Post by hok007 February 6, 2008 (81 of 94)
|
|
trntbl said:
SCD-XA1200ES is Sony´s latest SACD player, SCD-XA3000ES was it´s predecessor. The SCD-XA9000ES stays in production as Sonys flagship. All of them are multichannel players. The XA3000 was 1300 eur 4 years ago, XA1200 is cheaper, currently about 650 eur in Germany.
kristian
Anyone know if Sony is planning on making the SCD-XA1200ES available in the USA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
hok007 said:
Anyone know if Sony is planning on making the SCD-XA1200ES available in the USA?
That seems unlikely as the 1200 has been released over a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by trntbl February 8, 2008 (83 of 94)
|
|
I have always been amazed how poorly Sony markets its SACD players. They have resources to make great sounding players (and probably anything they want) but they simply won´t sell or market them to potential customers. Plus the webpages of Sony are just horrible. I can only image that there is some small SACD-department trying to cope beside all this huge TV- and BluRay-business with CEOs threatening to axe whole thing anytime soon. (Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with Sony or any other manufacturer)
kristian
|
|
|
|
|
|
trntbl said:
I have always been amazed how poorly Sony markets its SACD players. They have resources to make great sounding players (and probably anything they want) but they simply won´t sell or market them to potential customers. Plus the webpages of Sony are just horrible. I can only image that there is some small SACD-department trying to cope beside all this huge TV- and BluRay-business with CEOs threatening to axe whole thing anytime soon. (Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with Sony or any other manufacturer)
kristian
It makes no sense for a CORPORATION like Sony to invest more money than it recovers into a technology that was heavily marketed and supported with hardware in the early days, but that consumers rejected in favour of downloads.
Sony is a mass market producer with the best stuff being flagship products (like flaghsip car models) to let the technology filter down to more affordable, mass-consumption products. That is to say, they do not do it as a labour of love like esoteric companies might.
|
|
|
Post by trntbl February 8, 2008 (85 of 94)
|
|
I still can´t understand their logic of developing and building something they won´t sell. To me that sounds like a really crappy business.
kristian
|
|
|
|
|
|
trntbl said:
I still can´t understand their logic of developing and building something they won´t sell. To me that sounds like a really crappy business.
kristian
SACD was developed to replace CD's, just as DVD was developed to replace VHS. So the reasons were sound. And Sony and many other supported SACD all teh way from sub-£500 all-in-one systems to their flagship players.
However, the consumer dictated to Sony that SACD was not the next-big-thing, so I guess that's why Sony has finally given up on it, the last hoorah beign the (older) PS3. It sitll didn't kick the format into life, so Sony bid it good night once and for all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, the consumer dictated to Sony that SACD was not the next-big-thing, so I guess that's why Sony has finally given up on it, the last hoorah beign the (older) PS3. It sitll didn't kick the format into life, so Sony bid it good night once and for all.
So I should return my New Yamaha RX-V663 with HDMI 1.3a, DSD/SACD Mutlichannel across HDMI, pure direct audio option Receiver?
Oh and forget maybe getting a Oppo 980H that does DSD/SACD Multichannel via HDMI, also.
Most of the new receivers are arriving this year with DSD/SACD support. The DAC chips they are all using support all the new audio options. I expect to see an increase in SACD sales and production over the nest year of new SACD discs in the mainstream.
The above audio setup runs $500.00 for the amp and $170.00 for the player.
The only thing missing is a Blu-RAY player that supports SACD DSD via HDMI.
The ps3 supports SACD just not DSD via HDMI and the SACD is converted to PCM.
And as for sony bidding it good night, I think they are having to rethink that particular misstep. Their receivers are cheap but lack all the options and hence are getting beat out rather easiliy by other makers that are including those better options.
Quote from a CNET review of Sony's new receivers
"but buyers might want to wait and see if Onkyo offers even more for less with its 2008 line of receivers."
I would agree. The Onkyo 606 is better than any of the sony models at a price of $500.00. I would have bought an Onkyo 606, but went with the Yamaha RX-663 for the better sound options. The 606 supports DSD, but converts to PCM before playing any DSD source, Upscales to 1080i (no 1080P), and has no direct audio option). Hopefully Onkyo does better with a 706 or 806, no sign of these in the stores yet though
|
|
|
Post by raffells May 29, 2008 (88 of 94)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
Sony is a mass market producer with the best stuff being flagship products (like flaghsip car models) to let the technology filter down to more affordable, mass-consumption products. That is to say, they do not do it as a labour of love like esoteric companies might.
