Vote

After I read the articles in this latest Stereophile, I stopped at Best Buy and bought this new copy of Let It Bleed. Wow. Revelation—and I thought I knew all the nuances of all those albums I ruined with scratchy needles and drinks spilled on them! And I never knew SACDs would play on my regular CD players—in my home, my car, my beach condo, my city highrise apartment, etc. Yee Haa! More drinks, please.

Not much help, because I'm done buying music ALTOGETHER until I get my fair-use rights back. Do you hear me RIAA? I'm boycotting you! I've never stolen a note of music in my life, and I refuse to let you restrict my rights to protect your obsolete business model. For me, there will be no quasi-CDs, no SACD, and no DVD-A. I'll listen to the hundreds of music recordings that I already OWN, thank-you very much.

Anything to improve the quallity and music choices being released will be a very big step. Lets be stright, nobody is buying the music industries bull shit about providing strong software support at low prices. Most see this as just an excues to sell everyone the same music over again. With the crap new music is turning out the older stuff probably out sells the newstuff big time. The hole industry needs to rethink it's values and integrity. Stop trying to free ride on the past excellence. If you truly do your best and become excellent at what your doing the big bucks will follow.

Is the stones still rolling? I'd prefer that stones just sitting at the corner

i cant help but beleive that SACD will get a lot of attention with releasing the Stones early catalog.

I would think that any time the amount of available, quality recordings on a given medium is quadrupled it can only help. But I still want the vinyl.

Get on with producing SACDs and people will get on with buying them

Offering dual layer disks at CD prices is what SACD needs badly. The single layer Columbia disks of old material are a shot in the foot

As with most people, I have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for a reason to take a side. This is it.

Rock is where the money is. The first hi-rez format that puts out a lot of rock will succeed.

unless the buyer has a SACD player, he/she won't have a chance to hear the difference, and be able to decide if the difference is worth the extra $$$.

if their lp releases indicate anything, i'm not expecting much. digital mastered lp's, come on.

At least not here. Why buy everything again? LP is the way they were ment to be listened!

Everyone who buys those Rolling Stones remasters is going to see that there's another layer on that disc called SACD. The next time they go to buy a player, they're going to looking for a machine that will let them hear it. Also if the Stones release on hybrid discs is a big success, which seems likely, others in the record biz are going to take note and we're likely to see more and more hybrid discs coming our way. This is especially true with the new Philips hybrid pressing line opening this year in the US.

I don't think the average person cares about SACD. I became so frustrated with the format wars that several years ago I got back into vinyl. While the war rages I will be spinning my MOFI Stones box on my Linn LP12, grinning from ear to ear!

Depends on cost and quality of sound. I have my doubts that a very old recording of say 1964, be engineeered to sound well.

Those who want the SACD version of Stones' stuff will pay three figures for the set. Non-SACD Stones fans who already have most of the music on Red Book or MP3 couldn't care less about hi-rez when they're looking at around 5 big ones for the set AND a player.

No, not at all unless it's plastered all over the television and people start to wonder "hey what's SACD?" If not, nobody who isn't an audio geek will know the titles exist.

I don't really see any reason to own SACD except for new recordings. The original LPs are still usually better, and CDs are more convenient (you can play and rip them anywhere). I think SACD's only chance is to show what it can do with material recorded using the state of the art TODAY.

You're kidding. Kids want to hear the latest rap not some old codgers. Most people who like the Stones will have their albums already. Give me Moby or give me death.

Stones CDs have never struck me as being models of top production values. Sure they're filled with great music, but are the recordings of a high enough technical quality to serve as icons for high resolution audio?

sacd and dvd-audio should co-exist just like DD and DTS.

why is it so hard to buy sacd titles online? at amazon, they're hidden, and cdnow only has DVD-AUDIO(!). only HMV has a fairly decent selection. better online marketing would help this format in a big way.

The quality and resolution of the source material is inferior. CD-resolution is well enough.

In my view it will take new material of real interest to make the new formats take off. I think one of the reasons for the lacking success is the same as that for the music industry's problems; the near total lack of new material.

These releases, though wonderful for those of us who are SACD users and Stones fans, will be relevant to a minority of music listeners. Until the major labels/manufaturers committ to the format and release a number of SACD or, more importantly, hybrid selections, the format will remain somewhat obscure.

If they continue to release new hybryd discs (ar reasonable prices), I believe it will boost the marketplace. You need real releases from relevant artists, not some god-awful audiopphile recordings from lame artists.

The important note here is not so much that the recordings are SACD, but that they are also remastered, CDs with supposedly higher resolution at a very reasonable price—$12.99 per single disc at Best Buy.

Hybrid SACD can replace CD in the shops. Single inventory. When people have enough hybrid SACDs, they will buy a SACD player.

That's like releasing REM on 78. The people who are most likely to buy the Rolling Stones are not the people that are most likely to buy new technology.