Stereo SACDs - Why Bother?

I'm all for 2 channel SACD.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... All this DVD and surround stuff is bad news for Audiophiles if it really takes off... well I take it all the members in here are after the same thing? Good natural, realistic sound. You think these new compressed, no noised CD's sound bad!... you ain't seen nothing yet! Multichannel will move the goal posts... Gimmick city, forget the quality of sound. These record companies will love it!

 

At the end of the day, you buy a CD, Vinyl, or whatever, to hear a band play a song.. you listen to the song. Well folks... that band plays in FRONT of you. And that is *FACT* and the *end of it*.
If 2 channel SACD offers better sound than CD then people will buy it huh? Is the Author of this thread serious?

 

Whoa... easy there Trigger. Is the heat wave in Europe getting to you? No offence intended but I think you are taking this a little to seriously.

5.1 will not be the end of quality music (the RIAA all ready made a deal with the devil to get dibs on that). And there is plenty of room for both stereo and MC to live in peace.

Can’t we all just be friends?

 

I have held my demodulator so far, but some of these posts are getting crazy. If surround music is going to destroy the world..DON'T BUY IT!

But don't demean it or criticize it because some of us like it. You can be an audiophile and like surround sound, you can be a purist and like surround sound. You can chose to be a "man who hears what he wants to hear and disregard the rest, lie-lie-lie-lie-lie".

CHOICE is the operative word. CHOICE is what we should strive for.

Opinions are mandatory, proclaiming opinions to be gospel is ridiculous.

 

Check the title of this thread. It was a provocative shot that stereo and mono high-rez lovers had to respond to. In their passion, some surround-sound toes were trodden on.

Regards,
Geoff

 

Jon, Nice!

mud-

 

Very funny!

 

This post needed to be lightened up.................

 

Yea, lighten up. Let's all stare at Cliff's avatar for a while and mellow.... Who is it, Cliff?

 

I think this thread has gone in about six directions here... What I originally meant by the post was not that traditional stereo mixes were bad. Not at all (For the record, I don't think people who like surround are on drugs - at least not all of us!).

What I was asking was, in your opinion, why bother taking a perfectly good stereo mix on a traditional digitally remastered CD and transferring it to SACD if you are not going to take advantage of the format. The example of the Peter Gabriel SACDs has been beaten to death, but UNI released the regularly digitally remastered CDs and then about two months later issued one-layer SACDs (which were also predominantly stereo only releases). Why bother? Either just issue hybrids or give me a reason to buy a SACD (like surround sound). As a fan, how many times must I buy the same album? I own five variations of the Peter Gabriel catalog on CD alone! LOL!

Wow! I guess this was a good first post? Nothing like starting with a bang, eh?

Dave

 

Brittany Murphy.

 

Wags has hit the nail on the head. It is opinion and choice.

Larry, as a retired professional musician I have played in 80 piece concert bands, 13 piece stage bands, 4 piece rock bands, and a rock duo as well as recording in 2 studios. I believe that this qualify's me to express what "natural sound" is as compared to most here and my opinion based on real life experience and not merely attending a live show or listening to a sound reproduction system. I have performed in over 100 shows since my childhood both singing and playing an instrument. Henceforth my statement "It is not natural". It just doesn't sound right to these ears in any sense of the word. If I want to hear a drummer perform behind and ever so slightly around me, I'll work thanks. At home I don't want to work as I'm a member of the audience not a performer.

If you like surround that's fine by me. My opinion and choice is just different for different reasons.

 

I don't particularly like "active" stereo mixes. Yes, a bus can shoot across the stereo image (if it is a very large stage, HA HA!) but I think Paul's vocal switching from the left channel to the right channel makes the listening experience unnatural. That is the way The Beatles (or George Martin, or someone) wanted it, so be it.

There is a GREAT George Harrison bootleg call called Beware OF ABKCO. It consists of George in the studio with his guitar (sometimes acoustic and sometimes electric) and little other instrumentation. On most of the songs George's voice comes out of one speaker and his guitar from the other. Obviously this was a result of the miking. This recording is of a session where George is playing these songs for the first time to Phil Spector, so I'd probably be safe to guess that very little trouble went into the microphone set up.

The recording is very intimate, just George and the listener. I listen to it in mono because the stereo presentation is very unrealistic. Since I know it is George playing the guitar I can't envision him on one side of the stage (where his voice originates) and his guitar on the other. Mono does it for me.

Even though I have The Beatles as my avatar I am still allowed to think it is unnatural for them to be playing with me sitting among them, rather than listening as an audience member would.

 

Glad to know I passed the drug test.

Now to answer your question. I prefer hybrids for economic and convenience reasons, sure. But my primary reason for buying an SACD is hi-resolution sound. I'm delighted to hear great surround mixes of old and new favorites. Surround was a compelling reason to get into SACD, for me anyway. But THE reason was to get the best possible digital sound, not the greatest number of playback channels.

So that's "why bother," for me. I want the best sound, period.

 

All of them! If I can't sit in the middle of the stage I won't go. However, you get much BETTER sound if you stand on top of one of the band members. The imaging from the stage monitors presents a much more lifelike image that way. When Springsteen played Houston recently, I spent most of the show sitting on Nils Lofgren's head. I would rather have sat on Clarence Clemmon's head, because he's taller and he doesn't move around as much (easier to keep your balance that way) but he wouldn't go for it...

I sat on Elvis Costello's head the last time he was here, but the sound was still muddy for some reason. I think there was something wrong with his microphone.

I sat on Stevie Nicks' head for PART of a show, but she decided I was too heavy and made me sit on the guitarist.

I don't mind sitting on pianos or organs, either, unless they are way over at the side of the stage, but I REFUSE to sit on a drum kit.

 

The lass has grown up since the CLUELESS days, hasn't she?


ED

 

<futile rebuttle edited by poster to prevent the addition of 35 redundant posts refuting my refutal>

 

35 redundant posts? That's nothing; visit The "Official" Ed & Mud Thread sometime. You haven't seen such blatant, shameless redundancy, Jon, until you've been there....

And remember....we are right and they are wrong. Knowing that, I sleep well at night.


ED

 

Snopes say they are right and you are wrong!

mud-

 

Yeah, but he's not a member here! Screw him.....


ED

 

I think these "arguments" are a sneaky device in which an arguer can increase his post count to to the point of getting a "congrats" post from Ed, which in turn will increase his post count.

 

Where'd I hear that before?

mud-

 

Hey Jon, life IS a circle.

mud-