I was trying to think of the last time Sonys name was mentioned on Uk TV in any way when suddendly today on TV a discussion took place about Theatres and reviews.
The "expert" being interviewed mention that nobody gets carried away in the UK by sensational reviews nowadays.He then reminded us that SONY had been fined millions of pounds in a court case because they were printed reviews of their own products or material under two assumed names and were found out.
What was their Sony advert " Those awfully nice people at Sony".
|
|
|
|
|
|
ken_wilsonii said:
...
Most of the new receivers are arriving this year with DSD/SACD support.
...
I expect to see an increase in SACD sales and production over the nest year of new SACD discs in the mainstream.
The above audio setup runs $500.00 for the amp and $170.00 for the player.
...
And so, there's the rub.
If it wasn't for the fact that Oppo manufactures a very affordable, decent SACD/Universal player and mainstream HDMI recevier/amps are also NOW affordable to the mass marketplace, I would still be ignoring the SACD medium.
The money I have spent purchasing SACD's in the last few weeks could feed a small (OK, tiny) army. Whereas, prior to the Oppo it was nil.
Now, how to afford decent speakers, 5.1 x $ ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osbert Parsley said:
There are lots of posts in lots of threads asking about multichannel and the picture that emerges is of total confusion, despite the very useful FAQs on this website.
Stereo SACD sounds superb (I find it more natural and less shrill than RBCD, but only by a very thin margin on my current stereo set-up) but the big hype with SACD is to do with multichannel, which is claimed to be a big jump up in terms of fidelity and clarity (two concepts that I find are often conflated or confused with each other).
I think the confusing state of multichannel SACD plays a significant part in the many music lovers who are also Hi-Fi fans shying away from the medium. (Another factor, of course, is the extra expense involved in those additional speakers when up-grading to a new system as one's old stereo CD-friendly one wears out.)
For example, just finding out which SACD players have multichannel output and then working out issues about analogue output and i-link (correct term?) and HDMI is beyond most people like me who are not technologically literate in this field. The same for finding multichannel amplifiers that are compatible with the various multichannel SACD players. And then there is all that talk about the amplifiers that (apparently) convert DSD straight to analogue against those that convert DSD via PCM to analogue to go into the speakers.
All this has led me to doubt the quality of the couple of multichannel systems I have so far heard and to wonder whether a "proper" system would sound better or whether the defects I think I hear come from the inferior components that are included in the set-up.
What can we do to try to dispel all this obscurity? What should one be looking for in a multichannel SACD set-up and how can we get the manufacturers of equipment to explain what is happening in their machines?
My whole problem with stereo "purists" lies in the fact that the ear is capable of discerning sounds from ALL directions . Ambisonics which was widely used by NIMBUS a few years back and the Meridian 861 processor which is capable of decoding ambisonics, uses a height channel as well, but a well matched 5.1 channel system (provided amps and speakers are equal) can transcend ordinary stereo in ways that are tangible and affecting. Of course, it's all contigent on the quality of the original recording and especially WHO is behind the mixing console...a good example is Vespertine by Bjork and the DVD-A of Love (mixed by Sir George Martin and son Giles) of the Beatles music. The Bjork album is simply amazing in 5.1 surround as is the LOVE album where ALL channels contribute to the sonically tangible experience. In a perfect room and with a perfectly balanced two channel system, ambience CAN indeed be a by-product. but discreet ambience from a similar 5.1 system can be "startling." In rock albums like the SACD of LAYLA, one can finally hear Duane Allman's stellar (and extraordinary) guitar solos where before it was buried in the ordinary stereo mix. When a poor mixing engineer applies ping pongy gimmicks, then things can get out of hand but let's face it, a lot of trippy rock albums (especially prog albums from the 70's and 80's) would benefit from a well-engineered 5.1 mix. Let's be honest, a well-engineered classical album recorded in a large venue may not translate the size of that massive space in a small listening room but if one had relatively large full-range speakers and high ceilings, the illusion would be more intact. Some recording engineers have stated that to do surround properly a 10.2 system would be necessary but other well-known engineers assert that a 5.1 would capably do the job in MOST situations. My analogy is surround sound is for the ears what peripheral vision is for the eyes. But the beauty of a hybrid SACD disc is the option to either access the STEREO or Multi-channel (or stereo CD) layers (with the exception of the early SACD discs playable on SACD only players).
|
|
