[Welly Wu]

As the title states: why?

I've never quite figured out why this community is so anti-hi-rez and anti-universal dvd players. Is it the poor selection of titles? Is it the strong encryption of the hi-rez content? Is it the additional cost of buying new hardware and software? Is it buying music that's the problem? Do you think that the hi-rez mediums have any merit in claiming better sound fidelity?

Why do you guys want to see the entire hi-rez formats die and universal dvd players die along with it? Why won't you even consider giving it a chance?

I know of true audiophiles who would never ever buy headphones because they suck compared to their Martin Logan and B&W speakers. Headphones do suck compared to full sized loudspeakers...no doubt about it. Yet, here we are. I also know that these same audiophiles are willing to give hi-rez a chance by buying the hardware and software with their own money. Hi-Rez sounds so damned good on their rigs that cost several tens of thousands of dollars a piece.

I just don't understand this community some times and I got to shake my head in disappointment...

 

[S_Dedalus]

My problem is the lack of titles and the hoops I'd have to jump through to play dvd-a on my computer, and the impossibility of playing sacd on my computer.
I've also heard that many titles have just a re-badged version of the cd content as their stereo layer.

 

[GoRedwings19]

I think the benefits are definetly there. But as always SACD's are more expensive in the UK. It's like double the US price. Also there is next to none promotion of dvd-a and sacd in the UK. But now it makes no difference as an audiophille has offered me a good price on the tri-vista so I am selling it to him. It's a shame really as it is already a very good redbook player and a fabulous SACD player. One of the best I have heard. But my Mark levinson is due anytime and I am thinking of trying a wadia. So I have to make room.

 

[Kirosia]

Lack of titles. Probably around 90% of what I listen can't be found on hi-rez, or vinyl for that matter.

 

[bln]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu Is it the poor selection of titles?

That's the reason given 99.9 percent of the time, so I don't know why you even bother asking yet again. There are extremely few titles on either format. Anyone who's really "all about the music" and not the sound is not interested in a format with very little music.

 

[soundboy]

Welly,

Good question. I wonder about that too. Perhaps it's a generational thing....I am thinking the typical head-fi'er is younger than, say, the people who frequent the Steve Hoffman website, who genrally praise music on hi-rez. Certainly way less computer users there.

 

[S_Dedalus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia Lack of titles. Probably around 90% of what I listen can't be found on hi-rez, or vinyl for that matter.

I can find a whole lot more music on vinyl, that's what is really sad about the new formats, they can't even keep up with something considered obsolete.

 

[av98m2]

More than 99 percent of the music I listen to is not available in hi-rez formats.

 

[Publius]

My listening habits are the exact opposite of what SACD and DVD-A really require - album-oriented listening with a standalone unit, listening to equally large collections at home, at work and on the go - so the formats are more or less useless to me. I'll start thinking about buying into the format when I can rip the discs losslessly to my computer (ie when MLP etal get cracked).

Playing them on a portable is also a requirement, but I'm perfectly fine with transcoding it to 16/44 since this oft-mentioned mastering quality is what really makes the difference.

 

[Welly Wu]

So, it really is a generational gap, no?

I would appreciate more answers instead of hate mail.

 

[aeriyn]

1) No music. It's hard enough to find and purchase J-Rock/J-Pop on Redbook CD as it is, much less on high-rez formats.
2) Expensive. Costs more, and CDs already cost too much.
3) Can't put on zee iPod easily. (Hard to do with DVD-A, nearly impossible short of a digital real-time capture with SACD.)
4) Did I mention it costs more?

Yeah. It's a shame, but honestly in my heart I believe the idea of high-rez formats is more about copy protection than actually giving the consumer a better product. And it kinda irks me.

 

[rickcr42]

anyone lookin' to buy a Sony betamax ? got one REAL cheap !

i have seen far too many format wars to purchase any new format until the dust has settled and it becomes mainstream.Once a catalog is there with titles i am familiar with and the selection large only then will the rickster partake.

Hafler/SQ/QS matrixed quad,CD-4 true quad wars
Ambience extraction vs ambience simulatiuon delay units
omnisonics,holosonics,ambience simulation
CD vs LP
vhs vs betamax vs 8mm
five different contenders for stereo TV broadcasts
DAT vs MD vs ?
laser disc vs dvd
DIVX
video dvd recorders vs vhs

I am sure i am missing some here but many have slipped away even though they were the "must have" componant at one time and any gear head rushed out to buy then was stuck with a piece of junk with the software no longer being made available

I started out in audio spinning 45's and as I grew in musical taste and system fidelity moved up to the LP.But this was about the most p*ss poor medum a human could think of for travel so the only mobile option was radio (AM ! FM was a damn wasteland ) or eight tracks-a real nightmare but all there was.

then along came the cassette which was no high fidelity medium until the Advent Dolby Encoder/Decoder made an appearance but still,slow.very slow to take hold and eight tracks ruled the world of music to go even though they sucked.
but once the cassette became a true high fidelity medium with advanced tape formulas,good electronics,real hi fi head designs and most important-a store full of selections the eight track was doomed to slide into the abyss where it should never have been allowed to rear its ugly head from to begin with.
Finally you could buy an LP,record a copy for the car and if that copy got somehow wrecked just make another copy !
Before that it was buy the LP for best sound at home then spend almost the same amopunt again for the eight track version so you could listen on the road to the same music !

