Before I spend even more money, help me with a DVD player

[Lucas Tam]

"Jeremy Gillow" <jgillow@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
news:VNkKd.2523$JO2.1116@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> The only
> formats this player doesn't do is DVD-Audio and WMA. If you don't
> need the SACD decoding you can get the DVP-NS575P for cheaper, it
> still does DVD+/-R/W.
>

It seems likely that SACD might be the "dead" format. Then again, high-
definition audio (both SACD and DVD-A) might both be dead due to lack of
interest from the consumer : (

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

[Cyrus]

In article <Xns95EC7C4D5D93Anntprogerscom@140.99.99.130>,
Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote:

> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in
> news:10vkrn6mdje4a13@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >> It seems likely that SACD might be the "dead" format. Then again,
> >> high- definition audio (both SACD and DVD-A) might both be dead due
> >> to lack of interest from the consumer : (
> >
> > For the heck of it I checked out DVD-A disks on Amazon, and found them
> > to be a giant rip-off. It wouldn't be so bad if they included more
> > songs, but the ones I looked at had the same number as a regular CD.
> > What's the deal?
>
> Hi-Def audio does sound a whole lot better... but most consumers are
> perfectly happy with MP3s let alone CDs! So unless there are major value
> added features on DVD-A and SACD, I can't see them taking off like DVDs.
> DVDs provided features that we did not get with VHS or LDs such as extras,
> digital audio, crystal clear picture, etc. Basically VHS to DVD was an
> revolutionary jump while MP3/CD to DVDA/SACD is just an evolutionary jump.

Not to mention that alot of the DVDA/SACD re-releases are upsampled from
the 16/44.1 masters to 24/88.2 or 96. You really have to wonder about
re-releases, there were no 24bit ad/da converters in the past for music
production.

Newer music is a diff story. But who wants to pay that much for newer
garbage?

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*

[Tod]

I had a panasonic something or other DVD player. I bought it cheap. I
loved everything about it. Within a year it just stopped working. It's
too cheap to fix, so I bought a new one. I guess since that was my only
experience with a DVD player, I thought they were all about the same.
So I bought a slightly-higher-priced JVC. I don't like it at all. I
mean as far as playing the DVD, it does that as well as I guess I'd
expect from any player. But the scanning is very jerky. The scanning on
the Panasonic was very smooth, almost like fast forwarding a high
quality VHS tape. This is so bad I have to move back and forth on the
DVD several times to find what I'm looking for. So I guess, at least
when it comes to scanning, they are all not alike.

So here's the question. I don't want to spend more than an hundred. I'm
not an anal videophile. All I care about is that it play practically
all DVD formats (including VCD and CD-Rs), and scan smoothly. That's
it. Can anyone recommend anything?

[Lucas Tam]

"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in
news:10vkrn6mdje4a13@corp.supernews.com:

>> It seems likely that SACD might be the "dead" format. Then again,
>> high- definition audio (both SACD and DVD-A) might both be dead due
>> to lack of interest from the consumer : (
>
> For the heck of it I checked out DVD-A disks on Amazon, and found them
> to be a giant rip-off. It wouldn't be so bad if they included more
> songs, but the ones I looked at had the same number as a regular CD.
> What's the deal?

Hi-Def audio does sound a whole lot better... but most consumers are
perfectly happy with MP3s let alone CDs! So unless there are major value
added features on DVD-A and SACD, I can't see them taking off like DVDs.
DVDs provided features that we did not get with VHS or LDs such as extras,
digital audio, crystal clear picture, etc. Basically VHS to DVD was an
revolutionary jump while MP3/CD to DVDA/SACD is just an evolutionary jump.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

[David B.]

Lucas Tam wrote:
>
> Avoid Toshiba... I bought a cheap Toshiba DVD player and it skips quite
> often. However, my old Pioneer DVD player was nice and reliable.


