Thread: SACD Promotion Ideas

Posts: 54
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Post by GrizzledGeezer March 12, 2007 (21 of 54)
raffells said:

Hello GrizzledGeezer.
How about just releasing a big wad of genuine stereo only SACDsfor the majority of buyers? Instead of a crap mixed down version for them..There are far more decent stereo only recordings than 4 channel ones?..Then they could synthesize a rear channel on those and everybody's need would be served...No I dont think YOU would like that...

raffells doesn't understand the technologies of commercial recording...

Back in the 60s, record companies started multi-tracking virtually everything. Simply-miked recordings (ie, two or three mics directly to the tape deck) went largely the way of the dodo.

This is still the case. "Decent stereo-only recordings" are made mostly by small audiophile labels. What you hear from the majors is almost always a "crap mixed-down version", often with synthetic ambience added. Didn't you know this? Why do you think most recordings sound so awful (ie, unnatural, unrealistic)?

Such recordings could be mixed down to four or five or however many channels a medium supports. Columbia did this in the early days of quad -- "The World of Harry Partch" was mixed to quad from multi-track tapes that were originally mixed to stereo -- and never intended for quad.

An SACD permits both stereo and surround versions, which can be mixed in completely different ways to satisfy the artists' and producers' tastes. A listener who cares only for stereo is free to listen to just those tracks, and manipulate them any way he pleases. THIS is how you meet everyone's needs.

Post by GrizzledGeezer March 12, 2007 (22 of 54)
Windsurfer said:

The problem is that there are a lot of people who have made up their minds based on mis-information stemming from sources such as Stereophile and The Absolute Sound, probably Gramophone, The American Record Guide and other wonderful print magazines that SACD is no better than, or may be even inferior to RBCD. These people aren't seeking information at all.

I'm an ex-Stereophile reviewer who laments how commercial this magazine has become since its founder was obliged to give up its control. But I still read it (or more precisely, skim it).

It appears we're not reading the same edition. Stereophile reviewers have pretty consistently been on the side of SACD, preferring it to RBCD.

I have not made up my mind whether SACD is inherently superior to CD, as my exisiting CDs, played on my fency Sony SACD player, show many of the improvements I think I hear from SACD recordings.

Post by raffells March 12, 2007 (23 of 54)
GrizzledGeezer said:

raffells doesn't understand the technologies of commercial recording...

Back in the 60s, record companies started multi-tracking virtually everything. Simply-miked recordings (ie, two or three mics directly to the tape deck) went largely the way of the dodo.

This is still the case. "Decent stereo-only recordings" are made mostly by small audiophile labels. What you hear from the majors is almost always a "crap mixed-down version", often with synthetic ambience added. Didn't you know this? Why do you think most recordings sound so awful (ie, unnatural, unrealistic)?

Such recordings could be mixed down to four or five or however many channels a medium supports. Columbia did this in the early days of quad -- "The World of Harry Partch" was mixed to quad from multi-track tapes that were originally mixed to stereo -- and never intended for quad.

An SACD permits both stereo and surround versions, which can be mixed in completely different ways to satisfy the artists' and producers' tastes. A listener who cares only for stereo is free to listen to just those tracks, and manipulate them any way he pleases. THIS is how you meet everyone's needs.

