldn't place faith in any new CD format considering the way these others have gone (HDCD, DVD-A, SACD), etc. I have two CD players that both can play HDCD format. Do you know how many HDCD's I have? Two. ... What I would like to see is many more of the older albums on CD say from the 60's & 70's digitally remastered to 24bit technology adding more bass and greatly improving the sound quality from when they were originally recorded in the studio. Take many of the early Beatles CD's. Their sound is awful, tinny if you know what I mean. Well, that's my 2 cents anyway for what it's worth.

What we most need are more really well-made CDs. In general, (subject to many individual exceptions), CDs made recently are far better than those made in the '80s. What you really need, though, to make good remasters are the original recording tapes, not just some 2nd or 3rd generation master).

Again, in general, my SACDs and HDCDs, (I have only 5-6 of the latter myself), are much better than my typical CD, but the only obvious reason is more careful recording and production, not the medium itself. Multi-channel is another matter: well recorded MC played back on a well set up system can convey a realism that 2 ch simply cannot.

[jim goulding]

one I listen to quite a bit. It's a Riverside recording of The Cannonball Adderley Quintet "Live in San Francisco" at my old haunt The Jazz Workshop. It was released on vinyl over 30 yers ago. Podna's, this is a great recording!. Of jubiliant, toe tapping jazz to boot. One thing about Cannonball, he's fun. It's vivid, vibrant, and full sounding. Very natural. The other is a recording of a big band doing Monk tunes and while it's sonics are pristine with pinpoint imaging, it's a bit dry and the balance is a little off to my tastes. But it speaks well for the medium as does the former. If the people behind K2 are saying they can take the fidelity even further, I don't think I care. Not on these two releases anyway. They're that good!

[Mr Peabody]

If something like K2 delivered the goods it would have an edge over SACD just because you could play it with your existing CD player.

HDCD is weird, it really didn't have any marketing, nor did I see any labels on the discs to tell consumers it was a HDCD. I used to have a CD player with a LED that lit up if a HDCD was played. Many times I had one and didn't even know it until I placed it in that player. What was even more strange, there were many Country titles in HDCD. I heard a couple of the Country albums with HDCD and they sounded artificial but I think that was more due to the Pop style production that was used. The Paula Cole album is HDCD and it sounds pretty good. Whatever they use the recording has to be done right on the master to begin with.

I'm amazed at how well some live Jazz recordings sound. They must set up correctly to begin with and then leave it alone to preserve they special presence of a live recording. I've got some Crusaders discs that aren't so great on frequency balance, sounding a bit thin, but they have that live presence that just make them fun to listen to. That, and the fact the music jams.

Anyone having XRCD, do they label these where you can tell what it is? I'd like to get my hands on one. I remember amusicdirect.com carried them.

[Feanor]

If something like K2 delivered the goods it would have an edge over SACD just because you could play it with your existing CD player.

HDCD is weird, it really didn't have any marketing, nor did I see any labels on the discs to tell consumers it was a HDCD. I used to have a CD player with a LED that lit up if a HDCD was played. Many times I had one and didn't even know it until I placed it in that player
....
Anyone having XRCD, do they label these where you can tell what it is? I'd like to get my hands on one. I remember amusicdirect.com carried them.

All my HDCDs are on the Reference Recordings label. The label is associated with Keith Johnson who was among the developers of HDCD. All the RR samples I have are outstanding -- then again, they are outstanding even without HDCD decoding at work.

I have several jazz albums that say, for example, "20-bit K2 Super Coding" and "This album is remastered using 20-bit A/D converter with digital K2 interface." But I don't know whether this makes them XRCDs. They sound very good but nothing really beyond a well-made standard CD.

[jrhymeammo]

Aftrer 2nd read of the Victor website, I'm starting think this is a mastering technique instead of a new format. I wish there was someone on this site who can read Japanese better than I can.... I dont understand audio lingo in Japanese. If K2HD transfers at 24/192 at 100k, I'm not sure what's so different from DSD process, often found on the back of TELAC RBCD. Sonny's Colossal has been rereleased more than once, and they are offering the album on K2HD.
If this proves to be much more superior than our recent remastered recording, then I say bring it on!!

Problem is that I'm not a big fan of Mr. Rollins. i think I'll grab a copy of ELP and a copy of some newer recording.


JRA

[Mr Peabody]

I have one Reference title and it is probably my best sounding album. It's a Classical comp, I think it's called Brass & Organ. There's a track on there that is simply amazing played through my Krell gear. There is a Kettle drum crescendo with the Krell's strength and transcient response is unbelieveable. The first time I heard it I was so startled I had to play that part over to see if I really just heard what I thought I did.

I'll have to look at the back of some more of my discs to see if I notice any K2 mentioned.

[PeruvianSkies]

I have one Reference title and it is probably my best sounding album. It's a Classical comp, I think it's called Brass & Organ. There's a track on there that is simply amazing played through my Krell gear. There is a Kettle drum crescendo with the Krell's strength and transcient response is unbelieveable. The first time I heard it I was so startled I had to play that part over to see if I really just heard what I thought I did.

I'll have to look at the back of some more of my discs to see if I notice any K2 mentioned.

You wouldn't happen to have the SACD of CAPTAIN FANTASTIC would you?

[musicman1999]

You wouldn't happen to have the SACD of CAPTAIN FANTASTIC would you?



Yes.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

Yes.

bill

The reason that I am asking is because I wanted to know how CURTAINS sounded with your Krells. It wasn't until I went with my current 2-channel setup (instead of playing it in 5.1) that I really noticed the 'THUD' of the drums on that song. Man does it ever pack a punch! Just a brilliant mix and one of my all time favorite albums and certainly a great demo SACD.

[musicman1999]

Krells, i wish. The veil of confusion has lifted and now i understand.

bill

[jim goulding]

Mr. Peabody- I, too, think live jazz recordings are usually very good. I think you're right about setting up the mikes. Then, it usually goes to a two track machine with very little mixing. The result is in real time. I think that's the difference. I got one for you and I think bobsticks will agree, Art Blakey and The Jazz Messengers at Keystone Korner 3. The designation 3 is very important. This version of The Messengers features Wynton and Branford Marsalis and a hellova bop pianist, Donald Brown. Go right to side two, or if you're listening by CD, that would be tract #4. Blakey's drum hits are so clean and his cymbals shimmer. You can hear the inside of the piano's box. And yet things are miked with regard for your perspective as tho you were in the audience and with regard for the position of the players on stage. The last track is the best on the album, in my veteran opinion. Clean cookin with gas! Blakey positively shines on this and he is positioned behind the front line as it should be. You mentioned The Crusaders. Have you heard "Live at The Lighthouse '88"? Good recording.that's not thin, I think you might agree. My copies are on vinyl and regular CD, respectively.

[Mr Peabody]

I'll have to check those 2 titles out. Thanks

[bobsticks]

Mr. Peabody- I, too, think live jazz recordings are usually very good. I think you're right about setting up the mikes. Then, it usually goes to a two track machine with very little mixing. The result is in real time. I think that's the difference. I got one for you and I think bobsticks will agree, Art Blakey and The Jazz Messengers at Keystone Korner 3. The designation 3 is very important. This version of The Messengers features Wynton and Branford Marsalis and a hellova bop pianist, Donald Brown. Go right to side two, or if you're listening by CD, that would be tract #4. Blakey's drum hits are so clean and his cymbals shimmer. You can hear the inside of the piano's box. And yet things are miked with regard for your perspective as tho you were in the audience and with regard for the position of the players on stage. The last track is the best on the album, in my veteran opinion. Clean cookin with gas! Blakey positively shines on this and he is positioned behind the front line as it should be. You mentioned The Crusaders. Have you heard "Live at The Lighthouse '88"? Good recording.that's not thin, I think you might agree. My copies are on vinyl and regular CD, respectively.


Absolutely cosigns...

Search out this recording Mr. P, you won't regret it. It has also been my experience that most of the Oscar Peterson and Lionel Hampton recordings on the Telarc label are pretty solid. Both Live at the Blue Note and Encore at the Blue Note just "take you there" and are excellent DSD recordings in standard redbook format.

[Woochifer]

Sounds like yet another variation on a familiar theme, namely JVC's K2 mastering process. In the end, the native data resolution that comes out of the disc remains at 44.1/16. A CD is incapable of producing bits that it does not have. The HDCD format squeezes a little bit of extra bandwidth, but that differs from JVC's K2 process because HDCD's an actual encode-decode process that requires hardware at both ends to obtain slightly higher resolution (in fact, the HDCD encoding process actually raises the noise floor for normal CD playback).

This is not a format so much as a mastering process with a bunch of fancy trademarks attached (no different than Sony's Super Bit Mapping CD, which refers to mastering done using analog masters transferred to DSD).

