DCC Archive New APEX Player AMAZING!!

Wow, guys, I think we got a bit off topic here!!

I think the point really was, that an inexpensive "Universal" player is a great option to have for the following reasons:

1) It doesnt matter what record company issues that favorite old title you wanted remastered......if MCA does it on SACD or EMI does it in DVD-A, your player will be able to play it!! And of course good old HDCD!

2)If your reciever has a digital input, 99% of the "this thing must sound cheap" argument will go out the window. Your amp will be providing most of the sound timbre. The apex will just be doing decoding, basically. Your amp does the d/a conversion.

3) For 299$ (J&Rs price) if you get 3 years out of it, wouldnt you be happy? I sure would be!!!

4) Just the fact that the damn thing plays MP3s is worth the price alone, for God sake!!! Add to that CDR/CDRW/DVD-R/SACD/DVD-A and its a no brainer!!

5) HDCD also? The thing MUST sound Decent at LEAST, know what I mean?

 

Yeah, but these threads go where they will. I doubt any of our mothers represent the bulk of the music buying public. Look at what generation spends the money (or spends their parents' money, rather) and you'll see what I mean. Consumers who spend the greatest percentage of their paycheck or allowance on music, these fans covet the releases of their favorite artist and will buy the latest n greatest version. Your mother will not.

Mikey sez:
>> 1) It doesnt matter what record company issues that favorite old title you wanted remastered......if MCA does it on SACD or EMI does it in DVD-A, your player will be able to play it!! And of course good old HDCD! <<

Well in fact, at this rate no company will issue a significant portion of its catalog in SACD or DVD-A. There is simply too much confusion. HDCD included. This isn't just about the consumer end, it's about the pro end. What system do they get for their studio? There needs to be agreement and standardization, not "diversity and universality".

>> 2)If your reciever has a digital input, 99% of the "this thing must sound cheap" argument will go out the window. Your amp will be providing most of the sound timbre. The apex will just be doing decoding, basically. Your amp does the d/a conversion. <<

If you think disc machines do not have a huge impact on the overall sound of your system--whether or not you use the digital output--you've got some major A/B'ing to do.

>> 3) For 299$ (J&Rs price) if you get 3 years out of it, wouldnt you be happy? I sure would be!!! <<

That's awesome. Go for it. But I seriously doubt I'd be happy with this unit. I am 90% sure it dumbs down DSD to PCM which kills the advantages of SACD--you will probably think SACD is no great shakes when probably it's the Apex that's no great shakes. If you don't care about audio quality, just about universal format compatibility, this is a great buy, though.

>> 5) HDCD also? The thing MUST sound Decent at LEAST, know what I mean? <<

No, Mikey, I don't. Build quality, parts selection and design is a much greater factor in disc machine quality than whether it decodes HDCD. HDCD is not a technology that has wowed me, and trying to work around the 16-bit limitation of CD by tricking the processor into thinking it has 20-bit worth of info seems like a technology only Bill Gates would love. In fact Pacific Microsonic did sell HDCD to Microsoft. It's all just red book when it comes down to it.

[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: GregM ]

 

I'm not trying to sound as if I know much about this stuff, 'cause I don't; but here's my take.

If the Apex has digital out for SACD you can be sure it's been converted to PCM. The only system that outputs the DSD stream is the Delius using the Firewire protocol, which may be adopted as the defacto standard. I can't imagine this happening in the Apex, and even if it were, what would you use to decode the DSD stream? A Delius?

You don't really want a DSD digital stream at the moment as you can't use it.

It may be possible that the analogue output for the SACD has not first been converted to PCM, but this would make the architecture of this machine quite complex. I'm guessing that all formats are first massaged into PCM and then fed through the D-A converters.

Regards,
Metralla

 

Originally posted by Metralla:
>> The only system that outputs the DSD stream is the Delius using the Firewire protocol, which may be adopted as the defacto standard. <<

In addition to the dCS, the Accuphase dac/transport combo uses a DSD output. But your point about the fact that there's no use in having a DSD output is well taken and I agree. It would kind of defeat the point of a $300 SACD player to use a $10,000 DAC with it.

 

Am I the only one here who sees the irony in certain members touting an ultra cheap machine to play their twice as expensive gold discs? People constantly refer to the pride and careful work that Mr. Hoffman does yet want to play it on something that essentially built by slave labor. I don't mean to sound sanctimonious but what's up with that?

