*Dark Side of the Moon* on SACD! (1 Viewer)

[John Kotches]

Lee,

You keep on reiterating that the average consumer would get a remastered version of DSoTM as if that's a strong selling point. Never mind that PF fans might have a remastered version on the shelf already.

What compels a PF fan that owns a CD or DVD player without SACD capability to purchase the title when all it is is a remastered CD to them?

Regards,

 

[Phil A]

The EMI DVD-As I have seen are $24.98 list. If the SACD is the same, I don't think the average consumer is going to rush out and buy it, regardless of format. Of course, I would and I am sure that others would, but not the average consumer. EMI needs to look at their pricing on DVD-As and SACDs (as does Sony). It is fine for an audiophile label like Analog Productions or Chesky or AIX who are aiming at a more ltd. audience to charge a bit more but I don't think in the long run either format will sell to the masses until the price point is at least close to a CD.

 

[Mike Knapp]

What compels a PF fan that owns a CD or DVD player without SACD capability to purchase the title when all it is is a remastered CD to them?

The same thing that drove them to purchase all the other re-masters of it?
John,
You and I are simply NOT going to agree on this issue. For me, multi-channel music is currently a novelty akin to a circus sideshow. When the engineers become serious about presenting the music and get off the "horns behind me" syndrome, then I will have a serious listen to what multi-channel can do for music. I know what is possible, when is it going to happen more than once every blue moon?
Anyway, quad flopped and 5.1 music is just quad with an extra channel. More aint always better....and I dont care what experts you drag out to stand up for it.
To me a perfect use of 5.1 channel audio would be an active L/C/R and ambience only in the rear channels. But....in a studio recording there is no real need for the ambience. So I suppose I might enjoy a 3.1 channel sound mix. The problem is that those rear channels are just too tempting and an instrument or two (or worse...vocals) finds its way back there almost every time. Oh well, I am anxiously waiting.
I have 2 or three 5.1 audio discs that I actually like BTW.
Mike

 

[Justin Lane]

That's pretty compelling that there may be a number of Pink Floyd redbook only types that will purchase a player based on Super Audio title availability. Maybe David Kawakami and Sony are on to something here.

Lee, taking the opinion of members of this forum as a possible indication of public acceptance, makes no sense. Members of this forum are not the average CD buying public, as evidenced by them just visitng this forum. Outside of a few online forums/sites there is no discussion of this release and I guarantee the public has zero knowledge of an upcoming Floyd remaster. Marketing will be the key to this release whether it be a SACD or DVD-A. High prices on this release will be a sure way to kill all public interest. If this title is not available at a very nice price ($12-15) on release date at your local retailer, it will be relegated to the same sales as other Hi-res releases.

J

 

[Alex Shk]

I may have been mis-interpreted (by my own words). I thought I emphasized a PERSONAL reaction to the value of an SACD vs. a DVD-A - but to make it MORE personal.........

I am so much of a music lover, and find music sooooo involving, that I do not use portable equipment. I am of the "home stereo" generation. I have no walkman, my auto CD player is hardly ever used, I would have no problem playing music on my PC at the office - but I never do. I get too distracted.

Does ANYONE that posted here already NOT own DSOTM on CD? I am not trying to brag here, but I do not necessarily need to rid myself of my existing copy to buy either the SACD or DVD-A version of this title. On the other hand, I wouldn't commit to either hi-rez format unless I could commit to a substantial piece of equipment. So I limited to the 16-bit version. I would suspect that no matter how good the newer 16-bit version of this title is, I wouldn't really notice it in the car.

That said, I could always buy the new version for my critical listening at home. Will it beat out the Mo-Fi UD1 gold disc??? If so - I could always use the Mo-fi for my rare auto usage.

I guess I am a minority (but maybe not..). Why would I buy an SACD of a title that has several available versions - from good to superior - currently available? I am NOT knocking SACD, I firmly believe it is a superior sounding format. This is one of the FEW titles that I feel the "selling point" is the surround mix. I could hear that mix on a DVD-A - even WITHOUT DVD-A capability, through my DVD-V player. The surround version of SACD would force me to commit, or ignore.

