Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone heard about this player,
and better yet, auditioned or own one?

Reference - http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html

Best regards,

-DJ

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:02:14 -0800, DJ wrote
(in article <fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com >):

> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone heard about this player,
> and better yet, auditioned or own one?
>
> Reference - http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
>
> Best regards,
>
> -DJ
>

I know that the original two Sony SACD players did that, (the $5000 one and
the multichannel $3500 SACD777ES - which I have). The EMM Labs Player is
supposed to up-sample regular CDs to DOUBLE the SACD bandwidth. Whether or
not it actually improves CDs is another matter, I know that my Sony SACD777ES
is not only an excellent sounding SACD player, but its also one of the best
sounding Redbook CD players I've ever heard as well.

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

"DJ" <wenwaudio@qwest,net > wrote in message
news:fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com
> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone heard
> about this player, and better yet, auditioned or own one?
>
> Reference -
> http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
>

The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical or electrical
process can accurately recreate music that isn't already present in the
recording.

"MDAT is unlike anything the industry has seen, or heard, before. Here’s
why: Rather than address the digital signal as a series of sine waves—as is
standard convention

This just isn't true. Standard convention is to address the digital signal
as a series of samples.

"—the MDAT-equipped CDSA SE processes (and upsamples CD audio to DSD for
conversion to analog) by dynamically adapting to the transient nature of the
musical signal.

In fact the basic nature of musical signals is exactly what they just said
they don't do. Musical signals are composed of a series of sine waves. Every
musical signal can be accurately analyzed and represented as a collection of
sine and cosine waves. CD players don't do that, but FFTs do. The human
ear, being largely composed of a collection of narrow-band filters, can also
be characterized as addressing the musical sound as being composed of a
series of sine waves.

> In this way, the CDSA SE is utterly unique and singularly able to
> preserve the phase, frequency and
> dynamic integrity of the original signal.

In fact the best way to preserve the phase, frequency and dynamic integrity
of the original signal is to treat it as a series of samples, which is what
they already said that their product does not do.

> Once you’ve heard this level of improvement in terms of resolution, nuance
> and dynamic shading, there’s > no going back.

So where's their reliable bias-controlled lisetening test data that supports
this claim?

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fhfvbh02cmp@news4.newsguy,com >):

> "DJ" <wenwaudio@qwest,net > wrote in message
> news:fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com
>> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone heard
>> about this player, and better yet, auditioned or own one?
>>
>> Reference -
>> http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
>>
>
> The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical or electrical
> process can accurately recreate music that isn't already present in the
> recording.

True, but oversampling does tend to make Redbook CDs sound better. Perhaps
its the removal of that brick-wall filter at 22.05 KHz that makes things
sound "better", I don't know. But something sure sounds better. I've
performed double-blind tests with my friends, and everyone preferred the
oversampling on my outboard D/A converter turned on rather than turned off,
could dteect the difference almost every time and I concur. I also find that
44.1KHz digital upsampled to 88.2 KHz sounds better than upsampling it to 96
KHz, but DAT (48 KHz digital) sounds better upsampled to 96 KHz than it does
upsampled to 88.2 KHz. I don't pretend to understand why. It must have
something to do with one upsampled rate being an exact multiple of the
original sampling rate of the disc/DAT and the other not.

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fhfvbh02cmp@news4.newsguy,com >):

> > "DJ" <wenwaudio@qwest,net > wrote in message
> > news:fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com
> >> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone heard
> >> about this player, and better yet, auditioned or own one?
> >>
> >> Reference -
> >> http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
> >>
> >
> > The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical or electrical
> > process can accurately recreate music that isn't already present in the
> > recording.

> True, but oversampling does tend to make Redbook CDs sound better. Perhaps
> its the removal of that brick-wall filter at 22.05 KHz that makes things
> sound "better", I don't know. But something sure sounds better.

