Beginning of new Blu Ray trend?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Growing quickly from two *real* artists to exactly what? Three? Four?

rw

You gotta start somewhere right? Time doesn't stand still right? Real artist means different things to different people. Alexander Jero is a real artist last time I checked, yet you completely dismiss his work as bogus without even hearing it!

I remember when SACD and DVD-A only had a few artist with releases on those formats. Time changed things. CD did not grow to be as big as it now in two minutes did it?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Indeed. The answer is two artists on the planet. Once again, I had no confidence whatsoever that you would attempt to answer my question regarding anything beyond the two examples. Apparently, it is zero since that is the only answer I can find.

rw

If that is all you can find, then you ain't looking too hard.....I found two more with very little effort. Keep in mind, I am not trying to gain your confidence, and I am not really interested in trying.

As far as answering the question for you, as long as you have a computer, Google, and know how to type, you can answer questions for yourself. Do you think I would wait for you to answer a question? Nope! Not when I can search all by myself.

[Ajani]

Two channel audiophiles pay way more than 12K for just two speakers, so $12K is not all that significant an investment. Some audiophiles pay $12k for two channels of power, or for a pre-amp that cost that much.

I know that many audiophiles would not regarded $12K as a significant investment, but I was really addressing the earlier post where diminishing returns was believed to occur around $2K... The audiophiles who believe that are unlikely to be spending $12K or more on a pair of speakers... So you'd have to convince them that the extra expenditure is worth it...

Two channel audiophiles have invested heavily in their two channel rigs both software and hardware, and many have no interest in MC even if it provided a more accurate portrayal of a live performance. I think they are just stuck in the past, but that is just my opinion.

I don't think the issue is that they are stuck in the past, just that they have no incentive to make the switch... All the music I listen to is available in 2 channel... Until I can find all (or even most) of my musical tastes in MC, then whether it is more accurately able to recreate a live performance is merely academic...

The problem here A, is that many here are not in front of the curve, but behind it in many ways. Those folks at Blu ray.com are hardcore HT folks, and they are buying these MC Blu ray audio only, and concert videos. People here either love movies, or two channel audio only. While there still isn't a lot of choice out there for MC releases on Blu ray disc, it is growing quickly. All things take time to ramp up, but the mixes are out there already.

The last time I talked about audio only on Blu ray, there was only 2 2L releases, and 35 Surround Record releases. Now there are 7 2L releases, and 54 Surround Record releases. Patience pays off, as there will be more to come.

If sufficient music (that I listen to) was available in MC and I could audition a MC setup that clearly showed me that MC was better than a stereo setup of the same value, then I'd have no issue making the switch... And I suspect that there are many audiophiles who have similar feelings...

However, as the musical selection is totally inadequate to induce stereo lovers to switch, and I doubt there are many (any) locations to do a real stereo vs MC test, then the format will have to try and attract HT users...

[E-Stat]

You gotta start somewhere right?

Agree entirely - which is why I posed the question.

Alexander Jero is a real artist last time I checked, yet you completely dismiss his work as bogus without even hearing it!

My apologies. Including the text from your other reply, four.

As far as answering the question for you, as long as you have a computer, Google, and know how to type, you can answer questions for yourself.

Then let's shut down this and every interest oriented website, right?

CD did not grow to be as big as it now in two minutes did it?

What is different is that when the CD format arrived, everyone started releasing everything on it. They still do to this day. Recently, I purchased Madonna's "Sweet and Sticky Tour" on BR, but all of her albums remain strictly on CD. While there might have been a few ?? artists and labels who switched over entirely to DVD-A or SACD (now defunct Telarc) using dual layer discs, most released on CD and offered only some re-mastered titles on the high rez format. That is what I think relegated them to being no more than a curiosity. If BR remains primarily a live concert medium or limited to labels like Surround Sound, then it will be doomed to failure in the musical sense as well. At least dual layer SACDs (of which I have a dozen or so) work with any CD player.

rw

[poppachubby]

The problem here A, is that many here are not in front of the curve, but behind it in many ways. Those folks at Blu ray.com are hardcore HT folks, and they are buying these MC Blu ray audio only, and concert videos. People here either love movies, or two channel audio only. While there still isn't a lot of choice out there for MC releases on Blu ray disc, it is growing quickly. All things take time to ramp up, but the mixes are out there already.

.

Terrence, in some ways you are correct but in some ways not. I would love to be "in front of the curve" but constrictions such as money and time (but mostly money) limit me.
I like to think that my wage and living conditions (wife, 2 kids, mortgage, decent job) represent alot of others.

At this juncture, much is changing and although a decent 5.1/7.1 would probably cover most bases, who knows what the future will bring?