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?function=search&articles=121

David

[Pagan]

"Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ECE26592C3nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> "Jeremy Gillow" <jgillow@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
> news:VNkKd.2523$JO2.1116@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > The only
> > formats this player doesn't do is DVD-Audio and WMA. If you don't
> > need the SACD decoding you can get the DVP-NS575P for cheaper, it
> > still does DVD+/-R/W.
> >
>
> It seems likely that SACD might be the "dead" format. Then again, high-
> definition audio (both SACD and DVD-A) might both be dead due to lack of
> interest from the consumer : (

For the heck of it I checked out DVD-A disks on Amazon, and found them to be
a giant rip-off. It wouldn't be so bad if they included more songs, but the
ones I looked at had the same number as a regular CD. What's the deal?

Pagan

[Lucas Tam]

"Tod" <todtown@swbell.net> wrote in news:1106882604.006873.327130
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> So here's the question. I don't want to spend more than an hundred. I'm
> not an anal videophile. All I care about is that it play practically
> all DVD formats (including VCD and CD-Rs), and scan smoothly. That's
> it. Can anyone recommend anything?

Avoid Toshiba... I bought a cheap Toshiba DVD player and it skips quite
often. However, my old Pioneer DVD player was nice and reliable.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

[Jeremy Gillow]

I'll second the Sony recommendation. I have a DVP-NS775V and it does a
great job scanning on DVDs. It gives you perfectly-smooth scanning at 2x or
4x, and at higher speeds it jumps from keyframe to keyframe, which is
choppier than VHS but still easy to see where you are in the film. The only
formats this player doesn't do is DVD-Audio and WMA. If you don't need the
SACD decoding you can get the DVP-NS575P for cheaper, it still does
DVD+/-R/W.

- Jeremy


"Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in message
news:10vjkmms1luhs45@corp.supernews.com...
> "Tod" <todtown@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:1106882604.006873.327130@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> > I had a panasonic something or other DVD player. I bought it cheap. I
> > loved everything about it. Within a year it just stopped working. It's
> > too cheap to fix, so I bought a new one. I guess since that was my only
> > experience with a DVD player, I thought they were all about the same.
> > So I bought a slightly-higher-priced JVC. I don't like it at all. I
> > mean as far as playing the DVD, it does that as well as I guess I'd
> > expect from any player. But the scanning is very jerky. The scanning on
> > the Panasonic was very smooth, almost like fast forwarding a high
> > quality VHS tape. This is so bad I have to move back and forth on the
> > DVD several times to find what I'm looking for. So I guess, at least
> > when it comes to scanning, they are all not alike.
> >
> > So here's the question. I don't want to spend more than an hundred. I'm
> > not an anal videophile. All I care about is that it play practically
> > all DVD formats (including VCD and CD-Rs), and scan smoothly. That's
> > it. Can anyone recommend anything?
>
> I've found Sony DVD players to be smooth at scanning, and they have a
quick
> response to commands as well.
>
> My Toshiba, and POS Apex, aren't much good for scanning, but they were
older
> units. The Sony is less than a year old, bought when the Apex locked up
one
> too many times. It was around $100, nothing fancy.
>
> Pagan
>
>

[Pagan]

"Tod" <todtown@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:1106882604.006873.327130@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> I had a panasonic something or other DVD player. I bought it cheap. I
> loved everything about it. Within a year it just stopped working. It's
> too cheap to fix, so I bought a new one. I guess since that was my only
> experience with a DVD player, I thought they were all about the same.
> So I bought a slightly-higher-priced JVC. I don't like it at all. I
> mean as far as playing the DVD, it does that as well as I guess I'd
> expect from any player. But the scanning is very jerky. The scanning on
> the Panasonic was very smooth, almost like fast forwarding a high
> quality VHS tape. This is so bad I have to move back and forth on the
> DVD several times to find what I'm looking for. So I guess, at least
> when it comes to scanning, they are all not alike.
>
> So here's the question. I don't want to spend more than an hundred. I'm
> not an anal videophile. All I care about is that it play practically
> all DVD formats (including VCD and CD-Rs), and scan smoothly. That's
> it. Can anyone recommend anything?