What an objectionable posting.
I suppose as an ex reviewer you need to talk down to everyone.However there are so many errors and contradictions in your posting that you seem oblivious to the fact that many many other people have been around a long time involved in thie field.Generally speaking people who know better ignore reviewers.
Firstly it is impossible for you to know what I dont understand.
Neither can you know what recording knowledge I have going back all those years and you have totally understated the recording industries migration to multi miking.
If you were involved in any of the above you would understand that there were so many factors involved. As regards engineers mic locations which is a black art and fundementally a compromise to enable improved sonics for various reasons including post editing and using a range from different types of mics producing better performance in certain registers to sometime tonally correcting accoustics and even the effects of some of those early digital recorders.Ocasionally you have to make do with what mics are available and sometimes what certain artists demand.
I suppose that you regard Deccas/Lyritas/and a whole host of other companies as idiots.As they mixed crap down versions that you refer to and produced the greatest recordings of the last century a lot later than your date of the 60s.They also Dont understand I suppose!.Sure, anyone can remix any of the 4 8 to 16 channels that the engineers recorded and produce any surround sound in as many channels as they like.Ambience and phase alterations et al.
The trouble is there are so many different opinions on what constitutes good surround...look up the reviews and the heated discussion.
You will know doubt find in this forum that CEOs and recording engineers have made strong statements that are totally opposite to your OPINIONS.
ie Pentatone Bis etc wont release sacds in stereo only sacd.
The whole point of my response seems to have been completly missed by you IMO.
If these companies sit on the stereo only tapes because they knoiw better than to try issuing psuedo stereo then NO ONE gains.Its not a case of satisfying everyones needs. Its recognizing the fact that you cannot.

..However from another reply you dont seem to be able to see or hear the benefits of higher resolution over CD sound...
Having installed and upgraded enough gear from cheap sacd to mega expensive I have yet to find anyone (except Now a reviewer) who cannot hear the difference.

Post by GrizzledGeezer March 12, 2007 (24 of 54)
I think raffells' ignorance about the recording industry and recording practices speaks for itself.

Post by Edvin March 12, 2007 (25 of 54)
GrizzledGeezer said:

I think raffells' ignorance about the recording industry and recording practices speaks for itself.

Does it? So tell me, where do all those excellent sounding old Deccas, EMI´s and Lyritas come from. Not to mention old Capitols. Maybe they were just lucky, huh.

Post by GrizzledGeezer March 14, 2007 (26 of 54)
Edvin said:

Does it? So tell me, where do all those excellent sounding old Deccas, EMI´s and Lyritas come from. Not to mention old Capitols. Maybe they were just lucky, huh.

The major labels stopped making "excellent-sounding" recordings when they switched from simple miking to multi-miking/multi-tracking. These recordings might be pleasant-sounding (the Decca "tree" system was probably the best multi-miking system, as it was an enhancement of simple miking techniques), but such recordings do not accurately reflect live sound. At their worst (which occurs too often), they're an acoustically incoherent mish-mosh of mono pickups, panned to create an ersatz "image".

If you don't understand this, compare a simply-miked orchestral recording from an audiophile label such as Sheffield or Water Lily Acoustics with a multi-miked recording from DG, et al.

My original point (which I might have stated in more detail) is that, if you're trying to sell something new (SACD), you should give the listener something he hasn't heard before. There are hundreds of recordings that were made for surround sound, or can be mixed to surround, and if done well, will convince listeners to "come over" to SACD.

I remain surprised that EMI hasn't reissued its large surround catalog (which includes Previn conducting Tchaikovsky ballets and Karajan conducting Wagner) on SACD, nor has Decca remixed its Phase 4 recordings for surround. The three albums of Bernard Herrmann conducting his film scores would sell like crazy.

Post by toddao March 14, 2007 (27 of 54)
Bernard Herrmann in surround SA-CD-YES , YES, AND YES!

Post by tream March 14, 2007 (28 of 54)
GrizzledGeezer said:

I'm an ex-Stereophile reviewer who laments how commercial this magazine has become since its founder was obliged to give up its control. But I still read it (or more precisely, skim it).

It appears we're not reading the same edition. Stereophile reviewers have pretty consistently been on the side of SACD, preferring it to RBCD.

I have not made up my mind whether SACD is inherently superior to CD, as my exisiting CDs, played on my fency Sony SACD player, show many of the improvements I think I hear from SACD recordings.

Yes, I think I remember you - I have been a Stereophile subscriber since 1984.

