Stereo SACDs - Why Bother?

Steve hits the crux of the point. It’s a financial decision as much as an artistic one. Let’s face it this stuff costs money. The artists' decision (which I respect BTW) on whether to do 5.1 or stereo aside I have two points (or rambling semi-coherent opinions depending on your prospective):

First, the financial decision to do a stereo only, vs. a 5.1 release is an interesting one. It’s finance 101. Do the incremental sales generated by adding 5.1 cover the investment to produce it in 5.1? Let’s face it the sales of non-hybrid SACD’s and DVD-A’s are anemic by any measure. Does 5.1 add enough “value” to the average consumer to increase sales sufficiently to cover the costs of 5.1 mastering? The DVD-A producers appear to think so, as all releases are in 5.1. I guess the SACD camp is not so sure.

Second, I just don’t understand people that say they don’t like 5.1 so it should not be offered. This is just silly, IMHO. All 5.1 releases have a stereo mix also. Take your choice. If you like stereo listen to it, if you like 5.1 listen to it. I personally listen to both depending on my mood and the relative qualities of each on any particular release. What good argument for denying other people choice is there (this IS a rhetorical question BTW)?

Personal opinion – when the Rush SACD’s come out I will only buy releases that are in 5.1. It adds enough value to entice me into making the purchase. As far as stereo SACD’s go I only own 1 PG and 2 Stones. I own many dozens of 5.1 SACD’s. If any accountants in the record biz are reading this factor that into your calculations.

 

I agree. All you have to do is compare the surround version of "Up" to the stereo version to realize this.

 

Don't go there! On another thread it was inferred that Surround Sound Enthusiasts were on drugs.

 

No, just micro breweries and fine single malt scotch!

 

So how many of us here put our favourite listening chair in between our stereo speakers in line or behind our speakers?

I thought not!

Having played in 2 and four piece rock bands and in 80 piece concert band settings I still believe 2 channel to be the best reproduction of an actual listening experience. When I got home from work the last thing I'd want to do is be reminded of my work from that day. I'm an audience member after work and just don't personally enjoy being a Pink Floyd wannabe member.

Just another view.

 

Please explain this remark. I have no idea what relevance this has to the discussion, or even what it means?

 

Larry, 5:1 doesn't sound "natural" in any sense of the word, even from a musicians point of view. If it does why aren't people setting their stereo's up in my described fashion?

Surround is extremely gimmicky IMHO. For movies it works very well indeed, but for music it bites totally. Just trying to capitalize on the 5:1 excitement so to speak and trying to justify to consumers the need to spend a wad of cash on the new latest and greatest receivers, speakers, sub-woofers etc. Marketing, sheer marketing in our somewhat troubled financial times.

 

There's that "natural" word again......

i am giving up and will allow someone with more patience and brains than me to argue.

 

Again, you are setting up a straw man here. Nobody EVER has suggested the "set up" you describe, and that set up has nothing to do with surround anyway. I don't know WHAT you are trying to get at here. Please argue against 4 speakers in a square with a center & a sub, not some ridiculous made-up thing that has NO bearing on reality.

I thought I ALREADY turned it into a Beatles thread!

 

I enjoy listening to music.

Being surrounded by it helps me feel more connected to it.

[T]

 

I could connect to music through a little battery operated mono transistor radio when I was a kid. When I bought the 45 and listened on my $10 record player, it sounded better. But I already got the song.

Adding speakers and effects just dissects the event. Why is it necessary to do that? It's like taking your fine gourmet meal apart instead of eating it.

 

Yeah, it's horrible! Especially when I get those chills and goosebumps when I hear Beck's Lonesome Tears in 5.1 ...and the orchestra is swelling all around me, louder and louder, higher and higher......just crap!

 

Smart people don't bother arguing about something that will never see resolution.

 

If I was paying for stereo only I would feel like I was ripped off.

 

Imagine the reaction if someone said Picasso's, Kandinsky's or Ostrovsky's art was irrelevant because it didn't look "real".

Why does the appreciation of music have to be confined to the constraints of what a physical venue imposes on it?

[T]

 

Or those damn singers all around me on "Sky Blue" from PG's "Up". It's freaky if you listen to that one in the dark.

 

That art is so 2 dimensional. Now if I could walk into the centre of it and have it all around me. Now you are talking!

 

So why do you even HAVE a stereo system now? Why aren't you satisfied with the transistor radio--after all you now HAVE connected with the song. Of course Taurus said it makes him MORE connected, not just connected, so we can toss out your first argument, because you addressed the wrong issue.
As far as your 2nd point, I guess when you eat a meal, you mash up all the food into 1 big gloppy mess, instead of eating things separately.

Why do 5 speakers dissect the event & 2 do not? Your answers are just rationalizations after the fact in order to prove a conclusion that you have already arrived at (why do the initials GW come to mind here? )

Have you ever even HEARD a good surround presentation? (Oh, I forget, such a thing doesn't exist).

Well, last night I listened to Tigerlily, a DVD-A that only has a 5.1 track & no stereo. Not to mention the horror that is Silverline.

 

only if it's my wife's British cuisine!

This topic is hotter than an episode of Nigella Bites!!!!

 

Yes indeedy. I apologize if I helped take the thread even farther off target in my amazement that anyone would reject multichannel music out of hand. Clearly you don't, Ken, and I don't either, but to return to the original thread question, companies should "bother" to release stereo SACDs because a) they're the original artifact (when it was a stereo recording, of course) and b) hi-rez stereo, like hi-rez multichannel, can be very musically satisfying.

Seems to me we could all agree on this: surround sound does not necessarily replace or transcend stereo, and stereo's virtues do not necessarily mean surround sound is not a musically viable option. We just have to judge on a case-by-case basis.