The only difference between this version of K2 and previous incarnations (marketed as XRCD and XRCD2) seems to be that the mastering is now done from a 192/24 transfer rather than 96/24. In the end, everything still gets downsampled and dithered to 44.1/16. These K2HD mastered CDs might achieve higher sound quality, but then so might any number of other steps used by other companies. (For example, some mastering engineers believe that any kind of high resolution digital downsampling is better off using whole number multipled sampling rates such as 88.2 or 176.4 kHz, rather than the 96 or 192 kHz sampling rates)

For all of the technobabble that accompanies these "new and improved" CDs, I don't think there's any substitute for a good recording and attention to detail during the mastering process. Then again, it's hard to justify charging upwards of $30 for a merely "remastered" CD, so might as well slap that XRCD2 or K2HD label onto a CD in better hopes that someone's more willing to pay that much for a 44.1/16 CD.

If you read this JVC press release, it seems that they are marketing K2 towards compressed file mastering, and the references to 100 db dynamic range seems to refer to the resolution used during the mastering process, not necessarily the dynamic range that ends up on a CD (not that you'll find many master sources with that kind of dynamic range to begin with).

http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=14009

That Stereomojo site's claim that this sounds better than SACD is highly dubious, because I would question what they are comparing.

Are they comparing commercially available discs? Or the SACD and K2HD-mastered disc versus an actual master feed? If they are comparing commercially available discs, then any comments cannot be generalized to the format itself, since the preparation of the K2HD-mastered CD and the SACD were done by different engineers, using different settings, and perhaps even using different master sources.

For example, I have Classic Records' 96/24 PCM disc of Gershwin's orchestral/piano pieces performed by Slatkin and the St. Louis Symphony (excellent recording and performance BTW), and IMO it sounds inferior to the Mobile Fidelity CD version of that same recording. Does that mean that a CD's 44.1/16 resolution is inherently superior to 96/24 resolution? Of course not. All it indicates is that Mobile Fidelity uses a superior playback rig and/or employs a superior mastering process and/or their engineer did a better job at tweaking with that particular transfer (and FYI, the SACD layer on that same disc is a step above the CD layer -- a more worthwhile comparison than whatever these Stereomojo guys tried since both were mastered by the same engineer, while using the same playback rig and the same master tape).

Basically, Stereomojo is claiming that a specific CD can sound superior to a SACD. I wouldn't argue with that. But, they seem to be making the claim that this mastering process is capable of making the CD format superior to the SACD format, which is a laughable claim given that this K2HD process does absolutely nothing to change the CD's inherent characteristics. There's no encode-decode process that makes the CD itself any different from any other "remastered" CD. The K2HD discs might sound nice, but let's not go overboard with the hype.

[jrhymeammo]

Sounds like yet another variation on a familiar theme, namely JVC's K2 mastering process. In the end, the native data resolution that comes out of the disc remains at 44.1/16. A CD is incapable of producing bits that it does not have. The HDCD format squeezes a little bit of extra bandwidth, but that differs from JVC's K2 process because HDCD's an actual encode-decode process that requires hardware at both ends to obtain slightly higher resolution (in fact, the HDCD encoding process actually raises the noise floor for normal CD playback).

This is not a format so much as a mastering process with a bunch of fancy trademarks attached (no different than Sony's Super Bit Mapping CD, which refers to mastering done using analog masters transferred to DSD).

The only difference between this version of K2 and previous incarnations (marketed as XRCD and XRCD2) seems to be that the mastering is now done from a 192/24 transfer rather than 96/24. In the end, everything still gets downsampled and dithered to 44.1/16. These K2HD mastered CDs might achieve higher sound quality, but then so might any number of other steps used by other companies. (For example, some mastering engineers believe that any kind of high resolution digital downsampling is better off using whole number multipled sampling rates such as 88.2 or 176.4 kHz, rather than the 96 or 192 kHz sampling rates)

For all of the technobabble that accompanies these "new and improved" CDs, I don't think there's any substitute for a good recording and attention to detail during the mastering process. Then again, it's hard to justify charging upwards of $30 for a merely "remastered" CD, so might as well slap that XRCD2 or K2HD label onto a CD in better hopes that someone's more willing to pay that much for a 44.1/16 CD.

If you read this JVC press release, it seems that they are marketing K2 towards compressed file mastering, and the references to 100 db dynamic range seems to refer to the resolution used during the mastering process, not necessarily the dynamic range that ends up on a CD (not that you'll find many master sources with that kind of dynamic range to begin with).

http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=14009

That Stereomojo site's claim that this sounds better than SACD is highly dubious, because I would question what they are comparing.

Are they comparing commercially available discs? Or the SACD and K2HD-mastered disc versus an actual master feed? If they are comparing commercially available discs, then any comments cannot be generalized to the format itself, since the preparation of the K2HD-mastered CD and the SACD were done by different engineers, using different settings, and perhaps even using different master sources.

For example, I have Classic Records' 96/24 PCM disc of Gershwin's orchestral/piano pieces performed by Slatkin and the St. Louis Symphony (excellent recording and performance BTW), and IMO it sounds inferior to the Mobile Fidelity CD version of that same recording. Does that mean that a CD's 44.1/16 resolution is inherently superior to 96/24 resolution? Of course not. All it indicates is that Mobile Fidelity uses a superior playback rig and/or employs a superior mastering process and/or their engineer did a better job at tweaking with that particular transfer (and FYI, the SACD layer on that same disc is a step above the CD layer -- a more worthwhile comparison than whatever these Stereomojo guys tried since both were mastered by the same engineer, while using the same playback rig and the same master tape).

Basically, Stereomojo is claiming that a specific CD can sound superior to a SACD. I wouldn't argue with that. But, they seem to be making the claim that this mastering process is capable of making the CD format superior to the SACD format, which is a laughable claim given that this K2HD process does absolutely nothing to change the CD's inherent characteristics. There's no encode-decode process that makes the CD itself any different from any other "remastered" CD. The K2HD discs might sound nice, but let's not go overboard with the hype.


Not sure if anyone could've said it any better. As I thought, this is just a mastering process for a plain RBCD. Then now I wonder why it was stated that no special equipment is needed to play these K2HD... Maybe just to clear any confusion for some potiential consumers like myself.:confused5:

I got some CDs that walk all over certain SACDs. Art Blakey "Caravan" is absolutely horrible on SACD. I image that it was just a terrible recording to begin with. I'm sure some magical processing can resolve some fidelity but not sure if it';s worth the effort.


My Fam is out on a vacation so no recommendation for K2HD at this point. But what I can, most certainely,m recommend is:

Stella by Starlight: The Great Jazz Trio, Hank Jones.
they should have series of this stuff, and this SACD is just perfect. Anyone who can stand Jazz and owns a SACD player should at least own one album from the series.

JRA

[Woochifer]

Not sure if anyone could've said it any better. As I thought, this is just a mastering process for a plain RBCD. Then now I wonder why it was stated that no special equipment is needed to play these K2HD... Maybe just to clear any confusion for some potiential consumers like myself.:confused5:

I got some CDs that walk all over certain SACDs. Art Blakey "Caravan" is absolutely horrible on SACD. I image that it was just a terrible recording to begin with. I'm sure some magical processing can resolve some fidelity but not sure if it';s worth the effort.


My Fam is out on a vacation so no recommendation for K2HD at this point. But what I can, most certainely,m recommend is:

Stella by Starlight: The Great Jazz Trio, Hank Jones.
they should have series of this stuff, and this SACD is just perfect. Anyone who can stand Jazz and owns a SACD player should at least own one album from the series.

JRA


I think a lot of it boils down to the philosophy of the record company and/or mastering engineer. On my Classic Records/Mobile Fidelity example, the difference between the CD/SACD and 96/24 PCM discs very clearly illustrated those respective companies' fundamental approach to their releases.

Classic Records is all about preserving the "vintage" sound as closely as possible. Their mastering playback rig consists of restored vintage tape players and mixers, and they use a first generation vault copy of the original LP issue as a playback reference. The ultimate goal is to replicate the sound of that original LP issue as closely as possible, even with a high res digital transfer. Their production staff is top notch (as a vinyl cutter, Bernie Grundman is as good there is in the industry), and to that end they do a great job.

Mobile Fidelity OTOH takes a lot more artistic license to tinker with the sound. Their playback rig is highly customized with a purported analog frequency range that exceeds what DVD-A and SACD are capable of. Their goal is to produce something that subjectively sounds better than the original LP or CD issue. To that end, I think they have generally succeeded, and explains why I would prefer Mobile Fidelity's CD version over Classic's higher resolution version of the same recording.

Fantasy/Prestige Records (which I believe is the company that issued that Art Blakey SACD) is particular about preservation. (Their tape vault in Berkeley stores the masters for some of the most treasured recordings in jazz and rock history, and the fanatical attention to detail in how that vault operates seems to indicate that they take this task very seriously) The LP and CD comparisons that I've done seem to indicate that, like Classic Records, they have a particular analog reference that they aim for. BTW, Fantasy/Prestige also uses the K2 mastering system for some limited edition releases, and they price these titles very reasonably. Concurrently, they have also licensed many of those same titles for release as XRCDs, which are NOT reasonably priced, and lead me to wonder what differences might exist between Fantasy/Prestige's regular CDs and these megapriced XRCDs, considering that both of them use that K2 mastering setup.

