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

[Eclectic]

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.

Good to know! I'll get the Rhino version and replace the bits on my server. And yes, I do like good live material.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

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 know exactly how you feel... Whenever I buy a new version of an old album that has extra tracks added, I place the new tracks in a separate folder so they don't ruin the original flow!

 

[par4ken]

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.

"Evil Woman" was part of the original UK album release. I agree that it doesn't seem to fit, likely why it was not included in the US version. Still great as a bonus track, best included at the end of the main album.

https://www.discogs.com/release/462466-Black-Sabbath-Black-Sabbath

 

[Bill B]

"Evil Woman" was part of the original UK album release. I agree that it doesn't seem to fit, likely why it was not included in the US version. Still great as a bonus track, best included at the end of the main album.

https://www.discogs.com/release/462466-Black-Sabbath-Black-Sabbath

I had forgotten that it was originally on the UK album. I knew it at one time but I guess the bong hits robbed me of that knowledge.

 

[jaybird100]

This is why Sony should have promoted SACD better. A hybrid disc, with stereo on the CD layer (or even matrixed quad), and discrete surround on the SACD layer, would have been a perfect way to do it. Unfortunately, without the promotion it never got, it didn't happen on the scale it should have.

 

[MidiMagic]

This is why Sony should have promoted SACD better. A hybrid disc, with stereo on the CD layer (or even matrixed quad), and discrete surround on the SACD layer, would have been a perfect way to do it. Unfortunately, without the promotion it never got, it didn't happen on the scale it should have.

YES! Matrixed quad!

 

[shokhead]

This is why Sony should have promoted SACD better. A hybrid disc, with stereo on the CD layer (or even matrixed quad), and discrete surround on the SACD layer, would have been a perfect way to do it. Unfortunately, without the promotion it never got, it didn't happen on the scale it should have.

Yes but they were more worried about being "the format" when DVD-A was announced.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Yes but they were more worried about being "the format" when DVD-A was announced.

From what I've heard from folks, the SACD was a retaliatory move against the DVD-A behind the scenes, even though the public reveal was earlier. DVD-A was meant to be launched with DVD-V in 96. The DVD in general was meant to have everybody on board with licensing and royalties (including Sony, they were on board initially), but on the DVD-A portion, things crumbled quickly due to a variety of issues on both sides. Imagine, there could have been a world where there was only one hi-rez music format...

 

[knifeman]

I voted an undecisive no, the reason being I already own the CD of many surround discs I buy. But if I don't, I will play the CD on occasion, usually as background music if I'm doing something else and not sitting in my listening spot. Or if it's something I'm unfamiliar with I usually listen to the CD to get a first impression.

 

[jimfisheye]

I usually prefer the UK version of that era of albums where the US version replaced 1 to 3 songs with a-sides. Singles and lps didn't normally overlap in the UK at the time. That first Sabbath album is a big exception with the single b-side put to the lp making it wildly better! That track was the b-side too, wtf?

These box sets...

Hard not to like something extra they include. It's... extra.
The only issue is when something important is omitted. There's no rule that says every release has to be complete and include all previous versions. I can still appreciate novelty releases on their own too. But some 'deluxe' sets have a vibe of "complete" or "master" audio and end up feeling like false advertising. There are notable expensive deluxe sets that leave out surround mixes often enough. That's the real disappointing stuff. But loading it up with vinyl and hyping up the price isn't very welcome either.

I think the original idea was to include "current formats" like CD when dvd/bluray/download was considered "advanced". So this has gone a little weird at this point! Playing a CD copy from a collectors edition kind of release in the car like it's the disposable copy?! Well that's not ever going to happen even if it is only a lower quality copy of a bluray. These were so someone without "advanced" technology could buy the set and still at least hear the music.

 

[Blrac]

I'm curious, not being argumentative, but sincerely want to know what you actually listen to when it comes to a surround disc (any format) when you want to hear it but you don't have access to a surround setup and there are not portable surround disc players? Like in the car, working in the garage, etc. For me it is a cd, that may or may not have been included with a box surround set. Like someone else said, a lot of times, I already own the cd of the surround, but with all the new releases, there are many new discs being released I do not own.