I've found Sony DVD players to be smooth at scanning, and they have a quick
response to commands as well.

My Toshiba, and POS Apex, aren't much good for scanning, but they were older
units. The Sony is less than a year old, bought when the Apex locked up one
too many times. It was around $100, nothing fancy.

Pagan

[D.R.]

Phillips 642.

The hackers dream :). If you can put it on a disk (CD or DVD) it will
play about anything.

I can burn an AVI file straight to cd and play it.

DIVX
AVI
CD
SVCD
DVD
Audio CD

Will convert a PAL to NTSC on the fly and play it on your NTSC TV

Yada

And a whopping $70 at Target

On 27 Jan 2005 19:23:24 -0800, "Tod" <todtown@swbell.net> wrote:

>I had a panasonic something or other DVD player. I bought it cheap. I
>loved everything about it. Within a year it just stopped working. It's
>too cheap to fix, so I bought a new one. I guess since that was my only
>experience with a DVD player, I thought they were all about the same.
>So I bought a slightly-higher-priced JVC. I don't like it at all. I
>mean as far as playing the DVD, it does that as well as I guess I'd
>expect from any player. But the scanning is very jerky. The scanning on
>the Panasonic was very smooth, almost like fast forwarding a high
>quality VHS tape. This is so bad I have to move back and forth on the
>DVD several times to find what I'm looking for. So I guess, at least
>when it comes to scanning, they are all not alike.
>
>So here's the question. I don't want to spend more than an hundred. I'm
>not an anal videophile. All I care about is that it play practically
>all DVD formats (including VCD and CD-Rs), and scan smoothly. That's
>it. Can anyone recommend anything?

Hey tod, Sony units are notorious for their smooth scanning ability, they
are fairly reliable and have lots of features. I have two, one is a year old
and works well, and I had one of their laserdisc players for six years with
no incident, and one of their VCRS for seven years
"Tod" <todtown@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:1106882604.006873.327130@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> I had a panasonic something or other DVD player. I bought it cheap. I
> loved everything about it. Within a year it just stopped working. It's
> too cheap to fix, so I bought a new one. I guess since that was my only
> experience with a DVD player, I thought they were all about the same.
> So I bought a slightly-higher-priced JVC. I don't like it at all. I
> mean as far as playing the DVD, it does that as well as I guess I'd
> expect from any player. But the scanning is very jerky. The scanning on
> the Panasonic was very smooth, almost like fast forwarding a high
> quality VHS tape. This is so bad I have to move back and forth on the
> DVD several times to find what I'm looking for. So I guess, at least
> when it comes to scanning, they are all not alike.
>
> So here's the question. I don't want to spend more than an hundred. I'm
> not an anal videophile. All I care about is that it play practically
> all DVD formats (including VCD and CD-Rs), and scan smoothly. That's
> it. Can anyone recommend anything?
>

[Steven Sullivan]

Pagan <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote:
> "Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95ECE26592C3nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> > "Jeremy Gillow" <jgillow@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
> > news:VNkKd.2523$JO2.1116@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
> >
> > > The only
> > > formats this player doesn't do is DVD-Audio and WMA. If you don't
> > > need the SACD decoding you can get the DVP-NS575P for cheaper, it
> > > still does DVD+/-R/W.
> > >
> >
> > It seems likely that SACD might be the "dead" format. Then again, high-
> > definition audio (both SACD and DVD-A) might both be dead due to lack of
> > interest from the consumer : (

> For the heck of it I checked out DVD-A disks on Amazon, and found them to be
> a giant rip-off. It wouldn't be so bad if they included more songs, but the
> ones I looked at had the same number as a regular CD. What's the deal?

surround sound, multiple formats including 'high resolution' DVD-audio,
remastered audio, video/image content, bonus tracks (sometimes)



--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.

