Michael Dutton why hast thou forsaken us?

[jaybird100]

I would rather the CD layer have the QS.

Actually the fold down of a QS recording IS the QS recording. To have a multitrack that mixes down to good QS, the multitrack has to be compatible with QS. Making a separate "fold down" would be superfluous because the QS mix serves the same purpose.

I want to buy a simple CD or LP, not a bunch of layers I will never use.

I've made QS-encoded CD's, for my own personal use, from discrete sources, using Involve's encoder, in the "Smart Encode" mode. They sound excellent when played in stereo, and are nearly indistinguishable from the original when played through the SM. They also sound great when decoded with PL2.

 

[par4ken]

I've made QS-encoded CD's, for my own personal use, from discrete sources, using Involve's encoder, in the "Smart Encode" mode. They sound excellent when played in stereo, and are nearly indistinguishable from the original when played through the SM. They also sound great when decoded with PL2.

Yes as I keep saying if you want an encoded version just do it yourself. The discrete layer should be enough for most of us and the stereo (CD and SACD stereo layer) is for them! If more layers were available (such as with Blu-ray, then you could add all the extra versions that you wanted, with SACD we don't have that luxury.

If these were new releases rather than re-releases then I would agree with including a matrixed version on the stereo layer.

 

[timbre4]

Well simply put, the effort of doing that brings way more sales, because you appeal to a much wider demographic. In the end it becomes worth it.

Exactly. Those early non-hybrid SACDs w/o red book CD layer) sat around because only SACD player owners could play them. Customers who were thinking of adding a CD player at some point could safely buy the disc to play it as a CD now and greatly increased the probability of sales.

The other side of the coin: multi-channel discs are to be carefully treasured and not casually tossed around in vehicles like CDs typically are. For that reason I always preferred a DVD-A/CD package to SACD or DualDisc.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

The other side of the coin: multi-channel discs are to be carefully treasured and not casually tossed around in vehicles like CDs typically are. For that reason I always preferred a DVD-A/CD package to SACD or DualDisc.

Yes, but for the most part DVD-A is dead. I even called up some certain companies (not allwoed to say) and none of them even have the capability of pressing CPPM protection on those discs anymore!

 

[marpow]

First time in many years that I won't be buying anything from a new release DV batch.
Not complaining, need a break anyway.

 

[sjcorne]

NOW.... just for shits and giggles before anybody giggles and shits.... do you suppose there is enough data space on an SACD to provide a QS or SQ mix after the stereo mix of the album on the 2ch SACD layer?? Say on an album with 8 songs, 1-8 are stereo, 9-16 are SQ-encoded.

That way you're getting CD Stereo, SACD-quality Stereo, SACD Quality SQ-encoded version and the discrete on the multichannel layer.

They did just that with the Herbie Hancock Sextant disc - in addition to the original stereo mix & discrete quad, it has the SQ-encoded stereo on the CD & SACD layers. Same goes for the Airto & Deodato In Concert album, except the discrete quad master was lost for that one - so they included both the SQ-encoded stereo and an SQ decode on the multichannel layer.

 

[kfbkfb]

an SQ decode on the multichannel layer.

I don't have this disc, do they specify which SQ decoder they used?


Sort of off topic/on topic - IMHO, DV should have used the Blu-ray format (region free) w/stereo mix [remastered] using both 2.0 Dolby Digital and 2.0 Dolby TrueHD, the Quad mix [remastered] using both 4.0 Dolby Digital and 4.0 Dolby TrueHD.

So long as TrueHD is set for at least 20 bits and 58kHz sampling rate, it's completely "transparent" (as the audio description goes).

This would make both the Quad and stereo mixes available on basic Blu-ray player/systems (via DD) and more elaborate Surround Sound systems (via TrueHD).


Kirk Bayne

 

[sjcorne]

I don't have this disc, do they specify which SQ decoder they used?

Nope.

Sort of off topic/on topic - IMHO, DV should have used the Blu-ray format (region free) w/stereo mix [remastered] using both 2.0 Dolby Digital and 2.0 Dolby TrueHD, the Quad mix [remastered] using both 4.0 Dolby Digital and 4.0 Dolby TrueHD.

So long as TrueHD is set for at least 20 bits and 58kHz sampling rate, it's completely "transparent" (as the audio description goes).

This would make both the Quad and stereo mixes available on basic Blu-ray player/systems (via DD) and more elaborate Surround Sound systems (via TrueHD).

