Coping in an Age of Uncertainty


there have been numerous threads here, i know, about sacd v. dvd-a, upsampling, oversampling, etc. a number of these threads have included discussions of which, if any, new digital format will replace what we now call “redbook” cd’s. i don’t wish to rehash these discussions. rather, i’d like to hear from others how they are coping with the “age of uncertainty” in the realm of digital audio. is it better to “roll the dice” and invest in sacd or dvd a? ignore the contenders for the new and get the best possible out of redbook cd’s? buy with upgradeability firmly in mind? follow another path? i don’t post this query out of mere curiosity. i really haven’t figured out what course i should follow. i’d appreciate your giving me a hand. -kelly
cornfedboy
I have difficulty deciding whether all this format stuff is a marketing ploy or an actual technologic break through. Figure, the resolution of cd compared to vinyl (despite other drawbacks) is not an improvement at all. Is that what we're doing, trying to get closer to vinyl resolution in a digital format? How much digital resolution would that take? Maybe we're just trying to get to the digital resolution that will fool our ears and brain into thinking we're listening to analog. I have no doubt that it can be done, but when? I'm convinced that a major factor in CD's success is more the convenience factor than any real sonic factor, considering that most CD players are inadequate at reproducing music at any satisfying level. Even with SACD and DVDA, doesn't the trend seem to be going in the opposite direction, lower resolution and more compression? Will there be a time when very few people remember what good sound was all about? I plan on sticking to CD's for the foreseeable future and if my Luddite tendencies get the better of me I may even retreat to the warm arms of vinyl. The vinyl stuff (cartrdges, arms, turntables, preamps) has never been better. Nothing like this stuff existed when I gave up vinyl! I have purchased some of the best digital gear and have had it heavily modded but something is still missing!
Rja, I certainly do not see things as you do, I do find satisfaction in CD playback, as many others. Digital playback is just another form of music reproduction, I wouldn't say it is in 'competion' with analog playback. You assume the analog playback methods available are 'perfect', they are not. IMO digital playback created audiophiles, revived audiophiles or kept them interested. Sure, there are those, as yourselves that don't like it, but you still have LP's you can play.

If you don't care for digital playback, that is your right. The new formats are, amongst other things, trying to progress reproduction. I am sure others would like to add more to that but my point is noted.
Brianmgrarcom, You're certainly welcome to your opinion. I am not attempting to start an argument or change anyone elses opinions, I was merely expressing my opinion on this thread. If you like CDs; great, I'm glad you're happy. I have to admit a certain level of cynicism and skepticism in this digital format discussion. Yes, CDs can sound alright if you have an excellent CD (sound quality) and superb playback equipment. As for excellent sounding CDs there are definitely many out there but they are far outnumbered by the mediocre ones. And how many superb playback systems are out there? I would bet a small percentage compared to all the nasty sounding mass market (read cheap) CD players out there. How about the sound of a bad CD on a cheap player? My point is that most poeple don't care or don't know the difference. And, the trend seems to be toward lower resolution formats like MP3. If this is true how can DVDA or SCAD become successful as mass media? Basically I'm saying the demand of the masses does not exist for a higher resolution format. At the same time most audiophiles, including myself, are finding sonic fault wth standard CD word length and sampling frequency. The possiblity exists of course, of creating a demand. But a compelling reason, like the convenience factor of going from LP to CD or VHS to DVD doesn't exist. Even if demand were somehow created a higher resolution would have to be backward compatable. Not to mention the pricing structure of higher resolution formats. If most poeple could care less about sound quality why would they be willing to pay more for software?
Here's are the conditions, in my opinion, that would need to exist before DVDA or SACD could take off.
1. Find some compelling reason or benefit (other than sonic improvement) for consumers to switch to a new digital format in order to create demand.
2. Closely related to above: convince the mass market that the new
format is not merely a marketing ploy to replace old formats and thus increase corporate profits. This one involves trust, a real tough one.
3. Backward compatablity; ie. ability to play CDs. Again, closely related to #2.
4. Pricing structure for high resolution hardware and software similar to current pricing of CDs and equipment.
5. Selection of DVDA, SACD or another format as the industry
standard format for the foreseeable future. No one wants to be the sucker who owns the losers (read Beta) hardware and software.
Remember Minidisc, DAT and the Digital Cassette? Are you a gambler?
Rja, one thing about the ‘net, which has been addressed several times by others as well, it is impersonal. Like you, I am not looking for an argument, I simply shared my thoughts in contrast with yours.

No doubt there are many cheap CD players “out there”, CD has been the man playback method for many years now; when LP was more popular, how many cheapo LP players were there “out there”? A lot. Furthermore, I suspect you can get CD to sound good cheaper than LP. That said, I am not stating LP doesn’t sound good or even that it may still be the best yet, but digital is here and here to stay…and…I don’t miss dealing with LP’s one bit.

It does concern me, a bit, to see the popularity of playback methods like MP3; I agree they are handy but the quality is compromised, obviously.

I do not argue the points you list. If you look back at my previous post(s), you will see that I too ‘scoff’ at the new formats slow progress.
This is my take on the whole CD versus LP question.

The sonic benefit of vinyl is due to the fact it is analog. Analog is often described as more liquid, full and involving. Just another way of saying you are hearing a more detailed and complete presentation.

Digital is an approximation, taken from the analog source (instruments and people), converted into bits for storage and sale to the customer where it must converted back again to analog. These processes contain errors that result in tiny pieces of the music being continually omitted.

Both formats do have their advantages. Digital is error by omission, making it more difficult for some listeners to detect its problems. The errors that exist in vinyl playback are more easily identifiable because they are errors by addition. The most obvious being noise or tracking errors. To achieve perfection in vinyl playback requires an enormous investment in both time and money. Few people have had the opportunity to hear analog at its state of the art limit, leaving the majority convinced that digital is superior.

Perhaps a more important part of this debate should include the mention of software availability. A very young person such as my son, will find their favorite music primarily on CD. My interest in music covers the last half century, and I have more music available on vinyl than I can possible listen to.