AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There was a very good article in the latest Stereophile about digital filters.

The author made 4 DVD-A samplers and gave them to John Atkinson.

What I found interesting was a sidebar that Atkinson wrote with this excerpt,

"the only writers in my team who has suitable players were Kalman Rubinson and me."


I don't know who is on Mr. Atkinson's team but I was a surprised that any of the writers

for Stereophile wouldn't own a DVD-A player.


It tells me for certain that at least some of the writers:

A. Don't own a universal disc player.

B. If they do listen to hi-res digital music, they prefer SACD.


How can a professional writer in that echelon not listen to DVD-Audio recordings?

How can they fully evaluate products while leaving out one of the best, if not the best source technology available?

I don't know maybe I'm misunderstanding and maybe I'm making something out of nothing but just thought it very odd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
maybe they only go for tubes and vinyl /:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,155 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99
I don't know who is on Mr. Atkinson's team but I was a surprised that any of the writers

for Stereophile wouldn't own a DVD-A player.
I don't know what he really meant, but I didn't jump to the conclusion that the other reviewers didn't have DVD-A players. He said that they didn't have *suitable* players.


Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
It's likely & understandable that Mr Rubinson is reluctant to "explain" this in regard to his colleagues. Why should he?

It was not my intention that Stereophile owed me an explanation. I just thought it was a potentially revealing remark.


If Kal decides to respond regarding his choices for source playback that would be great. I think it would be an interesting learning

experience to understand how and why he, or any other reviewer, chooses the components he has.

Maybe he feels he already does this indirectly each month.


As far staffers not having a "suitable" player, I find that highly unlikely unless it's by choice.

They all have their reference systems with which they compare whatever components they're reviewing in a given timeframe.

Just for the record, I enjoy Stereophile. Messrs Rubinson & Atkinson are 2 of the main reasons I renew my subscription.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
I subscribe as well. I have mixed emotions though. I read an article a few months ago wherein one of the folks there was explaining why they wouldn't do double-blind testing. Totally horsesh*t rationalization if you ask me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,170 Posts
A large portion of the "audiophile" community tends to focus on 2-channel equipment and listening. As such it is not too strange that many of the above would not have DVD-A or SACD players at hand. Add to that the fact that DVD-A is largely a dead format, and SACD seems to be not far behind....................
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,857 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdcrox
A large portion of the "audiophile" community tends to focus on 2-channel equipment and listening. As such it is not too strange that many of the above would not have DVD-A or SACD players at hand. Add to that the fact that DVD-A is largely a dead format, and SACD seems to be not far behind....................
Ditto that. I have been a long time Stereophile subscriber. THey have reviewed them (SACD / DVD-A players) but 2 channel still rules the roost. I mean there is almost zero software available as well....so who cares about it?


For me, multi channel is not ready for prime time. I'd rather own an exquisitely expensive 2 channel system any day of the week rather than a moribund format du jour.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
You buys are assuming that hi-res means multichannel, not true.

If truly “audiophilesâ€, why would they ignore a technology that is superior to cd.

In many ways, the cd spec was obsolete from the moment it was born. The chip

tech at the time simply couldn’t support the higher addressability required for accurate reproduction.

Is not the audiophile quest the most accurate reproduction? Or is it what they feel most comfortable with.


If a format’s vitality is the criteria for inclusion, why aren’t they critiquing Wilson X-2s fed by an iPod?

By all accounts it sounds as good as cd.


As far as DVD-A being moribund, MLP is the core codec for Dolby-True HD so DVD-A is set to become

one of the most pervasive formats, assuming HD discs become the standard at some point in time.

If you don’t confine your listening to pop music, hi-res is hardly dead. There are thousands of non-pop

releases in hi-res. Plus many, not enough, dual discs are encoded at higher than 16\\44.1.

In terms of sales\\market penetration, the only playback formats that come to mind that are not stagnant are Apple’s codec, MP3 and Dolby 5.1.


If multichannel isn't ready for prime time, am I to assume that you have your pre-pro set to Dolby 2.0? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,170 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99
If multichannel isn't ready for prime time, I am to assume that you have your pre-pro set to Dolby 2.0? ;)
No, but unless I am watching a DVD, all my sound goes through a 2-channel tube integrated amp, totally bypassing the pre-pro. :cool:
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top