Poll: CDs with your surround optical discs, yes or no?

[barfle]

I voted yes. But I really don’t want separate CDs. I’m fine with a CD layer on SACD, and a stereo track on video media.

 

[barfle]

Let's make them separate editions. Hey you know what? Then we can put a unique bonus track on each edition so super fans have to buy all of them. Let's sell them 8 copies of the same album!

Wait, that went a different direction...

Alright, let's put everything together then! Have to include vinyl. Probably some 45rpm vinyl singles too, right? Hey, let's also give them a 4 single sided 45rpm edition of the album! We should put an 8-track tape in there. Should we do a wire recording too? Bluray, DVDA, DVDV, CD, SACD. It'll be a bargain for only $4999!

Now let's talk about if we're including an actual full fidelity mastering of the album or if this is going to be a novelty edition with a lo-fi 'volume war' or 'streaming' style mastering of the album. Yes, that's right! We're thinking of not including the full quality audio anywhere in the set! (Might want to sell an upgrade later, you know!)

Am I doing this right?

What, no piano roll?

 

[JediJoker]

I voted yes. But I really don’t want separate CDs. I’m fine with a CD layer on SACD, and a stereo track on video media.

Sounds like the third response option is the one for you.

So do you mean to say: 'Do you want a CD included with your surround sound disc purchase'?

I edited the thread title to make it more explicit, but the first post should make it quite clear:

Should CDs be included with Blu-rays and DVDs, and should SACDs be hybrid with a CD layer?

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

They can add a CD for very little and make the package attractive to more people and thus more sales.

I'm not sure that adding a CD (or CD's) makes the package more attractive to more people,. And if so, who are these people? Maybe a fan, but a fan would buy anything and everything! They're certainly not people who only have a CD player.

 

[quadrifonico]

I love CDs. But not if they are included in expensive bundles to justify those crazy prices

 

[Guy Robinson]

I never play CD's anymore. They just take up space in my house.

 

[seremetcc]

Yes. Sometimes I want a grab-and-go for the car.

 

[5.1 4 Life]

I Voted Yes. Still play CDs at home and I play the CD disc of a surround sound package when I'm not in the mood for 5.1 listening (also I can add tracks from the CD to my MP3 player for portabilty).

 

[hi-res_edition]

I just added a new poll response option to account for this. Anyone can change their response at any time.


What doesn't make sense, exactly?

Thanks for that update, I have revoted and I see that five others have done the same so far.

 

[Guitmark]

I voted yes, even though I have yet to listen to the CD in these deluxe CD/BluRay packages. I’m about to release a hi-res stereo/5.1/Dolby Atmos Bluray and am packaging it with a CD in hopes that it might inspire some folks to eventually go to surround. Interestingly, the Deluxe version of the latest Mary Fahl album that I produced outsells the CD only version by about 5 to 1, and a good percentage of the people that buy the Deluxe version at shows don’t have a BluRay player “yet.”

 

[jamoke]

No,
No reason to listen to a lower res stereo version when a high res stereo version is already on the disk.
Just rip the high res version to whatever format you need.
Don't need it - Don't use it - Don't want it.
Almost pointless.

 

[Eclectic]

I rarely listen to any physical media. I'd be just as happy with digital downloads of the "main event" (multichannel audio). Streaming doesn't do it for me, primarily because I don't own the bits, and can only listen to them at the whim of the streamer. I'm less concerned about the lossiness of the streams (though I do like having lossless audio on my server). I'm also uninterested in any bit rates over 48kHz (assuming a 24-bit sample). If a file is 96kHz, I'm fine with it (though I'm quite certain I can't hear any difference between 48 and 96). If it's 192 (talking about you, Rhino), I downsample it to something less wasteful of storage and bandwidth.

 

[par4ken]

If it's 192 (talking about you, Rhino), I downsample it to something less wasteful of storage and bandwidth.

Bandwidth is not a problem with Blu-ray. It's not a problem to downsample to save storage space (although storage is now very cheap) or for compatibility. I've started downsampling the Rhino "Quadios" to 96K as my computer was having trouble properly playing more than two channels at 192K. I don't notice any difference in sound quality, but still I'm glad to get the Quadio's in this ultra (192K) hi-rez format.

 

[Eclectic]

Remember, I don't use optical media. I store the bits on my NAS. My system could play 192 kHz flacs, but why? It's ridiculously overspecced, given the limits of human hearing. More seriously, it's far more likely to detract from the quality of the sound reproduction than to improve it, due to intermodulation distortion. None of my audio devices were designed to reproduce 96 Hz. "sound" (ultrasonic) waves, for obvious reasons (we can't hear them). 192 kHz is a marketing gimmick, and a silly one at that.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

Don't get me wrong, I still regularly buy and play stereo CD's... I just don't want them bundled with my surround sound discs.

That said, if I'm so desperate that I need to play the stereo version from my multi-channel disc on a regular CD player, I will create an 44.1kHz/16-bit LPCM.wav stream and burn it onto a CD-R complete with text, using ImgBurn - Which is something that I've not done for quite a while

 

[Bill B]

I voted yes, even though I have yet to listen to the CD in these deluxe CD/BluRay packages. I’m about to release a hi-res stereo/5.1/Dolby Atmos Bluray and am packaging it with a CD in hopes that it might inspire some folks to eventually go to surround. Interestingly, the Deluxe version of the latest Mary Fahl album that I produced outsells the CD only version by about 5 to 1, and a good percentage of the people that buy the Deluxe version at shows don’t have a BluRay player “yet.”