Despite preferences, I am very open minded to format and gear. I also must consider what works money wise. I have been concluding lately that I would like to improve my H/T and digital capability, but in all honesty I get a headache when I try to weigh out my options.

Since my 2 channel is already built up respectably, it's simply easier on my wallet and brain to continue to build it. Although meager by some measures, it sounds damn good. As for H/T, I have alot of work to do.

[Ajani]

Terrence, in some ways you are correct but in some ways not. I would love to be "in front of the curve" but constrictions such as money and time (but mostly money) limit me.
I like to think that my wage and living conditions (wife, 2 kids, mortgage, decent job) represent alot of others.

At this juncture, much is changing and although a decent 5.1/7.1 would probably cover most bases, who knows what the future will bring?

Despite preferences, I am very open minded to format and gear. I also must consider what works money wise. I have been concluding lately that I would like to improve my H/T and digital capability, but in all honesty I get a headache when I try to weigh out my options.

Since my 2 channel is already built up respectably, it's simply easier on my wallet and brain to continue to build it. Although meager by some measures, it sounds damn good. As for H/T, I have alot of work to do.

First off since you are still rocking vinyl then you are way behind the curve... The only solution is to throw away all that obsolete vinyl... I'll even help you with that - just send your TT and all your albums to me and I'll dispose of them for you...

Now as for being ahead of the curve: Be careful that in an attempt to be on the leading edge you don't end up on the bleeding edge... Until MC audio has sufficient albums available, then I wouldn't suggest spending the money on it... Since you may setup an excellent MC Audio setup and then find that the format never takes off... So unless you really are interested in having a nice HT, then I don't see a reason to take a risk on MC audio at this time...

[poppachubby]

Yes, behind the curve...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I know that many audiophiles would not regarded $12K as a significant investment, but I was really addressing the earlier post where diminishing returns was believed to occur around $2K... The audiophiles who believe that are unlikely to be spending $12K or more on a pair of speakers... So you'd have to convince them that the extra expenditure is worth it...

SACD and DVD-A was out there to convince them, they didn't bite. There is enough music on those two format to convince audiophiles who love all genre's of music to make the upgrade, and they didn't support either of the two formats.

I don't think the issue is that they are stuck in the past, just that they have no incentive to make the switch... All the music I listen to is available in 2 channel... Until I can find all (or even most) of my musical tastes in MC, then whether it is more accurately able to recreate a live performance is merely academic...

So this is an all of nothing proposal? Let's face it, more music is in two channel than is multichannel, but that is because two channel has been on the market for decades, multichannel, just a single decade. Like yourself, the overwhelming majority of my music is in two channel, but when I had the chance(and opened up my mind) to listen to multichannel, I was hooked. Now I believe is putting together systems that are capable of accurately playing ALL music, whether mono, stereo, or multichannel.

To those that have not listened to music in multichannel, I guess the question remains whether it is able to recreate a better snapshot of a live performance - and it is academic to them. To those of us who have actually listened to it(and created it), it is no longer academic, it is a fact to us. You will never know the answer to that question if all you do is peek over the fence.

If sufficient music (that I listen to) was available in MC and I could audition a MC setup that clearly showed me that MC was better than a stereo setup of the same value, then I'd have no issue making the switch... And I suspect that there are many audiophiles who have similar feelings...

What is sufficient? There was music from all genre's(except Gospel) on SACD and DVD-A, and once again, nobody seemed to bite. The chance was already there, and audiophiles didn't bite, so I am inclined to believe that they have no interest in it, no matter how accurate it is.

However, as the musical selection is totally inadequate to induce stereo lovers to switch, and I doubt there are many (any) locations to do a real stereo vs MC test, then the format will have to try and attract HT users...

They don't really have to attract HT users, they are already embracing MC music because they already have the equipment to do so(or at least some of them do). During the time SACD and DVD-A was battling it out, there were plenty of demo's of CD versus SACD and DVD-A to be had. SACD was introduced in 1999, and DVD-A in 2000, so multichannel on disc didn't just start with the Blu ray disc, it started a decade ago. If you checked the catalog of SACD titles, there is something for everyone(except for the Gospel folks), so I am not buying this lack of titles argument.

Just my $2.25

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Agree entirely - which is why I posed the question.

OK

My apologies. Including the text from your other reply, four.

No problem, just wanted to acknowledge it was put out there.

Then let's shut down this and every interest oriented website, right?

A little extreme huh? It's always the extremes.....

What is different is that when the CD format arrived, everyone started releasing everything on it. They still do to this day. Recently, I purchased Madonna's "Sweet and Sticky Tour" on BR, but all of her albums remain strictly on CD.

Everyone didn't start releasing everything over night, it took time to get musical clearances and royalties straight, get in the stamping production line(there were only a few back then), and get the disc promoted and distributed. None of this was an over night transformation.

