More Stones SACD Articles

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by GoldenBoy, Aug 23, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GoldenBoy

    GoldenBoy Purple People Eater Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    Here is a link to an article in USA Today today. Be sure to read the other article that is linked to as well.

    USA Today
     
  2. Khorn

    Khorn Dynagrunt Obversarian

    Interesting to note that the name EMI is popping up more & more over the last few days as an SACD backer. That, ultimately could be really good news.
     
  3. Todd Fredericks

    Todd Fredericks Senior Member

    Location:
    A New Yorker
    I think a lot of labels and acts are watching these releases very carefully. I'm sure Mick is being asked a few questions from some friends/musicians, etc.

    Todd
     
  4. GoldenBoy

    GoldenBoy Purple People Eater Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    The Stones SACD remasters could possibly be the biggest PR blitz and one of the best things that could possibly have happened to the SACD format. If in fact EMI is planning releases on SACD for next year, they could possibly be considering a Beatles remaster project similar to the Stones ABKO series. I think if that does indeed happen, it could be the death knell for DVD-A as format. A Stones release, followed shortly by a Beatles release could potentially bring so much publicity and put so many SACD's into the general public's hands that it would just make a lot of sense to move to SACD as a format.
    No amount of Queen or Eagles DVD-A's could do what the Stone's releases have done or what a potential Beatles release could do.

    I see the hybrid capabilities of SACD as one of the strongest factors in SACD possibly coming out on top vs. DVD-A. If these Stones releases were coming out as single layer SACD's or as DVD-A's they might not have been so heralded. There would have been the problem of limited numbers of SACD players in peoples hands, limited amounts of people able to benefit from and purchase the new releases, and, finally, all of that leading to very limited and, some might think, dismal sales. Sure millions of people may own DVD players, but of those millions, how many own DVD-A players? Do they have DVD players in their car stereos? How about DVD boom boxes? DVD clock radios?

    The hybrid SACD allows people who do not own SACD players to go out and purchase those discs and play them on their current systems, If they want to experience the high resolution layer, they can upgrade their systems immediately. Most of all, many of them can just wait until their systems die and then replace them when ever they feel like it.
     
  5. Khorn

    Khorn Dynagrunt Obversarian

    Agreed folks but, I wish we weren't all preaching to the converted........ourselves.
     
  6. jdw

    jdw Senior Member


    I think the opposite holds true, as well. The announcement of the Beatles catalogue on DVD-A would probably kill Sony's format. You can bet The Beatles/Yoko/their lawyers/and EMI are completely aware of this and are holding out for the most lucrative deal. Quality of the actual formats will be an afterthought...


    With the strange state the recording industry is in right now, anything could happen - even both formats could die. I'm still hoping for SACD, though.

    John
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
     
  7. GoldenBoy

    GoldenBoy Purple People Eater Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    I don't think The Beatles on DVD-A would kill off SACD. SACD would still have the Stones catalogue to counterbalance that. What I do believe, as I stated before, is that The Beatles catalogue, combined with the Stones catalogue (it is rumoured also that the Stones are considering a release of their Virgin catalogue on SACD as well) would deal a strong blow to the DVD-A camp. That and all of the other reasons I stated previously could be the harbinger of bad news for DVD-A as a format.
     
  8. dolstein

    dolstein Senior Member

    Location:
    Arlingon, VA
    Actually, there's no reason why either of these formats has to die. It is possible to design players capable of playing both formats. Marantz and Pioneer have already released "universal players" and more are on their way.
     
  9. Beagle

    Beagle Senior Member

    Location:
    Ottawa
    I worry, however, that these multi-format players will do a half-assed playback of some or all of the formats they can do. Do you want SACD playback that sounds worse than redbook out of your current player?
     
  10. Gary

    Gary Nauga Gort! Staff

    Location:
    Toronto
    Oh, I don't think that we'll ever have SACD or even DVD-A playback that sounds worse than redbook. It *will* sound better - that's their big selling point.

    My worry is that both types of playback will be compromised - inferior SACD and DVD-A playback - to what the potential is because of these universal players. And the average consumer won't care or not notice on their economy systems that they are not getting the full potential out of the format(s).