Like you mention, with that Art Blakey SACD, it might simply be that no good references exist, and Fantasy/Prestige to me doesn't seem like they're into "colorizing" their recordings. Then again, you do have a live human being working the boards during these transfers. The Rudy Van Gelder remasters have made all kinds of editorial changes to classic Blue Note titles, some of which have worked, other that have not.

[pixelthis]

I disagree with the premise that SACD and DVD-A are "dead".
Life support maybe, but certainly not "dead".
Both are relatively cheap to make, and if there is just a smattering of support I beleive they may surrive, even tho both are the biggest marketing missfires in history.
But they may yet find their audience, people who want sound without the limitations
of the red book, but not so blinded by nostalgia that they are hypnotized by their turntables.
As for the CD its never lived up to its potential, properly mastered it can sound quite good.
Anybody ever heard Sheffield labs?
I have two of their discs, and they are superb, their main deal is recording live in the studio,
but they pay special attention to mastering. Pat Coil's STEPS, AND "THE USUAL SUSPECTS" are both really quite good.
And Jazz is mastered more carefully because record companies know that a lot of jazz
fans are audiophiles, and wont put up with any less than their best effort:thumbsup:

[Mr Peabody]

SACD may still be in ICU but I think we can safely call DVD-A's time of death. I still see SACD new releases but I haven't seen anything from DVD-A in quite sometime. SACD is still a nitch, it will be interesting to see if HDMI connection will give it more life.

I have one of the Pat Coil discs. I can't remember if the name is Brian's Song or if that's just one of the songs on it. I also have James Newton Howard & Friends which is a must for any music lover. I may have a couple more.

[nightflier]

SACD may still be in ICU but I think we can safely call DVD-A's time of death. I still see SACD new releases but I haven't seen anything from DVD-A in quite sometime. SACD is still a nitch, it will be interesting to see if HDMI connection will give it more life.

Not if the new high def players (BR & HD-DVD) don't support the format. It also looks like a lot of vendors are dropping players with SACD compatibility for some reason.

That said, SACD is definitely in ICU, although I doubt if this new format will sign it's DNR papers. It will probably live on for years in a vegetative state, perhaps as long as classical music survives....

[Mr Peabody]

You wouldn't happen to have the SACD of CAPTAIN FANTASTIC would you?

They may revoke my audiophile membership but I do not have any SACD's, nor DVD-A. When SACD first came out I couldn't tell much difference and it seemed getting a player that did both CD and SACD very well would be unlikely, most did either or. If I knew anyone with a good SACD player I'd like to do another comparison but it would have had to be good to compete with my Krell 280cd and now my Audio Note DAC. The main reason is I wouldn't want to lay the kind of money I spent on a CD player for the hand full of titles I might like. If the record companies got behind it and put some regular music it might have been more appealing

[Mr Peabody]

So far I have only seen BR & HD-DVD doing CD. I got into a conversation on a thread whether SACD could even go through HDMI. Doing some research it looks like it will. If the new HD units aren't going to support it, I wonder if any SACD players have HDMI, surely some of the universal players do.

[jrhymeammo]

They may revoke my audiophile membership but I do not have any SACD's, nor DVD-A. When SACD first came out I couldn't tell much difference and it seemed getting a player that did both CD and SACD very well would be unlikely, most did either or. If I knew anyone with a good SACD player I'd like to do another comparison but it would have had to be good to compete with my Krell 280cd and now my Audio Note DAC. The main reason is I wouldn't want to lay the kind of money I spent on a CD player for the hand full of titles I might like. If the record companies got behind it and put some regular music it might have been more appealing

My SA-8001 is easy to recommend for those who are looking to upgrade from their low-fi CD player. It's a good CD player with SACD capability.
But anyone is a situation such as yours, I wouldnt even think about it. But, I have a luxury of picking up SACD titles I'm curious about. I'm mean why not get a SA-8001 if anyone is looking to get any CD Player for under $1K. Maybe a dedicated $1K CD player would sound better than a SACD-P for $1K. But what are other options in the price range that'll sound signficantly better?

Still no K2HD due to a certain situation in Japan. Maybe I'll just whip out my Amex for a purchase on some .co.jp site.

p.s. I dont think SACD is dead either, but a title like that was neccesary. I think SACD will trickle around for at least 5 more years. If so, that's good enough for me.

[jrhymeammo]

......................

Do you recommend any specific Jazz CD by Mapleshade Records? From what I've read, if they produced SACD, they could be incredible...

JRA

[nightflier]

Do you recommend any specific Jazz CD by Mapleshade Records? From what I've read, if they produced SACD, they could be incredible...JRA

Mapleshade makes some excellent recordings. I've been very impressed with the quality, although they don't do SACD, XRCD, HDCD, or any of the other acronyms out there except RBCD. But they do it well, the only drawback is that most of the artists are ones that they like and that means pretty much Blues and Jazz. I have all their classical (if you can call it that) CDs, but for Jazz I thought that THE J STREET JUMPERS: Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby (http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/cds/05452.php) and THE REDWINE TRIO: Baby Won’t You Please Come Home (http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/cds/10632.php) are very well recorded. It's not Coltrane or Coleman type jazz, but it's well done.

[pixelthis]

They may revoke my audiophile membership but I do not have any SACD's, nor DVD-A. When SACD first came out I couldn't tell much difference and it seemed getting a player that did both CD and SACD very well would be unlikely, most did either or. If I knew anyone with a good SACD player I'd like to do another comparison but it would have had to be good to compete with my Krell 280cd and now my Audio Note DAC. The main reason is I wouldn't want to lay the kind of money I spent on a CD player for the hand full of titles I might like. If the record companies got behind it and put some regular music it might have been more appealing
I have an inexpensive player that does dvda and sacd, and I am afraid that dvda is quite dead.
But SACD , if it does live, will live on because of its attractiveness to audiophiles.
It doesnt have the gimmicks that dvda had. And the sacd of kinda blue alone is worth the trouble. I do hope the format surrives, I have certainly done my part to support it (kinda)
Its survival is an uphill battle tho.
Same with Blu-ray, it will be the "surriving" format because of its appeal to quality
and technological superiority.
A lot think cost is a factor in any format war, but cost is mercurial, value is what wins the day

[Mr Peabody]

I am getting a little confidence boost for Blu-ray as I am starting to see disc drives and burners show up on the market. I wonder if MS has gotten anyone to include the HD-DVD in their computer yet? A computer manufacturer has it easy, all they have to do is offer either one as a add on feature.

[Woochifer]

Not if the new high def players (BR & HD-DVD) don't support the format. It also looks like a lot of vendors are dropping players with SACD compatibility for some reason.

That said, SACD is definitely in ICU, although I doubt if this new format will sign it's DNR papers. It will probably live on for years in a vegetative state, perhaps as long as classical music survives....

At this point, all I care about is Sony keeping their hybrid CD/SACD production lines up and running long enough for the SF Symphony to release the final two discs in their Mahler series.

The SFS started recording the Mahler cycle the day after 9/11 (that monumental performance of the "Tragic" Sixth Symphony won the symphonic performance Grammy in 2003), and they recorded the unfinished Tenth Symphony and short songs last fall. But, they don't plan to record the epic Eighth (Symphony of a Thousand) until 2009, and they usually wait at least a year before releasing the discs.

Given that they went through the trouble of recording and mixing all the performances in multichannel DSD and already released the other eight Mahler symphonies in 5.1 SACD, it would be a shame if the final release was limited to two-channel CD.

SACD's flatlining, but I doubt that K2HD will have any part of further deep sixing the format, given that JVC's K2 releases (i.e. XRCD and XRCD2) have been around longer than either DVD-A or SACD.

[Woochifer]

I am getting a little confidence boost for Blu-ray as I am starting to see disc drives and burners show up on the market. I wonder if MS has gotten anyone to include the HD-DVD in their computer yet? A computer manufacturer has it easy, all they have to do is offer either one as a add on feature.

Rumor has it that HD-DVD support will be built into the upcoming service pack for Windows Vista. Whether that has any impact, who knows. Blu-ray and HD-DVD OEM drives have been out for a while now. I just don't get the sense that there's a whole lot of interest right now (no different than when DVD drives first started arriving on the market). Plus, Dell and HP already offer optional Blu-ray drives, and Sony just announced an all-in-one iMac knockoff with the option for a built-in Blu-ray recorder. Toshiba previously announced that they would add HD-DVD drives to all of their notebook models starting next year.

[pixelthis]

At this point, all I care about is Sony keeping their hybrid CD/SACD production lines up and running long enough for the SF Symphony to release the final two discs in their Mahler series.