Oversampling isn't the same thing as upsampling. OVersampling as means to
do what you say -- make it easier to implement transparent filtering -- is
not controversial, and has been in use in CDPs since around 1990.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:18:51 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article <fhik4r02i86@news5.newsguy,com >):

> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <fhfvbh02cmp@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>>> "DJ" <wenwaudio@qwest,net > wrote in message
>>> news:fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com
>>>> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone heard
>>>> about this player, and better yet, auditioned or own one?
>>>>
>>>> Reference -
>>>> http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical or electrical
>>> process can accurately recreate music that isn't already present in the
>>> recording.
>
>> True, but oversampling does tend to make Redbook CDs sound better. Perhaps
>> its the removal of that brick-wall filter at 22.05 KHz that makes things
>> sound "better", I don't know. But something sure sounds better.
>
> Oversampling isn't the same thing as upsampling. OVersampling as means to
> do what you say -- make it easier to implement transparent filtering -- is
> not controversial, and has been in use in CDPs since around 1990.
>
> ___
> -S
> "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
> metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Sorry, I meant up-sampling.

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

On Nov 15, 6:18 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix,com > wrote:
> Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> > (in article <fhfvbh02...@news4.newsguy,com >):
> > > "DJ" <wenwau...@qwest,net > wrote in message
> > >news:fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com
> > >> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone heard
> > >> about this player, and better yet, auditioned or own one?
>
> > >> Reference -
> > >> http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
>
> > > The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical or electrical
> > > process can accurately recreate music that isn't already present in the
> > > recording.
> > True, but oversampling does tend to make Redbook CDs sound better. Perhaps
> > its the removal of that brick-wall filter at 22.05 KHz that makes things
> > sound "better", I don't know. But something sure sounds better.
>
> Oversampling isn't the same thing as upsampling.

It isn't? How?

An oversampling D/A converter first converts one sample
rate to a higher sample rate, then performs filtering at the
higher sample rate. An upsampling D/A converter first
converts one sample rate to a higher sample rate, then
performs filtering at the higher sample rate.

What's the difference (other than high-end audio hooey-
speak)?

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:
> On Nov 15, 6:18 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix,com > wrote:
> > Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> > > (in article <fhfvbh02...@news4.newsguy,com >):
> > > > "DJ" <wenwau...@qwest,net > wrote in message
> > > >news:fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com
> > > >> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone heard
> > > >> about this player, and better yet, auditioned or own one?
> >
> > > >> Reference -
> > > >> http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
> >
> > > > The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical or electrical
> > > > process can accurately recreate music that isn't already present in the
> > > > recording.
> > > True, but oversampling does tend to make Redbook CDs sound better. Perhaps
> > > its the removal of that brick-wall filter at 22.05 KHz that makes things
> > > sound "better", I don't know. But something sure sounds better.
> >
> > Oversampling isn't the same thing as upsampling.

> It isn't? How?

Marketing. Upsampling as routinely advertised and employed, provides digital
output at the upsampled rate. Oversampling, as routinely employed, still
provides output at Redbook values.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fhge8802u1f@news4.newsguy,com
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fhfvbh02cmp@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "DJ" <wenwaudio@qwest,net > wrote in message
>> news:fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com
>>> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone heard
>>> about this player, and better yet, auditioned or own
>>> one?
>>>
>>> Reference -
>>> http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
>>>
>>
>> The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical
>> or electrical process can accurately recreate music that
>> isn't already present in the recording.
>
> True, but oversampling does tend to make Redbook CDs
> sound better.

....Right up until you level-match, time-synch, use a really good resampler,
and start trying to control bias.

> Perhaps its the removal of that brick-wall
> filter at 22.05 KHz that makes things sound "better",

Similar means of comparison shows that a brick wall as low as 16 KHz can be
difficult or impossible to hear.

http :// www .pcabx,com /technical/sample_rates/index.htm

> I don't know.

Nobody knows because it never seems to actually happen.

> But something sure sounds better.

Interesting that removing trivial audible cues and the power of suggestion
has such predictable effects.

> I've
> performed double-blind tests with my friends, and
> everyone preferred the oversampling on my outboard D/A
> converter turned on rather than turned off, could dteect
> the difference almost every time and I concur.

Just addressing bias isn't enough. The level-match and time-synch thing is
very important.

> I also
> find that
> 44.1KHz digital upsampled to 88.2 KHz sounds better than
> upsampling it to 96 KHz, but DAT (48 KHz digital) sounds
> better upsampled to 96 KHz than it does upsampled to 88.2
> KHz.