Damn rip is what it was and that is why the RIAA fought so hard against the cassette ! The "buy twice" was a real sweatheart deal where royalties would be payed out for each copy and woe if your eight track was eaten by the deck,something of a daily occurance,you had to buy another copy !(sound familiar ?)
The RIAA lost in court and it was then possible to buy the LP and then make a copy for the car.

JUSTICE AT LAST

Then along came the Sony Walkman , a headphone based portable cassette player for true music to go and it set things in motion.these original walkmans were a marvel.True hi fi FM radio reception,pretty darn good cassette playback and built in mics for picking up exterior sounds so your dumb *ss did not get run over.

The CD ?

also a format war and a medium that almost never happened until sony teamed up with Phillips and came out with a standard.
These machines were not cheap and the software was lacking so the prices remained high for the players due to limited demand.but once the record companies commited to pursuing the Cd and the shelves were loaded it become the standard and the natural progression was the portable CD player,also a sony in the beginning.
No anti shock,limited battery life,not real reliable but bliss just the same.
And one thing a CD had over the LP in spades was : only a properly set up and fairly good turntable sounded good but even a POS system sounded OK with a CD playing-especially in the bass where only the best turnatbles could bring it out without exessive rumble and woofer cone pumping.
finally the "youngsters" could have somewhat good sounding music for cheap and the medium took off.

Hi rez ?

If only audiophiles take to it and not the masses it will never fly and the record companies will never put out an extensive catalog of music for an iffy medium.been there and seen it before

I had every manner of quadraphonic/ambience extraction and simulation/ surround sound device and most-no all are long since dust exept for the original "dynaquad" which i still use for some music (live recordings) and most movies.
i had every type of A/V playback and record device and when a technology is new it costs $$$$$$$$.but once it is mainstreamed it cost pennies (current DVD player prices)

nope.When or if the dust settles and there is a true winner with a huge catalog of selections,only then.....maybe

 

[bln]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu So, it really is a generational gap, no?

No, it's a lack of music.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I can think of maybe 5-10 high-res albums I'd want to own, and even then, most of those would be albums that I like to listen to every once and a while, but are not my staples or favorites. That is the main problem, which stops me from even pursuing the issue any futher.

But if there were many titles I wanted, then I would be faced with the following problems:

I like playing back my music from my PC, whether you agree with that or not. Currently there is NO PC support for SACD (AFAIK), and only very limited support for DVDA. Also virtually no external DAC support for SACD also kills that for me. This also goes to the encryption issue, if I pay money for music, I want to be able to do whatever I want with it, be that rip it to my hard drive, make backup copies on other hard drives or optical disks, and convert it for use on my DAP. This is all currently impossible with high-res.

I'd certainly go and buy over all the albums I have in lossless if I could get them in 24/96 or 24/192, or DSD, so that part of the equation doesn't really bother me (save perhaps the possiblity of having to do it again in the future).

I'm not anti-high-res, from what I have heard it is quite lovely, and I wish all my music sounded that good. However, the current implementation and support for it basically sucks IMO, and until those issues are adressed, I have no compelling reason to get into high-res. If they are ever rectified to my liking, you can bet I will get all the high-res I can get my hands on, though.

 

[soundboy]

I suppose it comes down to the personal preference in the style of music and the titles released. When SACD became affordable for me and seeing there were more than 20 titles released that I would like to own, I purchased my Sony DVP-NS500V. Multi-channel playback was never an issue for me....don't have enough room for 5.1 speakers. Portable playback? I wouldn't take my "expensive" SACDs outside. The own idea behind me buying into SACD was getting better reproduction of music at home. Sure, that's very subjective, but in most cases, SACD does deliver the goods.

Cost of software? There are now titles that are cheaper than their regular CD counterpart....like the RCA Living Presense SACDs. I am not a classical music fan and only have 5 classical music titles on SACD. Same with jazz. I've also picked titles directly from Sony for less than $12.00/each, including shipping. BMG Music Service currently have titles @ $5.99/each.

Players are less expensive as well....the West Coast electronics chain The Good Guys just offered Sony's DVP-NC685V DVD/SACD changer for under $100.00. They are a number of SACD, DVD-A, and universal players for under $200.00.

As for the availability of titles, say, on SACD....123 titles was released this
month alone. The total number of SACDs available is now approaching 2,700.

Welly can certainly speak for the case on DVD-A, which I am not that familiar with. From what I read online, the DVD-A of Blue Man Goup's "Audio" is awesome.