Vote

They cannot sound better as CDs (old analog recordings)so why should anyone buy them?

Good idea but the release of 22 Rolling Stones recordings in SACD will not convince the non-audiophile, low-fi, MP3 listening, has no interest in hi-fi, mass market to buy in. I do see more of the audiophile market getting in on the format with this release. Right now the mass market is learning about, and buying, DVD for home theater or their PC. This exposure would better serve the DVD-Audio format as the relationship is there. If SACD format could be sampled on the PC it would stand a fighting chance.

At first, they must match the vinyl outtings. SACDS are expensive, too. The principle MAY be better than CD ( more bits )but IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE!

There will be "opinion leaders" even amongst the great unwashed, who may not think they have audiophile tendencies but are aware of differences or will be led to believe in them. Even if they can't hear a big difference, the bragging righs are what count. { I am reminded of the time I suffered through another customer in a store in the States comparing quite pricey home theater/music systems by re-playing over and over a scene from a war flick of helicopters landing. Few of that guy's friends would know what is more real, but he had confidence in his chosen system. Likewise, someone can use "my SACD system" as a differentiator, demonstrating his/her wisdom. This could in some small way lead to the spread of same. However, the format wars will hobble both SCD and DVD-A.

That you would even ask the question if the release of 22 recordings by the Stones will help SACD demonstrates the how poor the case is now for SACD and DVD-A. twebty-two records as a reason to buy into a format that has a total release quantity that is less than my own personal CD collection? Twenty-two records by one group is news and put forward as a reason to buy expensive equipment? Until there are thousands of recordings to choose from, I am on the sidelines. I just upgraded my DAC to do upsampling for $200—and I get to enjoy all my CDs and can choose from over a million more.

A lot of people like the Rolling Stones, but not me.

I just purchased a Sony DVD/SACD player at BestBuy for $150. That there are so few titles available reminds me of when I used to shop for CDs in 1985. My advixe, buy one today, the format is wonderful. Classical music finally sounds like music on my system.

If SACD's are going to succeed they need to be produced as if they are CD's. Do consumeres want SACD or not? I think that the industry knows that most people are satisfied with regular CD's and so they are in a quandary. The Stones SACD's may help line the Stones pockets with more cash, but will not lead anyone to the SACD Promised Land. I think people that like the Stones and younger people that may have heard of them, but are not really familiar with earlier material may start buying this format. However, I think that they will go home and listen to it on their CD player, not their SACD player. Hence, the industry may sell SACD discs without selling the SACD Player. Right now, It is an idea whose time has not come!

Not as much boost as a newly recorded (not reissued) Beethoven symphony or string quartet cycle. If anything, the Stones releases give me additional reason NOT to adopt SACD.

The sound of Let It Bleed is light years better than prior Red Book CDs and even my import vinyl! The Beatles on SACD will be the nail in the DVD-A coffin. I heard that negotiations are already under way.

SACD is going nowhere!! (nor DVD-A)

I am big RS fan and I switched once from LP to regular CDs, then to 20-bit remasters. Now smb. expect me to go for it for the third time? Ant all of this after I spent hell of a money for 24-bit CD-player. Excuse moi!

Should the audiophile world follow the lead of Mick Jagger?

who cares? drop the needle and put another record on.

I believe the Rolling Stones releases will give SACD a small boost. Even if the legion of "baby boomer" age Stones' fans buy the discs, SACD will still be unknown or irrelevant the the younger music buying public. I pre-ordered 8 Stones' titles and I don't yet even have an SACD player! I hope to get one soon, though.

I voted "Yes, but only a little," but I hope it will be in a big way. I don't know about anyone else but I just went out at lunchtime on 8/27 to pick four of the 22 discs. They're on sale at Tower and Virgin for $15.99 and while I was there there was a small but constant group. I'm sure I'll own most of the others soon.

Look, everyone knew that the biggest sellers would make the conversion. Now having the Stones on SACD isn't bad, it may bring a few addicts across, but it won't be enough unless Zeppelin, Dylan, Brubeck, and the Cleveland Symphony are right on their heels

The release of these discs has a few of real world benefits: 1) They show that the SACD/CD hybrid can be affordable (within a dollar of a regularcd). 2) For those on a budget, an affordable SACD player will get one much closer to the music as it was intended to be heard. 3) This act will lend credability to the new format, that once experienced, most agree is superior.

Putting The Stones on SACD will attract interest from well-heeled baby boomers. The ones who have SACD players will buy the software, but I don't see many buying SACD players just to hear the stones. And what if the Beatles come out on DVD-A?

Huh?

But it definitly depends on the price of the set as compared to what the only CD set if available will be selling at

SACD has been slowly gaining momentum in the marketplace. The Stones re-issues will add considerably to that momentum.

I don't think anyone will buy an SACD player because of these discs. After all, these will play on any CD player, so you don't need an SACD player to hear them. Since these are all old recordings to begin with, there is probably not a huge improvement in sound quality between the CD and SACD layers, so CD player owners won't feel they are missing much without SACD.

Just saw some of the Stones reissues at my friendly neighborhood record store and they don't even mention SACD on the package! Does the average Stones fan care about sound quality? The Stones were one of the last bands in the world to go from mono to stereo, and if the awful sound on my original copy of the "Singles Collection" is any indication, the new reissues are going to have to perform miracles. SACD would seem to be better suited for something that was recorded better in the first place.

How many other SACD releases will there be? In the short run, this will help, but SACD will not take over the market just because of these CDs.

The vast majority will be purchasing the reissues for the rematered CD layer with little concern over the SACD layer. It is the music that matters most of all to most people.

The appeal of the Rolling Stones to the new generation of music buyers just isn't there. Now if they could have done this with a group/individual with wide age appeal then it could have meant the death knell of DVD-A. Maybe next time they (SACD proponents) should approach Eminem with this idea and watch the sales rack up.

A few people will buy, most won't. Of those who do, many if not most, will play the CD layer, thinking that they have something special.

I'm 54. Another format reselling more music from my youth. Talk about sucking water from a stone. The whole thing is getting very boring. I think the new formats are designed to make boomers with progressing hearing loss "perk up", one last time. "I think I heard Keith Richards breathing! Wow! I never knew it was in there before!" It's an exercise in futility.

This may make or break it for SACD. If the Stones' SACDs are that good, and Sony keeps making $300-600 SACD players&$#151;ones that play other formats, btw—the Beatles could be next, and after that, who knows? It's all about a critical mass of affordable software, by which I mean cheaper than current CD prices.