LOL - it's strange that I bought into the fledging DVD-V format in it's early inception (and I am not a BIG movie freak), but cannot commit to audio. I'll betcha it has something to do with being the only kid on my block to spend his dough on quad back in the 70's.......

 

[Mike Knapp]

John,

I had another question...do you consider the video portion of the DVD-A discs to be an "added value"? I was wondering because I thought we had determined earlier in this thread that any serious listening (what hi-rez formats are for) would need to be done sans visual stimulation. Images and text would actually be a non issue (feature wise) to a serious listener as they would not have the display on during a listening session anyway....yes?

Mike

 

[LanceJ]

Quad went down the toilet because, basically, it barely worked. The concept was ahead of the available technology. And--deja vu--there were several competing & incompatible formats: the "SQ", "CD-4", and "QS" systems. Also, many people thought it just a manufacturer ploy to sell new four channel amps and another pair of speakers.
Personally, using a 5.1 system to reproduce simply ambience would be a waste. I can activate my receiver's DSP circuit and get just about the same thing. Many DSP chips use software that contains the reverb data recorded from actual music venues & properly adjusted, these can sound very convincing and enjoyable.
And remember: using Dolby Pro-Logic II is NOT giving you surround music that the artist intended! The "old" Pro-Logic (and plain Dolby Surround) system though is a different story. It can recover buried ambience information in a lot of music & the result can sound very good. Though with some highly processed pop music the effect can sound pretty annoying, or entertaining depending on you point of view .
LJ

 

[Rachael B]

I wanna be like Mike! 3.1 es da thang, more or less. The Eagles' HELL FREEZES OVER recording sounds very 3.1 most of the time. That's it's appeal to me. I just say no to gimmickry....

 

[Brian-W]

Both of these are predicated on the assumption that SACDs are all hybrids, we both know that's not the case.

We know that not all SACDs are hybrid discs. But when they are, the added value is in the hybrid format. While I tend to agree a tad more with Lee, I think both of you are to stuck in the audiophile world and not the real world of consumers who buy casually and not as a hobby. A hybrid will generally always carry an advantage over a feature laden disc with general consumers.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Why would I buy an SACD of a title that has several available versions - from good to superior - currently available? I am NOT knocking SACD, I firmly believe it is a superior sounding format.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

People keep talking about the "added value" of these formats beside the sound quality. But isn't sound quality really the whole point? Everything else is just gravy for some of us.

I would buy a DSOTM SACD or DVD-A simply for the sound improvement, and so would many others here. What's the point of making a whole argument about all this other stuff?

Sometimes you folks are so absurd it's both funny and sad.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

All of those DVD-A discs that are now sub-$20 were $26.99-$29.99 when originally released.

I just don't see this.

Every DVD-A at my local Best Buy, including new releases like 'Automatic For the People', 'Fragile', 'The Nightfly', and 'Harvest', are under $20 at my local Best Buy (and were the same the day they hit the shelves), and easily bought for $16 online.

 

[Mark C.]

I'm as big a Floyd fan as anyone. I flew from California to London in 1980(using all the money I had in the world) to see The Wall shows. And that was after I had already seen The Wall live in Los Angeles. That said, there's no way I'm going to buy new hardware just to hear multi-channel DSOTM. I already own two Redbook CDs (one a digital remaster), plus the 1974 BBC recording of the live concert. That's enough for me, thank you.

 

[Yee-Ming]

That's pretty compelling that there may be a number of Pink Floyd redbook only types that will purchase a player based on Super Audio title availability

since I got quoted on this, let me clarify: I would do so if a multi-channel version of DSotM came out. if it was SACD remastered stereo, I would not.

to me, the driving impetus behind getting this is multi-channel, not hi-rez, whichever format. John Kotches is therefore correct in saying most Floyd fans wouldn't pick up yet another remastered DSotM, at least as far as predicting my behaviour is concerned. hence, in my initial posting, I said I would've preferred a DVD-A release, with a DD/DTS multi-channel mix, since I can play it straightaway on my DVD-V player, but if it's only SACD I'd be inclined to get a new multi-format player.