    So you are right ~ it WILL be half *ssed. :mad:
     
  11. GoldenBoy

    GoldenBoy Purple People Eater Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    Personally, I don't really see DVD-A catching on as a popular format. There are too many issues. Varying resolutions, fold-down stereo mixes. Is it a video format or a strictly musical format? There are currently no DVD players in people's dash boards, or DVD boom boxes. DVD alarm clocks, affordable DVD portable 'DiscMan' style players (not those over priced tiny LCD screen fiascos). The hybrid capability makes it possible to put SACD in the public's hands without forcing them to upgrade their systems immediately. They can play their discs now and uprgrade their systems whenever they are ready. It is a back door. It seems to me that most of the labels are beginning to realize this. That is why you are seeing ABKO, EMI, Universal and Virgin beginning to move towards SACD as a format. Not to mention all of the various 'audiophile' and specialty labels like Chesky, Telarc, BIS, Rounder, dmp, etc.
     
  12. SteveSDCA

    SteveSDCA Senior Member

    Location:
    San Diego
    The band that sells the most CD's etc is Led Zeppelin. Not the Beatles, not Elvis, not the Stones. The trick is to get Atlantic to release Zep on SACD instead of DVD-A. Of course it won't hurt if the Beatles get released on SACD.
     
  13. RetroSmith

    RetroSmith Forum Hall Of Fame<br>(Formerly Mikey5967)

    Location:
    East Coast
     
  14. bmoura

    bmoura Senior Member

    Location:
    Redwood City, CA
    EMI has issued several SACDs in Europe including a recent Multichannel SACD by the Scorpions and Berlin Philharmonic ("Moment of Glory"). So more undoubtedly will be coming.

    The real question is when might EMI release some SACD titles in the US.
     
  15. krabapple

    krabapple New Member

    Location:
    Washington DC


    Not of the mastering is crap.

    IIRC , I've *already* seen some people claim they prefer the redbook versions to the new SACD/DVD-A versions, of some albums.

    Never say never in audio land.
     
  16. GoldenBoy

    GoldenBoy Purple People Eater Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    there are no stereo mixes on SACD that are folded down by the player itself. There are also no varying resolutions on SACD (speaking strictly of the SACD layer and not Redbook , of course) they are all full resolution and all MCh mixes are the same full resolution on SACD, not so for DVD-A.
    My point being, since you seemed to have missed it, is that actual SACD discs can be in peoples' hands without there being a need for them to upgrade there existing hardware, (i.e. boom boxes, car stereos, alarm clock players.) until they are ready and/or willing to; not so for DVD-A.

    The advantage is as stated above. In addition, many people may have DVD players, but they have them in their homes, mainly for movie playback.

    In a strictly 'audiophile' sense, there is no advantage to Redbook capabilities except having a hi-rez format that is capable of doing dual duty for audiophile's and for those who may or may not care thereby maintaining a certain level of popularity and pervasiveness. See above.

    They both have pluses and minuses, but IMO, DVD-A has more minuses than does SACD. As for the Stones and Beatles on different platforms, I don't see it happening, but I could be wrong.

    Yes, and so far, IMO the money is in SACD not DVD-A, for reasons that I have already stated. All one has to do is look at the plethora of SACD title's (there are still much more than on DVD-A) and the fact that a label like ABKO would choose to release The Stones catalogue on SACD and not on DVD-A is quite telling, IMO.
     
  17. GoldenBoy

    GoldenBoy Purple People Eater Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    I must say that I prefer the Redbook CD of Natalie Merchant's Tigerlilly to the DVD-A version.
     
  18. kipper15

    kipper15 Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom


    :agree:
     
  19. RetroSmith

    RetroSmith Forum Hall Of Fame<br>(Formerly Mikey5967)

    Location:
    East Coast
    >>>>>>Everything you say is true, however I cant agree with the anti DVD-A comment.

    If the Stones were released on DVD-A, Anybody with a good quality DVD Video player could hear better than Redbook audio. My 1999 DVD Video player decodes HDCD. If the disk itself had been multichannel, they would have been able to decode that...all without buying any new player.

    Playing a SACD on a normal Cd player is pretty pointless!!!
     
  20. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Once again, what average consumer 1) cares about the "improved sound quality", 2) wants to only be able to listen to their new purchases on the "home theatre" system?

    The rise of CD has really led to people being more portable oriented. They want to listen in the car. On the computer. On the boom box in the back room. On the shelf system in the bedroom. I don't think many people are willing to go back to the LP era, where you pretty much could only listen to things in one spot in your house.

    No more pointless than playing a CD in a CD player, which is what you're doing.
     
  21. Here's my little rant. I don't do it often. I'm a pretty happy guy. Tx. :)

    Eveybody talks about this hybrid format issue. If I buy a hybrid SACD disc, all I get to hear is a standard CD master, nothing else.