While there might have been a few ?? artists and labels who switched over entirely to DVD-A or SACD (now defunct Telarc) using dual layer discs, most released on CD and offered only some re-mastered titles on the high rez format.

There was also some original 5.1 recorded work that was released to SACD and DVD-A, let's not forget that. Chesky was also out there, and 5.1 mixes done by Tony Brown, Chuck Ainly, and Elliott Scheiner were also out there.

That is what I think relegated them to being no more than a curiosity. If BR remains primarily a live concert medium or limited to labels like Surround Sound, then it will be doomed to failure in the musical sense as well. At least dual layer SACDs (of which I have a dozen or so) work with any CD player.

rw

E-stat, you have never heard anything done by Surround Records, so how do you know the format would be doomed if the music was mostly populated by their titles? I hate to tell you this, but Surround Records sales have done so well, they are almost releasing titles by the week. Somebody must like what they are doing because they are getting the money to secure the rights to the music, getting royalties paid, and getting the product in the stamping line and distributed.

BR music does work in every BR player as well, and if you have an Oppo or PS3, you have the advantage of playing both SACD and BR music. I think many folks here have expectations that are beyond reality.

[Ajani]

SACD and DVD-A was out there to convince them, they didn't bite. There is enough music on those two format to convince audiophiles who love all genre's of music to make the upgrade, and they didn't support either of the two formats.

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

So this is an all of nothing proposal? Let's face it, more music is in two channel than is multichannel, but that is because two channel has been on the market for decades, multichannel, just a single decade. Like yourself, the overwhelming majority of my music is in two channel, but when I had the chance(and opened up my mind) to listen to multichannel, I was hooked. Now I believe is putting together systems that are capable of accurately playing ALL music, whether mono, stereo, or multichannel.

To those that have not listened to music in multichannel, I guess the question remains whether it is able to recreate a better snapshot of a live performance - and it is academic to them. To those of us who have actually listened to it(and created it), it is no longer academic, it is a fact to us. You will never know the answer to that question if all you do is peek over the fence.

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

What is sufficient? There was music from all genre's(except Gospel) on SACD and DVD-A, and once again, nobody seemed to bite. The chance was already there, and audiophiles didn't bite, so I am inclined to believe that they have no interest in it, no matter how accurate it is.

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

They don't really have to attract HT users, they are already embracing MC music because they already have the equipment to do so(or at least some of them do). During the time SACD and DVD-A was battling it out, there were plenty of demo's of CD versus SACD and DVD-A to be had. SACD was introduced in 1999, and DVD-A in 2000, so multichannel on disc didn't just start with the Blu ray disc, it started a decade ago. If you checked the catalog of SACD titles, there is something for everyone(except for the Gospel folks), so I am not buying this lack of titles argument.

Just my $2.25

Your being convinced of the merits of MC isn't similar to convincing Stereo users, as you were already into MC for your work and HT watching.... So like with any HT user, you would have required no convincing to buy any equipment as you already own an appropriate setup... So all you had to do is buy the discs... If I had a HT rig then I'd buy MC audio discs without a second thought... What's there to lose? A few dollars on a disc?

However, having no MC setup at all - taking the plunge would require a real financial commitment... So I would not be willing to do so just to test out whether MC is indeed better than 2 channel... What if (unlike you) I am not convinced that MC is a better use of my money? Then I've lost a lot of money on that experiment...

The number of titles that is sufficient is determined by the buyers... Finding some music in the genres I listen to, is not even nearly the same as finding the music I want to listen to... I listen to R&B, but that doesn't mean that any selection of R&B will do...

Even at their prime SACD and DVD-A were not releasing the majority of popular music on MC (so being able to find a couple of albums I might like is hardly an incentive to spend lots of money)... Also, many of us were watching that format war and waiting to see a victor emerge before investing in one of them... So the format war further ensured that audiophiles and the general public would not embrace MC audio...

So as I've said:

A proper selection of music must be available in MC to make a stereo user invest heavily...

&

We have to be convinced that MC is indeed better than a similar priced stereo... No amount of talk is ever going to do that... Only auditions will allow stereo users to determine whether MC is worth switching to...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your being convinced of the merits of MC isn't similar to convincing Stereo users, as you were already into MC for your work and HT watching.... So like with any HT user, you would have required no convincing to buy any equipment as you already own an appropriate setup... So all you had to do is buy the discs... If I had a HT rig then I'd buy MC audio discs without a second thought... What's there to lose? A few dollars on a disc?

However, having no MC setup at all - taking the plunge would require a real financial commitment... So I would not be willing to do so just to test out whether MC is indeed better than 2 channel... What if (unlike you) I am not convinced that MC is a better use of my money? Then I've lost a lot of money on that experiment...

