[DarkAngel]

Just Got Hot Rocks Hybrid
Local Best Buy charging premium over website, $14.99 vs $12.99
for single albums so if you are going to buy several order online:
Best Buy

These are in a word, excellent.

The graphics/packaging are fab, Hot Rocks comes in beautiful tri-fold digipak with large fold out poster of cool photos and original cover art. I believe the fold out is @same size as vinyl album.........can record owner verify this? Very cool graphic label on CDs themselves, more cool photos on tri-fold digipak.

CD sound is definite improvement over previous ABKCO CD release (I know this isn't hard to do, heh heh). Looks like they use SBM process (single bit mapping) for CD which Sony has used for sometime now on its classical remastered CDs. Much more presence and treble extension with a more layered and 3D presentation. New life has been breathed into these classics.
No comment on SACD content, have no player yet. Even though
ABKCO CD sound is improved, the Virgin label Stones remasters from the 1970s are still much better sound (Exile, Some Girls etc)

There is big label on cover announcing new remaster edition, but no mention of SACD capability till you look at CD itself and see the SACD logo. As mentioned before this must be marketing decision so to not confuse customer, and make sure these are stocked in CD section of store.

To sum up, Bob Ludwig is the man..........I may go back tonight and get "fazed cookies", anything I've forgotten.......?

 

[FCJ]

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkAngel Just Got Hot Rocks Hybrid Much more presence and treble extension with a more layered and 3D presentation. New life has been breathed into these classics. No comment on SACD content, have no player yet. Even though ABKCO CD sound is improved, the Virgin label Stones remasters from the 1970s are still much better sound (Exile, Some Girls etc) To sum up, Bob Ludwig is the man..........I may go back tonight and get "fazed cookies", anything I've forgotten.......?

These are the improvments that I noticed with the three disks I've heard (Let It Bleed, Between the Buttons, and my favorite, both sound and music-wise, Beggars Banquet).

I would go for either Let It Bleed or Beggars Banquet next.

 

[markl]

Just ordered the Singles Collection from Best Buy, thanks for the tip. It was $39.99 (good price!) with free shipping although they did get me for tax. It says it's "on order" and "usually ships in 5-7 days". Since no one has actually seen this thing, one wonders if it really exists yet. We'll see.

markl

 

[DarkAngel]

Mark
Did you see the track list on new "40 Licks" collection soon to be released (10/1/02) when you were at bestbuy.com. I thought for sure it would have 40 tracks on 2 CDs.

But NOOOOOOOOOOOO, 23 tracks total and 4 of those are new songs, not so interested in this anymore.

 

[FCJ]

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkAngel Mark Did you see the track list on new "40 Licks" collection soon to be released (10/1/02) when you were at bestbuy.com. I thought for sure it would have 40 tracks on 2 CDs. But NOOOOOOOOOOOO, 23 tracks total and 4 of those are new songs, not so interested in this anymore.

I think the "40" refers to how long the Rolling Stones have been together.

There is a real funny interview with Keith Richards in this month's "Guitar Player" magazine, BTW. If I remember correctly, the interviewer asks Keith if he's seen ghosts. "Only my own, pal," I believe, was his reply. Enough said.

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly In my opinion (and many others), SACD should have been a transparent format. Like HDCD, the format (when dual layer) is fully backward compatible and the average consumer shouldn't even have to know about it to end up buying the product.

i wouldn't be suprised that when sacd first came out, they simply didn't have the dual layer technology yet. i know that when dvds first came out, none of them were dual layer for quite a while and they came up with that later (i believe). i still have a few of the old releases that you need to flip-over halfway through (goodfellas, heat, etc.). the single-layered double-sided releases kinda died along with offering both standard and widescreen on dvd though.

just my suspicion, but i doubt they had hybrid cd technology when sacd was first released.. plus, i can easily imagine that it'd cost a ****load more to have an sacd produced/mixed/mastered. i know they have to use sony's patented dsd technology to do it, so who knows how much they charge for that. but still, it'd be really great to see all sony/columbia/epic releases in the future to be dual-layered. i'd LOVE modest mouse's next album to be sacd.. hehe

going after work to best buy today to buy as much of carlo's list as i can find. i'll post my findings tomorrow i think..

 

[kerelybonto]

I think you're right about the technology issues, grinch. But I still agree with kelly -- Sony should have throught through everything before releasing single-layer SACDs. The goal here has to be to get the masses to adopt the new hi-rez format; there's no point in making a new format if it's going to be utilized by only the freaks who call themselves auidophiles -- and consequently abandoned by the recording companies.

When we start seeing new releases in one of the hi-rez formats, that'll be the real go-buy-your-player-now sign.

kerelybonto

 

[kelly]

They had the ability from the beginning, though in what volume I don't know. Most of the Telarcs are dual layer and have been for some time. The most frustrating thing was that Sony's OWN releases were the ones that tended to not be dual layer.

