[Welly Wu]

Dude, I've been the only evangelist that I know of on the cheap and affordable universal DVD player front here for a bit of time now. Hi-Rez media is nearly the same price as Red Book CDs. I just bought the new Renee Fleming Handel and Hilary Hahn Elgar and Vaughan Williams Hybrid SA-CDs for the same price as Red Book CDs at a brick and mortar bookstore. I can go get DVD-Audio titles from another brick and mortar music store for the same price too. In fact, I need to buy two more DVD-Audio titles to maintain equal parity between both hi-rez formats. That's been my driving motivation: equal parity that continues to grow each month of both hi-rez formats.

By the way, DVD-Audio contains much more music density in terms of the sheer resolution and absolute precision in terms of reproducing a very very close to analog sound to my ears. Your mileage may vary.

Universal DVD players are priced at all points. Some can be had for under $100 USD which was unheard of in 2000. You can get far far better technology in those relatively inexpensive universal DVD players than you did with the top of the line $2000+ USD universal player of four years ago. No joke. NO LIE!

Look, just give it a listen before you decide if it's worth it to your ears and sense of musical pleasure. That's all I'm advocating. Keep an open mind and ears.

 

[bifcake]

I am absolutely adamant against high rez formats. Here's why:

1) They bring very little to the table - Unless ALL of your components are top notch and I mean class A all the way, you'd be hard pressed to hear a compelling difference. Not that you won't hear a difference, but it's not compelling.

2) The record companies lie. - They convert 16bit PCM into SACD instead of going back to the original analog master and charge you more for it. So in effect, you're buying the same CD that you can't copy and with a different label.

3) Price - There is NO reason why high rez disks should cost more than CDs. None. In fact, they should cost less because it's harder to copy them, therefore, record companies should theoretically save money and thus pass the savings to consumers. I REFUSE absolutely REFUSE to pay $25 for music media. Not for LPs, not for CDs, not for SACDS or DVD-As. That's just a ripoff! Plain and simple.

4) I want portability. I want to be able to make a copy of my CDs to load in a car's CD changer. I want to have copies to take on trips with me. I don't like lugging my original CDs when I go out. They may get lost, scratched, etc. If I can't easily and conveniently copy my disks, I'm not interested in the format.

5) Not interested in surround music.

6) Competing formats confuse the market and prevent consumer acceptance. I have a feeling both of these formats will die a slow and quiet death. Those who have invested heavily into the high rez formats will be left holding the bag. I'm sure that neither the record companies nor the hardware manufacturers will attempt to reimburse their customers for obsolete media.

7) I am heavily invested in Redbook. I don't wish to recreate my entire catalog in a different format.

So, here you go. These are my reasons for not just refusing to accept current breed of high res formats, but actively HATING the attempt.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welly Wu By the way, DVD-Audio contains much more music density in terms of the sheer resolution and absolute precision in terms of reproducing a very very close to analog sound to my ears. Your mileage may vary.

This is one of the major issues to me. I just don't see any engineering justification for SACD. It's too much of a step sideways in sound quality, and a step backward in portability, usability, etc. I appreciate DVD-A and I think it has advantages and makes sense, but I'm skeptical that it will succeed and hence reluctant to jump in.

Until either of these formats can be used on an iPod, even in downsampled form, they won't gain mainstream acceptance. I know hardcore techies can do this already with DVD-A, but there are no mainstream tools that do this.

Then there's the issue of whether the vendors will intentionally kill one or both of the formats, now that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both on the horizon. I'm fairly sure that most HD-DVD players will be backwards compatible with today's DVD-As, but it's unclear if Blu-Ray players will play SACDs. The whole next-generation format war will be huge and you can be sure that vendors will be throwing money into that war rather than promoting SACD or DVD-A.

 

[setmenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeriyn 1) 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.

I can't help but feel this was the whole point of the exercise too.

Setmenu

 

[kunwar]

Here in Aus decent music titles from either Naxos or Decca or deutsche gramophone or EMI cost close to $AU 35
The ones I have actually found on DVD-A or SACD cost anywhere upto $AU65-70. That I am not prepared to pay. No matter how good they sound.
cos it is possible to reach a high level of fidelity within redbook on a decent system. I don't have the speakers to harness the lower end magic that the DVD-A format can present. I have heard the Linn Unidisk 1.1 and believe me I would buy it in an instant if I had the money but there simply aren't enough titles available here at a cost that would be called reasonable.
Also I would like to store some of that music up on aportable player.
A restrictive medium such as SACD requires either a really high end player as using DAC's with them is at the moment impossible.

I am waiting for Glassman's solution to the problem.

 

[KR...]

