One word, Seditious3- Delusion!
It's the equivelant of thinking your Krell reference CD player sounds better than a cheap SACD player/disc, basically. Sure you're Krell might do things like dynamic contrast, noise floor, etc, better. However in terms of resolution, body, detail, etc, it's no contest. The SACD stomps the standard 16bit/44khz CD playback in the dust,for the most.
Digital processing has improved much over the years for sure. I used to own a $700 DVD player from 1998 that was reviewed as "Better than Levinson separates" from Absolute Sound, and that was indeed the case overall! Old Digital, no matter how well executed, was never perfect.
Yeah I would be simply using one of these old CD players or expensive DVD's if that's all that was needed to get the job done, but it doesn't. Those old formats leave too much on the table compared to newer, more improved technology.
It's the equivelant of thinking your Krell reference CD player sounds better than a cheap SACD player/disc, basically. Sure you're Krell might do things like dynamic contrast, noise floor, etc, better. However in terms of resolution, body, detail, etc, it's no contest. The SACD stomps the standard 16bit/44khz CD playback in the dust,for the most.
Digital processing has improved much over the years for sure. I used to own a $700 DVD player from 1998 that was reviewed as "Better than Levinson separates" from Absolute Sound, and that was indeed the case overall! Old Digital, no matter how well executed, was never perfect.
Yeah I would be simply using one of these old CD players or expensive DVD's if that's all that was needed to get the job done, but it doesn't. Those old formats leave too much on the table compared to newer, more improved technology.