Agreed. Not that I'm primarily knocking surround-sound enthusiasts, but as a music-listening exercise, I find that once the novelty fades of hearing a guitar or a violin over your left shoulder while the horns play in a spread over your right, it's completely extraneous to the actual art of listening. A buddy of mine was really swept up into the surround movement after hearing some demos at a local listening retailer, and spent quite a bit of coin on a surround rig. After a year, he was back to plain old 2-channel listening to just enjoy music. He found listening to music in surround more of an effort than a pleasure after a while. What makes for a cool surround-style-movie-mix experience isn't necessarily a recipe for actual aesthetic listening pleasure.
Well done surround mixes - not the gee whiz let’s see how much stuff we can throw in the surrounds - add a depth and breadth to the soundstage and an element of artistic opportunity that the corresponding stereo mixes simply can’t touch. The problem is most people (and even many surround fans) are listening to their system more than the music and think if it isn’t a gee whiz Best Buy demo surround mix, it isn’t any good.
I'm sure that's true, but only to a degree - and then we're bumping up against the available software that fits the bill within those parameters. In another software comparison, it's a bit like reel-to-reel: a format that can sound really good, but the available titles are fairly circumscribed. And then there's the question of the source material. A recently-recorded, multitracked affair can be readily prepared and mixed for surround sound; an older recording, made with limited tracks, isn't as likely to work as well without significant sonic "gaps" in the soundstage. But you touch on something that I think @IR Shane was alluding to, and that is the success of the surround format has been limited, as has other higher-resolution digital formats. For whatever reason(s), lots of people didn't buy into the format (like people didn't broadly accept Quad mixes and hardware back in the day). I do disagree that the surround mix offers an appreciably superior stereo experience, but we're down to preferences there.
Shane, Great news regarding Gene Clark. Auto purchase for me. I know it has been said already here but how about his No Other album. I have the 4 Beards version and it sounds meh to me. I will make another request. How about Genesis Trick of the Tail or Wind and Wuthering. I am probably one of the few people that was not blown away (actually disappointed) by the Mofi version and the regular or British 1st pressing of Wind, (lacking in the bass and dynamics department). Oh and please if anybody says the Nick Davies remastered versions, I have the CD version of those 2 albums and they both sound compressed. They may have detail but he simply made everything sound loud. I have British 1st pressings and some of the Classic reissues of the Gabriel albums and they blow away the Nick Davies reissues imo. Sorry i don't mean to offend anyone's opinion, that was not my intent, I just tell it like I hear it. I was also never a fan of Hugh Padgham's work as it all sounded loud to me. I found that David Hentschel (Elton John - GYBR) or John Burn's (John Martyn - Solid Air) work vastly better. Just my 2cents. Cheers.
This post by @John Einarson needs some further explaining! Gene Clark Sings For You + The Rose Garden - June 15 - Omnivore Recordings*
That makes sense, Warner I believe was strictly a DVD-Audio label when the format wars mattered. When they were dabbling in Hi-Rez media, Warner acts could only be put out on DVD-Audio instead of SACD. They probably never dealt with Super Jewel Cases at all.
I buy both, and have purchased the SACDs you offered as well as the same title on vinyl. I may think, and this is merely a guess, most of your releases come out on vinyl first, and many people (unlike myself) don't double dip. On the other hand, even though I have fairly decent SACD players (Sony SCD777ES, Sony 5400ES, Oppo 83SE and Oppo 203), my vinyl setup (Clearaudio Concept with Sumiko Blue-Point 2 cart) tends to sound better even if it may be less expensive than many of the SACD players I own. I suspect that may be true of others that have both SACD and vinyl setups - their vinyl setup just sounds "better" than SACD. Other than that, I am not sure why vinyl sells more than SACD, when a well mastered SACD also has a well mastered CD layer (in 99% of the cases).
Extra channels and speakers is a brute force approach to solving setup or equipment limitations. The idea that stereo is limited in sound staging or depth capabilities is simply absurd. I was in the AV press at that time of the format war between DVD-A and SACD and surround vs stereo, working for Widescreen Review and then The Perfect Vision and The Absolute Sound. I heard every surround format, setup and demo known to man. At trade shows and in my own home. My experience is extensive. And at the end of the day the "good tasteful mixes" offer nothing that stereo doesn't do better.
