What digital evolution?

Only thing I can't figure out is where's all the software for PC or Mac on dvd is,seeing it can hold so much more. Software seems to be an achilles heel in cdp too,as most consumers are happy with performance from it.We are the small crowd that's sidelined in a slower backwater.Hence recouping R&D for super duper cdp is tougher unless price is high.Looking at industries rooted in foward change slow or fast.I imagine it costs more to put manual windows in a automobile vs power with auto up/down.Soon they may not bother with keyed locks on all but the driver door. Less parts better look maybe security benefit.Back to audio, Sacd & Dvd-audio Multichannel hardware with modern powerful processing yet the software quality window is wide.(player internal software issues aside).Did you read Kieth Howard's article and testing of HiRez discs. Frank Sinatra and Allison Krauss . The Sinatra was mastered to HiRez via upsampling! Krauss and Steely Dan derived from 48kHz PCM masters!And an un-named high profile artists SACD sourced from 16bit/44.1kHz master!Industry behavior like that confuses potential adopters and destroys credibility of new advances.I imagine many cdp's are old wine in new bottles as well~IMO.

Redkiwi - I mentioned Moore's Law only because CDPs and DACs are most often mentioned as having very short product life-cycles compared to other gear due to evoloving technology. Since I just acquired a DAC, I was wondering what specifically is changing so quickly in Redbook playback that would cause a DAC to be obsolete in a year or two. And if the digital technology isn't evolving fast (we don't see DACs with newer more powerful processors to play larger CD software), then one would conclude that what separates the mediocore from the excellent products is execution of fundamental design principals and listening trials, not obsolete digital technology. Aren't these the same for non-digital components like amps, phono-stages, etc? And if so, than the life-cycle for well-designed digital gear should be about the same as for a well-designed preamp!

Viggen and Clbeanz - I agree about the wide-ranging quality in digital recordings, but the same can be said about analog, too. As for hi-rez formats being mastered from low-rez sources, well that's a different topic entirely. Sounds like the record companies are taking short-cuts to supply a new format.

Newer DAC chips come out all of the time. The more stuff "they" can cram into the chips the simpler the traces look on the PCBs. That may have something to do with today's low cost DACs and cd players. performance through simplicity? I'm with Kiwi, I don't think you understand Moore's Law (most of the world doesn't). IT ain't about clock speed.

Skushino, I didn't intend to attack your opinion. I guess I would point you to some of the minimalist DACs around that eschew most of the so-called advances in DACs - ones with no over sampling or up sampling or with no digital filter, which by being minimalist have a certain life to them that the arguably over-engineered DACs don't. In some ways the new DACs are better and in other ways they are not. You are quite right to question the hype.

Most are perfectly happy with CeeDee.Hi-end getting better? I really do not know for sure,maybe any improvements I think I hear are attributable to speakers,amplification,the removal of a pre-amp or inclusion of new design(digital).I can't afford the upgrades to judge long term if it is indeed "better".
Sorry,I had to bring in Hi rez & Multi-channel because it's the next logical evolution the industry has chosen(not all& not me yet) to hang thier hat on.Concerning upscale reproduction of redbook is a matter of the past to a large contingent of the audio parade.A big part of traditional music consumers are on wheels,computors,portable devices,or double duty dvd/HT with music inclusive.So the die hard "I want the best damn redbook playback" group is a minority now,and within' that minority are different camps regarding implementation schemes for redbook. Marketing to a small contingent requires hype to drive us to buy the"new". Buzzwords such as "giantkiller","best redbook","sounds as good as SACD","Wolfson","Burr-Brown","Tube-like","Analog sound".To me I hear all this like "results may vary-not all may expierience same results" ;^)In the July review of a $2K Arcam 33,JA in ever so careful words eluded to the maturity of digital gear,characterizing differences yet able to like various perspectives in playback as state of the art in redbook.I have read numerous times of difficult to discern playback differences as to overall quality of the sound.I can agree in my "Limited" experience.Now if everybody where buying good ol' cd like 85'-95'and there weren't video,games,mp-3,dvd,computer competing for the wallet/purse$$$,then I hazard a guess there would be engineers in large #'s cooking up tech envelope busters on a regular basis.But those best of the best are in other pursuits.
I tend to agree great mid 90's digital is still great.
What I've heard and read is that $1,500-3,000(loose #'s)performance is available for much much less now.The exiting thing is small label cd mastering is quite good while downside is majors are providing mostly crap production.I suppose I could've just said folks who value cutting edge digital playback of redbook data in a 2 channel music dedicated system are in the same boat as Analog enthusiests
but at least the analog guys got to enjoy analog sound all along :))