The number of titles that is sufficient is determined by the buyers... Finding some music in the genres I listen to, is not even nearly the same as finding the music I want to listen to... I listen to R&B, but that doesn't mean that any selection of R&B will do...

Even at their prime SACD and DVD-A were not releasing the majority of popular music on MC (so being able to find a couple of albums I might like is hardly an incentive to spend lots of money)... Also, many of us were watching that format war and waiting to see a victor emerge before investing in one of them... So the format war further ensured that audiophiles and the general public would not embrace MC audio...

So as I've said:

A proper selection of music must be available in MC to make a stereo user invest heavily...

&

We have to be convinced that MC is indeed better than a similar priced stereo... No amount of talk is ever going to do that... Only auditions will allow stereo users to determine whether MC is worth switching to...

I have a feeling this is a chicken and egg situation that will result in two channel folks just remaining that way. If it takes a bar this high to get some interest generated, then it just ain't going to happen.

I wasn't always a MC guy, and I didn't always have a MC system(work aside). I however took a gamble, and it did pay off. I wanted a system that had no limitations on what could be played back on it, and that is what I strived for. Sometimes a little forward thinking is far better than thinking only in the moment. The great thing about my jump into MC, is I really like classical and jazz, and there was plenty of it to be had in MC.

[E-Stat]

There was also some original 5.1 recorded work that was released to SACD and DVD-A, let's not forget that. Chesky was also out there, and 5.1 mixes done by Tony Brown, Chuck Ainly, and Elliott Scheiner were also out there.

True, but in the grand scheme of things, it had a very small effect.

E-stat, you have never heard anything done by Surround Records, so how do you know the format would be doomed if the music was mostly populated by their titles?

What is their volume?

BR music does work in every BR player as well, and if you have an Oppo or PS3, you have the advantage of playing both SACD and BR music. I think many folks here have expectations that are beyond reality.

I guess that would be me. You see, I want my next generation player to sound better with all formats. The first SACD players were decidedly poor with Redbook output. And those of us who really care about sound quality have no interest in $300 SACD players that sound decidedly less good with CDs than we already have and only so-so with the SACD format. While the Oppo BD-83 is a wonderfully flexible unit, its performance on audio is a yawn. That is why Oppo and others have modified the audio stages to get them beyond mediocre. I appreciate the fact that you only use the unit as a transport and rely upon the Onkyo as the DAC. Don't get me wrong about Oppo - I have one of their DVD players and find that it offers great video performance.

I'm not one of those audiophiles who changes components as frequently as they do their underwear. I purchased my GamuT CD-1 nine years ago following comparisons against the very best available at the time. In my reviewer friend's spectacular system, I compared it directly against the Burmester 969/970 transport and DAC unit. The GamuT fared very well, but the big Burms had better response at the extremes and slightly higher resolution. Given that the Burms ran $56k vs. $3k for the GamuT, I felt that I had made a good choice.



I am now considering my next player and the clear candidate is an EMM Labs CDSA. Not only does it play SACD, it also plays Redbook better than what I currently have. My friend now has the XD-S1 and tells me that it unravels levels of detail with both formats beyond what either the CDSA or the CDSD/Dac6e (his multi-channel source) can do. My decision will likely follow what I did nine years ago - recognize that better is available (only $25k in this case) and go for the $11k model instead.

XD-S1

I note a very different situation with video than with audio. While I'm not nearly as much the videophile having only 100 titles or so, I still enjoy the BR format since it looks more like film than the DVD format ever did. And, you can get nearly anything you want on the format! I recently purchased two 60s vintage James Bond flicks (Goldfinger - '64 and Thunderball - '65) and noticed that my all time favorite Sci-Fi flick (The Day the Earth Stood Still - '51) was available, too. I ended up buying "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" in DVD because there was not a BR version). That seems to be far and away the exception with films. On the other hand, only about ten percent of my music library is available in high resolution audio. It has just never been a priority for me to invest in improvements for so little benefit. At the end of SACD's life, I will be moving to that format, but because the EMM Labs players also excel at Redbook, too.

rw

[Ajani]

I note a very different situation with video than with audio. While I'm not nearly as much the videophile having only 100 titles or so, I still enjoy the BR format since it looks more like film than the DVD format ever did. And, you can get nearly anything you want on the format! I recently purchased two 60s vintage James Bond flicks (Goldfinger - '64 and Thunderball - '65) and noticed that my all time favorite Sci-Fi flick (The Day the Earth Stood Still - '51) was available, too. I ended up buying "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" in DVD because there was not a BR version). That seems to be far and away the exception with films. On the other hand, only about ten percent of my music library is available in high resolution audio. It has just never been a priority for me to invest in improvements for so little benefit. At the end of SACD's life, I will be moving to that format, but because the EMM Labs players also excel at Redbook, too.

rw

That's a very good point... Why are audiophiles asked to embrace a format when only a small fraction of albums are available on it, while videophiles are given essentially the full catalog of films on new formats?

