After a divorce about the mid '80's, I began collecting past music; vinyl LPs and 45s, to help fill the void. It was a fun time visiting stores, used bookstores, Goodwills, etc., to see what I could find. To make a long story short, there was no internet back then, but I thought EVERYONE in the ENTIRE WORLD demanded stereo reproduction (mixes). I lost, actually sold my entire vinyl collection (when moving), and began collecting audio CDs, since the content (premier stereo mixes, studio talk, unedited versions...) made them worth the cost. When I was able to access the internet, I created a web site, with song snippets in stereo. I focused on US Top 40 songs, anything unusual about them.
Along the way I met Jim Liddane of The International Songwriters Association. He (once radio host) estimated about 20% of people enjoy stereo mixes. Since HQ sound is sometimes 'unusual' about Top 40, I failed to see any greater amount of people demanding HQ sound. Actually, I estimate maybe 15% of people do. This stands to reason, since I admire stereo for clarity of instruments and/or singing.
I'm not a big believer in HQ digital formats, SACD, SHM-CD, Blu Spec, etc. Some of you may be familiar with RockBand multi-tracks that escaped to public domain. Some of these, when you personally remix, sound a lot better than what others mixed. Bottom line, I feel, unless you know what exactly was used to master/remaster, it's a tough call knowing what you're listing to (to judge sound quality). Man, I feel, was TOO quick to master for CD, and that added to CD audio criticism (sound quality).
p.s. Though I'm not a believer in HQ digital formats, I must admit, even without experiencing it, I'm sure I'd agree that Surround Sound with (4) or more discrete channels would sound even better than stereo mixes. Sound masking, seldom talked about, can "hide" sounds.
Thank you for your time.
After a divorce about the mid '80's, I began collecting past music; vinyl LPs and 45s, to help fill the void. It was a fun time visiting stores, used bookstores, Goodwills, etc., to see what I could find. To make a long story short, there was no internet back then, but I thought EVERYONE in the ENTIRE WORLD demanded stereo reproduction (mixes). I lost, actually sold my entire vinyl collection (when moving), and began collecting audio CDs, since the content (premier stereo mixes, studio talk, unedited versions...) made them worth the cost. When I was able to access the internet, I created a web site, with song snippets in stereo. I focused on US Top 40 songs, anything unusual about them.
Along the way I met Jim Liddane of The International Songwriters Association. He (once radio host) estimated about 20% of people enjoy stereo mixes. Since HQ sound is sometimes 'unusual' about Top 40, I failed to see any greater amount of people demanding HQ sound. Actually, I estimate maybe 15% of people do. This stands to reason, since I admire stereo for clarity of instruments and/or singing.
I'm not a big believer in HQ digital formats, SACD, SHM-CD, Blu Spec, etc. Some of you may be familiar with RockBand multi-tracks that escaped to public domain. Some of these, when you personally remix, sound a lot better than what others mixed. Bottom line, I feel, unless you know what exactly was used to master/remaster, it's a tough call knowing what you're listing to (to judge sound quality). Man, I feel, was TOO quick to master for CD, and that added to CD audio criticism (sound quality).
p.s. Though I'm not a believer in HQ digital formats, I must admit, even without experiencing it, I'm sure I'd agree that Surround Sound with (4) or more discrete channels would sound even better than stereo mixes. Sound masking, seldom talked about, can "hide" sounds.
Thank you for your time.