Many reasons

1. lack of titles. Most of the music I like is not on DVD-audio or SACD
2. 5.1 surround sound mixes are worthless on headphones and the redbook side many times is just the normal CD version.
3. I wouldn't be able to make mix CD-Rs
4. Useless for portable use

 

[jpr703]

My biggest beef is with record companies repackaging the same old sub-par master recordings in nice new shiny packages and charging a fortune to buy the same darn music on a new disc.

Redbook CDs can sound extremely good when the they're made right. Is it too much to ask for one consistently high-quality standard??

When I buy an album, I'd like to think that I own that music for my personal use and that what I've bought is the best recording that the artist, producer, mixer, etc. can produce. I just refuse to keep buying the same songs over and over because the record company decides to "remaster" it or convert it into another format.

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundboy the people who frequent the Steve Hoffman website, who genrally praise music on hi-rez.

I'd say your way off. They don't praise music on high-rez, they praise music that's well recorded and mastered regardless of format. Those dudes will take a S.Hoffman mastered gold DCC CD over any high-rez disc in an instant.

 

[NotoriousBIG_PJ]

Because I have an investment in redbook and I don't feel I'm missing anything by avoiding the hi-rez hype. If I wanted a higher rez I would get vinyl heh.

Biggie.

 

[tyrion]

I had a fully modded SCD-CE775, I agree not the highest end player, but I compared the sacd's I had which I also had the the redbook cd's and I didn't find there to be much of a difference. I was using an Airport Express/CI dac with apple lossless files for the comparison. When you consider price, lack of titles, it was an easy decision for me to sell the player. Maybe on a higher end cdp it would make a difference but it didn't on the CE775 SACDmods.

 

[00940]

- basically nothing interesting me available yet. Sacd-net is giving me 29 opera titles, 6 being still not released. Searching "sacd opera" on amazon, I can get 20 titles, half of them being marginal boring works. I can find 16 842 cds on the same website searching for "opera".

- the fact I cannot play my music when, where and how I want.

 

[eyeteeth]

It's the music issue for me.
There is nothing of interest to me. Ok NIN arrived and that's it. Like an essay in one of the UK mags recently said if the formats are to survive they'll need to put out "less Brahms and more britney."
Besides the whole thing stinks of laserdisc more and more. Rumours abound of the major players dumping the format or they demonstrate little interest themselves. Music reviews as often as not complain about lousy sound quality.
Could it turn around? Sure, I suppose anything's possible.

Why are so many Head-Fi members opposed to hi-rez and universal dvd players? Because they have common sense. And based on the principle of resisting when being pushed, no amount of cajoling will change their minds. (cajole:to persuade someone to do something they might not want to do, by pleasant talk and (sometimes false) promises).

Regarding the personal pushing of one format or the other, I'm not too interested in the debates 'ad nauseum' but I have offered an opposing view lately when a less informed new member innocently asks if he should buy redbook or sacd and gets a passionate, well oiled sales pitch on why buying high-rez is the smarter choice. I'm not doubting for a moment the high-rez advocate's sincerity or even that high-rez could be the better choice. I just think both sides of the coin should be clearly and fairly represented to the newbie. And as of today I think a good redbook player would be his better choice unless he expresses a great appreciation of classical or jazz music and is without a sizable redbook collection.
My presenting an opposing view to high-rez for the sake of balance probably gets interpreted as my being anti-high-rez. But it's not true. Nothing would make me happier than high-rez to succeed with proper mastering from the original tapes and a proper selection of titles to choose from.

 

[markl]

Quote:

1) They bring very little to the table - Unless ALL of your components are top notch and I mean class A all the way, you'd be hard pressed to hear a compelling difference. Not that you won't hear a difference, but it's not compelling.

Well, that's in the ear of the beholder. But I don't understand this argument coming from people who frequent this board, who care about sound quality and invest heavily to hear minor differences in sound. The difference is audible on any component, no matter how modest. I just picked up a $150 universal player for my brother (Toshiba SD-4960), that I tested out in my system just for fun, and the difference between CD playback and hi-rez is clear even on this modest player. Is that compelling? It's certainly as or even more "compelling" than a fancy cable upgrade, or switching up to the next model in a headphone amp line-up. In terms of SACD, if you get a hybrid disc, you get the SACD layer for free, it sneaks its way into your CD collection and before you know it, you have a whole library built up of hi-rez titles. Quote:

2) The record companies lie. - They convert 16bit PCM into SACD instead of going back to the original analog master and charge you more for it. So in effect, you're buying the same CD that you can't copy and with a different label.

We have *one* known example of this happening. And that is a disc that offers a hi-rez multi-channel program, so there *is* value added in that particular SACD title as well. (But no, I'm *not* excusing the use of PCM masters on the Jones disc for two-channel.)
Quote:

3) Price - There is NO reason why high rez disks should cost more than CDs. None. In fact, they should cost less because it's harder to copy them, therefore, record companies should theoretically save money and thus pass the savings to consumers. I REFUSE absolutely REFUSE to pay $25 for music media. Not for LPs, not for CDs, not for SACDS or DVD-As. That's just a ripoff! Plain and simple.