The SFS started recording the Mahler cycle the day after 9/11 (that monumental performance of the "Tragic" Sixth Symphony won the symphonic performance Grammy in 2003), and they recorded the unfinished Tenth Symphony and short songs last fall. But, they don't plan to record the epic Eighth (Symphony of a Thousand) until 2009, and they usually wait at least a year before releasing the discs.

Given that they went through the trouble of recording and mixing all the performances in multichannel DSD and already released the other eight Mahler symphonies in 5.1 SACD, it would be a shame if the final release was limited to two-channel CD.

SACD's flatlining, but I doubt that K2HD will have any part of further deep sixing the format, given that JVC's K2 releases (i.e. XRCD and XRCD2) have been around longer than either DVD-A or SACD.

One thing that might help SACD is that Sony set out to make it an archival format,
also its something completely different, not just another PCM codec.
it actually makes a sine wave with ones and zeros.
What really irks me is that all of the so called "audiophiles" have been trashing
redbook for years, heres an authenic hi-fidelity format and they stay away in droves:1:

[Mr Peabody]

I don't think you can say audiophiles stayed away from SACD. Most high end manufacturers either went to all universal players or at least offer a full line of them. And, the titles that are on SACD, for the most part, weren't picked for the masses. Almost every audio manufacturer offers something that will play SACD.

Music disc sales are way down in general, so when you combine that with SACD's additional cost and limited selection, you have, what you have.

It also seems like those behind SACD just quit with the thrust. I haven't revisited SACD in a long while but you'd think with it's potential the sound quality improvement would be more noticeable against redbook players in the same price range. Maybe they should have put a couple killer SACD stand alone players on the market rather than stuffing everything into a universal player. After DVD player manufacturers being forced to include CD playback in the player and the manufacturers then putting the cheapest thing possible in to meet that need, I am leary of universal players. I may be wrong but I am of the mind set that you should do just one job and do it to the best of it's ability.

[Lance B]

Sounds like yet another variation on a familiar theme, namely JVC's K2 mastering process. In the end, the native data resolution that comes out of the disc remains at 44.1/16. A CD is incapable of producing bits that it does not have. The HDCD format squeezes a little bit of extra bandwidth, but that differs from JVC's K2 process because HDCD's an actual encode-decode process that requires hardware at both ends to obtain slightly higher resolution (in fact, the HDCD encoding process actually raises the noise floor for normal CD playback).

This is not a format so much as a mastering process with a bunch of fancy trademarks attached (no different than Sony's Super Bit Mapping CD, which refers to mastering done using analog masters transferred to DSD).

The only difference between this version of K2 and previous incarnations (marketed as XRCD and XRCD2) seems to be that the mastering is now done from a 192/24 transfer rather than 96/24. In the end, everything still gets downsampled and dithered to 44.1/16. These K2HD mastered CDs might achieve higher sound quality, but then so might any number of other steps used by other companies. (For example, some mastering engineers believe that any kind of high resolution digital downsampling is better off using whole number multipled sampling rates such as 88.2 or 176.4 kHz, rather than the 96 or 192 kHz sampling rates)

For all of the technobabble that accompanies these "new and improved" CDs, I don't think there's any substitute for a good recording and attention to detail during the mastering process. Then again, it's hard to justify charging upwards of $30 for a merely "remastered" CD, so might as well slap that XRCD2 or K2HD label onto a CD in better hopes that someone's more willing to pay that much for a 44.1/16 CD.

If you read this JVC press release, it seems that they are marketing K2 towards compressed file mastering, and the references to 100 db dynamic range seems to refer to the resolution used during the mastering process, not necessarily the dynamic range that ends up on a CD (not that you'll find many master sources with that kind of dynamic range to begin with).

http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=14009

That Stereomojo site's claim that this sounds better than SACD is highly dubious, because I would question what they are comparing.

Are they comparing commercially available discs? Or the SACD and K2HD-mastered disc versus an actual master feed? If they are comparing commercially available discs, then any comments cannot be generalized to the format itself, since the preparation of the K2HD-mastered CD and the SACD were done by different engineers, using different settings, and perhaps even using different master sources.

For example, I have Classic Records' 96/24 PCM disc of Gershwin's orchestral/piano pieces performed by Slatkin and the St. Louis Symphony (excellent recording and performance BTW), and IMO it sounds inferior to the Mobile Fidelity CD version of that same recording. Does that mean that a CD's 44.1/16 resolution is inherently superior to 96/24 resolution? Of course not. All it indicates is that Mobile Fidelity uses a superior playback rig and/or employs a superior mastering process and/or their engineer did a better job at tweaking with that particular transfer (and FYI, the SACD layer on that same disc is a step above the CD layer -- a more worthwhile comparison than whatever these Stereomojo guys tried since both were mastered by the same engineer, while using the same playback rig and the same master tape).

Basically, Stereomojo is claiming that a specific CD can sound superior to a SACD. I wouldn't argue with that. But, they seem to be making the claim that this mastering process is capable of making the CD format superior to the SACD format, which is a laughable claim given that this K2HD process does absolutely nothing to change the CD's inherent characteristics. There's no encode-decode process that makes the CD itself any different from any other "remastered" CD. The K2HD discs might sound nice, but let's not go overboard with the hype.

Perfectly put.

Your assumption that we are in the hands of the recording engineers etc is right on the money!

[Lance B]

I think a lot of it boils down to the philosophy of the record company and/or mastering engineer. On my Classic Records/Mobile Fidelity example, the difference between the CD/SACD and 96/24 PCM discs very clearly illustrated those respective companies' fundamental approach to their releases.

Classic Records is all about preserving the "vintage" sound as closely as possible. Their mastering playback rig consists of restored vintage tape players and mixers, and they use a first generation vault copy of the original LP issue as a playback reference. The ultimate goal is to replicate the sound of that original LP issue as closely as possible, even with a high res digital transfer. Their production staff is top notch (as a vinyl cutter, Bernie Grundman is as good there is in the industry), and to that end they do a great job.

Mobile Fidelity OTOH takes a lot more artistic license to tinker with the sound. Their playback rig is highly customized with a purported analog frequency range that exceeds what DVD-A and SACD are capable of. Their goal is to produce something that subjectively sounds better than the original LP or CD issue. To that end, I think they have generally succeeded, and explains why I would prefer Mobile Fidelity's CD version over Classic's higher resolution version of the same recording.

Fantasy/Prestige Records (which I believe is the company that issued that Art Blakey SACD) is particular about preservation. (Their tape vault in Berkeley stores the masters for some of the most treasured recordings in jazz and rock history, and the fanatical attention to detail in how that vault operates seems to indicate that they take this task very seriously) The LP and CD comparisons that I've done seem to indicate that, like Classic Records, they have a particular analog reference that they aim for. BTW, Fantasy/Prestige also uses the K2 mastering system for some limited edition releases, and they price these titles very reasonably. Concurrently, they have also licensed many of those same titles for release as XRCDs, which are NOT reasonably priced, and lead me to wonder what differences might exist between Fantasy/Prestige's regular CDs and these megapriced XRCDs, considering that both of them use that K2 mastering setup.

Like you mention, with that Art Blakey SACD, it might simply be that no good references exist, and Fantasy/Prestige to me doesn't seem like they're into "colorizing" their recordings. Then again, you do have a live human being working the boards during these transfers. The Rudy Van Gelder remasters have made all kinds of editorial changes to classic Blue Note titles, some of which have worked, other that have not.

Again, perfectly put.

[pixelthis]

I don't think you can say audiophiles stayed away from SACD. Most high end manufacturers either went to all universal players or at least offer a full line of them. And, the titles that are on SACD, for the most part, weren't picked for the masses. Almost every audio manufacturer offers something that will play SACD.

Music disc sales are way down in general, so when you combine that with SACD's additional cost and limited selection, you have, what you have.

It also seems like those behind SACD just quit with the thrust. I haven't revisited SACD in a long while but you'd think with it's potential the sound quality improvement would be more noticeable against redbook players in the same price range. Maybe they should have put a couple killer SACD stand alone players on the market rather than stuffing everything into a universal player. After DVD player manufacturers being forced to include CD playback in the player and the manufacturers then putting the cheapest thing possible in to meet that need, I am leary of universal players. I may be wrong but I am of the mind set that you should do just one job and do it to the best of it's ability.