I love surround, but have no issue with you not releasing SACD in that mode, BUT if you did I would be happier than a pig in s**t.
Ha! The sales aren't close. I appreciate this, but "vinyl sounds better than digital" is not something that I'll file under N for News. It goes under Y for Yup!
BTW, early Sony SACD players, even some of the dirt cheap ones, were shockingly good. I always wondered if Sony knew something about DSD decoding they didn't share.
Yeah. I actually have more Sony SACDs players in storage, as I kept upgrading. I have an SCD-333ES and a CE775 - but they haven't been in my system for ages. I have such a large collection of SACDs that I keep those players (as well as a Pioneer DV-59AVI - which I removed from my system when blu-ray was released) around so I will always have something to play an SACD on if my other players die and can't be fixed (which I understand the Sony SACD players may no longer have parts available to make them whole if they stop working).
No offense intended to the SACD aficionados, but I think the empirical evidence shows that streaming is on the upward trend, as is vinyl. CD is declining, and SACD is a small subset of that. Most of your younger audience (say, 40 and down from there) wouldn't buy a CD or SACD. Whenever I got CDs delivered to my office, even just to rip them to my computer, my millennial colleagues would look at me like I was a crazy person. And I'm a millennial! But I'm particular about masterings/pressings/etc., and hence my residency on this board.
I wish I knew, although @MikeT has an interesting theory. I wonder what other labels' sales of LPs vs. SACDs are for those that release both flavors? I also wish I knew what motivates the "audiophile digital" consumer. There's got to be some overall demand for SACDs, or the boutique labels wouldn't make them anymore. There's also fewer machines out there that play SACD these days (as opposed to Blu Ray - not that I'm suggesting you go that route). I'm sad to hear it's so discrepant and obviously you've got to do what makes the most business sense for you long term. I guess I need to scoop 'em up while the gettin's good . Edit: I also wonder what overseas sales of IR SACDs are like (or could be like). You'd think the Japanese, who still love physical digital media, would be all over these things!
That is a really interesting question to me. It would also be interesting if there was some way to query vinyl & SACD\hi-res buyers. The simple fact that vinyl is growing in popularity would be the easy answer but it would seem that both should be roughly equivalent. Perhaps the fact that digital is available in disc & download and vinyl is a singular delivery method of content. Even though I am a regular disc buyer, I am also a regular download buyer and I rip every disc I buy. Another interesting item I've noticed is many of my friend's millennial children listen to music in 2 formats, Tidal, Spotify etc. and vinyl! Mostly used vinyl but digital disc based even CD is pretty much absent. None of them have a universal disc player
Well, when IR will stop releasing SACDs, it is my last purchase. I do not buy LPs, even when they release a top album.
Downgrade to well mastered CDs if you must, but don't go vinyl only. I simply do not have room for a vinyl collection. The decision is merely pragmatic in my case. But I don't think I should miss out on great music/mastering because I don't have the $ or room for vinyl. The only vinyl in my collection are mono mixes unreleased on CD or albums never released in digital at all. People like me who don't own a home and may be constantly on the move cannot lug around a vinyl collection, whereas with (SA)CDs I can streamline them into CD booklet cases and save on room and transport them around much easier.
And there are times that a good mono recording makes one think that the advent of stereo (especially in the early iterations) didn't really make huge improvements in those areas either!
I can only speak for myself, but am one more voice trumpeting SACDs. As hinted at before, I think that in terms of overall sales, SACDs are just goin' down with the CD mothership at this point, but I'll keep buyin' as long as they're out there. For me, my SACD player is superior to my vinyl rig, but in the end it always comes down to superior mastering. I'll eventually by some Intervention LPs if there is no alternative, but right now - based on my purchase of Gilded Palace of Sin alone - I am all in for the Matthew Sweet SACDs, Burrito Deluxe, White Light, Field Day, and any Joe Jackson SACDs that materialize.