 

Like there's any warranty left after you cannibalized your superior Sony product so you could get that ever so slightly wider soundstage on "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go."

 

Isn't it hard to find something *not* built by slave labor? I'd like to buy with a clean conscience, but two of my favorite mid-fi companies (Rotel and NAD) are all over Chinese production. Because they have the Olympics and favored trading status, we have practically told them everything is hunky dory.

I noticed gas for $0.88/gallon yesterday and I had to think, "What does cheap gas *really* cost us?"

Best stop here, before this thread really veers into another direction.

 

Hi,

Thanks Patrick, for the update on the price of tea in China.

Sure does seem like a lot of posters have taken their best shot at Greg's points w/ very little success. Love the post that questioned why people would go out of their way to find the best software (such as DCC gold) only to play it on cheap hardware. The theory of the weakest link is well validated in almost all parts of our life.

Let the Good Times Roll,
Jeffrey

 

I'll throw this out here and I know someone will bite:

How does a multichannel SACD work on a non-multichannel player?

Let's take "Kind of Blue" as an example, since it's available both ways.

Are the 2 channels you "get" from the multichannel release the same as the 2 channels you get from the non-multichannel SACD?

If so, why would anyone buy the two channel (non-multi) version? If not, what are you losing when you play back multichannel in 2 channels?

And on a multichannel capable player, can you select 2 channel output?

This should be in Sony's FAQ!

 

>> 5) HDCD also? The thing MUST sound Decent at LEAST, know what I mean? <<

No, Mikey, I don't. Build quality, parts selection and design is a much greater factor in disc machine quality than whether it decodes HDCD. HDCD is not a technology that has wowed me, and trying to work around the 16-bit limitation of CD by tricking the processor into thinking it has 20-bit worth of info seems like a technology only Bill Gates would love.

>>>Ok, understood. But getting back to the main point, all the reviews I've read of the Apex DVD players and their other products are "Good Unit", "GREAT buy".
Also, I dissagree that they are cheaply designed at all. With the functionality this player has, it cant be "cheaply designed".
In fact, I'd say it has to be downright SMARTLY designed to do what it does.
Yes, I will agree that it may not use top shelf parts...but NEITHER does anyones mid level Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood, Techniques, player, no matter how much you want to justify the 700$ you spent on it.
Hey, if the reviews are good, including the sound quality, then whats the arguement? "I dont like it because it wasnt obscenely expensive"?

Hey, I went to the Home Audio show at the Javits a few months ago. I heard 1,000$ Cd players. I heard 10,000$ Cd players. Know what the difference really was?
One cost 10 times more than the other!!
There was NO difference that I could hear.
I DID hear a diff between the 1,000$ players and the 300$ players, so i know my ears are intact.

With Audio, you CANT say "You get what you pay for". It doesnt apply.

 

Cvila sez:
>> Am I the only one here who sees the irony in certain members touting an ultra cheap machine to play their twice as expensive gold discs? <<

No, you're not, man. I'm with you all the way. Consider how much we spend on software. And then consider how much we spend on the hardware we have to decode it all.

Patrick M sez:
>> Like there's any warranty left after you cannibalized your superior Sony product so you could get that ever so slightly wider soundstage on "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go." <<

I said I fix it under warranty "if possible". Otherwise I know a very reliable gentleman up in Oregon who is far more handy with parts and a soldering iron than anyone employed by Sony. . .or Apex. And the Wham SACD is not something I plan to purchase, although others like it and I'm sure do not appreciate your sneering.

>> Isn't it hard to find something *not* built by slave labor? I'd like to buy with a clean conscience, but two of my favorite mid-fi companies (Rotel and NAD) are all over Chinese production. <<

Try a U.S.-made tube amp. I hear Zen makes some that are reasonably priced. Steve Deckert makes them.

>> I'll throw this out here and I know someone will bite:
How does a multichannel SACD work on a non-multichannel player? <<

All SACDs include a dedicated two channel mix. The multichannel mix is optional.

>> Let's take "Kind of Blue" as an example, since it's available both ways. Are the 2 channels you "get" from the multichannel release the same as the 2 channels you get from the non-multichannel SACD? <<

Yes, although the single layer 2-channel disc is no longer being produced so you don't have a choice.

