Who wants a new DVD player (RDV1090)?

[csuzor]

Please vote if you would consider purchasing the new DVD player from Rotel (probably RDV1090). Please also indicate what features would be essential for your purchase.

Given the current rumours, it will not have SACD capability.
What else could possibly justify upgrading to this player?
Compatible with HD-DVD or Blu-ray? probably too early to release such a player.
Compatible with Dolby Digital Plus or DTS-HD? probably too early again.
Upscaling to HD TV (such as 1080P or others)?
HDMI or DVI output? does it really improve image quality?
Recordable DVD with a Hard Disk drive?
Additional operational and image adjustment features lacking on other models?

Or maybe it is the just a player to replace the competing RDV1050 and RDV1060 models, but with too few new features to convince many to upgrade from these or competing models.

[gianni]

Without SACD I am likely to go Denon, Marantz or maybe even Arcam. I know the Arcams don't do SACD but the CD playback is excellent and bass management is available for both formats...a big plus for me in a CD player.
Given the number of SACD titles compared to DVD-A, I can't ignore SACD.

If I can't get a good universal, I will then try to obtain the best CD playback available outside the megabuck units. Excellent CD playback can be as good or better than hi rez on many universals.

I am also looking forward to seeing how the Marantz DV7600 performs.

[RebelMan]

I don't need SACD. SACD does lead DVD-A 2:1, but that will eventually change as DualDisc (and their issues) improves. I believe Rotel made the right move from the begining to support DVD-A only. I would rather they focus on one technology as opposed to two, for quality reasons.

I know what I am about to say may put me in the hot seat, but I suspect companies like ARCAM and ROTEL (noted for producing fine two-channel products) picked DVD-A over SACD because it reproduces sound more faithfully (truer to analog?) than SACD can. Corporate politics may also be at work here, but I prefer to think it was more of the former than the latter.

I believe ROTEL will do it smart (again) and pick HD-DVD over Blueray. I know, another hot seat remark. Sorry guys, it's just my opinon. 8)

[eelco74]

Perhaps that is true in the USA, but in Europe SA-CD is in every store, while DVD-A can only be bought in specialty shops (mostly import).

However SA-CD and a DVI output and respectable CD playback would be fine.

[csuzor]

SACD does lead DVD-A 2:1

RebelMan, can you point to where this lead is quantified?

According to RIAA 2004 report
DVD-A shipped .35M disks for a value of $6.4M
SACD shipped .79M disks for a value of $16.6M

The RIAA 2003 figures for 2003 give SACD an even bigger advantage over DVD-A. Have a look for yourself (link below)

And those are values for the USA. In Europe SACD is much stronger than DVD-A, so I guess the advantage to SACD would be much larger (does someone know where such figures can be had?)

Even better, an analysis by music type would be very informative, so people can really make a choice based on their preferences. For classical music, no doubt SACD would win.

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2004yearEndStats.pdf

[gd]

It doesn't matter who's leading who(m)...

The fact remains that each format carries rather different titles... instead of waging a war to see which format 'wins', it makes more sense to me to have several universal players to choose from.

As good as Rotel is, they are not 'leading edge'... they will (perhaps wisely) wait it out and evaluate the best way to facilitate hi-rez audio... for the time being, it seems both DVD-A and SACD are fading, while attention is being paid to forthcoming hi-rez video formats... if and when those come to pass, then DVD-A, SACD or some new hi-rez audio format can piggyback on those discs.

So if Rotel does not produce a uni or SACD at this time, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Andrew M Ward]

Ultimately,
They are both dead and have been for a while.

I mean we're talking about total global sales in the low millions of dollars... That is a dead format.

Look at total global DVD sales

DVD-A and SACD are specialty markets "at best" and money losers for all involved, and that is ultimately what killed them.

Really
it's nothing to even take a side on, it's like argueing over Cassette vs. Mini-disc

Just my 2 cents :W

[gianni]

Ultimately,
They are both dead and have been for a while.