If there's an audible effect, then it speaks to the quality of the
resampling. I've definately seen resampling gone wrong. Resampling down
usuallly involves two stages of low-pass filtering, and that makes two
places where audio products can and have gone wrong. Upsampling involves at
least one stage of low-pass filtering, and while there's less chance for
error, it doesn't mean no chance for error.

> I don't pretend to understand why. It must have
> something to do with one upsampled rate being an exact
> multiple of the original sampling rate of the disc/DAT
> and the other not.

It is well-known that resampling involving integer multiples or integer
fractions has no special magic involved with it, no matter what naive
intuition tells some people.

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:30:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fhikq102jq5@news5.newsguy,com >):

> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fhge8802u1f@news4.newsguy,com
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <fhfvbh02cmp@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> "DJ" <wenwaudio@qwest,net > wrote in message
>>> news:fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com
>>>> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone heard
>>>> about this player, and better yet, auditioned or own
>>>> one?
>>>>
>>>> Reference -
>>>> http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical
>>> or electrical process can accurately recreate music that
>>> isn't already present in the recording.
>>
>> True, but oversampling does tend to make Redbook CDs
>> sound better.
>
> ....Right up until you level-match, time-synch, use a really good resampler,
> and start trying to control bias.
>
>> Perhaps its the removal of that brick-wall
>> filter at 22.05 KHz that makes things sound "better",
>
> Similar means of comparison shows that a brick wall as low as 16 KHz can be
> difficult or impossible to hear.
>
> http :// www .pcabx,com /technical/sample_rates/index.htm
>
>> I don't know.
>
> Nobody knows because it never seems to actually happen.
>
>> But something sure sounds better.
>
> Interesting that removing trivial audible cues and the power of suggestion
> has such predictable effects.
>
>> I've
>> performed double-blind tests with my friends, and
>> everyone preferred the oversampling on my outboard D/A
>> converter turned on rather than turned off, could dteect
>> the difference almost every time and I concur.
>
> Just addressing bias isn't enough. The level-match and time-synch thing is
> very important.
>
>> I also
>> find that
>> 44.1KHz digital upsampled to 88.2 KHz sounds better than
>> upsampling it to 96 KHz, but DAT (48 KHz digital) sounds
>> better upsampled to 96 KHz than it does upsampled to 88.2
>> KHz.
>
> If there's an audible effect, then it speaks to the quality of the
> resampling. I've definately seen resampling gone wrong. Resampling down
> usuallly involves two stages of low-pass filtering, and that makes two
> places where audio products can and have gone wrong. Upsampling involves at
> least one stage of low-pass filtering, and while there's less chance for
> error, it doesn't mean no chance for error.
>
>> I don't pretend to understand why. It must have
>> something to do with one upsampled rate being an exact
>> multiple of the original sampling rate of the disc/DAT
>> and the other not.
>
> It is well-known that resampling involving integer multiples or integer
> fractions has no special magic involved with it, no matter what naive
> intuition tells some people.
>

Well observed criteria is at odds with your assessment. Like most people, I
tend to agree with people I trust and people who have made the same
observations that I have. In these cases, some pretty high-powered players in
both pro and consumer audio seem to agree with my observations as opposed to
your facts. Like I said. I'm not here to make enemies or to pontificate
(unlike some others that I have noticed). I am here to discuss the things in
audio that interest me.