But then, I think this whole format is dumb. The audio standards should have been finalized when the DVD format launched. Every player from day one should have been able to play DTS and whatever audio only format the consortium was to agree on. Sometimes I REALLY believe they purposefully drag things out to sell more hardware. (Ie, if you bought a DVD player and then wanted DTS, you bought another one. Progressive scan? Pony up again. DVD-A/SACD? One more time.) Bleh.

Quote:

Originally posted by kerelybonto When we start seeing new releases in one of the hi-rez formats, that'll be the real go-buy-your-player-now sign.

This I agree with. This was pretty much my philosophy but I was impatient and was going to get a new source now anyway--and was in fact considering mostly redbook only players, but the modded Sony from ModWright sounded promising. (It basically has to beat the Arcam FMJ23T, Meridian 588 and Cary 303/200 to be worth it. Otherwise I messed up.)

Anyway, the new Guano Apes was supposed to be out close to the release date of the redbook version... but looks like it didn't happen, at least not in the US. Anyone know/care when that's coming out?

 

[markl]

"Did you see the track list on new "40 Licks" collection soon to be released (10/1/02) when you were at bestbuy.com. I thought for sure it would have 40 tracks on 2 CDs.

But NOOOOOOOOOOOO, 23 tracks total and 4 of those are new songs, not so interested in this anymore."

Well, that sucks. I thought it would be the perfect compliment to my Singles collection, giving about all of the later years material I'd need. You could almost fit 23 songs on one disc, too. Grumble, grumble... I'll probably pass on it unless I find it used.

"i wouldn't be suprised that when sacd first came out, they simply didn't have the dual layer technology yet."

I wouldn't be surprised if the strategy with single-layer discs was to "encourage" audiophile geeks to spring for a new player. Otherwise, the whole world could have sat back and waited until someone, anyone came forward to buy an SACDP to make the format viable. It's called "seeding the market".

"Sony should have throught through everything before releasing single-layer SACDs. The goal here has to be to get the masses to adopt the new hi-rez format; there's no point in making a new format if it's going to be utilized by only the freaks who call themselves auidophiles -- and consequently abandoned by the recording companies."

You will recall that when SACD was initially released it was targeted 100% at audiophiles with very expensive players (SCD-1) and mostly classical and jazz titles. This was a deliberate choice by Sony. DVD-A took the other tack, targeting that format at the masses with low-priced machines and more current pop/rock titles.

"The audio standards should have been finalized when the DVD format launched."

We have the music industry to thank. DVD-Audio technology *was* ready when DVD launched. The record company honchos couldn't agree on a copy-protection scheme.

"Every player from day one should have been able to play DTS and whatever audio only format the consortium was to agree on."

And hold up the whole launch of the DVD format, (involving dozens of movie companies, equipment makers, pressing plants, etc.) in order to wait til puny little DTS, an un-proven upstart company, gets its **** together? Not likely. DTS only survived (and still survives) by the skin of its teeth.

"Progressive scan? Pony up again. DVD-A/SACD? One more time.) Bleh. "

So technology should just freeze and no advancements should be made? No thanks. You have to be aware that when you buy into something new and unproven like the new formats there's going to be a lot of unforeseen changes up ahead. That's the way it is.

"When we start seeing new releases in one of the hi-rez formats, that'll be the real go-buy-your-player-now sign. "

Then you relinquish your right to complain when we're stuck with the CD for the next 20 years. Audiophiles are the early adopters for this technology, if we drop the ball and wait until it's "safe", the formats die.

markl

 

[kelly]

markl

Do you realize how incredibly complex it was to add DTS compatability to the DVD format? PLEASE. It was a simple bitstream output. All they had to do was allow a 5 channel bitstream output so that ANY new format could have used it -- DTS or otherwise.

Progressive scan WAS ready when the format launched. I knew many home theater fanatics who ran progressive scan from their DVD ROM drives while the only player on the market with it was Fjourda and that player was like $8k.

But it was your final comment that bit my ass the most. You make it sound as if it's OUR responsibility to buy an unproven new format with no software. If you want that burden, you're welcomed to it but I don't see any reason for your continued attempts to try to guilt-trip the rest of us. Want to see a platform with no good software? Try the ATARI JAGUAR. Oh yeah, buy it and the games will come. Sure they will. Nintendo Gameboy was a piece of ****, but guess what--it was a piece of **** that came with Tetris and because of that it became the best selling game system OF ALL TIME. Software matters. If you don't have any software, don't even bother me by telling me you've got a new hardware format. Why should I care? Like I really need ANOTHER component in my house to sit there with nothing to play on it. Music, video games and movies are software driven businesses. Early adopting because you like the early software or because you were in the market for a new component anyway (ie, a new CD player) makes sense. Buying a new product just to be the first on your block with a new piece of worthless hardware is idiotic.

 

[KurtW]

My local Tower had them for the list price of $18.99, the bums. Streetlight had them for $14.99, but only the ones everyone else seems to have. Big Hits has a nice color picture booklet inside, the others I've gotten seem to have more standard packaging. There was a nice little write-up on the Stones SACDs in Stereophile and Listener mags.

I have the original LPs, the Mobile Fidelity LP box, as well as the CDs of all of this stuff. I haven't made any comparisons yet, but from what I've heard so far on SACD this the best sound yet. If this is any indication of whats to follow, there's finally a decent reason to own a SACD player. I was waiting for a good justification for the two that I have.