Right about that, but its just not feasible for some.
A CD, DVD, AND a SACD player would just cost too much.
AND there was plenty of support from manufacurers, sure, but with limited mainstream support, a format like SACD needs the support of most ALL audiophiles.
And too many stayed with their records.
Sacd is a true high quality sound source, answering many of the complaints that some have against redbook, which is why some stayed with turntables.
Well, give em something better than redbook and they STILL stayed with their turntables.
I loved all of the turntables I had before the advent of CD, here was something that beat cassettes, radio, you name it, and the setting up was an art form itself.
But CD is better, and sacd even better.
I really think that all of those that grew up with turntables as the main deal will have to die out before it actually starts to fade away, kinda like the straight shift sports car:(

[PeruvianSkies]

Right about that, but its just not feasible for some.
A CD, DVD, AND a SACD player would just cost too much.
AND there was plenty of support from manufacurers, sure, but with limited mainstream support, a format like SACD needs the support of most ALL audiophiles.
And too many stayed with their records.
Sacd is a true high quality sound source, answering many of the complaints that some have against redbook, which is why some stayed with turntables.
Well, give em something better than redbook and they STILL stayed with their turntables.
I loved all of the turntables I had before the advent of CD, here was something that beat cassettes, radio, you name it, and the setting up was an art form itself.
But CD is better, and sacd even better.
I really think that all of those that grew up with turntables as the main deal will have to die out before it actually starts to fade away, kinda like the straight shift sports car:(

You're throwing rocks at the vinyl hornets nest, better hope there is some water nearby before you get stung.

[pixelthis]

You're throwing rocks at the vinyl hornets nest, better hope there is some water nearby before you get stung.
The truth always hurts

[Chas Underhay]

Greetings Gentlemen

I remember being involved in some lively discussion here three of four years ago about Hi Rez formats. I had no faith then in SACD or DVD-A surviving but even I was supprised at how quickly they both died out.

There are just not enough audiophiles out there to support any Hi Rez format. In my opinion CD is here to stay for the forseeable future. Yeah, sure sales will slow because of downloads etc but CD is too well established to die out. Everybody in the civilised world probably has a minimum of three CD players; 1 in the stereo, 1 in their computer and 1 in their car. Also probably a couple of portable ones as well. If Vinyl won't die, then nor will CD.

But what of the future? Well it's already been with us for about the last ten years; Yep DVD-V! I know there are Hi Rez format wars there but Joe Public is unlikely to be very interested so standard DVD-V is also here to stay.

The world has changed, try finding a proper Hi-Fi shop these days, it's all something or other sound and vision. Few people buy a Hi-Fi set anymore they all have home cinemas.

A lot of people don't even bother to buy a cheap stereo anymore and just have a TV and a DVD player that they play all of their music on. If they have freeview, cable or satelite; they have a radio tuner thrown in.

So what possibilities are there for the future? Good quality DVD-V music is the one I'd have faith in ! I know music videos have been around for a long time but I think it is a largely untapped market. What better format for opera lovers? All the operatic works released on DVD-V would make even the most devoted vinyl fan rush out buy them as fast as they became available.

As far as I know, the sales of music DVDs are increasing over the years (I think it is the only standard format that is) but in the past there have been three problems with music video. 1. Poor choice of material. 2. Poor to medeocre production. 3. Insufficient numbers of people had an A/V type system. Item 3 is being addressed at a rate of knots so it has to be a music marketing man's dream.

[Woochifer]

I remember being involved in some lively discussion here three of four years ago about Hi Rez formats. I had no faith then in SACD or DVD-A surviving but even I was supprised at how quickly they both died out.

SACD's not dead, but it ain't exactly breathing on its own either. Some classical titles and select reissues will continue to trickle out in the hybrid CD/SACD format, but who knows how long that will last. The HDMI 1.3 spec might also provide a reprieve for SACD, since allows for digital output with both DVD-A and SACD.


But what of the future? Well it's already been with us for about the last ten years; Yep DVD-V! I know there are Hi Rez format wars there but Joe Public is unlikely to be very interested so standard DVD-V is also here to stay.

Well, I think that point's debatable, because there are plenty of differences between the HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war and SACD/DVD-A. First off, the major studios have already standardized their major new releases around concurrent day-and-date HD disc releases with the DVD versions. This is support that SACD and DVD-A never got from the major record labels.

Second, the difference between HD and SD video is much easier to demonstrate than comparing a SACD or DVD-A with CD audio. The video quality improvement with HD resolution is obvious, even while standing in line at a Costco or Sam's Club. In order to demonstrate the virtues of higher resolution audio and even multichannel audio requires a proper setup with decent acoustical conditions -- something you'll rarely if ever find at a Costco or Best Buy or Wal-Mart. Even Joe6p can see the benefit of HD, because it's there where he/she shops.

Third, the rest of the video chain (broadcast, PPV, satellite, cable) is going HD. I doubt that disc media will indefinitely remain the last non-HD holdout when broadcasts and on demand services are moving towards HD. Someone who has grown used to seeing sporting events and prime time programs in HD will immediately see the drop off in quality when going over to DVD. And within the next few years, good luck finding a non-HD TV. Even now, non-HD TVs are rapidly disappearing from retail stores.


The world has changed, try finding a proper Hi-Fi shop these days, it's all something or other sound and vision. Few people buy a Hi-Fi set anymore they all have home cinemas.

A lot of people don't even bother to buy a cheap stereo anymore and just have a TV and a DVD player that they play all of their music on. If they have freeview, cable or satelite; they have a radio tuner thrown in.

The primary shift over the last decade has been the massive growth in the mobility markets (car audio and portable audio). The home audio component market has had a steep decline since it peaked in 1992. Part of it is cost reductions, but most of it is simply changes in how people listen to music. They no longer want to be tethered to that sweet spot between two speakers when they'd rather take their entire music collection with them and listen on the go. And to me, that expectation of being able to have your entire music collection with you at all times is the most revolutionary conceptual change that the iPod has brought to the market. Home theater's need for a large stationary screen is now the primary reason to keep home entertainment in the living room.


So what possibilities are there for the future? Good quality DVD-V music is the one I'd have faith in ! I know music videos have been around for a long time but I think it is a largely untapped market. What better format for opera lovers? All the operatic works released on DVD-V would make even the most devoted vinyl fan rush out buy them as fast as they became available.

That would depend on if the DVD releases go with a compressed lossy Dolby Digital track that compromises the audio quality, or actually allow for an uncompressed PCM two-channel track. While the DVD tracks allow for up to 96/24 resolution, most music DVDs use 48/16 resolution if they even include a PCM track to begin with (not much of an improvement over the 44.1/16 resolution used with CDs). 96/24 or even 48/24 tracks are rare because of the disc space needed for the video data.

The advantage of HD-DVD and Blu-ray is that they provide enough disc space for HD video data AND lossless audio. These formats have the potential to actually standardize uncompressed audio tracks on music releases. Any future with the DVD format is just more of the status quo -- i.e., lots of music releases with lots of lossy Dolby Digital.

[Mr Peabody]

Wooch, have you seen the Ford commercials advertising all the new models will have HD radio tuners. BMW has similar commercials but I didn't hear how many models.

I could only imagine the sound of mp3 until I got one and I cannot emphasize enough how disappointing the sound was. It's alright to take on my bus commute, there's not much other choice except for FM but it is horrible through a good stereo system and I suspect equally as bad through good car audio. The Lossy is probably better but I haven't the space or player to accept it now. Interesting battle, quality vs convenience. Convenience always seems to win. I'd love to see why people are getting back into vinyl. I suspect it's just a fad but maybe there will be some new consistent supporters.

[Woochifer]

Wooch, have you seen the Ford commercials advertising all the new models will have HD radio tuners. BMW has similar commercials but I didn't hear how many models.

Have not seen that at all! I'd only heard about Hyundai adding HD Radio tuners in 08, but nothing about Ford. If HD Radio's coming to Ford, that's very good news for the format given that hundreds of stations have already begun broadcasting in HD Radio. I've been saying all along that adoption of HD Radio will depend on adoption in the mobile audio market, and with the OEM market in particular.

But, unfortunately I doubt that HD Radio will fully live up to its promise of CD quality sound since many commercial radio stations have gone to digital music servers (presumably using lossy music files) and if the digital broadcast uses the same feed as the one that goes to the analog transmitter, then the audio itself will be heavily compressed and processed. I think the radio broadcasters see HD Radio more as an avenue by which to add to their existing content through HD Radio's multicasting feature.


I could only imagine the sound of mp3 until I got one and I cannot emphasize enough how disappointing the sound was. It's alright to take on my bus commute, there's not much other choice except for FM but it is horrible through a good stereo system and I suspect equally as bad through good car audio. The Lossy is probably better but I haven't the space or player to accept it now. Interesting battle, quality vs convenience. Convenience always seems to win. I'd love to see why people are getting back into vinyl. I suspect it's just a fad but maybe there will be some new consistent supporters.

With MP3 players, the memory capacity of the newer models is astounding (up to 160 GB on the new iPod Classic), which makes it very feasible to now use lossless audio formats or totally uncompressed PCM files.

On the whole, I think it's more than quality v. convenience -- you also have price to consider as well. Honestly, I don't think that the mass market has ever embraced quality as the first consideration. Before today's mini-systems and iPod docking speakers, you had boom boxes and all-in-one compact systems (if you were lucky, you got one that could record your LPs onto cassettes AND 8-tracks!). Difference is that today's cheap audio systems sound a LOT better than the low end systems of yesteryear.

