Stereo SACDs - Why Bother?

I don't mind if a SACD is not a hybrid, but what's the deal with issuing stereo (non-5.1 surround) SACDs?! For example, let's look at Uni (Geffen, Polygram, A&M, etc.) and what they did with the Police and Peter Gabriel titles (sans Gabriel's Up and the Police's hits collection which are in 5.1) - why bother putting them in the format if you are not going to utilize it fully? Sounds like a fleecing of the fans to me...

 

No. Wrong idea.

Just because you have a single layered SACD without a surround mix, does not mean you have a disc of lesser stature.

There's a difference between a good SACD with a 5.1 mix and redbook layer and a GREAT SACD that is only stereo.

No fleecing. No.

 

I can understand your pain!

I have over 300+ SACDs, and I also sometimes wonder why not just give us a 5.1 mix on all discs (for those that can utilize it). But you have to think of the cost of re-mixing all those albums for surround sound. The cost may be prohibitive, and the time required might mean that we wouldn't get a lot of the titles we have been able to recieve up to this point.

I feel that the Peter Gabriel and Police titles, although not the best sounding SACDs on the market, are much improved sonically over the redbook counterparts that I have. In addition all the early SACD releases are stereo only (because 5.1 SACD players didn't exist yet, and the format was marketed toward the "purist" audiophile).

I for one am happy for any SACD release of the artists I love. I guess from your comments you won't be buying that many of the Bob Dylan SACDs.

 

What I think he's getting at is if you have access to the master tapes, especially for an adventurous artist like Gabriel, why not? Obviously a hi-rez stereo mix is always welcome, but some music just lends itself to 5.1. When someone gets you for $20 for a SACD, and it is not only NOT a hybrid, but it winds up being only a stereo mix that may not sound much better (a la the Police), it's kind of a waste.

Hearing something in 2.0 vs. 5.1 is a different experience. I like 'em both, and if I can get 'em both, bring it on!

 

My first reaction was to have this question directed to Steve. Glad he came right in with a reply.

Stereo done right is a wonderful sonic experience. 'Nuff said.

 

I'm still pissed that my Citizen Kane DVD doesn't fully use my rattle my windows in 5.1!

 

OK, there may be titles that either due to the way they were recorded (or because of the technology at the time the album was recorded) that would clearly not be possible in true 5.1. Still, let's look at someone like Peter Gabriel. Some of his projects, specifically albums like PG3, PG4 (aka Security), So, Passion, and Us, sound like they would really benefit from the 5.1 treatment. Sonically, they sound good on CD in a stereo mix, but picture what songs like "Red Rain", "Biko", or "Kiss of Life" would sound like in surround! Just the thought makes me feel jipped... like they just pushed out more "product" without taking the time to do it right. Sure, a 5.1 release or reissue may not sell 500,000 copies, but Gabriel has enough fans that at least his "classic" albums should be financially worth remixing??

Dave

 

Its just strange hearing a piano or kick drum coming from a rear channel. It just doesn't sound natural if you enjoy live music.

A good stereo mix on a good system will recreate a live experience so well if you close your eyes you can see the band in front of you. This is where they belong.

Vedric.

 

I disagree ... it opens up the music in a whole new way. The Steely Dan stuff in surround is SO musical. Just because it's surround, doesn't mean it's not natural.

Bands like RUsh used to use surround in concert.

I can't wait to hear 2112 in 5.1!

 

This happens all the time. Arrgh...the greed of big business. I hate it. Now give me more of what I want and how I want it.

I can't really think of too many businesses that consistently "do it right" these days. It's why we scour eBay for that long out-of-print version of an album. You know, the one that hasn't been No-Noised and compressed to death.

 

I started out gung-ho for 5.1 only, but I have grown to appreciate the hi-rez stereo SACD. Mind you, I would prefer a 5.1 where it is possible, but there have been some 5.1's that were just done poorly. At that point, I say "Why Bother?"

I think that the time it takes to create a 5.1 mix from a recording where one never existed places time constraints on the remixers/labels. The labels want this stuff out, yet when artists get involved in a new 5.1 mix, things can drag on forever. Witness the "Running on Empty" DVD-A. It has been "coming" for 2 years!!

Getting the formats out there and in the public eye is as important as anything, so some releases just go out the door as 2.0. Maybe this has hurt DVD-A, as most DVD-As have 5.1 mixes as opposed to SACDs, so they take longer to get out to the stores.

Either way, as many would say, the more the merrier. Get them out and get them distributed, for if they go away, we may end up with MP3s as the norm.

 

I, too, was disappointed when the plane takes off at the end of Casablanca and it didn't give my sub a workout.