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fhj2f50mno@news3.newsguy,com
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:30:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fhikq102jq5@news5.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>> news:fhge8802u1f@news4.newsguy,com
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>> (in article <fhfvbh02cmp@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>>
>>>> "DJ" <wenwaudio@qwest,net > wrote in message
>>>> news:fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com
>>>>> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone
>>>>> heard about this player, and better yet, auditioned
>>>>> or own one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Reference -
>>>>> http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical
>>>> or electrical process can accurately recreate music
>>>> that isn't already present in the recording.
>>>
>>> True, but oversampling does tend to make Redbook CDs
>>> sound better.
>>
>> ....Right up until you level-match, time-synch, use a
>> really good resampler, and start trying to control bias.
>>
>>> Perhaps its the removal of that brick-wall
>>> filter at 22.05 KHz that makes things sound "better",
>>
>> Similar means of comparison shows that a brick wall as
>> low as 16 KHz can be difficult or impossible to hear.
>>
>> http :// www .pcabx,com /technical/sample_rates/index.htm
>>
>>> I don't know.
>>
>> Nobody knows because it never seems to actually happen.
>>
>>> But something sure sounds better.
>>
>> Interesting that removing trivial audible cues and the
>> power of suggestion has such predictable effects.
>>
>>> I've
>>> performed double-blind tests with my friends, and
>>> everyone preferred the oversampling on my outboard D/A
>>> converter turned on rather than turned off, could dteect
>>> the difference almost every time and I concur.
>>
>> Just addressing bias isn't enough. The level-match and
>> time-synch thing is very important.
>>
>>> I also
>>> find that
>>> 44.1KHz digital upsampled to 88.2 KHz sounds better than
>>> upsampling it to 96 KHz, but DAT (48 KHz digital) sounds
>>> better upsampled to 96 KHz than it does upsampled to
>>> 88.2 KHz.
>>
>> If there's an audible effect, then it speaks to the
>> quality of the resampling. I've definately seen
>> resampling gone wrong. Resampling down usuallly
>> involves two stages of low-pass filtering, and that
>> makes two places where audio products can and have gone
>> wrong. Upsampling involves at least one stage of
>> low-pass filtering, and while there's less chance for
>> error, it doesn't mean no chance for error.
>>
>>> I don't pretend to understand why. It must have
>>> something to do with one upsampled rate being an exact
>>> multiple of the original sampling rate of the disc/DAT
>>> and the other not.
>>
>> It is well-known that resampling involving integer
>> multiples or integer fractions has no special magic
>> involved with it, no matter what naive intuition tells
>> some people.
>>
>
> Well observed criteria is at odds with your assessment.

You forgot to add that the observations that are at odds are highly flawed.

> Like most people, I tend to agree with people I trust and
> people who have made the same observations that I have.

I prefer to agree with reliable information. If someone is my friend and
they are wrong, then it would be a friendly thing for me to do, to help them
find the correct information out for themselves.

> In these cases, some pretty high-powered players in both
> pro and consumer audio seem to agree with my observations
> as opposed to your facts.

Hardly anybody buys into the pseudo-science behind those overpriced,
oversold toys. Note that the SACD and DVD-A formats are slowly dying in the
marketplace.

> Like I said. I'm not here to
> make enemies or to pontificate (unlike some others that I
> have noticed). I am here to discuss the things in audio
> that interest me.

I prefer to discuss how the real world actually works and debunk, not
promote old wive's stories.

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:00:42 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <fhlava01l2k@news4.newsguy,com >):

> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
> news:fhj2f50mno@news3.newsguy,com
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:30:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <fhikq102jq5@news5.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>>> news:fhge8802u1f@news4.newsguy,com
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>>>> (in article <fhfvbh02cmp@news4.newsguy,com >):
>>>>
>>>>> "DJ" <wenwaudio@qwest,net > wrote in message
>>>>> news:fhddu602t7f@news2.newsguy,com
>>>>>> It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone
>>>>>> heard about this player, and better yet, auditioned
>>>>>> or own one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reference -
>>>>>> http :// www .emmlabs,com /html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical
>>>>> or electrical process can accurately recreate music
>>>>> that isn't already present in the recording.
>>>>
>>>> True, but oversampling does tend to make Redbook CDs
>>>> sound better.
>>>
>>> ....Right up until you level-match, time-synch, use a
>>> really good resampler, and start trying to control bias.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps its the removal of that brick-wall
>>>> filter at 22.05 KHz that makes things sound "better",
>>>
>>> Similar means of comparison shows that a brick wall as
>>> low as 16 KHz can be difficult or impossible to hear.
>>>
>>> http :// www .pcabx,com /technical/sample_rates/index.htm
>>>
>>>> I don't know.
>>>
>>> Nobody knows because it never seems to actually happen.
>>>
>>>> But something sure sounds better.
>>>
>>> Interesting that removing trivial audible cues and the
>>> power of suggestion has such predictable effects.
>>>
>>>> I've
>>>> performed double-blind tests with my friends, and
>>>> everyone preferred the oversampling on my outboard D/A
>>>> converter turned on rather than turned off, could dteect
>>>> the difference almost every time and I concur.
>>>
>>> Just addressing bias isn't enough. The level-match and
>>> time-synch thing is very important.
>>>
>>>> I also
>>>> find that
>>>> 44.1KHz digital upsampled to 88.2 KHz sounds better than
>>>> upsampling it to 96 KHz, but DAT (48 KHz digital) sounds
>>>> better upsampled to 96 KHz than it does upsampled to
>>>> 88.2 KHz.
>>>
>>> If there's an audible effect, then it speaks to the
>>> quality of the resampling. I've definately seen
>>> resampling gone wrong. Resampling down usuallly
>>> involves two stages of low-pass filtering, and that
>>> makes two places where audio products can and have gone
>>> wrong. Upsampling involves at least one stage of
>>> low-pass filtering, and while there's less chance for
>>> error, it doesn't mean no chance for error.
>>>
>>>> I don't pretend to understand why. It must have
>>>> something to do with one upsampled rate being an exact
>>>> multiple of the original sampling rate of the disc/DAT
>>>> and the other not.
>>>
>>> It is well-known that resampling involving integer
>>> multiples or integer fractions has no special magic
>>> involved with it, no matter what naive intuition tells
>>> some people.
>>>
>>
>> Well observed criteria is at odds with your assessment.
>
> You forgot to add that the observations that are at odds are highly flawed.