As much as audiophiles like to glorify the analog/vinyl era, they forget that in the LP's heyday, most people played their vinyl on horrible sounding record players that brutalized your ears and records alike. Remember those "portable" record changers with the stack spindles and unbalanced tonearms with snap-in spherical stylii and just enough space on the headshell to tape a penny onto it so that it would track a warped record? Ick! :eek:

I don't think there's anymore of a vinyl revival today than there was in the early-90s when all those grunge bands began demanding that their albums get released on vinyl. The only difference is that now vinyl is marketed as a premium niche format, rather than a mass market format, and the pricing on new LPs reflects that. Any comeback is simply businesses figuring out how to make money selling vinyl as a low volume, high margin product.

This is a marked change from 15 years ago when the LP was a declining yet still low cost format (back then LPs were priced the same as cassettes, and CDs typically cost about $5 more). In the mid-80s, even after getting a CD player, I still mostly bought LPs primarily because they were a lot cheaper, and for my Walkman and car stereo, I still needed to dub everything to cassette anyway! Plus, at that time, LP collections were getting dumped right and left, which created a treasure trove of used LPs in fantastic condition.

Nowadays, you really have to be dedicated in order to get into vinyl. In a way, it's much more appealing to hobbyists because unlike with digital formats and amplification upgrades, vinyl has so much more variation and ways of working the sound. And unlike with cabling, CD player tweaking, and other sometimes dubious modern day audiophile upgrades, tweaking with a turntable (+cartridge+stylus+tonearm+phono preamp) provides very obvious and often compelling improvements in sound quality. Reasons for getting into vinyl might be something as simple as people wanting better bang for the buck whenever they invest in system upgrades.

[Mr Peabody]

I don't think we can deny there is a turntable resurgence. There have been a lot of new products catering to that surge. It's crazy the price of new vinyl, even though most of it is 180 to 200 gram, and some 45 rpm, I still don't think it warrants that much money. If I had my Rega back when CD came out I sure wouldn't have been so quick to jump to CD. I was truely amazed when I heard my first good turntable.

[Feanor]

...

Nowadays, you really have to be dedicated in order to get into vinyl. In a way, it's much more appealing to hobbyists because unlike with digital formats and amplification upgrades, vinyl has so much more variation and ways of working the sound. And unlike with cabling, CD player tweaking, and other sometimes dubious modern day audiophile upgrades, tweaking with a turntable (+cartridge+stylus+tonearm+phono preamp) provides very obvious and often compelling improvements in sound quality. Reasons for getting into vinyl might be something as simple as people wanting better bang for the buck whenever they invest in system upgrades.

Of course, there's the equipment hobbist aspect and there's no accounting for that. And I know about that: recently I bought a couple of used rangefinder film cameras and a few lenses. What was I thinking :confused5: Fun, but not for serious photography in this day-and-age. After a couple of weeks fooling around I wish I'd put the cash to the much more useful new digital I'd like.

Same thing with vinyl. It can sound good, but it's not were the music is for most people, certainly not for me, mainly a classical listener. Of course, if you have a large vinyl collection, analog updates might be very worth while, but it's perplexing to me that people who don't already have an LP collection would want to get into it.

Worse, it's impeding the replacement of the CD, granted, a less than optimal medium. SACD and DVD-A are really significant improvements, not so much for the hi-rez but for multichannel. But SACD, DVD-A, and LP are all niche products and will stay that way. Of the three, surely LP is the least good and the least practical.

[Mr Peabody]

Turntables may not be the most practical, they do take more work but it's funny how people selling digital use the term "analog" to try to push their product, "nice analog sound" yatta yatta. And, the whole task of digital is to try to sample enough times to get a mostly complete sine wave, the same sine wave a turntable executes 100% of. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I have yet to hear a SACD that showed a noticeable improvement over redbook. This is difficult to compare anyway, I don't trust universal players to put emphasis on good CD playback and would it be apples and apples to put a similar priced SACD against a similar priced CD. In entry level, SACD may have the edge but in higher end CD players, I just haven't heard the difference. I feel those who like multi-channel music is a minority. Vinyl is a nitch and always will be. I suspect the novelty will wear off some day and it will fade into the background again. To blame turntables for not having a better digital playback method is crazy. CD sure kicked vinyl out of the mainstream. CD just has, or had, a strong hold and SACD nor DVD-A offered anything much better. The lack of studio support I'd say was the largest share of the blame.

I can see a real advantage in a high end CD player for Classical, with digital, silent is silent, you can hear a long piece uninterrupted and a gain in dynamic range. I have both CD and vinyl, which I listen depends on what format the music is on and how much energy I have at the time. I have very good playback on each.

[Chas Underhay]

Woochifer ---"SACD's not dead, but it ain't exactly breathing on its own either. Some classical titles and select reissues will continue to trickle out in the hybrid CD/SACD format, but who knows how long that will last. The HDMI 1.3 spec might also provide a reprieve for SACD, since allows for digital output with both DVD-A and SACD."--- So it doesn't sound like you'd recommend that I should run out and buy a SACD player then?

Woochifer---"Second, the difference between HD and SD video is much easier to demonstrate than comparing a SACD or DVD-A with CD audio. The video quality improvement with HD resolution is obvious, even while standing in line at a Costco or Sam's Club. In order to demonstrate the virtues of higher resolution audio and even multichannel audio requires a proper setup with decent acoustical conditions -- something you'll rarely if ever find at a Costco or Best Buy or Wal-Mart. Even Joe6p can see the benefit of HD, because it's there where he/she shops."--- OK, I'll bow to your experience, here in the UK things are only "HD ready" at best. However, there seem to be several formats and all bar one need to disappear before it can become fully successful. Remembe Betamax? I also think that SACD would have stood a lot more chance of surviving if DVD-A hadn't been around.

Woochifer ----"As much as audiophiles like to glorify the analog/vinyl era, they forget that in the LP's heyday, most people played their vinyl on horrible sounding record players that brutalized your ears and records alike. Remember those "portable" record changers with the stack spindles and unbalanced tonearms with snap-in spherical stylii and just enough space on the headshell to tape a penny onto it so that it would track a warped record? Ick! "--- You are absolutely right there! And that was the main reason that CDs caught on - a cheap sh*t CD player sounded a lot better than a cheap sh*t record player.

Mr Peabody ---"If I had my Rega back when CD came out I sure wouldn't have been so quick to jump to CD. I was truely amazed when I heard my first good turntable."--- I already had a good turntable then and I couldnt see what all the fuss was about, I thought CDs sounded bl00dy vile so I stuck with records. I think CDs and players have improved a lot now and no longer have a problem with the format but second hand LPs are still so cheap (like high quality mint classical boxed sets) for £3.00 a time makes it worth fiddling with the record player. Besids the book inside the box is nicer to read than the little one that comes with CDs.

[bobsticks]

Rumor has it that HD-DVD support will be built into the upcoming service pack for Windows Vista. Whether that has any impact, who knows. Blu-ray and HD-DVD OEM drives have been out for a while now. I just don't get the sense that there's a whole lot of interest right now (no different than when DVD drives first started arriving on the market). Plus, Dell and HP already offer optional Blu-ray drives, and Sony just announced an all-in-one iMac knockoff with the option for a built-in Blu-ray recorder. Toshiba previously announced that they would add HD-DVD drives to all of their notebook models starting next year.


I heard a rumor today that a significant portion of the computers released next year will have HD-DVD drives. Again, this was an unsubstantiated report but one from someone I consider at least marginally intelligent. That would be an interesting marketing ploy and given the nature of consumer dollars spent on home theater items and the current state of the economy, maybe a wise choice on the part of Toshiba/Microsoft.

[Woochifer]

I don't think we can deny there is a turntable resurgence. There have been a lot of new products catering to that surge. It's crazy the price of new vinyl, even though most of it is 180 to 200 gram, and some 45 rpm, I still don't think it warrants that much money. If I had my Rega back when CD came out I sure wouldn't have been so quick to jump to CD. I was truely amazed when I heard my first good turntable.

I don't think it's a resurgence so much as a game of musical chairs. In the high end market, the turntable never went away, but in the entry level markets it's almost a completely different cast of characters. The big difference in the turntable market is that nearly all of the mass market players have completely abandoned marketing turntables. The entry level decks from the likes of Music Hall and ProJect simply occupy price points that mass market companies like Pioneer, Dual, Garrard, Kenwood, and Yamaha used to. But, just because some new smaller companies stepped into a market void created by the consumer electronics giants when they abandoned the market, does not mean that the overall market for turntables has grown.

You're right about the pricing on new vinyl, and I think that's indicative of vinyl's transformation from a low cost mainstream format into a high cost niche format. A lot of new companies putting out vinyl reissues, but again, they are stepping into a market largely abandoned by the major players. The major labels nowadays issue LPs as limited editions that only remain in print for one production run. Anyone who wants an older title needs to either hunt down a used copy or hope that one of the smaller specialty vinyl houses reissues that title (albeit at those ridiculously high prices).


