What is new with the Memory Player?

Value proposition? I believe there are much easier and cheaper ways of doing the same thing, and even better. Why duplicate a PC when you can just buy one? Why limit the customer to one DAC when there are so many to choose from? How does the MP support networked music streaming like the Squeezebox?

I've posted here more than once saying that Nova ought to be a software house, assuming RUR and (more importantly) the Reed-Solomon extraction methods are high value proprietary code. The rest of this solution is, frankly, hardware commodity stuff (no offense to anyone) that could be designed and built by any number of technically proficient enterprises. And therein lies the rub; the fact that the revolutionary software is installed in reportedly substandard medium-quality hardware, supported by a skeleton crew of developers and distributor(s), marketed through a poorly designed clearly-rushed website...all for the low price of $10,000+......that's a problem.

I would LOVE for Nova to succeed. It would push the envelope.

This is the wrong time for anyone to be marketing standalone players, even pc clones. The market is moving rapidly to more flexible servers and networked systems, both for audio and video. The prooduct is a retro design, though probably wasn't envisaged as such by it's designers a few years ago, and that recognition may be the real reason it is stalled.

the fact that the revolutionary software is installed in reportedly substandard medium-quality hardware

Still waiting to hear what's revolutionary. They state on their web site that re-reading is not new. We also know it's not new since EAC and JRiver have been doing it for years. If they do things like adjust the laser during re-reads, who cares? In the end, you still get a bit-perfect copy with EAC or JRiver. Is memory playback new? I don't believe so--you can play a song from a RAM disk.

In my opinion, they would have more credibility if they changed their marketing approach from what appears to be "this is rocket science" to "hey, if you're not PC savvy and want to get the benefits of PC-based audio, like memory playback and bit-perfect ripping, our box does it all for $10K. Sure you can do it yourself for under $2K, but you're not PC savvy."

I used the term "revolutionary" to give the benefit of the doubt. Supposedly their RUR, aside from the EAC-like " rip to it hurts" error rereading, strips bad-sounding Reed Solomon EC data off the disc, but nowhere is there proof that this is unique, beneficial or even part of the signal path. No a/b has been done, nothing.

I'm still not giving up that the Clement Perrys of the world weren't duped, and actually heard something "revolutionary" here. Why else would they report this (he says rhetorically)?