[Steven Sullivan]

Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote:
> "Pagan" <DirtySanchez@chonch.com> wrote in
> news:10vkrn6mdje4a13@corp.supernews.com:

> >> It seems likely that SACD might be the "dead" format. Then again,
> >> high- definition audio (both SACD and DVD-A) might both be dead due
> >> to lack of interest from the consumer : (
> >
> > For the heck of it I checked out DVD-A disks on Amazon, and found them
> > to be a giant rip-off. It wouldn't be so bad if they included more
> > songs, but the ones I looked at had the same number as a regular CD.
> > What's the deal?

> Hi-Def audio does sound a whole lot better...

Here's a funny thing: we're *how* many years into the hi-rez era, and there's
*still* not one independent, well-controlled study to indicate that hi-rez
intrinsically *sounds* any different, much less 'a whole lot better than',
good old Redbook, as a *playback* format.

[Italo]

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ctu1kf$6ra$2@reader2.panix.com...

> Here's a funny thing: we're *how* many years into the hi-rez era, and
there's
> *still* not one independent, well-controlled study to indicate that hi-rez
> intrinsically *sounds* any different,

Do you mean to say that to you a 5:1 surround sound recording 'sounds' the
same as a stereo CD? Whatever do you mean?

much less 'a whole lot better than',
> good old Redbook, as a *playback* format.

The High-res stereo tracks on a DVD-A/SACD leave the 'good old Redbook' in
the proverbial dust. SACD and DVD-A have finally reached the stage where
they sound better than a well pressed analog LP of the same material. In
fact it is only now that the various digital formats have actually achieved
their stated goal when they first introduced back in '84.

--
Italo

[Severian]

"Italo" <italotettoni.nospammingallowed@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:420342dd$0$25187$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:ctu1kf$6ra$2@reader2.panix.com...
>
> > Here's a funny thing: we're *how* many years into the hi-rez era, and
> there's
> > *still* not one independent, well-controlled study to indicate that
hi-rez
> > intrinsically *sounds* any different,
>
> Do you mean to say that to you a 5:1 surround sound recording 'sounds' the
> same as a stereo CD? Whatever do you mean?
>
> much less 'a whole lot better than',
> > good old Redbook, as a *playback* format.
>
> The High-res stereo tracks on a DVD-A/SACD leave the 'good old Redbook' in
> the proverbial dust. SACD and DVD-A have finally reached the stage where
> they sound better than a well pressed analog LP of the same material. In
> fact it is only now that the various digital formats have actually
achieved
> their stated goal when they first introduced back in '84.

Perhaps, my experience with DVD-A is limited, but with respect to SACD, I've
yet to see an example or recording where it's possible to tell that the SACD
sounds "better" or even different only due to the increase in bits and
sampling rate. Every SACD recording I've had a chance to listen to seriously
incorporates both level and equalization differences that make it impossible
to do a straight Redbook CD to SACD comparison. Obviously multichannel will
sound different, whether or not that's "better" depends on ones definition
of better, however properly done multichannel is the way to go, and offers
the only real opportunity to sound significantly better than standard CDs.
SACD is a red herring, changing the eq definitely changes the sound, and my
experiences and those I've read about in the journals indicate that any
superiority is not from the encoding scheme. The psychoacoustic tricks that
make LP playback euphonic are well known, and the SACD disks I've heard use
some of these eq tricks.

[Dolores Brower]

Denon DVD5910 only $ 3500.

[Italo]

"Severian" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:JyKMd.65$wK.21@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.n et...

> Perhaps, my experience with DVD-A is limited, but with respect to SACD,
I've
> yet to see an example or recording where it's possible to tell that the
SACD
> sounds "better" or even different only due to the increase in bits and
> sampling rate. Every SACD recording I've had a chance to listen to
seriously
> incorporates both level and equalization differences that make it
impossible
> to do a straight Redbook CD to SACD comparison.