Now I have 3 surround setups to listen...2 in my house, 1 in my car, but my car only plays DVD-A or DTS. Bluray is worthless for portability, and I can't listen to it anywhere other than my house with my surround setups. Not my garage, but inside. I do not want to invest the time or money into trying to convert a surround disc into stereo only, or copy from a bluray disc because I don't have that setup on anything I own. Maybe I am too old school, but in the end, you still end up with a stereo copy, most likely about cd quality anyway, that you have to work to get playable away from your surround set up. Which is why I don't understand the passionate resistance to having a stand alone cd included.

I do not stream music other than Pandora, in stereo, because they are all paid subscriptions for anything in surround. If I am not seated correctly, surround is not great to listen to either. It is definitely a fixed position listening experience. Thereby making a portable stereo version universally more practical. I realize you can copy to a drive, which I have done, but I have only ever done that from cd, or downloaded stereo music. Maybe there is a surround sound conversion to stereo for dummies that I can use, but I still like my cd copy. I even have my kids borrow them to use in their rooms/house and vehicles.

Again, just my perspective, and I am trying to understand the other view. No hate just trying to learn and progress.

 

[AYanguas]

NO.

They give me more work when ripping the pack (I do rip the CDs... just in case...) and I don't listen to them almost never.
..... I still remember the whole sessions of ripping the 27 Camel Air Born BOX CDs ......

I only listen Stereo in the car and in the kitchen when I'm cooking, and for that I use Streaming (Tidal,Apple), with much less listening audiophile requierements.

If a Surround Blu-ray does not come with a stereo CD, I will surely will find it in Streaming. And if not... It doesn't matter.

Any Extra Stereo material, not found on Streaming, should come within the Blu-ray.

 

[par4ken]

I'm curious, not being argumentative, but sincerely want to know what you actually listen to when it comes to a surround disc (any format) when you want to hear it but you don't have access to a surround setup and there are not portable surround disc players? Like in the car, working in the garage, etc. For me it is a cd, that may or may not have been included with a box surround set. Like someone else said, a lot of times, I already own the cd of the surround, but with all the new releases, there are many new discs being released I do not own.

Now I have 3 surround setups to listen...2 in my house, 1 in my car, but my car only plays DVD-A or DTS. Bluray is worthless for portability, and I can't listen to it anywhere other than my house with my surround setups. Not my garage, but inside. I do not want to invest the time or money into trying to convert a surround disc into stereo only, or copy from a bluray disc because I don't have that setup on anything I own. Maybe I am too old school, but in the end, you still end up with a stereo copy, most likely about cd quality anyway, that you have to work to get playable away from your surround set up. Which is why I don't understand the passionate resistance to having a stand alone cd included.

I do not stream music other than Pandora, in stereo, because they are all paid subscriptions for anything in surround. If I am not seated correctly, surround is not great to listen to either. It is definitely a fixed position listening experience. Thereby making a portable stereo version universally more practical. I realize you can copy to a drive, which I have done, but I have only ever done that from cd, or downloaded stereo music. Maybe there is a surround sound conversion to stereo for dummies that I can use, but I still like my cd copy. I even have my kids borrow them to use in their rooms/house and vehicles.

Again, just my perspective, and I am trying to understand the other view. No hate just trying to learn and progress.

I too am old school but I don't understand peoples resistance to ripping and burning CD's for such use. It's not a lot of time nor money involved at all. I would never play or leave my CD collection in the car or anyplace else! Burning a backup copy it is so easy! It is not hard to make a CD from a higher resolution source either. This is much like copying your vinyl records to cassette back in the day, but much quicker. Playing copies keeps your collection in great shape. I shudder at the thought of CD's from an expensive box set getting bounced around in someone's car or garage!

