High-end Universal...Why? ?


I don't understand why we're still talking about the "age of uncertainty" and the need for a universal player. After the death of DVD-A, those with high-end universals are going to look upon the vestigal circuitry in their machines with the same obsessive disdain as they would a reptilian tail sticking out of their own rear ends. You know who you are. : ) I humbly suggest using your $4 to $12K and buy an SACD player.

Sure, many people's favorite music isn't out on SACD, but that's a ubiquitous problem whenever formats change. There are many Lp's that never made it to CD. Why will SACD win over DVD-A? Let's take the surround camp: even if 50% bought DVD-A and 50% bought SACD, (it's actually 3 to 1 SACD over DVD-A), you also have 2-channel high-rez camp buying SACD also, swinging the vote even further in latter's favor.

A disclosure: I own an SACD player.
jdaniel18ee

Showing 2 responses by gthrush1

Sampling rate of 2,800,000 (SACD) versus 96,000 (DVDA)! C'mon, man DVDA is not dying, I'd argue that it was still-born in the first place.

If DVDA were a priest, music would be an altar-boy...

Hey man, I don't care if DSD goes mainstream or not. The majority of mainstream music would benefit very little from the higher sampling rate. Most of the Rhino CD remasters sound great...

I think that where DSD will matter for decades to come is in remasters of the older jazz, blues, bluegrass, and classical 30 ips master analog reels of historically significant recordings.

Case-in-Point:
I'll never be willing to spend the cash for a MINT original pressing of Ellington's "Blues in Orbit," but damn the DSD MoFi I bought for small coin sounds F'ing incredible...