Why SACD/DVDA in players ?? (1 Viewer)

[Ken Stuart]

Hello,

Does anyone have any idea why SACD and DVD-A decoding were put in the players, rather than the receivers?

It seems to me that using one digital cable instead of six analog cables is an advancement.

Now that I've bought a DVD-Audio-combatible player, I find that I have to go back to the 1980's method of using analog cables to hook up the DVD-Audio capability only, while DD, DTS and CD still pass through the digital output.

(Naturally, it's not something that I thought about prior to researching this purchase. )

It would seem to me that all the decoders should be in the same box (DD, DTS, SACD, DVD-A). The receivers should advertise "Our 2003 model now adds DVD-Audio!" not the players...

 

[John Royster]

copy right protection, the RIAA wanting to milk more money from consumers, all kinds of evil plots.

That and normally the source gear gets the decoding first then the receiver market catches up. For instance how many receivers had a digital in 10 years ago?

 

[JamesHl]

Copy protection, copy protection... the only reason the Pioneer with firewire works is because it's based on the same standard that they came up with for secure digital video, you can't copy it, or whatever.

 

[KeithH]

I think it has something to do with copyright protection...or something.

The feeling of the record labels and hardware manufacturers is that SACD and DVD-Audio bring the consumer ever closer, actually quite close, to the master tape, and they don't want consumers essentially pirating the master tape. They feel that would kill their livelihood. Of course, even if there was a digital output, there are no hi-rez recorders to enable pirating. Why, I wonder, are there no hi-rez recorders? Could it be due to copyright protection? Ah, we've come full-circle.

 

[Ian Montgomerie]

Also the standard digital interface for receivers is S/PDIF. This is physically incapable of carrying the amount of data needed by the high definition audio formats.

 

[John Royster]

-conspiracy theory hat on-

While I love what SACD and DVDA have given us I can't help but think that there is more to it than better audio. With piracy rampant on movies and CDs (you can download anything...anything) is Sony not trying to create a format just to thwart piracy? Sure we get supior sound and encoding but what about fair use and my desire to have a backup.

Makes one wonder for sure.

-conspiracy hat off-



My media collection is huge (1500+ CDs, 80 DVDs) so I've given the industry a ton of money. Let me maintain backups because if I was smart I would copy my entire collection and use the copies in the car. I have way too many messed up or scratched discs.

And finally - every copy protection that I can think of has been defeated. So I am a little concerned when functionality/convience is removed simply for copy protection's sake.

Are you listening manufacturers? You're hindering 98% of your customers just to stop the 2% that pirate. And you won't even stop them because they'll find a way around it.

 

[Jamey F]

Are you sure the 98% and 2% figures are correct? Let's just say I know someone that does both, copy and buy large quantities of originals. I believe many more than 2% copy illegally even if they purchase many legal products.

I think your premise is right. Don't stop the people from getting the most out of the good apple just because of the bad ones. That ticks off the paying customers that may or may not be copying for legal purposes. I think if the industry came out with lower priced products and/or including bonus items (posters, movie tickets, etc) instead of fighting the piracy, piracy wouldn't be the problem they make it out to be. I can still remember all the talk how CD's were so much cheaper to make, and how they would be considerably cheaper than the original asking price of around $12-15 bucks once the whole things scaled to a larger audience. What happened?