 

[markl]

"You make it sound as if it's OUR responsibility to buy an unproven new format with no software. If you want that burden, you're welcomed to it but I don't see any reason for your continued attempts to try to guilt-trip the rest of us."

If you want hi-rez music reproduction, it IS your responsibility to buy in. That's my opinion, and I really don't care if it "bites your ass" (ewwwww!!!) If you don't care or are satisfied with CD, then nothing I or anyone else says about how great the new formats are will matter to you. There's certainly no reason to get hostile.

"Want to see a platform with no good software? Try the ATARI JAGUAR. Oh yeah, buy it and the games will come. Sure they will. Software matters. If you don't have any software, don't even bother me by telling me you've got a new hardware format. Why should I care? Like I really need ANOTHER component in my house to sit there with nothing to play on it. "

Apples and oranges. We're not talking game consoles. You can also play CDs and DVDs on the hardware for your new hi-rez machine so this argument is a total red herring. It's not going to sit there useless.

"Early adopting because you like the early software or because you were in the market for a new component anyway (ie, a new CD player) makes sense. Buying a new product just to be the first on your block with a new piece of worthless hardware is idiotic."

Worthless as your $2500 source with $2K of mods? You seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing.

markl

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl "You make it sound as if it's OUR responsibility to buy an unproven new format with no software. If you want that burden, you're welcomed to it but I don't see any reason for your continued attempts to try to guilt-trip the rest of us." If you want hi-rez music reproduction, it IS your responsibility to buy in. That's my opinion, and I really don't care if it "bites your ass" (ewwwww!!!) If you don't care or are satisfied with CD, then nothing I or anyone else says about how great the new formats are will matter to you. There's certainly no reason to get hostile.

Sure there is. Posts are boring otherwise. And often boring anyway.

Quote:

"Want to see a platform with no good software? Try the ATARI JAGUAR. Oh yeah, buy it and the games will come. Sure they will. Software matters. If you don't have any software, don't even bother me by telling me you've got a new hardware format. Why should I care? Like I really need ANOTHER component in my house to sit there with nothing to play on it. " Apples and oranges. We're not talking game consoles. You can also play CDs and DVDs on the hardware for your new hi-rez machine so this argument is a total red herring. It's not going to sit there useless.

As I said (and you quoted below): "Early adopting because you like the early software or because you were in the market for a new component anyway (ie, a new CD player) makes sense."

If you WEREN'T planning to buy a new CD player then it's an additional piece of hardware that does nothing for you if there's no software you want.

Console argument different? The PlayStation 2 is backward compatible. So was the Atari 7800 and the PC Engine Duo.

Let's say you own a PlayStation and you have all these great games for it. Now let's say there's not a single game on PS2 you want yet. Buying a PS2 seems pretty stupid in that scenario doesn't it? Even though it's backward compatible. Buying early in that scenario means you (basically) paid $100 extra for the console. (Now for me: you know me, I had to have Gran Tourismo 3 so it was all good, I paid the introductory price. But imagine if you didn't like any of the games that came out until AFTER the price drop. Then you paid extra for nothing--except bragging rights, maybe.)

Quote:

"Early adopting because you like the early software or because you were in the market for a new component anyway (ie, a new CD player) makes sense. Buying a new product just to be the first on your block with a new piece of worthless hardware is idiotic." Worthless as your $2500 source with $2K of mods? You seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing.

As I said, I WAS in the market for a new source. I was considering serveral players that did NOT have SACD. At that point it was worth considering, and the thought going in was that $5k total of player and mods would best $5k competing redbook only players AT redbook. It's still a big risk. If it comes back and I still want someone else's redbook CD player, I'll feel I made the wrong decision even if it's the best SACD player short of the Accuphase and DCS. Simply put, I only have 13 SACDs--counting the dual layers ones.

My advice to people without SACD players is simple: If you're buying a new CD or DVD player now anyway, consider it. If you're not, don't worry about it until some music comes out that you really care about having in the higher resolution format. Is SACD better than redbook? Unquestionably. But rush out and purchase a new player at early adopter prices when there's nothing you want to listen to in SACD and you're already happy with your redbook player? I can't see the reason behind that. Money better spent elsewhere.

 

[kelly]

Incidentally, in case this point got lost in the meandering. My advice to people who don't own SACD players is that if you like the Stones these discs are awesome in their redbook mode. SACD, aside. Of course, if you're a big Stones fan, maybe this is finally a good enough push. If not, enjoy them in redbook now and start building your SACD library for when it does make more sense to buy a player.

 

[markl]

"But rush out and purchase a new player at early adopter prices when there's nothing you want to listen to in SACD and you're already happy with your redbook player? I can't see the reason behind that. Money better spent elsewhere."

Show me the post where someone was asking for advice on a new headamp and I said "screw that, get a DVD-A player!" Show me the post where someone asked about what new cable upgrade to get where I said, "what you really need is an SACDP, and if you don't buy one I'll clobber you".


markl