Seriously, I am happy to buy stereo only SACDs, especially when they were originally created without any idea of surround. Modifying something like that to be surround is akin to colorizing old B&W films IMO. I personally have no interest in hearing Red Rain of Biko in surround, but I do very much enjoy hearing the improvement in 2 channel.

John K.

 

Peter Gabriel is so slow (meticulous), if we waited on him to make 5.1 mixes on the back catalog, we wouldn't have his SACDs until 1997!

 

Well, when it comes to surround I'm a Luddite - my room isn't conducive to setting up for surround, I don't have the money to upgrade equipment-wise (3 more speakers plus a subwoofer, proper amps and preamp/surround unit) AND most importantly for me - music coming at me from all directions seems unnatural. I've never been in a band, so I don't know what it's like to be in a performance surrounded by musicians. I listen to rock/pop probably 99% of the time (and a high number of the songs I like were recorded in mono) - I honestly don't need a 5.1 mix. Selfish on my part indeed, but I'm still struggling with getting 2 channels to sound consistently musical - I can't imagine the hoops I'd be jumping through to get 5 channels sonically pleasing. The problem of a multi-channel remix bearing little resemblance or having massive changes compared to the original stereo mix my brain has imprinted in it also bothers me. I'd like 2 channel material perfected before moving on to the next step in reproduction...

 

Don't you mean 2097? LOL

 

Steve - You have a good point, but I don't buy this for Peter Gabriel. For example, I know that Peter Gabriel actually owns his masters (the recordings are licensed by Virgin in Europe and UNI here in the USA and Canada). He also owns his own studio, so I suspect the only reason these recordings were not done in 5.1 was simply because he chooses not to "revisit" the past (as you suggest) and spend his time and effort or personal expense on the remixing process. I can understand why not every album would be done, but why not do an album like SO that was massively commercially and critically successful? Throw the fans a bone!

As for Genesis, Nick Davis (their long-time producer) announced on the official Genesis site that he (under the supervision of Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford) would be remixing their We Can't Dance, Invisible Touch, and Genesis albums in 5.1 for future release. If the albums sell well (no idea what they mean by "well") other titles from their catalog are expected to be done this way. Phil Collins titles were also discussed for this treatment by Nick Davis as well.

Dave

 

Well, you do have freedom of choice - which means if you feel "jipped" and believe that the stereo redbook CD sounds good enough - you don't have to buy the stereo only non-hybrid SACDs.

In the case of Peter Gabriel, where I do agree that most, if not all his music, would lend itself perfectly to a tasteful surround mix.... the stereo SACD masters were done with the artists full approval. Maybe we should ask Peter why he didn't take the time and go back and re-mix all his early work into MCH.

It is quite possible that the opportunity to re-issue certain titles on SACD exists, while the effort to bring those to us in 5.1, as I mentioned before, is prohibitive for whatever reason.

It also appears that when Universal, as well as other major labels, first began to release SACDs, they may have been testing the waters - and felt it more reasonable to give us a straight stereo DSD transfer. If you look at the current release list of upcoming Univeral SACDs, you will see that all but two will have 5.1 mixes. (The two that don't are older jazz recordings that are probably best served by a stereo mix only.) In addition all Sony SACDs in the past year have all been, if I am correct, MCH SACDs. Again the only exception will be some of the upcoming Dylan SACDs - which is fine by me.

 

I've not heard the Steely Dan. I will say I have enjoyed a 5.1 music mix. Telarc has done some interesting things with surround channels mostly to recreate the ambiance of a venue, this I enjoyed.

Most engineers cant even get a 2 channel mix right now we are going to ask them to get a 5.1 mix right? Forget it! Keep it simple, its hard enough to get a good recording without the multi-channel factor.

I would be completely PRO-multichannel if I had never heard a truly world class stereo making its magic. My system isn't there yet but having heard several "great" systems I know EXACTLY where I need to go for audio heaven. Here's a hint.. Its NOT multi-channel.

Vedric

 

Exactly. Not everyone is on drugs.

 

I think we have a problem with semantics. I don't know how you are using the word natural. If you use the definition " ... as appearing in nature, realistic" (with apologies to Webster's Dictionary) as I believe others are, it cannot be described as natural to be surrounded by Steely Dan.

It may be a (put in your own description) experience, but not natural, unless Steely Dan has in the past put on performances where the audience was sitting among the band members.

 

OK, being a musician myself, it is much more natural to be surrounded by the sound than just 2 ch. imaging.

 

I agree with most of the comments...really well done stereo is a holographic experience of sorts.

For things recorded in stereo originally I feel its the only way to go.

I also have to admit that I find many, many multi mixes to be gimmicky. The Dark Side of the Moon 5.1 was superb though.