I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I have yet to hear a SACD that showed a noticeable improvement over redbook. This is difficult to compare anyway, I don't trust universal players to put emphasis on good CD playback and would it be apples and apples to put a similar priced SACD against a similar priced CD.

The challenge is finding an appropriate comparison set. Surprised that you have yet to hear a SACD with a noticeable improvement over a CD version, because they're out there. In most cases, the improved mastering alone on the SACD reissue will result in a noticeable sound quality improvement. A good comparison would be with some of Mobile Fidelity's releases, which takes great care in all facets of the mastering chain and uses the same master sources for both the CD and SACD layers. In the titles that I own, the SACD layer provides a subtle but very noteworthy sound quality improvement over the CD layer.


CD sure kicked vinyl out of the mainstream. CD just has, or had, a strong hold and SACD nor DVD-A offered anything much better. The lack of studio support I'd say was the largest share of the blame.

Actually, the cassette format had already supplanted vinyl as the dominant music format by the time the CD arrived on the scene. If anything, the CD merely finished off the LP as a mainstream format, and proceeded to knock out the cassette format as well.

If mainstream music buyers had already decided that the cassette format was "good enough" and turned their back on vinyl before the CD's arrival, then it would stand to reason that the CD would also be "good enough" once SACD and DVD-A arrived. IMO, the only chance that those high res formats had at any success was to emphasize the multichannel capability (since most new audio systems are now multichannel), and add value to existing CD releases by standardizing around the CD/SACD hybrid format or hitch the CD to the DVD bandwagon by including video and multichannel content to CD releases (and do it better than DualDisc did).


So it doesn't sound like you'd recommend that I should run out and buy a SACD player then?

Don't get me wrong, I love SACD. It's a great format that delivers outstanding sound quality and multichannel capability for not a whole lot of money. Whether or not you should run out and get a player depends on whether there are any titles out there that you absolutely must hear in SACD. For example, if you absolutely must have Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon in 5.1 multichannel sound, then need a SACD player. Best thing to do is look over the list of SACD titles (http://www.sa-cd.net) that have come out, and see if there are enough essential SACD titles to justify investing in new hardware. Just be aware that not a whole lot of new SACD releases are coming out, and titles that have already come out might be difficult to find.

For me, the whole reason for investing in a SACD player was because I wanted to hear the SF Symphony's Mahler series in its full resolution multichannel glory. Once I heard how great the CD layers on those releases sound, I absolutely had to hear how the accompanying SACD tracks wound sound (and FYI, the multichannel SACD tracks in particular sound incredible). Even if I did not buy any other SACDs, having that particular series in multichannel SACD was worth the hardware investment. Plus, the combo DAC used in many SACD players also does an excellent job with standard CDs.


However, there seem to be several formats and all bar one need to disappear before it can become fully successful. Remembe Betamax? I also think that SACD would have stood a lot more chance of surviving if DVD-A hadn't been around.

I don't think in this case it was the format war, so much as a combination of factors that sunk SACD and DVD-A, not the least of which was the collective yawn that these formats elicited from the buying public. I think the only chance that SACD had at achieving any significant market share would have been for Sony and Universal Music to standardize their releases around the CD/SACD hybrid format. Basically, make SACD a value-added enhancement to the CD format, and emphasize the multichannel feature. Make it so that buyers get SACD capability with their CDs, and retailers don't have to maintain dual inventories. This never happened, and SACD (and DVD-A) had to sink or swim on their own to a largely indifferent buying public that cares more about portability.

[Woochifer]

I heard a rumor today that a significant portion of the computers released next year will have HD-DVD drives. Again, this was an unsubstantiated report but one from someone I consider at least marginally intelligent. That would be an interesting marketing ploy and given the nature of consumer dollars spent on home theater items and the current state of the economy, maybe a wise choice on the part of Toshiba/Microsoft.

It's no rumor. Toshiba has already announced that all of their laptop computers will come with HD-DVD drives starting sometime next year. It's an interesting marketing push, but I'm not sure how much of an effect this will have on the format war.

[Mr Peabody]

But most of the mass merchants dropped out of turntables in the 80's, Rega just recently came out with their new entry level P One, and I'm sure it's because they saw ProJect and Music Hall selling a higher volume and they wanted some of it. And if vinyl hadn't taken an upswing in interest those small companies would not have started printing new vinyl. You couldn't buy a new piece of vinyl for years. I'm not sure when new vinyl started hitting the market again but there was a clear gap where there wasn't any.

On your multi-channel SACD's are the surrounds used for ambience or is there music from them?

[pixelthis]

Wooch, have you seen the Ford commercials advertising all the new models will have HD radio tuners. BMW has similar commercials but I didn't hear how many models.

I could only imagine the sound of mp3 until I got one and I cannot emphasize enough how disappointing the sound was. It's alright to take on my bus commute, there's not much other choice except for FM but it is horrible through a good stereo system and I suspect equally as bad through good car audio. The Lossy is probably better but I haven't the space or player to accept it now. Interesting battle, quality vs convenience. Convenience always seems to win. I'd love to see why people are getting back into vinyl. I suspect it's just a fad but maybe there will be some new consistent supporters.
What ticks me off is that there are two "lossless" codecs, FLAC and APE.
But the only portable players offering playback are chinese models.
However they are great for putting music on a server or a computer.
The sound is exelent and the file size is smaller than wave:1:

[Woochifer]

But most of the mass merchants dropped out of turntables in the 80's, Rega just recently came out with their new entry level P One, and I'm sure it's because they saw ProJect and Music Hall selling a higher volume and they wanted some of it. And if vinyl hadn't taken an upswing in interest those small companies would not have started printing new vinyl. You couldn't buy a new piece of vinyl for years. I'm not sure when new vinyl started hitting the market again but there was a clear gap where there wasn't any.

Like I said, it's merely a reshuffling of a deck that I don't believe is growing significantly. AR reentered the turntable market in the late-80s and made turntables into mid-90s, while Dual actually tried to go into higher end markets in the late-80s while continuing to sell turntables in the North American market until their U.S. distributor mysteriously closed shop in the mid-90s. In the meantime, Denon never stopped making turntables, neither did Technics or Sony, so you've had a consistent mass market presence. ProJect and Music Hall are merely occupying the middle price point that had largely been abandoned. It's nothing more than smaller more nimble companies rushing in to fill a market gap that larger mass market companies are uninterested in serving or unable to do so profitably.

In my experience, there was never a vinyl gap (i.e., a time when new LPs were altogether unavailable) -- merely transitions in who issued vinyl titles and at what price points. In the early-90s, the more enterprising record stores in my area were able to continuously restock their vinyl bins by importing LPs from Canada and other countries after those titles went out of print in the U.S. The prices on those imports remained lower than for CDs. In addition, some labels like Fantasy/Prestige Records never stopped producing vinyl, and to this day keep their LP releases competitively priced. Sony of all companies regularly made their biggest releases available on LP through about the mid-90s. Just last week, the new Bruce Springsteen album came out on vinyl (but this is no different than Springsteen's albums from the past two decades, which also all came out on LP), and major labels over the past decade+ have been periodically issuing catalog titles on LP.

What has truly changed over the past decade is that new LPs now cost a LOT more than CDs. Companies can now market LPs as a high margin, low volume product because there's no budget competition from the major labels -- if someone wants a new LP, there are no longer lower cost alternatives. Even the major labels now package their LP reissues as "limited" or "collector" editions, with prices to match.

As far as "upswing" in vinyl interest, this is them same thing I've been hearing over and over and over and over since the early-90s. Back then, grunge bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden demanded that their record companies issue their albums on vinyl, and I heard all the fawning accounts that this was "evidence" of a vinyl revival. Sales figures did not support that. When Mobile Fidelity resumed vinyl LP production in the mid-90s, audiophiles again swooned as it was "evidence" of a vinyl revival (never mind that MFSL went bankrupt a few years later, so that audiophiles could swoon again when the company resumed production in 2003 after its assets got acquired by Music Direct).

Now, you have a new cast of characters issuing vinyl, and it too is cited as "evidence" of a vinyl revival. But, I think it's nothing more than market transition that ultimately results in a zero sum gain.


On your multi-channel SACD's are the surrounds used for ambience or is there music from them?

That depends on the recording. As with two-channel recordings, you have a wide range of artistic choices, goals, and results on each release. The best of the multichannel 5.1 music tracks in my collection present a degree of depth that no two-channel playback I've ever heard can match.

The SF Symphony's Mahler series sounds great in two-channel redbook, but switch over to the 5.1 SACD track and it's that much closer to recreating the actual listening experience inside of Davies Symphony Hall (a venue that I visit regularly). Having sat in the audience during a recording session for Mahler's Fifth, I know that the mics are positioned to capture the sound from the podium position (i.e., with the soundstage in front, but with some of the musicians solidly off to the side and the hall ambiance from behind). The two-channel mix sounds like the "audience" position, whereas the 5.1 mix is how I'd imagine the orchestra sounding at the podium.