as such, the observation that Floyd fans limited to redbook might buy SACD players because of an SACD release cannot be drawn from my predicted behaviour. my motivation is multi-channel, not SACD (or DVD-A) per se, i.e. not remastering, and not hi-res.

therefore, please don't interpret any of what I've said as support for SACD per se. I have no opinion to date between the two formats, only that DVD-A gives me the option to enjoy multi-channel (if there's such a mix) immediately. DSotM (and just about any Floyd release) is one of the few "killer app" releases which would trigger a new player purchase by me regardless of format, only because I'm itching to hear Floyd in multi-channel, but in other cases I probably wouldn't bother, but might pick up a DVD-A multichannel release out of curiousity since I could play it immediately without investing in a hardware upgrade. in those cases, a multi-channel SACD wouldn't interest me.

 

[Brian-W]

I just don't see this.

Every DVD-A at my local Best Buy, including new releases like 'Automatic For the People', 'Fragile', and 'Harvest', are under $20 at my local Best Buy

the releases you noted are brand new and are of the new Warner pricing category. But original releases like Natalie Merchant, The Eagles, Metallica, etc. were $26.99-$29.99 at brick and mortars (and $22 - $26 average online, not much of a discount).

Warner has dropped their prices as has Sony and everyone else after they realize that no one was interested in paying nearly twice the price for a better sounding album.

But based on the first couple of years of SACD and DVD-A, DVD-A was more expensive.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Brian,
Well, your post was a tad bit misleading then. Not every sub-$20 DVD-A was once $25-30.
I wasn't trying to nitpick, I was just taking your statements at face value. I still disagree with these comments:

sub-$20 were $26.99-$29.99 when originally released.

At this point, I think the average pop/rock DVD-A is cheaper than (or the same as) the average pop/rock SACD.
Or course there are many other issues at play; including the general identity crisis and faltering marketing of both formats.
But isn't it tiresome that, in the Music area of HTF, that seemingly every thread that discusses hi-res formats turns into a general merit debate?

 

[John Geelan]

I'll take DSOTM in any Hi-Rez Surround format they can put out.
Both formats work for me!

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

People keep talking about the "added value" of these formats beside the sound quality. But isn't sound quality really the whole point? Everything else is just gravy for some of us.

I would buy a DSOTM SACD or DVD-A simply for the sound improvement, and so would many others here. What's the point of making a whole argument about all this other stuff?

You're asking why this is an argument? Because not everyone thinks as you do. I think CD-quality is good enough. I'm only interested in the surround mix of DSOTM and I want to be able to play it on the surround-capable equipment I have now. Yet another remaster of the stereo mix on the hybrid CD layer of a SACD isn't going to help me there.

 

[KeithH]

Mike, same here. If Dark Side of the Moon were released as a single-layer stereo SACD, I would buy it since I would fully expect it to best every CD I have, including my MFSL gold CD. The improvement in sound quality is most important to me. Surround sound and video are a distant second.

 

[Justin Lane]

But based on the first couple of years of SACD and DVD-A, DVD-A was more expensive.

Brian,
DVD-A is not more expensive now, so whats your point ? We are talking about discs that will be coming out now, not two years ago so your argument on pricing is once again totally off base. The MSRP on Warner/Silverline has been dropped to 17.99, and I pick many up online from Circuit City for 13.99. Take a look at the MSRP of the Sony single layer stereo discs and I think you will be surprised. It is $19.99 which is more expensive then DVD-A. Sony Multichannel discs have a 21.99 price point, which is once again more expensive then $20 currently. If you want more indication of pricing difference check out the Acoustic Sounds website. The discs put out by AP will run you $25 dollars a pop which is once again more expensive then $20 and DVD-A on a whole.
EMI does indeed have have a higher pricing structure, but it applies to both SACD and DVD-A so once again your pricing argument is invalid.
J

 

[Robert A. Willis Jr.]

Its added value to me, if I can play the same disk in my car (CD) and at home (Hi-Res). Its added value to me to be able to buy Hybrid SACD's an play the CD layer until I get a SACD player. Can't do that with DVD-A.

By the way I have a DVD-A player.