[Feanor]

SACD and DVD-A was out there to convince them, they didn't bite. There is enough music on those two format to convince audiophiles who love all genre's of music to make the upgrade, and they didn't support either of the two formats.
...

Instead they continued to piss away their dough on vinyl & phono equipment.

Why? Because vinyl sounds better? It does not. But adherence to that antiquated medium was the major reason for the failure of these hi-rez formats.

The whole vinyl thing is a sort of fetish.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

True, but in the grand scheme of things, it had a very small effect.

But it did have an effect.

What is their volume?

I think I have already stated that.

I guess that would be me. You see, I want my next generation player to sound better with all formats. The first SACD players were decidedly poor with Redbook output. And those of us who really care about sound quality have no interest in $300 SACD players that sound decidedly less good with CDs than we already have and only so-so with the SACD format. While the Oppo BD-83 is a wonderfully flexible unit, its performance on audio is a yawn. That is why Oppo and others have modified the audio stages to get them beyond mediocre. I appreciate the fact that you only use the unit as a transport and rely upon the Onkyo as the DAC. Don't get me wrong about Oppo - I have one of their DVD players and find that it offers great video performance.

I don't think your assesment of the Oppo is in line with reality. You don't really need the SE option if you have a HDMI based system as I have. Through HDMI, the Oppo sounds just as good as a lot of high end CD and SACD players. It has a feature that is not included on many dedicated SACD players...the ability to send out SACD in its raw form...DSD through HDMI.

Every review I have seen has given the Oppo high marks for its sound quality especially through the HDMI outputs, and as a owner of one(as opposed to going off of somebody else's words) it sounds as good as the uber expensive two channel SACD player I bought 8 years ago. Now mind you, my processor does a few things that many digital processor do not do(like reclocking the data once it is received to erase any jitter, and reclocks again before output), and it does do post processing using DSD based tools as opposed to PCM, so my opinion of it is probably higher than most. However, most reviews and comparisons made on the Oppo's audio performance was not done through its HDMI outputs. When the HDMI outputs are brought into the review, it usually narrows any difference it has with much more expensive SACD players. Also all of the reviews have the SACD data trans coded into PCM for post processing, which is something my setup does not do, and that will definitely change what you hear from the Oppo.

I think you have stopped paying attention to the equipment I have listed. The Onkyo is no longer in the system I list in my sig. It was replaced by a custom Grass Valley processor that uses two cell processors(the same processor that power the PS3) in a cascaded implementation(which is how it was originally designed to work). I strictly use the HDMI connections in this rig. The HDMI module has been recently upgraded to version 1.4.

I'm not one of those audiophiles who changes components as frequently as they do their underwear. I purchased my GamuT CD-1 nine years ago following comparisons against the very best available at the time. In my reviewer friend's spectacular system, I compared it directly against the Burmester 969/970 transport and DAC unit. The GamuT fared very well, but the big Burms had better response at the extremes and slightly higher resolution. Given that the Burms ran $56k vs. $3k for the GamuT, I felt that I had made a good choice.

That was a good choice.

I am now considering my next player and the clear candidate is an EMM Labs CDSA. Not only does it play SACD, it also plays Redbook better than what I currently have. My friend now has the XD-S1 and tells me that it unravels levels of detail with both formats beyond what either the CDSA or the CDSD/Dac6e (his multi-channel source) can do. My decision will likely follow what I did nine years ago - recognize that better is available (only $25k in this case) and go for the $11k model instead.

XD-S1

I hope you are happy with your choice. Ed Meitner makes some terrific gear, as I have his DAC8 MkIV as one of the digital converters in my studio.

I note a very different situation with video than with audio. While I'm not nearly as much the videophile having only 100 titles or so, I still enjoy the BR format since it looks more like film than the DVD format ever did. And, you can get nearly anything you want on the format! I recently purchased two 60s vintage James Bond flicks (Goldfinger - '64 and Thunderball - '65) and noticed that my all time favorite Sci-Fi flick (The Day the Earth Stood Still - '51) was available, too. I ended up buying "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" in DVD because there was not a BR version). That seems to be far and away the exception with films. On the other hand, only about ten percent of my music library is available in high resolution audio. It has just never been a priority for me to invest in improvements for so little benefit. At the end of SACD's life, I will be moving to that format, but because the EMM Labs players also excel at Redbook, too.

rw

I guess my situation is quite different than yours. Every one of the systems I own, from the least expensive to the most expensive are all digital, and all multichannel. I no longer use analog connections, and so my listening experience is not based on the performance of that connection. While my music collection still has more two channel than multichannel, the ratio over the years has definitely narrowed. If you throw in my personal recordings, then it weights heavily more towards multichannel. Next month I am getting a 8 channel DXD module installed in my processor which allows me to play DXD based recordings in their native format, and the D/A converters will be upgraded to true 32bit with a variable sample rate maximum of 352.4khz. All processing in the processor is software based, and firmware upgradeable, all hardware modules are completely swappable.
Since I record exclusively in DXD, I have a sources that will utilize this upgrade.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Instead they continued to piss away their dough on vinyl & phono equipment.