It's really no difference than when an artist has a deluxe edition of the CD where there is another CD with 2 songs that didn't make the album and a couple of live songs or outtakes. If you are a collector of music (not necessarily just a fan of the band) you will always pay $5 more for the deluxe edition with the extra stuff.

Music collectors are anal. I should know, I am a collector. And I believe most others here are too (or were at one time). You've all just forgotten your past.
Forget about multi-channel, streaming and downloading, blu-rays and sacds. Think back to when CDs were the **** (pre 2000). If there was a deluxe edition of a release what would you have ordered?

Just because there are other ways to consume and store and manipulate digital music so that you don't need the stinking CD (or any physical media for that matter), doesn't mean that there aren't a significant number of people out there who still want the deluxe version just because they are anal collectors.

 

[Eclectic]

It's really no difference than when an artist has a deluxe edition of the CD where there is another CD with 2 songs that didn't make the album and a couple of live songs or outtakes. If you are a collector of music (not necessarily just a fan of the band) you will always pay $5 more for the deluxe edition with the extra stuff.

Music collectors are anal. I should know, I am a collector. And I believe most others here are too (or were at one time). You've all just forgotten your past.
Forget about multi-channel, streaming and downloading, blu-rays and sacds. Think back to when CDs were the **** (pre 2000). If there was a deluxe edition of a release what would you have ordered?

Just because there are other ways to consume and store and manipulate digital music so that you don't need the stinking CD (or any physical media for that matter), doesn't mean that there aren't a significant number of people out there who still want the deluxe version just because they are anal collectors.

Hmm... Sometimes, but not always. I remember when I got my CD of Richard and Linda Thompson's "Shoot Out the Lights," which I originally bought on vinyl. As you know if you're an RT fan, this is a perfect album that should not be messed with in any way. It's short, but that's OK. Most artists don't make that much truly great music in a lifetime. For whatever reason, they added a track to the CD reissue ("Living in Luxury"). It annoyed me every time I heard it (back when I used physical CDs), because the album was already perfect, and this track made it worse.

 

[par4ken]

Forget about multi-channel, streaming and downloading, blu-rays and sacds. Think back to when CDs were the **** (pre 2000). If there was a deluxe edition of a release what would you have ordered?

It was always nice to get a few bonus tracks, especially when they were singles and B sides that were not included in the original album. These bonus discs we see a lot of now contain things like stereo re-mixes (seldom better than the original), demos mixes and live stuff that I really don't care a lot about. The other thing is that they are now usually brickwalled, sounding terrible on any decent system.

The beauty of Blu-ray is that it can hold so much, extra (CD) discs should not normally be necessary. Rip the tracks and burn your own CD if you want. I seldom ever play my original discs in a vehicle for example, as they tend to get trashed rather quickly.

Box sets were always nice and a bargain especially when the CD music clubs were still active. Today the large box sets with their heavy picture books don't provide that same cost effectiveness.

Hmm... Sometimes, but not always. I remember when I got my CD of Richard and Linda Thompson's "Shoot Out the Lights," which I originally bought on vinyl. As you know if you're an RT fan, this is a perfect album that should not be messed with in any way. It's short, but that's OK. Most artists don't make that much truly great music in a lifetime. For whatever reason, they added a track to the CD reissue ("Living in Luxury"). It annoyed me every time I heard it (back when I used physical CDs), because the album was already perfect, and this track made it worse.

If you don't like the extra bonus tracks, burn your own CD disc (or rip to tracks) without them!

One thing not mentioned was the practice of creating 2fer's on one disc where two discs should have been used. Sometimes a track or two had to be cut to make things fit. Guess what it was almost always one of the best tracks that was missing.

 

[Bill B]

Hmm... Sometimes, but not always. I remember when I got my CD of Richard and Linda Thompson's "Shoot Out the Lights," which I originally bought on vinyl. As you know if you're an RT fan, this is a perfect album that should not be messed with in any way. It's short, but that's OK. Most artists don't make that much truly great music in a lifetime. For whatever reason, they added a track to the CD reissue ("Living in Luxury"). It annoyed me every time I heard it (back when I used physical CDs), because the album was already perfect, and this track made it worse.

I understand where you are coming from, I feel the same way about Black Sabbath adding "Evil Woman" to their debut album. Whether you like the song or not, it does not fit on that album. It's a menacing, dark album and "Evil Woman" is neither. It really jars you out of the mood.
I'd rather they either put extra stuff on a second disc, or tack it onto the end so as not to screw with the continuity of the album as we know it.

 

[Werno]

Hmm... Sometimes, but not always. I remember when I got my CD of Richard and Linda Thompson's "Shoot Out the Lights," which I originally bought on vinyl. As you know if you're an RT fan, this is a perfect album that should not be messed with in any way. It's short, but that's OK. Most artists don't make that much truly great music in a lifetime. For whatever reason, they added a track to the CD reissue ("Living in Luxury"). It annoyed me every time I heard it (back when I used physical CDs), because the album was already perfect, and this track made it worse.

Guess someone agreed with you, since the Ryko/Rhino Handmade CD remaster omitted it (but added a 2nd CD of great live material). Of the three digital versions of SOtL that I own, which includes the SACD, the Rhino version sounds the best by a significant margin: whatever they did in remastering it, I'm glad someone was willing to 'mess with it'. It isn't just the bonus disc and booklet that makes it worth acquiring.

Did I get back OT there at the end? Almost.