While some of the reviewers occasionally post positive things (and of course Kal Rubison's column is excellent), the most popular column is Sam Tellig's, and he has been out of control negative about both SACD and multichannel.

Stereophile did an abysmal job of covering SACD in the early days. I was shocked that the release of the first universal player hardly rated a mention, and that there was almost no mentioned that the early players converted DSD to PCM. Even today, they will review a RBCD when a SACD version exists.

Post by raffells March 14, 2007 (29 of 54)
GrizzledGeezer said:

The major labels stopped making "excellent-sounding" recordings when they switched from simple miking to multi-miking/multi-tracking. These recordings might be pleasant-sounding (the Decca "tree" system was probably the best multi-miking system, as it was an enhancement of simple miking techniques), but such recordings do not accurately reflect live sound. At their worst (which occurs too often), they're an acoustically incoherent mish-mosh of mono pickups, panned to create an ersatz "image".

If you don't understand this, compare a simply-miked orchestral recording from an audiophile label such as Sheffield or Water Lily Acoustics with a multi-miked recording from DG, et al.

My original point (which I might have stated in more detail) is that, if you're trying to sell something new (SACD), you should give the listener something he hasn't heard before. There are hundreds of recordings that were made for surround sound, or can be mixed to surround, and if done well, will convince listeners to "come over" to SACD.

I remain surprised that EMI hasn't reissued its large surround catalog (which includes Previn conducting Tchaikovsky ballets and Karajan conducting Wagner) on SACD, nor has Decca remixed its Phase 4 recordings for surround. The three albums of Bernard Herrmann conducting his film scores would sell like crazy.

Opinions Opinions Opinions..
seems very little knowledge of facts...just opinions.Ignored big hint of contradictions in your posting..
Again stating IF YOU dont understand...? sorry to hear some one has this monopoly on knowledge./.but He you are a reviewer...
So..If I understand correctly...
Its not all right to issue fabulous Lyritas releases that are recognized as the best stereo Lps and even Cds because they were multi miked BUT .....You are allowed to ignore all the comments of serious music lovers on this site in surround sound ?even though I dont agree with some of them and they dont agree between themselves.
You then state that none Decca non tree type recordings are less than the best ? as they produce a mish mash.? suppose this is your technical level....AND TO CAP IT ALL...Brilliant...you suggest that some EMI items recorded in such a way should be released as surround...Great...please await the men in white coats..not withstanding the politics of why these companies wont and cannot go down the sacd line you also fail to understand that sacd was released to cover a number of marketing areas..NONE were new....surround sound had been around years and hi rez was the main benefit...
Many people on this site have already listed and discussed what we would like to see released normally in a very pleasant non patronizing way.

Post by GrizzledGeezer March 14, 2007 (30 of 54)
raffells' writing verges on the incoherent -- and sometimes crosses over -- what does "none Decca non tree type recordings are less than the best?" mean?

If you're familiar with recording history, you know that EMI adopted SQ encoding for single-inventory quadraphonic LPs. I don't know the total number of surround recordings they made, but it must have been around 100, possibly more. (This is fact, not opinion -- I have about 20 of these LPs, and I don't expect the men in the white coats to be showing up soon.) As far as I know, EMI is not issuing SACD or DVD-A editions. Philips also made a lot of quad recordings, some of which are now being issued on PentaTone.

Confucius supposedly said "Observation, not old age, brings wisdom." Well, I'm both old and have been "observing" for a number of years. I urge you to compare true audiophile recordings with the stuff that the major labels turn out, and decide for yourself which are the more-natural, the more-realistic, recordings.

By the way, the PentaTone "Russlan and Ludmilla" -- a multi-ch SACD -- has extremely realistic sound.

As for me being patronizing -- you attacked my initial post with no rational justification, just a lot of semi-coherent blather.

Finally, raffells, if you want people to respect your opinions -- learn how to compose a clear English sentence. Your writing is horrible.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next

Closed