I listen to surround almost exclusively everywhere usually via quad (four speakers). I disagree that you have to sit in the sweet spot to enjoy it. I can sit anywhere in the room, stereo is always played "decoded" via Sansui Vario-matrix or Tate. The sweet spot might be the best seat in the house but I greatly enjoy quad sitting or standing anywhere between the speakers. Even outside the speakers the sound still beats regular stereo, by a wide margin!

My resistance to the extra CD's is that they are unnecessary and push up the cost of the set. Just as I see little point in paying extra for an unnecessarily heavy LP, pressed from a digital master, that too just pushes up the cost. I love my vinyl as well, but vintage vinyl which is not brickwalled like many CD's are titles and that are unavailable on CD at all.

 

[kfbkfb]

(maybe yet another poll choice - stereo CD that is a matrix encoded version of the surround sound mix)

I have 2 Sony CFD-S70 boomboxes to listen to CDs (& cassettes & radio), one near my basement surround sound system and one near my bedroom system, a matrix encoded CD would be an easy way to hear the surround mix on these (very low end) stereo systems.


Kirk Bayne

 

[JediJoker]

(maybe yet another poll choice - stereo CD that is a matrix encoded version of the surround sound mix)

My poll is based on the types of releases that are actually being released. With few exceptions, matrixed surround is dead and not being released anymore.

 

[kfbkfb]

JediJoker - not to be argumentative, but the stereo mix for the CD needs to come from somewhere (the existing stereo mix, a remastered stereo mix [a la Quadio], a new stereo mix or a surround to stereo downmix).

The existing stereo mix digital copy may be decades old (and not of the best quality), remastering and new stereo mixes cost more money whereas some software in a DAW can convert the digital surround sound source to matrix encoded stereo in the RBCD format, would just need a little extra time to wait for the DAW to make the RBCD format data files.


Kirk Bayne

 

[sjcorne]

With few exceptions, matrixed surround is dead and not being released anymore.

It continues to amaze me that people are still talking about it in 2024.

 

[somethingcleveridunno]

Now I have 3 surround setups to listen...2 in my house, 1 in my car, but my car only plays DVD-A or DTS. Bluray is worthless for portability, and I can't listen to it anywhere other than my house with my surround setups.

You could rip the blu ray 5.1 and make a DTS CD without that much trouble, for your car.

I just don't want the added cost of a CD included when I could buy it for like $3 used instead of the markup it would add to a package I'm buying for the surround version.

 

[kfbkfb]

It continues to amaze me that people are still talking about it in 2024.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CK53RV8R/ref=sr_1_1

Going OT somewhat - Amazon currently sells stereo MP3s of current songs that are Sony 360RA (matrix?) encoded.


Kirk Bayne

 

[JulesRules]

Some stated on this poll that they are in favor of the CD being included if it doesn't add cost ( or much of one).
It will virtually always add cost! What sort of a business model can have a product @ N/C?

A lot of the CD/BD or CD/DVD editions (e.g. Steve Hackett) I have were cheap because they were aimed at a large public, one that may or may not be able to play the multichannel disc, whereas things like the SDE series are more of a niche thing and often quite costly for various reasons (risk, low print runs, licensing). I guess Bill B has said that already.

I can live with having to buy CDs and BDs separately (as I have done recently for Animals 2018 Remix, Wet Dream and One Deep River) but I do think a simple digipak combining both is really the best of both worlds (sets mixing digital discs with vinyl, on the other hand, annoy me) and doesn't have to be expensive - the emphasis here being on "simple". I didn't consider myself enough of a Yes fan to buy the artbook 2CD/BD edition of Mirror to the Sky but I didn't have to think long when the slimmed down digipak edition was announced.

People saying that it's easy to rip BD are sounding a bit - excuse the term - privileged to me. It's an involved process and requires a BD computer drive plus several pieces of software, not to mention ample drive space (a recurring problem with me...).

However, it makes me wonder why download codes were only ever really a thing for vinyl releases, and not considered for things like CDs or BD-As. The BD itself could also include files in CD and mp3 format ready to rip, which would make things easier, although still requiring a PC drive.