Other studio recordings space the instruments and/or vocals into the surrounds. A well done mix can create a huge gain in instrumental clarity, since the mix no longer has to collapse all of the sound elements together and overly process the sound for that phantom center effect. Plus, with older recordings, a 5.1 goes all the way back to the original multitrack master, and affords the opportunity to clean up and remix the tracks at higher resolution than the original mix.

[Feanor]

I don't think it's a resurgence so much as a game of musical chairs. In the high end market, the turntable never went away, but in the entry level markets it's almost a completely different cast of characters. The big difference in the turntable market is that nearly all of the mass market players have completely abandoned marketing turntables. The entry level decks from the likes of Music Hall and ProJect simply occupy price points that mass market companies like Pioneer, Dual, Garrard, Kenwood, and Yamaha used to. But, just because some new smaller companies stepped into a market void created by the consumer electronics giants when they abandoned the market, does not mean that the overall market for turntables has grown.

You're right about the pricing on new vinyl, and I think that's indicative of vinyl's transformation from a low cost mainstream format into a high cost niche format. A lot of new companies putting out vinyl reissues, but again, they are stepping into a market largely abandoned by the major players. The major labels nowadays issue LPs as limited editions that only remain in print for one production run. Anyone who wants an older title needs to either hunt down a used copy or hope that one of the smaller specialty vinyl houses reissues that title (albeit at those ridiculously high prices).
...

If mainstream music buyers had already decided that the cassette format was "good enough" and turned their back on vinyl before the CD's arrival, then it would stand to reason that the CD would also be "good enough" once SACD and DVD-A arrived. IMO, the only chance that those high res formats had at any success was to emphasize the multichannel capability (since most new audio systems are now multichannel), and add value to existing CD releases by standardizing around the CD/SACD hybrid format or hitch the CD to the DVD bandwagon by including video and multichannel content to CD releases (and do it better than DualDisc did).
...

For me, the whole reason for investing in a SACD player was because I wanted to hear the SF Symphony's Mahler series in its full resolution multichannel glory. Once I heard how great the CD layers on those releases sound, I absolutely had to hear how the accompanying SACD tracks wound sound (and FYI, the multichannel SACD tracks in particular sound incredible). Even if I did not buy any other SACDs, having that particular series in multichannel SACD was worth the hardware investment. Plus, the combo DAC used in many SACD players also does an excellent job with standard CDs.
...

I don't think in this case it was the format war, so much as a combination of factors that sunk SACD and DVD-A, not the least of which was the collective yawn that these formats elicited from the buying public. I think the only chance that SACD had at achieving any significant market share would have been for Sony and Universal Music to standardize their releases around the CD/SACD hybrid format. Basically, make SACD a value-added enhancement to the CD format, and emphasize the multichannel feature. Make it so that buyers get SACD capability with their CDs, and retailers don't have to maintain dual inventories. This never happened, and SACD (and DVD-A) had to sink or swim on their own to a largely indifferent buying public that cares more about portability.

I don't know what we'd do without Wooch's insight. Who brings the relevant facts together to paint the big picture together better than him, eh? EH? Nobody. :20:

We need to understand that LP and Hi-rez are both niche products. SACD might have gone mainstream if Sony/Universal had made it a "a value-added enhancement to the CD format", as Wooch suggests. Unfortunately, and to the HUGE deteriment of audiophilia, it was never Sony's intention for it to do so; rather they wanted to create another niche product. Let me repeat for emphasis: Sony never wanted SACD to go mainstream, (in any case not 'till they'd skimmed the high-end market for a decade at least).

What they didn't count on was the attitude of audophile traditionalists with their irrational hatred of everything digital -- and their investment of thousands $$ invested in LPs and playback equipment. But vinyl will never become a vibrant force contrary to the dreams of the traditionalists and hobbiests: it will never again be more than niche product, (a zombie of its former self). What really appalls me is that (younger) people without existing LP collections want get into vinyl. It is an offense to common sense.

[Woochifer]

We need to understand that LP and Hi-rez are both niche products. SACD might have gone mainstream if Sony/Universal had made it a "a value-added enhancement to the CD format", as Wooch suggests. Unfortunately, and to the HUGE deteriment of audiophilia, it was never Sony's intention for it to do so; rather they wanted to create another niche product. Let me repeat for emphasis: Sony never wanted SACD to go mainstream, (in any case not 'till they'd skimmed the high-end market for a decade at least).

I think the problem is that Sony never could figure out what they wanted to do with SACD. Sometimes it seemed that their hardware and software divisions were on different planets. At first SACDs were priced around $30 and could only do two-channel, and then they went multichannel, and then the prices were rolled back to $20 (~$15 street price). The hardware has been similarly confusing -- at first, the players cost more than $1,000, then they migrated all the way down to their $150 CD changers and DVD players. Sony even included SACD playback on their HTIB systems and the PS3, yet they have excluded SACD playback from their Blu-ray players. Strange.

Sony and Universal thought that the best way to market SACD was to initially issue the discs on single-layer discs that could not be played on a regular CD player! This required retailers to set aside separate sections, and consumers to specifically seek out the SACD versions, which would in all likelihood be difficult to track down. Right from the outset, they put all kinds of market constraints on SACD and made it difficult on even the most ardent supporters of the format.

The smaller labels like Chesky, Concord Jazz, and Telarc had it figured out fairly early when they standardized their new releases on hybrid CD/SACD discs. No need for dual inventories or market confusion, they simply put everything together on one disc and allowed consumers to pick and choose how they wanted to listen. When I finally tracked down a copy of the "Le Sacre du Printemps" CD/SACD release by the LA Philharmonic, the last thing I needed was to check the case to see if I'd found the CD or SACD version! (BTW, this disc is a sonic wonder and ferocious performance by the LA Phil, and it's the first recording from the LA Phil's much acclaimed Disney Hall ... this review says it all (http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=10655))


What they didn't count on was the attitude of audophile traditionalists with their irrational hatred of everything digital -- and their investment of thousands $$ invested in LPs and playback equipment. But vinyl will never become a vibrant force contrary to the dreams of the traditionalists and hobbiests: it will never again be more than niche product, (a zombie of its former self). What really appalls me is that (younger) people without existing LP collections want get into vinyl. It is an offense to common sense.

I think it's more a grudging acceptance of the CD format, which has evolved and matured as producers and engineers figured out how to record and master around the format. If anything, many audiophiles have now invested a huge amount of money into their digital chain -- the transport, DAC, cabling, isolation, etc. The last thing they want to hear about is a new higher resolution format that can deliver stunning audio quality out of a $150 player. Not only that but I think there's a prejudicial attitude about multichannel in general among a lot of audiophiles. Anything that supports multichannel is summarily dismissed out of hand.

It's more than ironic what a large segment of the vinyl market has turned into. When I was in college, I stuck with vinyl because it was inexpensive and a lot of the music I listened to was still unavailable on CD. I invested in a decent turntable and cartridge because I had a large vinyl collection and wanted to optimize the audio quality to the degree that I could.

For a college student today, you're right, it now makes a lot less sense to get into vinyl precisely because it can be a very expensive hobby. Unlike CD players, which can at least guarantee a certain minimum level of performance, entry level turntables and (especially) cartridges can sound pretty bad. A turntable/cartridge rig that properly demonstrates the virtues of vinyl doesn't come cheap, and there's a learning curve in how to tweak with the turntable for optimal performance.

Add to the hardware cost, you got the cost of new LPs, which are across the board more expensive than new CDs -- the exact opposite situation from when I was collecting vinyl as a college student. Although it's still possible to stretch the music budget by buying used vinyl, I've noted that quality used vinyl (i.e., properly cataloged, decent condition, not just thrown into a bin for everyone to sort through, etc.) is also creeping up there in cost. A lot of the lower priced used LPs I've tried recently are not in very good condition.

Also, for someone who's not used to vinyl, the idiosyncrasies of the format will take some getting used to (e.g., all of the maintenance rituals, keeping the LPs away from heat and sun, the need to keep the turntable isolated, dealing with warped records, etc.). On top of that, vinyl is primarily a non-portable format, meaning that you usually listen to it wherever the turntable is setup. All of these rituals and mobility constraints seem to run contrary to what younger listeners are used to and expect.

I guess it's a good thing to satisfy a curiosity, but considering the level of dedication required to maintain a vinyl rig, I just wonder how many of the younger people who claim to "prefer" vinyl will actually stick with it or even invest in the format with their wallets in the first place.

[pixelthis]

It is a chore to keep a vinyl rig going but worth it for the most part, at least to someone who has been in it his whole life, and who already has a decent collection.
But I disagree about turntables, haven't listened to many lately, a music hall at tweeter,
etc, but I have two technics turntables, one belt and one direct drive that sound great.
If one bought a decent used platter it could be a rewarding experience.
One thing I HAVE always given to the vinyl crowd, delicate treble seems better on records
(but on balance digital is better)
DIGITAL DID TO RECORDINGS what FM did to radio, basically:1: