Untill Pioneer came out with players that could play both new mediums (too little, too late?) it forced the 1%'ers (consumers who must have cutting edge) to choose or buy both , in either case risking the embarssment of being suckered.
For the true pioneers ( the literal, not the company) a lack of digital out not only denied them copying but an uncompromised out put into digital room correction and equalization.
For the audiophile the lack of a digiatal out was an anathema. Thier past experience with early all in one digital players with cheap op-amps, weak power supplies and generally dissapointing performance had shown that the most improvement could be made with out board DAC's. The very same DAC's that now made thier vast libraries listenable. So much was made of the surround sound potential the new formats. But audiophiles knew that balancing 2 channels was challenging enough (and expensive enough). If asymetrical rooms provide the best sound tell me how you can balance a surround sound system where some speakers have more distance to the sides and others have more distance to the rear. Never mind that in this over populated world, how many people have a room large enough to sit in the center and allow for proper driver integration? IMHO opinion the only way to make this work at all (never mind just practical) is with room correction, but Duh thats not possable. I'm sure I'm not the only out here that argues
that I won't add anything that doesn't sound at least as good as what I have. Now I don't know about you but I can't justify the expense for, I don't know lets say 1000 recordings between them , many which I already own, and get this the majority of which haven't even been recorded with the very same technology they are trying to sell, in fact many were recorded with even older technology than the one they aim to replace. Lets also consider how they presented the current formats. Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Digital, DTS, 96/24, CDR, CDRW, DVD, DVD A,DVD RAM, DVD Audio, SACD 2 Channel, SACD surround,coax,toslink,component, Progressive scan it goes on and on with more to come, but the compatability certanly doesn't. Now we have already been through Edison cylinder (brilliant, same speed all the time),33.3,45,78, reel to reel, 8 track, casette, el casette, mini disk, DAT, a boat load of quadrophonics, etc.,etc.. AT least to some degree there was a sense of evolution. Today everything is thrust upon the consumer as revolution. No wonder the consumer is skeptical. Perhaps we should take a deep breath and set up a forum amongst ourselves and decide what we want instead of being told what we want. As was posted earlier we have been the beta group all along. Enough is enough! Forgive my rantings, I'll step off the soapbox now.
For the true pioneers ( the literal, not the company) a lack of digital out not only denied them copying but an uncompromised out put into digital room correction and equalization.
For the audiophile the lack of a digiatal out was an anathema. Thier past experience with early all in one digital players with cheap op-amps, weak power supplies and generally dissapointing performance had shown that the most improvement could be made with out board DAC's. The very same DAC's that now made thier vast libraries listenable. So much was made of the surround sound potential the new formats. But audiophiles knew that balancing 2 channels was challenging enough (and expensive enough). If asymetrical rooms provide the best sound tell me how you can balance a surround sound system where some speakers have more distance to the sides and others have more distance to the rear. Never mind that in this over populated world, how many people have a room large enough to sit in the center and allow for proper driver integration? IMHO opinion the only way to make this work at all (never mind just practical) is with room correction, but Duh thats not possable. I'm sure I'm not the only out here that argues
that I won't add anything that doesn't sound at least as good as what I have. Now I don't know about you but I can't justify the expense for, I don't know lets say 1000 recordings between them , many which I already own, and get this the majority of which haven't even been recorded with the very same technology they are trying to sell, in fact many were recorded with even older technology than the one they aim to replace. Lets also consider how they presented the current formats. Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Digital, DTS, 96/24, CDR, CDRW, DVD, DVD A,DVD RAM, DVD Audio, SACD 2 Channel, SACD surround,coax,toslink,component, Progressive scan it goes on and on with more to come, but the compatability certanly doesn't. Now we have already been through Edison cylinder (brilliant, same speed all the time),33.3,45,78, reel to reel, 8 track, casette, el casette, mini disk, DAT, a boat load of quadrophonics, etc.,etc.. AT least to some degree there was a sense of evolution. Today everything is thrust upon the consumer as revolution. No wonder the consumer is skeptical. Perhaps we should take a deep breath and set up a forum amongst ourselves and decide what we want instead of being told what we want. As was posted earlier we have been the beta group all along. Enough is enough! Forgive my rantings, I'll step off the soapbox now.