Your ears must be better than mine, but why would the straight stereo tracks
on a SACD and/or DVD-A have any more (or any less) level and equalization
than an ordinary Redbook CD when they are been produced from the same
masters? Perfect example is the Steely Dan re-releases on Redbook CD and
SACD and DVD-A. The CDs sound great, the DVD-As sound better (I haven't
heard the SACDs)

Obviously multichannel will
> sound different, whether or not that's "better" depends on ones definition
> of better, however properly done multichannel is the way to go, and offers
> the only real opportunity to sound significantly better than standard CDs.

I beg to differ here, how many Redbook CDs have been released over the years
with harsh treble and terrible bass response? The increase in bits and
sampling rate and the advances in technology, both in the remastering stage
and in the dics preparation stage, have now allowed digital audio to reach
maturity.

> SACD is a red herring, changing the eq definitely changes the sound, and
my
> experiences and those I've read about in the journals indicate that any
> superiority is not from the encoding scheme. The psychoacoustic tricks
that
> make LP playback euphonic are well known, and the SACD disks I've heard
use
> some of these eq tricks.

Like I said your hears must be better than mine and I do not own every SACD
or DVD-A produced but what I have heard and the reviews of discs I have read
from reputable mags such as 'Stereophile' all point to the opposite
conclusion.

--
Italo

[Severian]

"Italo" <italotettoni.nospammingallowed@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:42055499$0$15825$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> "Severian" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:JyKMd.65$wK.21@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.n et...
>
> > Perhaps, my experience with DVD-A is limited, but with respect to SACD,
> I've
> > yet to see an example or recording where it's possible to tell that the
> SACD
> > sounds "better" or even different only due to the increase in bits and
> > sampling rate. Every SACD recording I've had a chance to listen to
> seriously
> > incorporates both level and equalization differences that make it
> impossible
> > to do a straight Redbook CD to SACD comparison.
>
> Your ears must be better than mine, but why would the straight stereo
tracks
> on a SACD and/or DVD-A have any more (or any less) level and equalization
> than an ordinary Redbook CD when they are been produced from the same
> masters? Perfect example is the Steely Dan re-releases on Redbook CD and
> SACD and DVD-A. The CDs sound great, the DVD-As sound better (I haven't
> heard the SACDs)

Because the SACD tracks have been played with, they aren't a direct
re-recording into a different sample rate format, they are massaged to make
them sound better in order to further hype a new format that really doesn't
have much of a reason to exist except it looks more impressive on paper.

>
> Obviously multichannel will
> > sound different, whether or not that's "better" depends on ones
definition
> > of better, however properly done multichannel is the way to go, and
offers
> > the only real opportunity to sound significantly better than standard
CDs.
>
> I beg to differ here, how many Redbook CDs have been released over the
years
> with harsh treble and terrible bass response? The increase in bits and
> sampling rate and the advances in technology, both in the remastering
stage
> and in the dics preparation stage, have now allowed digital audio to reach
> maturity.

You're mixing apples and grapefruit. The reason a lot of CDs have sounded
harsh and had terrible bass response is NOT a flaw in the format or encoding
used, it's due to sloppy mixing and studio engineering. Either the things
were rushed into production and they used, in many cases, masters that were
eq'd for vinyl, or the engineers hadn't fully figured out how to master for
a format that actually does have a flat frequency response. Don't confuse
incompetence in mixing with a flaw with the format. There are CDs that sound
terrible, and ones that sound magnificent. Granted the fact that most modern
digital mixing consoles offer more than 16 bits is a plus, it allows more
room for error, and certainly dithering algorithms have improved, but if you
want a real improvement, you've got to address the ambient field, and that
takes more than 2 channels.

> > SACD is a red herring, changing the eq definitely changes the sound, and
> my
> > experiences and those I've read about in the journals indicate that any
> > superiority is not from the encoding scheme. The psychoacoustic tricks
> that
> > make LP playback euphonic are well known, and the SACD disks I've heard
> use
> > some of these eq tricks.
>
> Like I said your hears must be better than mine and I do not own every
SACD
> or DVD-A produced but what I have heard and the reviews of discs I have
read
> from reputable mags such as 'Stereophile' all point to the opposite
> conclusion.

