Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (31707)	6/8/2005 10:48:18 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

And soon, there will be only digital music files, none of that CD stuff nor tapes. Quality will suffer of course...

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (31707)	6/8/2005 12:42:26 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

[do you buy this?<g>]--Stock research `for hire' offered SMALLER FIRMS PAY FOR ANALYSIS By Deborah Lohse Posted on Wed, Jun. 08, 2005 Mercury News Small companies that were dropped in recent years by Wall Street stock researchers -- their lifeline to investors -- soon will be offered a chance to pay to get some research coverage again. Two new companies started by Nasdaq Stock Market heavyweights will offer stock research that they say will be independent even though the companies will pay for it. Reuters Group and Nasdaq Stock Market announced Tuesday a new $100,000-a-year service, the Independent Research Network, in which companies can pay to be matched up with three researchers from ``strong, credible research brands.'' Although most Silicon Valley companies are dying for more research coverage to attract new investors, the new pay-for-research concept is drawing as much skepticism as interest. Some company executives fear investors won't trust research that's funded by the companies. ``It's hard to believe someone can be objective when the company is paying them to write about them,'' said Deborah Stapleton, an investor relations professional in Palo Alto. But others say the strong credentials of the people behind the new services might make them credible. Created by current or former Nasdaq executives, the two new services both say they will act like matchmakers using top-notch research firms willing to sell their expertise. Neither company has yet disclosed which research firms will be on their list -- which several companies say will be key to acceptance. ``It goes back to the quality of the analysts and the acceptance of the investing public,'' Stapleton said. In addition to the Nasdaq-Reuters Group service announced Tuesday, last month a former vice chairman of Nasdaq, David Weild, launched the National Research Exchange, which will charge companies and research firms an unspecified fee to get matched up on the exchange. The exchange will privately negotiate a price at which the researcher would agree to cover the company, with both sides agreeing to a list of ethical rules. ``We sit in the middle and provide oversight,'' Weild said. These officials argue that the old ways of providing company research aren't working, and say they've come up with rules that will ensure that the research isn't simply a tout sheet for companies. ``All research has always been paid for, it's just a question of how it's been paid for,'' Weild said. Among the rules both firms plan to impose: Analysts will have to vow to be truthful and objective and follow certain industry standards. Companies seeking research will be obliged to commit upfront not to ``fire'' or retaliate against researchers who write accurate negative reports. Traditionally, stock research is done by analysts who are part of larger Wall Street firms that do many things, including stock trading, helping companies issue stock, and selling stock ideas to large or small investors, which is where the research comes in. Large investors like pension managers or mutual fund managers typically pay for the research reports by buying and selling stock through the firm's trading desk, which generates commissions for the firm. But after the tech-stock bubble burst, Wall Street firms found that it was not in their economic interest to provide research on hundreds of small companies, often because those companies didn't trade very much and didn't generate commissions. That has left 35 percent of Nasdaq companies without any research coverage at all, and 50 percent of all publicly traded companies with only one or two analysts, down from a half-dozen or more apiece in the bubble era. ``This sad state of affairs really affects the valuation of our companies, and affects the liquidity in the trading of the stock for investors,'' said Bob Greifeld, Nasdaq's chief executive. Some executives said the concept of paid research is likely to appeal to small companies that haven't been publicly traded very long. ``If you're not a very visible story and you cannot attract quality research analysts initially, then you have to bridge that gap,'' said Don Witmer, chief financial officer of NetLogic Microsystems in Mountain View. ``Maybe this is a way to bridge that gap to get the message out.'' But Witmer and others said they can't get past the glaring conflict of interest of paying for your own research coverage. ``What's the difference between that and advertising?'' said Tom Hart, chief executive of QuickLogic, which currently has only one Wall Street analyst, down from four or five in 2000. Yet for Silicon Valley, Weild said, getting research is a crucial step to persuading venture capitalists to invest in companies that want to go public, as opposed to those that might get bought by a larger company. ``This is about getting back to Silicon Valley, of hitting singles and doubles that were the mainstay of the venture capital business,'' he said. mercurynews.com

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (31707)	6/8/2005 2:03:07 PM
From: loantech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Check out the denon 3910 or 5900 DVD/CD players. An incredible two channel audio system that reconverts to analog etc. Of course at $1499.00 and around $3500.00 they better play well. I have the denon 3910 and it is an incredible piece for two channel oldies playing with a cd format. hometheaterhifi.com Audio One area the DVD-3910 has a huge leg up on the DVD-2900 is the inclusion of digital transmission of high-resolution muti-channel audio. This allows use of the DVD-3910 as a digital transport and leaves your high-end SSP or flagship receiver to handle all the processing of DVD-Audio and SACD material, eliminating the cumbersome six RCA analog connections. However, for the listening tests I wanted to hear what the player was capable of and used the analog connections for the listening tests. I was pretty skeptical at first, and thought how much difference can there be going from the Denon DVD-2900, already a very good sounding player? I couldn’t believe how much the soundstage opened up and the depth of image was increased. One of the first times I had heard very good front to back and vertical imaging, in addition to left to right from stereo was on fellow writer Kris Deering’s latest configuration. He is using an Anthem D1 SSP, Onix Reference 3 loudspeakers, and Anthem Statement Amplifiers with a Denon DVD-5900. Now to be fair, most good two channel setups at least yield decent vertical imaging. In comparison, my current setup with Axiom M60ti loudspeakers, Pioneer Elite 53tx receiver, and Denon DVD-2900, while sounding excellent and detailed, was much more collapsed than Kris’ setup. Imaging was limited to mainly left to right, with just a few feet of perceived vertical, and little projected to the rear with two channel. In addition, the overall soundstage was just more compact, not extending as far past the speakers in width or depth. I chalked it up to my room and/or speakers. The DVD-3910 squashed my little theory! Using the stereo SACD track on David Elias’s The Window, the soundstage was huge, and detail impeccable. Once I put in Beck’s Sea Change, I was floored. There it was, my coveted rear imaging with different effects to the side and behind me, complete with a depth extending well behind my mains. I had to double check that it was still reading the stereo track! I put the DVD-2900 right back in the system and replayed the same track, now knowing exactly what I was listening for. Sure enough, detail levels and left to right imaging were almost identical. However the very obvious and monstrous depth of field was shrunk down, with the same effects that were projected just behind my head falling only about two feet in front of the mains. For me this opened my eyes to real differences in sound between DVD players, even from the same company, in the same price range. Conclusions The Denon DVD-3910 is a grand slam. From the excellent video and audio performance, to the absolutely phenomenal setup options and available video control parameters and audio processing, this player delivers. The wide range of digital and analog connections for both audio and video covers almost every base imaginable. This DVD player is the current king of the hill at anywhere near this price range. My only question is, why did it take this long to get a DVD player like this?