R combi-Multi-multi format players a bad trend? (1 Viewer)

[Rachael B]

I'm beginning to think so. The selection of dedicated format players is shrinking day by day. There are no deadicated DVD-A players. There are few stand alone SACD players left. I expect the selection of dedicated CD players to shrink down in the near future. Soon, only hi-end firms may be offering them?

I was intrested in the first DVD/DVD-A/SACD player, the Pioneer DV-AX10. It cost too much and breaks down too much. I'm glad I didn't buy one. The Pioneer DV-47 almost got me to pull out my checkbook, but it's SACD playback seemed lacking. I know a slew of combi-players are coming out and some of them may be pretty good, but my personal deires have reversed.

Now I'm thinking that dedicated format players are better. They don't, or shouldn't, compromise one format to accomodate others. I'm looking at my equipment and seeing that this is the case. My dedicated LD player out performs all CD/DVD/LD combi-players. My dedicated (nearly) SACD players outperform the DVD based players I've seen so far.

I'm beginning to believe that it would be better to have a DVD player that just does DVD-V and nothing else. I'm beginning to think that jack of all trades players are a bad trend. They may be convient, but will they be better? I'm doubting it. It looks like hardware may be getting "dumbed down"? I'm just not too comfortable with the trend....

 

[Jack Briggs]

I think that universal players intended for the eventual SACD and DVD-A markets will necessarily be dumbed down for appeal to the mass market. Remember, most people have never heard of the two new audio formats. Equipment intended for that segment will be elemental and affordable (if not cheap).

The larger issue you're raising is of longterm concern. Its roots lie in the separates-versus-integrated components (receivers, integrated amps, tuner-preamps) debate that continues to this day.

Those components that are (almost) over-engineered, intended for one format, and built like a tank will demonstrate superior performance and better durability (and an enhanced pride-of-ownership appeal and collectibility factor). The more yeomanly components will still perform very well. And the bottom end will pull up the rear as always.

But if I bought, say, the Krell DVD Standard at $8,000 as a longterm investment intended for a starring role in my home theater, how am I going to feel three years from now if a superior-performing machine that plays high-def optical discs and is compatible with current DVD comes along at or below $2,500?

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I don't know, for example, there will always be high quality (and expensive) CD players, even though IMO with a good DVD player, you don't need a separate CD player.

And even if good, dedicated DVD-A and SACD players go away (which I don't think will, maybe it won't be Sony but instead someone like Cambridge Audio. California Audio Labs, Arcam, etc), there is still the used market.

But, if the quality of *each* format in a universal player even gets close enough to a good dedicated player, I'll take the convenience thereof any day. (And I did, just got a 47ai. BTW, Pioneer seems to have done right by the 47ai in terms of at least the SACD quality is not specifically being singled out anymore for being as bad as the 47a...)