Why? Because vinyl sounds better? It does not. But adherence to that antiquated medium was the major reason for the failure of these hi-rez formats.

The whole vinyl thing is a sort of fetish.

I could not have said it better!

[poppachubby]

Instead they continued to piss away their dough on vinyl & phono equipment.

Why? Because vinyl sounds better? It does not. But adherence to that antiquated medium was the major reason for the failure of these hi-rez formats.

The whole vinyl thing is a sort of fetish.

First of all, that's nonsense. All SACD had to do was convert the already digitized masses from CD to the improved format. They couldn't. You think they were hoping to convert the small amount of vinyl afficianados over to SACD? Like that would prove the format a success? I think they had bigger ideas and moreover, profit margins in mind.

Secondly, why does it always have to come down to this? I'm supposed to be open minded to digital but you can criticize analog? Bill, not to be rude but you are hardly equipped with what I would call state of the art when it comes to vinyl. Perhaps hit up a local shop to hear what's currently available. Note: I said to HEAR what's available.

It should be noted that as I write this I am listening to FLAC jazz files through my Creative sound card, digitally outputted through a coax cable in 16/44.1 to my dac and amp.

[Ajani]

First of all, that's nonsense. All SACD had to do was convert the already digitized masses from CD to the improved format. They couldn't. You think they were hoping to convert the small amount of vinyl afficianados over to SACD? Like that would prove the format a success? I think they had bigger ideas and moreover, profit margins in mind.

Secondly, why does it always have to come down to this? I'm supposed to be open minded to digital but you can criticize analog? Bill, not to be rude but you are hardly equipped with what I would call state of the art when it comes to vinyl. Perhaps hit up a local shop to hear what's currently available. Note: I said to HEAR what's available.

It should be noted that as I write this I am listening to FLAC jazz files through my Creative sound card, digitally outputted through a coax cable in 16/44.1 to my dac and amp.

I agree with PoppaC... Vinyl is not responsible for the failings of SACD/DVD-A... The real issues were the usual stupidity of engaging in a format war + the masses went to portable music...

Had SACD become the dominant format instead of CD/MP3, then more vinyl lovers would have some kind of incentive to switch... But to change from one niche format to another is quite frankly, pointless...

[Feanor]

I agree with PoppaC... Vinyl is not responsible for the failings of SACD/DVD-A... The real issues were the usual stupidity of engaging in a format war + the masses went to portable music...

Had SACD become the dominant format instead of CD/MP3, then more vinyl lovers would have some kind of incentive to switch... But to change from one niche format to another is quite frankly, pointless...

I don't really buy the arguement that Sony intended SACD to replace CD -- sure CD patents were running out, yada-yada. But everything Sony actually did, at least early on, indicated that they meant SACD for the high-end niche market, not the mainstream market.

But like I said, 'philes voted against SACD with their bucks, instead they continued to invest in vinyl ... so like I said.

[Feanor]

First of all, that's nonsense. All SACD had to do was convert the already digitized masses from CD to the improved format. They couldn't. You think they were hoping to convert the small amount of vinyl afficianados over to SACD? Like that would prove the format a success? I think they had bigger ideas and moreover, profit margins in mind.

Secondly, why does it always have to come down to this? I'm supposed to be open minded to digital but you can criticize analog? Bill, not to be rude but you are hardly equipped with what I would call state of the art when it comes to vinyl. Perhaps hit up a local shop to hear what's currently available. Note: I said to HEAR what's available.

It should be noted that as I write this I am listening to FLAC jazz files through my Creative sound card, digitally outputted through a coax cable in 16/44.1 to my dac and amp.

Steady on there, Cubbs. I wasn't criticizing vinyl nor did I say it is bad.

Vinyl can sound good, and if the comparison is to an over-compressed CD version, then I suppose it can sound a lot better. However vinyl is not inherently superior to SACD; on the contrary.

I have had vinyl rigs in the past that were much superior than the one I have today, so if you assume that that is the basis of my comparision, you'd be wrong. The reason I don't have better phono system today -- as I said on many occassions -- is primarily that the classical music that I buy doesn't come on LP so it isn't worth it to me to invest more in that medium.