Well, there's part of the problem Stereophile is not what I'd consider a
reputable source of real information. They exist to service the "high end"
market, and are part of the engine that drives the whole lunacy of
subjective audio, from cable break in to magic green markers. Read the JAES,
and search out properly conducted double blind tests, and you'll get a lot
more useful information.

[Steven Sullivan]

Italo <italotettoni.nospammingallowed@gmx.net> wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:ctu1kf$6ra$2@reader2.panix.com...

> > Here's a funny thing: we're *how* many years into the hi-rez era, and
> there's
> > *still* not one independent, well-controlled study to indicate that hi-rez
> > intrinsically *sounds* any different,

> Do you mean to say that to you a 5:1 surround sound recording 'sounds' the
> same as a stereo CD? Whatever do you mean?

Of course not. But hi rez does not equate to surround.


> much less 'a whole lot better than',
> > good old Redbook, as a *playback* format.

> The High-res stereo tracks on a DVD-A/SACD leave the 'good old Redbook' in
> the proverbial dust.

Technically, one could argue that. But audibly? Prove it.

> SACD and DVD-A have finally reached the stage where
> they sound better than a well pressed analog LP of the same material.

You mean, they've reached the stage of 'well pressed' CD? Because
a CD copy of an LP has been able to capture everything audible about
an LP since..well, since there were CDs. And of course technically,
Redbook left LP virtually from day one.



> In
> fact it is only now that the various digital formats have actually achieved
> their stated goal when they first introduced back in '84.

Whatever that claim may be, a 'fact', it isn't.


--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.

[Steven Sullivan]

Italo <italotettoni.nospammingallowed@gmx.net> wrote:
> "Severian" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:JyKMd.65$wK.21@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.n et...

> > Perhaps, my experience with DVD-A is limited, but with respect to SACD,
> I've
> > yet to see an example or recording where it's possible to tell that the
> SACD
> > sounds "better" or even different only due to the increase in bits and
> > sampling rate. Every SACD recording I've had a chance to listen to
> seriously
> > incorporates both level and equalization differences that make it
> impossible
> > to do a straight Redbook CD to SACD comparison.

> Your ears must be better than mine, but why would the straight stereo tracks
> on a SACD and/or DVD-A have any more (or any less) level and equalization
> than an ordinary Redbook CD when they are been produced from the same
> masters?

Perhaps you shoudl ask the record companies that. They might
explain, for example, why the CD layer of the "Dark Side of the Moon" SACD
is demonstrably, measurably, audibly louder and more compressed than the SACD layer,
as demonstrated even by the SACD-loving 'Stereophile' magazine.

*Sourcing* from the same master does not mean that the nothing else
was done during remastering.


> Perfect example is the Steely Dan re-releases on Redbook CD and
> SACD and DVD-A. The CDs sound great, the DVD-As sound better (I haven't
> heard the SACDs)

But clearly those aren't the same remasters. Do you understand that
mastering rarely involves simply transferring the source tape flat
to digital?


> Obviously multichannel will
> > sound different, whether or not that's "better" depends on ones definition
> > of better, however properly done multichannel is the way to go, and offers
> > the only real opportunity to sound significantly better than standard CDs.

> I beg to differ here, how many Redbook CDs have been released over the years
> with harsh treble and terrible bass response?

I have no idea. How many?

> The increase in bits and
> sampling rate and the advances in technology, both in the remastering stage
> and in the dics preparation stage, have now allowed digital audio to reach
> maturity.


Increase in bits and sample rate will do nothing to a treble and bass
response that is already ruler-flat from 20 to 20 Khz.