I mean we're talking about total global sales in the low millions of dollars... That is a dead format.

Look at total global DVD sales

DVD-A and SACD are specialty markets "at best" and money losers for all involved, and that is ultimately what killed them.

Really
it's nothing to even take a side on, it's like argueing over Cassette vs. Mini-disc

Just my 2 cents :W

I agree with you in general but I think what ultimately killed them is poor marketing and implementation. Then, add in things like poor bass management and the obstacles continue to mount...not to mention a format war makes many potential adopters sit it out. No, ultimately what killed them is poor execution by the corporate giants. After all, their biggest interest in the formats was digital content protection, not quality and the consumers experience. Ironically, they may not get that and lose out in the end.

Hopefully, DVD-A will piggyback on the new video formats....at least there is some hope. But again, this will depend on proper implementation....if the remainder of the recording process is not up to snuff, the format is irrelevant.
In that case, I'll take a high quality recording on 16/44.1. At least CD has made strides in quality over the years. Too bad we may not get the chance to see these 2 hi rez formats evolve to see what they are capable of.

A good CD player is looking better and better....

[Andrew M Ward]

I agree with you in general but I think what ultimately killed them is poor marketing and implementation. Then, add in things like poor bass management and the obstacles continue to mount...not to mention a format war makes many potential adopters sit it out. No, ultimately what killed them is poor execution by the corporate giants.

I completely agree (100%)

[RebelMan]

csuzor, I didn't think it was necessary to go that far. The point I made was that SACD is leading in the market but not by any significant margin. Furthermore, I believe if DVD-A is going to survive (surpass SACD) and amount to anything it will have its best chances by riding on the coat tails of the CD, literally.

gianni, I partially agree with you. However, don't you also suspect that the (non-enthusiast) consumer doesn't see any tangible benefits with either format? If you recall when CDs came out it took a while for them to catch on. It wasn't just the improvements to sound that these people were after, it was primarily convenience.

Fast forward 20 years, and you will see that the iPod (and the like) are doing to CDs what the CD did so many years ago to LPs. It provides consumers with more convenience. Most consumers are more than satisfied with the sound they already get from CD's and iPod's. I believe the lack of tangible benefits is the biggest reason for the new (audio) format faliures.

However, when it comes to video people will see the benefits of going from DVDs to HD-DVDs or Blueray. Especially now that widescreen monitors are becoming more common place and that they reveal so much (or the lack their of, if you know what I mean). Unlike the SACD vs DVD-A battle that is still raging on, I suspect there will be a winner in HD-DVD vs Blueray war. :wink:

[csuzor]

Thanks for the feedback.

I want to point out that I am not a supporter of SACD or any other format, I just want high quality surround music. DVD quality surround (DD or DTS) just isn't good enough in the compression rates typically used. And CD with its stereo limitation is not good enough either. Right from its conception many believed that 3-channels were mandatory for music reproduction.

Today, the high quality surround music I like is available in SACD, and looks like it will be for the next few years. So I want a quality audio player for that format. So if the format changes, AND music becomes available in the new format, AND there is a quality audio player for that format, then I'll jump in (but which comes first?). I can't see DVD-A taking a lead with more new releases of interest to me.

If anyone hasn't adopted multi-channel yet, or can't find multi-channel music for their taste, then sure, get a good CD player, ignore the universal players. Or a stereo SACD player, but there the hirez advantage is open to debate.

For me, surround music is the key requirement. Right from the beginning of SACD development, when everyone was wandering whether to pursue multichannel or not, they did several tests, and concluded:
>>Everyone who heard the mixes agreed that in terms of timbre, bass control, image depth, image width, etc., the multi-channel was far superior to the stereo<< when both were in DSD format.

http://www.superaudiocenter.com/DemRep.htm

This thread was to make a point: why release another DVD player which doesn't bring much relative to the existing offering? What will it have that will make us want to buy it? And how many of us were hoping it would have SACD capability?

If we could unanimously make a strong point to Rotel, then that is at least 1 voice they have to hear.