    I LIKE DVD-A because:

    1. You can play the discs on a regular DVD player. One doesn't need another piece of hardware.

    2. You get a decent Dolby mix and sometimes also, an excellent DTS mix. I already have a DVD player (two actually, one is all regions :)). And these 5.1 mixes are not accessible on a CD player.

    As far a saying the old CD sounds better, maybe for some ears but for me The Doobie Brothers - Captain and Me DTS mix blows the doors off of the regular Warner CD issue. My CD-R backup sounds better than the original CD. It was a whole new listening experience for me. I hear things on that DVD-A mastering that I've never heard before, with amazing clarity. I still have my quad vinyl. It may not even be as good. ELP - Brain Salad Surgery, Dolby mix and Fleetwood Mac Rumours, Dolby mix for me are better than the standard CD issues, and Brain Salad CD has been remastered at least twice. I'd love to hear these discs on a DVD-A player. They probably sound even better than what I currently have access to.

    If these Stones releases are the shot in the arm that SACD needs, we may end up with the old VHS, Beta issue, or the Motorola, Kahn AM stereo formats issue, and in the end SACD will win even though many argue that DVD-A is the better format. I saw the many shaking heads of the televison bench techs I worked with when I was in radio, and Beta was being phased out. They knew Beta was better. These guys were hands on. Same with AM stereo. Leonard Kahn's standard was the best, but Motorola probably had more lobbying dollars with the U.S. FCC and won out in the end. I saw a few radio engineers shake their heads over that one too.

    I thought these DVD-A/SACD mediums were designed for 5.1/6.1 surround mixes. Why are folks fixated on the fold down mixes, 2 channel mixes and such. I buy the discs to hear the surround mixes. I'm not looking for any 2 channel mixes. If I want that, I return to the regular CD or my vinyl copy. They will probably be more authentic, more than likely having the original mix on them. It would be interesting to hear the 2 channel mixes on the DVD-A "side" of the disc if I ever get a DVD-A player, but it could be a remix and some would complain that it was not original. (I'm not sure on that point. Maybe some discs have been mastered with the original two channel stereo master.)

    What does the general public get for their first mainstream exposure to SACD? The Stones; albums that they will hear in the SACD format, in mono and 2 channel stereo. The industry is not going to sell to many surround sound systems or SACD players that way. And how many Joey Punchclocks and Martha Housecoats out there will be buying these new Stones discs and not even having a clue that there is another "hidden" format on them.

    It's interesting, everyone seems to be up about a possible Beatles remastering in 5.1, but I've never heard anyone talk about the Stones early music being issued in that format? I'm not so sure I want to hear the first couple of Beatles albums mixed in 5.1. Maybe Sgt. Pepper's, Revolver, Magical Myster tour material, White Album, at best. And for me it would be more of a novelty/curiosity thing.

    Playing an SACD dis on a CD player IS pointless! Your're only hearing the CD master. With a DVD-A disc, at least they are giving you a couple of other mixes like Dolby 5.1 and say DTS 6.1 that you can't access on a CD player. If they made DVD-As with a compatible CD mix, playing them in a CD player would also be useless. Again, you'd only have acces to the regular CD master. So what. Go out and buy the regular CD. At this point in time, it appears that most CD remasters aren't as good as the previous version, so your older CD or vinyl would sound better or more authentic.

    Whew. Thanks. :)

    Mike *ducks* from all the flying debris as he flashes the peace sign to everyone. :D

    "I'm just a novice with all this new sound stuff. Please be kind."
     
  22. mikenyc

    mikenyc New Member

    Location:
    NYC Metro Area
    It's a load of crap, to be "in the middle" of this stupid technology war.

    The only saving grace I have, is that I haven't invested in ANY of them yet!

    What a load of crap this is...and no one is going to win here !
     
  23. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    I think you're missing the point - with hybrid SACDs, the SACD *becomes* the "regular CD". There's one version in stores, not two.
     
  24. bmoura

    bmoura Senior Member

    Location:
    Redwood City, CA
    Right.

    And there are already a few labels (Songlines, Albany, Artegra) that are following that practice - namely issuing a Hybrid SACD and skipping a separate CD release altogether.
     
  25. GoldenBoy

    GoldenBoy Purple People Eater Thread Starter

    Location:
    US
    As is usually the case on issues such as this around these parts, the majority of people have totally missed my point altogether. I won't even bother to get any farther into this so called 'debate' because, to paraphrase Mike, that IS pointless.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine