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.