[E-Stat]

I think I have already stated that.

All you said was they were releasing 'titles by the week". How MANY titles per week? Is that also a single digit answer like the number of artists who release new content on BR? Does this represent 0.01 % of the total music released?

I don't think your assesment of the Oppo is in line with reality. You don't really need the SE option if you have a HDMI based system as I have.

Such is obvious because you are bypassing the crappy parts altogether. I acknowledged that you use yours merely as a transport. That is why Oppo and others realized they would have to do better for those who actually wanted to use the entire unit. And they did by completely redesigning the DAC/line stage part. I see you now have one of those. Surely, you can appreciate the level of improvement even if that's not the way you normally connect yours.

Through HDMI, the Oppo sounds just as good as a lot of high end CD and SACD players.

That all depends upon the quality of the outboard DAC you're using!

It has a feature that is not included on many dedicated SACD players...the ability to send out SACD in its raw form...DSD through HDMI.

Such is also employed by EMM Labs since they make purposed SACD transports and DACs.

Every review I have seen has given the Oppo high marks for its sound quality especially through the HDMI outputs, and as a owner of one(as opposed to going off of somebody else's words) it sounds as good as the uber expensive two channel SACD player I bought 8 years ago.

Again, since you are bypassed the crappy parts you are only listening to the transport. The sound quality is then determined by the DAC you choose. Have you heard any of Ed Meitner's products in your system?

and it does do post processing using DSD based tools as opposed to PCM, so my opinion of it is probably higher than most.

Just like EMM Labs.

However, most reviews and comparisons made on the Oppo's audio performance was not done through its HDMI outputs.

How many times do you think you need to make the same point? This is now the third time in one post!

When the HDMI outputs are brought into the review, it usually narrows any difference it has with much more expensive SACD players.

I'll repeat my answer to your repeated observation. It all depends up the outboard DAC. Some are good. Some are not.

I think you have stopped paying attention to the equipment I have listed. The Onkyo is no longer in the system I list in my sig. It was replaced by a custom Grass Valley processor...

I'm sure the result is far better.

I hope you are happy with your choice. Ed Meitner makes some terrific gear, as I have his DAC8 MkIV as one of the digital converters in my studio.

Telarc also used his ADCs in their production setup before the buyout.

I guess my situation is quite different than yours.

I would hope so. Few folks would invest extra funds for addressing one percent of their music library. I recently purchased a CD copy of Aaron Copland's 1968 recording of Appalachian Spring with him conducting the LSO to supplement my thirty year old vinyl copy. It is a wonderful piece of music.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think their needs to be a bit of clarity here. Feanor is right, SACD was never mean't for the masses, it was designed and poorly marketed to audiophiles as an answer to the weaknesses of CD, and the switch away from analog that had fully taken place as a result of the CD. The complexity of making a portable player, and the lost benefits of the formats ultimate sound quality in a high ambient environment just wasn't conducive to portable applications especially where there is consistent movement of the player.

Second thing, is the push towards portables occurred long before SACD (and its DSD core) was even conceived by Sony. Portable CD players were first produced by Sony in the late 80's, and the Walkman Portable Cassette player in 1979. By the time SACD hit the market, both of these technologies succumbed to MP3. MP3 first started on the internet, and by 1998 portable players hit the market. So the culture of portable audio had already been as a fully mature market by the time SACD hit the streets. Based on the shift from medium quality audio to lower quality audio with smaller file sizes, Sony knew they could not capture the masses with SACD. When it didn't take off big time in the home market, Sony largely abandon support for the format, so it could never live up to the ultimate sound quality that the technology was capable of. It took third party vendors to develop editing and post production tools for the format(DSD based), not Sony. It took a third party vendor to ultimately create a format(DXD) that could transparently record, mix, and edit in a higher resolution than DSD so as to deliver a product to DSD transparently. Sony was absent on this as well.

SACD could have succeeded if Sony had thrown not only their technological muscle at the format, but its software muscle as well in the form of Sony Music and its classical and jazz subsidiaries. That would have pushed all of the majors and some of the minor record into the SACD fray in an effort to chase another revenue stream. Sony's failure to do so revealed a perceived(or real) weakness in Sony belief the format would succeed. Hence, its ultimate(but not complete) failure.

[Ajani]

I think their needs to be a bit of clarity here. Feanor is right, SACD was never mean't for the masses, it was designed and poorly marketed to audiophiles as an answer to the weaknesses of CD, and the switch away from analog that had fully taken place as a result of the CD. The complexity of making a portable player, and the lost benefits of the formats ultimate sound quality in a high ambient environment just wasn't conducive to portable applications especially where there is consistent movement of the player.