I don't know where you are shopping, but the price gap is virtually non-existent (it is non-existent on hybrid discs), if you look around. And yes, there are legitimate reasons for a price difference-- namely greatly increased costs of production. You have to pay an engineer and use facilties to create the hi-rez mastering, and pay for all the time and effort of an extra mixing engineer if you are creating a multi-channel mix, and you have to use the extremely limited facilities for the actual manufacturing of hi-rez discs, there are only a handful of them currently available. If it's a DVD-A, you have all the video screens to create, and the extra licensing costs on all the photos you use, plus the extra royalties the artists are demanding for the ability to sell a different version of their music. Also, since the market is smaller, there are fewer individual sales to spread these extra costs over.
Quote:

4) I want portability. I want to be able to make a copy of my CDs to load in a car's CD changer. I want to have copies to take on trips with me. I don't like lugging my original CDs when I go out. They may get lost, scratched, etc. If I can't easily and conveniently copy my disks, I'm not interested in the format.

How many years did it take to get recordable DVDs after DVD-Video was introduced? There was a lag there, and I don't see any reason why these discs won't ultimately be copy-able. Also, if you buy hybrid SACDs or the new Dual Disc DVD-As, you have a CD layer on there that you can download to your PC and burn as many copies of it that you want!
Quote:

5) Not interested in surround music.

There is no such thing as a surround-only hi-rez title. They ALL have 2-channel hi-rez versions on there, you get the multi-channel as an "extra".
Quote:

6) Competing formats confuse the market and prevent consumer acceptance. I have a feeling both of these formats will die a slow and quiet death. Those who have invested heavily into the high rez formats will be left holding the bag. I'm sure that neither the record companies nor the hardware manufacturers will attempt to reimburse their customers for obsolete media.

Huh????

You would expect to be *compensated* if the formats fail????? The VHS tape is going the way of the dodo, should you be able to turn in all your VHS tapes and be compensated for investing in a format that is all but kaput? What about your old cassette tapes? Should you be able to turn in your old cassette walkman for a new mp3 player? That's just not reasonable. If no one is willing to take the plunge and put their money where there mouths are, no new format of any kind is going to take off, is it? IMO, if you have no skin in the hi-rez game, you have no right to complain about lack of titles, lack of support and the shaky appearance of the future! There will continue to be a slow release schedule, continue to be few players released, continue to be little support if everyone adopts this wait-and-see attitude. I've said this over and over again, it's Field of Dreams in reverse: "if we come, they will build it." If you don't want to be stuck with CD-level sound forever, you need to get off the sidelines and vote in favor of the new formats with your pocketbook.
Quote:

7) I am heavily invested in Redbook. I don't wish to recreate my entire catalog in a different format.

Another argument I just don't understand. EVERY SINGLE HI-REZ PLAYER WILL PLAY YOUR OLD CDs!!!! No little Sony SACD fairies are going to sneak into your house at night and steal all your CDs from you to "force" you to replace them with hi-rez versions. You don't have to hand over your Cd collection to Best Buy before they allow you out the door with your newly purchased hi-rez player!

As for lack of titles, this one also mystifies me to an extent. Many of the greatest rock 'n roll titles ever released are currently available in hi-rez. Maybe its time to expand your horizons and check out some of the really great (*gasp*) "older" music? There's a reason they are considered "classics", because they truly are GREAT! There's so much good stuff there to explore, it seems to me.

Sorry if this came across harsh, bifcake, no offense meant, I'm just responding to your listed objections in the spirit of the debate, that's all. Cheers.

 

[Sugano-san]

I heard many times that universal players suck rocks. Big ones, with moss on them.

Maybe in 10 years or so, but today...

No, no.

 

[markl]

Quote:

I heard many times that universal players suck rocks. Big ones, with moss on them

This is just a myth. The only extra componentry you are paying for with hi-rez universal player is the video section because it has to be a DVD-Video player as well, plus the extra analog channels for multi-channel support. You do need to offset for the added cost of a video section and multi-channel to get comparable build quality for two-channel audio. Yes, a 2-channel CD player will cost less than a comparable-performance universal player, but the universal player does twice as much, requires extra componentry. This can't be avoided or ignored. But it is offset by the fact that almost everyone has a DVD player now anyway, and can use the extra functionality, so it's not always going to waste in an audio-only set-up.

Same rules apply to hi-rez players that apply to CD players-- buy a cheap one, you get cheap-quality sound. You have to invest in a good hi-rez player to get good sound, just like you have invest in a good quality CD player to get good sound.

But the idea that the ability to play hi-rez means a player automatically sucks is just wrong. You can get $10,000 universal players if you want, and I'm sure the sound would satisfy anyone here on Redbook.