Coping in an Age of Uncertainty

Ern has a valid point. Was just reading about NASA's "old" computer files archived from Mars Voyager mission. No one is able to read them anymore. The machines that *could* read them have all been trashed ("who needs this old junk anymore?") the programmers are either retired/unlocatable, or are now dead. So these valuable data files are already useless. The scientist doing research was finally able to find file printouts & then had to pay people to re-key the data using newer machines & formats. No sense in archiving that either; before long those software versions will be outdated, & the files will again be unreadable because technology marches on & people don't think to re-reformat until it's too late. You have no idea how much important information has already been lost due to the "digital dark ages". Egyptians & their papyrus - an idea who's time has come back again.

Hi

My opinion is that new standards and new technologies generally bring advantages in terms of quality, but initially create the problem you mentioned. Well I decided to come down the fence and for $ 400 got a Philips 963SA that plays SACD, CD 24/192, DVD etc. I figured thet even if SACD does not work out I have an incredible CD and DVD player that sounds better than my Meridian 500/566 combo($ 3000+). At $400 all the problems you mentioned tend to fade away. To cut short, the secret is perhaps not to invest a large amount of money in waporware products.

Hello: Although I have purchased a number of SACD's and a few DVD- A's, I am disapointed in the audio quality of most of them. I am also noticing a number of disturbing trends. 1. Everything is now being released in "surround format", and this reduces the sonic quality of two-channel SACD playback. Has anyone with VU meters noticed the sub-sonic garbage level visible before the music starts. This must be harmful to the overall sound, if amps are attempting to reproduce it!! 2. Look carefully at the origins of the SACDs you buy. Very few are true DSD all the way through. Many of the master tapes are DAT 48Khz, or analog, or are edited on non-DSD equipment! 3. The vast majority of pre-amps, amps etc that can handle surround formats are oriented towards video and home-theatre, with many features un-needed and undesirable for pure audio setups!! The current issue of TAS features Harry Pierson raving about an audio surround system made up largely of hardware not yet available to ordinary mortals (i.e., non professionals). Have you tried to buy a Meitner processor??!!! Have you got the over 30 grand to buy the DCS Verdi...etc. etc. It would seem that truly proper reproduction of the best SACD and DVD Audio releases is only availaable to insiders in the industry and well-heeled audio critics. And this is a revolution??? I think they'll be growing coconuts at the north pole before most audiophiles are enjoying this "great revolution"!

I owned the sony SCD-1 when it first came out...I own a Levinson 360s DAC and 37 transport now....I've since listened to possible replacements at my local audio salon and at home...short of possibly $20K plus gear...buy the Levinson and forget about the future...enjoy the present!!

I agree entirely with Irishdog. The multi-channel discs out there, with the possible exception of Telarc's, are miserable. They are mixed poorly, and often sound no better than synthesized Pro-Logic. Along these lines, many surround recordings have that 360-degree quality that is completely unnatural and harkens back to the days of primitive quad or some of the early DTS releases. Music, by and large, comes from the front, and most, if not all, multi-channels force the rears to do the same work as the fronts. They do not carry mere "ambient" sound, which is what would make it more interesting, to actually "hear" the hall. Many of them, it is true, are not original DSD recordings, but rather re-mastered PCM sources, which, in some cases, have been upsampled, but nowhere near the level that would make a difference to anyone. And then there is the debate of whether DSD is actually better at all than high-resolution PCM (176.4 Khz/ 24-bit). Some of the very best engineers I have spoken with still swear by PCM for recording and mastering and only transcode to DSD for the sole purpose of creating a marketing buzz (viz. SACD). And then there is the other problem of whether you are actually hearing a DSD signal at all. Many receiver/amp/processors convert to PCM before sending it out, and some "universal" players do the same, so we are all back where we started from. Finally, there is other problem that the music industry is using the 5.1 standard, which was designed for movies, and there is a lot of debate of whether this is the appropriate set up for surround music. Some, like Chesky, are advocating for a 6.0 set-up without a center, but with "side-rears". Either way, I have been really disappointed with the bulk of the surround discs and have only been impressed with a handful of SACD stereo releases.