I your not-so-humble-opinion. You forgot to add that :->
>
>> Like most people, I tend to agree with people I trust and
>> people who have made the same observations that I have.
>
> I prefer to agree with reliable information. If someone is my friend and
> they are wrong, then it would be a friendly thing for me to do, to help them
> find the correct information out for themselves.
>
>> In these cases, some pretty high-powered players in both
>> pro and consumer audio seem to agree with my observations
>> as opposed to your facts.
>
> Hardly anybody buys into the pseudo-science behind those overpriced,
> oversold toys. Note that the SACD and DVD-A formats are slowly dying in the
> marketplace.

DVD-A is, in fact dead.

>> Like I said. I'm not here to
>> make enemies or to pontificate (unlike some others that I
>> have noticed). I am here to discuss the things in audio
>> that interest me.
>
> I prefer to discuss how the real world actually works and debunk, not
> promote old wive's stories.

I have yet to see you actually debunk anything. All I actually see from you
are counter claims.

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fhnqa30qmn@news3.newsguy,com
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:00:42 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <fhlava01l2k@news4.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
>> news:fhj2f50mno@news3.newsguy,com

>>> In these cases, some pretty high-powered players in both
>>> pro and consumer audio seem to agree with my
>>> observations as opposed to your facts.

>> Hardly anybody buys into the pseudo-science behind those
>> overpriced, oversold toys. Note that the SACD and DVD-A
>> formats are slowly dying in the marketplace.

> DVD-A is, in fact dead.

A confirmation of my efforts to debunk it and the bad science that it
represents.

>>> Like I said. I'm not here to
>>> make enemies or to pontificate (unlike some others that
>>> I have noticed). I am here to discuss the things in
>>> audio that interest me.

>> I prefer to discuss how the real world actually works
>> and debunk, not promote old wive's stories.

> I have yet to see you actually debunk anything.

Debunking is in the eye of the beholder.

> All I actually see from you are counter claims.

Actually, counter evidence, for those who choose to experience the
recordings that I've posted on the web at www .pcabx,com .

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Hardly anybody buys into the pseudo-science behind those overpriced,
> oversold toys. Note that the SACD and DVD-A formats are slowly dying in the
> marketplace.

i'm sure that others here know the answer,
but are you a fan of SACD, or not?

again, i'm not trolling! if you think that
SACD has little merit, then what does have merit?

at this point i have no opinion one way or the other!

tia, bill

Re: Any impressions on the EMM Labs CDSA-SE CD/SACD player?

willbill wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Hardly anybody buys into the pseudo-science behind those overpriced,
>> oversold toys. Note that the SACD and DVD-A formats are slowly dying
>> in the marketplace.
>
> i'm sure that others here know the answer,
> but are you a fan of SACD, or not?
>
> again, i'm not trolling! if you think that
> SACD has little merit, then what does have merit?
>
>

The SACD has great merit because it is multichannel. Many
of the SACDs I have are really really good heard on
my 5-speaker system.

Doug McDonald