It's much more expensive to author and manufacture Blu-Rays, plus you lose the redbook CD compatibility.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

... you lose the redbook CD compatibility.

My money is on this being the largest selling point of all, along with the superior mastering that comes with it. Without Redbook compatability, I would venture sales would fall considerably to the point that DV may not even survive.

 

[timbre4]

Yes, but for the most part DVD-A is dead. I even called up some certain companies (not allwoed to say) and none of them even have the capability of pressing CPPM protection on those discs anymore!

Of course, this is largely past tense now (although I continue to burn DVD-A w/o watermark for my vehicles).
Just a comment on not risking the primary asset when a separate CD keeps it safe.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Of course, this is largely past tense now (although I continue to burn DVD-A w/o watermark for my vehicles).
Just a statement on not risking the primary asset when a separate CD keeps it safe.

Agreed. I am waiting for the day to come when CD + BD becomes the same price to make as SACD.

 

[DuncanS]

My money is on this being the largest selling point of all, along with the superior mastering that comes with it. Without Redbook compatability, I would venture sales would fall considerably to the point that DV may not even survive.

I agree. We on QQ are the oddities, in that we actively like music in surround, like obsolete music formats, and still buy and fix old gear. The Involve Surround Master is unique and I'm really glad they can make it and still make some/any profit.

I only have one friend who has a surround system with DVD/BD, and then they only have a couple of music discs, they use it for films. Most have CDs, or have dumped them and just listen on phones or amazon alexa, yes its even those of us post 60! No-one I know has SACDs, and even less people would care about Quad encoded discs, its irrelevant to them. I always remember my father's surprise at getting his first stereo and discovering that he already had a few stereo LPs!

 

[jaybird100]

Exactly. Those early non-hybrid SACDs w/o red book CD layer) sat around because only SACD player owners could play them. Customers who were thinking of adding a CD player at some point could safely buy the disc to play it as a CD now and greatly increased the probability of sales.

The other side of the coin: multi-channel discs are to be carefully treasured and not casually tossed around in vehicles like CDs typically are. For that reason I always preferred a DVD-A/CD package to SACD or DualDisc.

You hit the nail on the head, Tim. I use the encoded CD's in the car, mainly because I enjoy the music, but the encoding creates a wider stereo effect that makes the small confines of a Honda Civic sound more like a C-RV. It just opens up the sound. If I play them in the house, through the SM, they really come to life. Again, these discs are for my own personal use.

 

[kfbkfb]

Well...there's always regular (region free) DVDs - DV could provide Dolby Digital 4.0 and DTS 4.0 on a DVD video (maximizing the playability), the user could decide which audio data reduction codec sound they like best.


Kirk Bayne

 

[par4ken]

Now we get to the rub. Those who want surround must be well-off to afford all of the special hardware Those who don't have the wherewithal must accept stereo.

Just put QS on the CD. Then everyone gets the same program.

You don't have to be well off, just look for deals. Lots on fleabay! I have half a dozen universal players most I paid about $50 for.

 

[edisonbaggins]

You don't have to be well off, just look for deals. Lots on fleabay! I have half a dozen universal players most I paid about $50 for.

Any recommendations for great value models to look for?

 

[doppelbock]

Really not familiar with most of these new releases but on paper several are quite appealing to me, and as we're talking about a company I like to support I ordered 4 of them.

 

[par4ken]

For starters I purchased a Sony Blu-ray BDP-S5100 to rip SACDs, it only cost $50. the downside of that machine is it's HDMI only and doesn't do DVD-Audio. Lots for sale on eBay.

My original player was a Pioneer Elite DV-45A, I think it was about $400 new but years later I picked up a couple more for around $50 each. That was my favorite player for years but some of the newer DV SACD releases aren't recognised by the player for some reason. Lots of them for sale cheap on eBay. Analogue only no HDMI.

I have an Oppo DV970-HD that I picked up cheap, it plays everything fine but lacks the sound quality of it's bigger brothers. Analogue and HDMI.

I had two Samsung DVD HD841 players, one died the other still works, they were only about $50 each. Just checked lots of those for sale cheap on eBay. Analogue and DVI.

 

[The56Kid]

Autumn is about to turn to Winter, Mr. Dutton. Next batch, please!

 

[par4ken]

Well...there's always regular (region free) DVDs - DV could provide Dolby Digital 4.0 and DTS 4.0 on a DVD video (maximizing the playability), the user could decide which audio data reduction codec sound they like best.


Kirk Bayne

I'm so glad that they don't use lossy codecs like that. Keep the SACDs coming!