Second thing, is the push towards portables occurred long before SACD (and its DSD core) was even conceived by Sony. Portable CD players were first produced by Sony in the late 80's, and the Walkman Portable Cassette player in 1979. By the time SACD hit the market, both of these technologies succumbed to MP3. MP3 first started on the internet, and by 1998 portable players hit the market. So the culture of portable audio had already been as a fully mature market by the time SACD hit the streets. Based on the shift from medium quality audio to lower quality audio with smaller file sizes, Sony knew they could not capture the masses with SACD. When it didn't take off big time in the home market, Sony largely abandon support for the format, so it could never live up to the ultimate sound quality that the technology was capable of. It took third party vendors to develop editing and post production tools for the format(DSD based), not Sony. It took a third party vendor to ultimately create a format(DXD) that could transparently record, mix, and edit in a higher resolution than DSD so as to deliver a product to DSD transparently. Sony was absent on this as well.

SACD could have succeeded if Sony had thrown not only their technological muscle at the format, but its software muscle as well in the form of Sony Music and its classical and jazz subsidiaries. That would have pushed all of the majors and some of the minor record into the SACD fray in an effort to chase another revenue stream. Sony's failure to do so revealed a perceived(or real) weakness in Sony belief the format would succeed. Hence, its ultimate(but not complete) failure.

The highlighted point is exactly my problem... If SACD was aimed at audiophiles, then it not taking off big should have been no surprise to Sony... Audiophiles are only a small percentage of the music market... So Sony should have expected it to be niche market from the inception and treated it accordingly... The way they dropped it would give the impression that they had much grander plans for the format than just replacing Vinyl as the niche market king...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All you said was they were releasing 'titles by the week". How MANY titles per week? Is that also a single digit answer like the number of artists who release new content on BR? Does this represent 0.01 % of the total music released?

I would like to direct your attention to what I actually said.

they are almost releasing titles by the week

That was not meant based on word usage to be taken figuratively. Because I am a reviewer of their titles, almost weekly I am getting announcements of future releases that are going to happen pretty much at a weekly to bi weekly bases. In other words, they are stepping up their production of titles.

Such is obvious because you are bypassing the crappy parts altogether. I acknowledged that you use yours merely as a transport. That is why Oppo and others realized they would have to do better for those who actually wanted to use the entire unit. And they did by completely redesigning the DAC/line stage part. I see you now have one of those. Surely, you can appreciate the level of improvement even if that's not the way you normally connect yours.

Sure I can. My point is it was unnecessary when using the HDMI connection, and that point has not been addressed in reviews as aggressively as the analog upgrade itself.

That all depends upon the quality of the outboard DAC you're using!

Yes it does.

Such is also employed by EMM Labs since they make purposed SACD transports and DACs.

Well aware!

Again, since you are bypassed the crappy parts you are only listening to the transport. The sound quality is then determined by the DAC you choose. Have you heard any of Ed Meitner's products in your system?

Yes, in a couple of them as a matter of fact.

Just like EMM Labs.

Does it use HDMI or Coaxial for its output?

How many times do you think you need to make the same point? This is now the third time in one post!

As many times as it takes to drive the point home!

I'll repeat my answer to your repeated observation. It all depends up the outboard DAC. Some are good. Some are not.

Agreed. But I am not sure any pre-pro or receiver manufacturer would include this feature if the DAC's were not of quality to take advantage of it. Passing a DSD signal requires a pretty high quality signal chain.

I'm sure the result is far better.

I am sure a head to head comparison would reveal that, but it hasn't been done.

Telarc also used his ADCs in their production setup before the buyout.

I am aware.....

I would hope so. Few folks would invest extra funds for addressing one percent of their music library.

If they knew it would grow, they probably would. That's what motivated me.

I recently purchased a CD copy of Aaron Copland's 1968 recording of Appalachian Spring with him conducting the LSO to supplement my thirty year old vinyl copy. It is a wonderful piece of music.

rw

Yes it is. I am amazed that my first hearing of it came from a Drum and Bugle corps when I was a kid!

[E-Stat]

That was not meant based on word usage to be taken figuratively.

Ok. Then contrary to your earlier assertion, you chose NOT to answer my question.

Does it use HDMI or Coaxial for its output?

The transports use a proprietary fiber optic cable.

As many times as it takes to drive the point home!

Given that I acknowledged that you only used the unit as a transport before your reply, such wasn't necessary for me. Are you trying to convince yourself? Are you trying to convince yourself? Are you trying to convince yourself?

I am aware...

I discovered that later in your comments.

Yes it is. I am amazed that my first hearing of it came from a Drum and Bugle corps when I was a kid!

I have more modern renditions, but for me nothing is like this classic one with the composer at the baton.

rw