>> And on a multichannel capable player, can you select 2 channel output? <<

Yes, of course, although I'm not sure about that Apex.

Mikey sez:
>> all the reviews I've read of the Apex DVD players and their other products are "Good Unit", "GREAT buy". <<

Yes, it is a good unit, great buy for the Kmart crowd. I'm not judging those who are in that crowd, but they are not going to get high quality bike pumps, clothing, or disc machines.

>> Also, I dissagree that they are cheaply designed at all. With the functionality this player has, it cant be "cheaply designed".
In fact, I'd say it has to be downright SMARTLY designed to do what it does. <<

Mikey, it's taken Apex *years* to develop this. It was supposed to appear months and months ago. No doubt they couldn't get it to work right and have gone back to the drawing board who knows how many times. The question is not whether it is "smartly" designed--there's little doubt it will convert DSD to PCM and avoid the noise shaping technology, essentially obliterating any improvement of SACD which isn't too smart in my book--the question is will it ever ship?

>> Yes, I will agree that it may not use top shelf parts...but NEITHER does anyones mid level Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood, Techniques, player, no matter how much you want to justify the 700$ you spent on it. <<

I'm not a big fan of Sony and especially not those other manufacturers you mention, but the fact is that Sony did a tremendous job on their initial SACD players.

>> Hey, if the reviews are good, including the sound quality, then whats the arguement? "I dont like it because it wasnt obscenely expensive"? <<

Well let's wait to see a review of the Apex before we presume the reviews are good. Anyway, I rely on my ears more than I rely on reviews.

>> Hey, I went to the Home Audio show at the Javits a few months ago. I heard 1,000$ Cd players. I heard 10,000$ Cd players. Know what the difference really was?
One cost 10 times more than the other!!
There was NO difference that I could hear. <<

Well then consider yourself lucky. Unfortunately I tend to pick out these differences and once I'm aware of them they stick with me every time I listen. So I go for the quality stuff.

>> With Audio, you CANT say "You get what you pay for". It doesnt apply. <<

Yep, I can. And do. The reason VAC is so expensive, for example, has a lot to do with parts but also a lot to do with voicing. Thousands of hours are spent by Kevin Hayes and Kevin Carter to optimize their gear, swapping out different capacitors, resistors, even chassis materials. An incredible amount of time and energy goes into the development of quality gear that the mass merchandized stuff never sees. And Steve has used VAC gear for making many a DCC remaster.

 

<<I said I fix it under warranty "if possible". Otherwise I know a very reliable gentleman up in Oregon who is far more handy with parts and a soldering iron than anyone employed by Sony. . .or Apex. And the Wham SACD is not something I plan to purchase, although others like it and I'm sure do not appreciate your sneering.>>

I'm sure do not appreciate your grammar.

Stan Warren?

Really, I thought my sneering was quite good, and I feel confident Luke appreciated it, and probably others.

My point was this: IMO, you shouldn't need to go swapping out parts on a new $3k+ SACD player. Seems like it should be built from the best stuff in the first place. You obviously disagree, so feel free to quote me and then lambaste me.

<<Yes, although the single layer 2-channel disc is no longer being produced so you don't have a choice.>>

If I'm reading this correctly, this sucks. Those people who plopped down good money for a 2 channel KoB are supposed to buy it again if they want multichannel? Looks like "Blow by Blow" is following the same release schedule. Are they going to start phasing in more multichannel of stuff that's already available in 2 channel? If so, it truly sucks for people who have the initial releases and later want multichannel. And it would keep me from buying some 2 channel stuff for fear it would later come out in multi. Not that I am super hung up on multi, but why not give it a go, even if as a novelty, if you can still fall back on the 2 channel?

RE: "You get what you pay for".

It's sometimes true, sometimes not, so not worth arguing. There are products that perform WAY above their price tag (e.g., ART DI/O) and those that underperform for their price (e.g., Bose 901) and those whose performance is commensurate with their price.

 

Patrick sez:
>> I'm sure do not appreciate your grammar. <<

Very funny but my sentence was grammatically correct: "as I'm sure others would agree". I personally don't care whether you snear at Wham, but others might and that was what I said.

>> Stan Warren? <<

No, Richard Kern.

