if this was the case DVD would not have taken off.I disagree completely with this. This is like saying DVD took off because it finally gave consumers widescreen and since they were all discriminating viewers they had to have it.
MUCH more likely, it seems, is the lifespan of DVD tied to the cost. VHS buying was there, but many people didn't want to buy $90 tapes when they were released and didn't want to buy VHS tapes that would end up bad after 5 years, even from just sitting on the shelf.
Quality has helped, but then that's totally connected to the push toward HDTV and big screen quality sets.
DVD-A/SACD just don't have that added lifetime, they certainly don't improve upon the price, and they sort of don't have the dramatic equipment upgrade that DVD did, except in one way...people have bought surround systems/speakers. Sure some people also made their entire speaker package better too, but there have been great quality stereo systems for decades now, so you don't have that technology jump in stereo playback that says "now you are going to want 96K sampling to show that system off".
Not like people jumping up from a $1000 27" TV not so long ago to a $1000 52" set now (maybe even HDTV). That type of dramatic monitor change does scream out for better resolution.
So I also agree on the side that says multichannel IS the selling point for DVD-A/SACD to the general public. I honestly think I could impress most of my friends with 196 MP3s with 10 albums on 1 disc versus 1 96K album. Simply because they won't hear enough of a difference versus the extra convenience of so much music on one portable CD. Sell them an MP3 10 album package for $40 and it wouldn't even be close (some might not buy for lack of a car player for EITHER situation).
I have had much more success impressing people with the multichannel tracks than with the improved resolution stereo, just because it is much more obvious (and applies to many of their recent upgrades to surround systems). It becomes the new candy for these extra speakers, and people want to use their high dollar equipment as much as possible.
Meanwhile, I sit hear with the new Empire DVD-A and I didn't get to listen to it yet. :frowning: Darn nighttime and neighbors.
I also have some concerns when we see a lack of product coming out. I can handle niche volumes and prices (just like LD), but so far it's not even close to being that good. Heck, I'd be even more worried about DVD-A hardware dissappearing so that my DVD-As were only half usable (many of them are rebuy's of stereo software I owned).
I've got the original UK Decca Stones albums, so I thought I was prepared for what these carefully mastered SACDs might sound like. I wasn't. The amount of detail revealed by the DP-85 (Accuphase) was jaw-dropping. I heard things in very familiar tunes I'd never heard before, and going back to the original vinyl was a bit of a shock to my systems, both personal and electronic.Can't wait until August 20th!
Ironic isn't it that the Accuphase DP-85V converts the DSD datastream to 24bit/192kHz for D/A conversion?John,
I have spoken with some "expert" friends and have been told this is simply not true. Nor is it mentioned, in spite of voluminous measurements by John Atkinson, in Mike Fremer's review in the September Stereophile.
I would like to know your sources for this. According to my friends, there is a pure DSD conversion going on here all the way to the analog outputs. I guess it is possible that the Accuphase link may have some effect, but according to Mike, the 2.83Mhz SACD bitstream using the proprietary HS-link connector. I think your data may be based on the Audio Asylum rumours recently. And you know why they call the Asylum
By the way, it is a $16,500 player, so one would expect that audiophiles would definitely expect pure conversion.