> > SACD is a red herring, changing the eq definitely changes the sound, and
> my
> > experiences and those I've read about in the journals indicate that any
> > superiority is not from the encoding scheme. The psychoacoustic tricks
> that
> > make LP playback euphonic are well known, and the SACD disks I've heard
> use
> > some of these eq tricks.

> Like I said your hears must be better than mine and I do not own every SACD
> or DVD-A produced but what I have heard and the reviews of discs I have read
> from reputable mags such as 'Stereophile' all point to the opposite
> conclusion.


As I said, there are no good controlled comparisons out there...and when
objective testing has been done, it's been found that the SACD and CD layers
have been *purposely* made different.

[Italo]

"Severian" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:jqQNd.4498$wK.2901@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...

> Because the SACD tracks have been played with, they aren't a direct
> re-recording into a different sample rate format, they are massaged to
make
> them sound better in order to further hype a new format that really
doesn't
> have much of a reason to exist except it looks more impressive on paper.

That may well be right but without direct knowledge it's a bit of a red
herring.

> You're mixing apples and grapefruit. The reason a lot of CDs have sounded
> harsh and had terrible bass response is NOT a flaw in the format or
encoding
> used, it's due to sloppy mixing and studio engineering.

You're right there, we agree more than we disagree.

> Well, there's part of the problem Stereophile is not what I'd consider a
> reputable source of real information. They exist to service the "high end"
> market, and are part of the engine that drives the whole lunacy of
> subjective audio, from cable break in to magic green markers. Read the
JAES,
> and search out properly conducted double blind tests, and you'll get a lot
> more useful information.

I'll take you're slightly cynical point but, after all, who in the music
business isn't a completely disinterested party except for the consumer and,
possibly, this newsgroup? You do make some very good points though, very
similar in fact to my feelings re mastering for DVDs. I've seen some great
DVDs and some shocking ones and the difference is exclusively in getting
proper masters and the care taken during the encoding process.

--
Italo

[neilnewsgroups@hotmail.com]

Then sell the JVC on eBay. Then from now on, only shop and buy in local
stores where you can check features/functions that are important to
you, such as scanning.

Consumer Reports magazine has reviewed DVD players many times, but I
don't recall if they've written about the scanning feature you need.
Try local US library or:

www.consumerreports.org (You may need an online membership to see all
their online material.)

The following will also give you product reviews:

amazon.com

epinions.com

circuitcity.com (not sure if they still have customer reviews)

If you want DVD-A and SACD playback, Pioneer makes a low-priced model.
If you never get into DVD-A and SACD much, you might like to try those.

I don't care that much about scanning, but I was tempted by a
Panasonic awhile back that had a control wheel for scanning back and
forth. I didn't try that unit when I saw it in a local store, but that
control wheel looked like it would make scanning much easier.

If you've considered watching DVDs on your PC, you may find the
scanning feature you want is already there.

But most importantly, I suggest you shop and buy only locally so that
you can check out the gear for yourself.

"Lucas Tam" <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95ECE26592C3nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> "Jeremy Gillow" <jgillow@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
> news:VNkKd.2523$JO2.1116@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > The only
> > formats this player doesn't do is DVD-Audio and WMA. If you don't
> > need the SACD decoding you can get the DVP-NS575P for cheaper, it
> > still does DVD+/-R/W.
> >
>
> It seems likely that SACD might be the "dead" format. Then again, high-
> definition audio (both SACD and DVD-A) might both be dead due to lack of
> interest from the consumer : (
Yeah, and they were good formats, but they got hit by a truck called
downloading.
Not to mention that the C.D itself is all but obsolete. I still listen to
them at home, but after loading my 30 gig mp3 player with most of my
collection I find that the convience far outweighs the slight loss in
quality, which you wont notice in a car or moving around anyway.
Sacd or DVD-AUDIO would be great formats for home hi-fi, but sadly this
market is more into that (distortion laden) "tube sound" to care, and nobody
else will really notice the difference
>
> --
> Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
> Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
> http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/