>> Really, I thought my sneering was quite good, and I feel confident Luke appreciated it, and probably others. <<

not if those others enjoy Wham or enjoy the quality afforded by SACD. I fit into the latter and have managed to collect more than 100 SACDs of very timeless music. Now playing: Dai Kimura, Japanese guitar shredder extraordinaire who you've probably never heard of. But go ahead and equate SACD adopters with Wham fans if it makes you feel like you know what you're talking about.

Gary sez:
>> Really!?! You mean to say that Apex would / have / will devise a SACD player that would play SACDs but "dummy the sound down" to sound like normal 16bit CDs!?! <<

No, not 16-bit, but it will definitely dumb it down to PCM--probably 24/96 or possibly 24/192. I think the Pioneer universal machine already does this in its handling of DSD. One of the selling points of DSD to studios is that it can easily be converted to PCM if that's how they need to produce it, a fact that is not lost on manufacturers looking for a short cut to develop an SACD player.

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: GregM ]

 

Greg, you ignorant slut. I just bought a SACD player, and posted about it on this forum.

Are you familiar with the whole "get more flies with honey" thing? You seem to want to get people to accept SACD, or at least try it out, but your abrasive/pedantic tone turns everyone off.

 

Nice try Patrick, but I just got an email this morning complaining about *your* inability to grasp simple concepts and thanking me for taking the time to explain why the Apex might not be the best choice. I try to address *points* and not *personalities*. But in your case I'll make an exception. You come across as uninformed and vitriolic.

Hope you can spend a little more time enjoying your new disc machine and a lot less time trying to argue with me, if not out of respect for me, than out of respect for the DCC board. Ignorant slut is stupid, even for you.

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: GregM ]

 

Steve's posting fingers are faster than mine. I was just about to mention that the SNL quote was meant to be jovial, playful and quite classic, not at all stupid. Pat's intentions were clearly that way; for a chuckle. Sorry you didn't feel the same, GregM.

Let's not get too serious. It's just a discussion board. It may be the last *civil* audio discussion board.

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: Sckott ]

 

Hi,

Must admit the SNL quote got by me wo/ recognition. Just so I know, what jovial, playful and quite classic place did this quote come from?

From this seat in the cheap seats, it looked like the two referees who first appeared to be calling time-out where actually calling a technical on Greg. If that's the case, I think the call was bad & the technicals should offset.

Peace,
Jeffrey

 

Dan Akroyd to Jane Curtain at the SNL news desk during a point-counterpoint exchange. A legitimate shocker the first time someone hears it -- a truly classic TV moment.

 

Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd, circa 1975. Possibly on the top-shelf "classic" moments in SNL's 1st season. The show has always had a Nightly News spoofer, you see. Jane says something to the effect of a competitive remark that Dan says, they pass it back and forth ~2 times, like professional news ancors until Dan Aykroyd let's it go with "Jane, you ignorant slut!!" and rebuttles once again.

"Slut" was like a tripple expresso-double latte for a word to use, back then, of course.

Nothing aimed at anyone, but it's very interesting that the recipient didn't catch that dig, or what it meant. From these seats (very good analogy), someone mistook clowning for intelligent arguing. This post has turned into a microscopic look into people's cultural knowledge instead of audiophile prestige. I'm sorry if that offends anyone. I call my friends more harmful slanderous names. If I don't, they think there's lost love.

So be it then. Please don't take life too seriously, people. It's a pollutant that comes full circle, and the cure isn't always easy to understand.

 

Hi,

Can we get new zebras please? These guys are still calling the same foul when the ball is on the other side of the court. I got the SNL reference the 1st time it was pointed out by Steve, the quote that I questioned was the one I listed. Why wasn't that a foul?

Peace,
Jeffrey

 

Since Steve chimed in, let me ask him...How important is your playback chain to the quality achieved of your discs. I would imagine as important or possibly moreso than using the best available source tape. It is my belief that a less than perfect disc played on a killer stereo is still going to sound pretty damn good whereas listening to a well made disc on a bad a piece of equipment, one is only going to recognize the potential of the disc rather than hear/experience those qualities. Perhaps my question is rhetorical...

 

cvila,
I'm not Steve but hopefully I'll do.
If you compromise the source by playing an inferior recording it doesn't matter how good the system playing it is.
You are right about using a less-than-quality system as you'll only get a glimpse of the true recording.

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: Dave ]