Don't Assume All SACD's are 5.1...

[aspaceintime]

I made a mistake today and wanted to pass along to others. I bought The Police
Zenyata Mendata SACD today. Went home to listen to it and to my dismay, it's only 2 channel stereo. I read the jewel case and it only says SACD Stereo. I wrongly assumed all SACD's were 5.1. I threw the receipt away this morning as Friday is garbage day, so I can't take it back.

On a lighter note I also bought the Doobie Brothers Captain & Me DVD-A. I would highly recommend this one, it sounds great.

[supervij]

Yeah, that's one nice thing about DVD-A: you're virtually guaranteed that it'll be in 5.1. With SACDs, I've found that it doesn't always have that little black box on the back with the white print that says "Multi-Ch", but there's usually some indication. Now that I know, I always check it thoroughly before considering a purchase. And if it doesn't say anything, I'd recommend asking the clerk/manager about refunds if it isn't multi-channel, unless of course, it doesn't matter to you.

cheers,
supervij

[outsider]

call me crazy, but I'd prefer the hi-res formats be in stereo instead of 5.1.
Or make the discs with both.

[mtrycrafts]

call me crazy, but I'd prefer the hi-res formats be in stereo instead of 5.1.
Or make the discs with both.


Crazy? For liking something that may be different? Hardly:D

[s2pdname]

call me crazy, but I'd prefer the hi-res formats be in stereo instead of 5.1.
Or make the discs with both.

Agreed. IMO, after the novelty of surround sound wears off it comes down to the music, and most SACD's that I own are better in stereo.

[BostonMark]

Just a note, many of my multichannel SACDs don't necessarily use all 5 channels and the LFE either. My Miles Davis SACDs in multi channel are pretty much all in the front 3 channels with no bass no surrounds. The bottom line though is that even though I prefer the surround sound, the sound quality improvement on SACD, especially of some old stuff is just wonderful. Case in point, I have <a href="http://www.epinions.com/content_208537095812">Gilberto/Getz</a> on SACD and its in stereo, and oohh it is soo good. (read my review, if you'd like) So when picking SACD or DVD audio read the fine print, even then you may not get full channel surround!

[j_garcia]

Nobody ever said all SACDs are 5.1. Read the packaging. It ALWAYS says what is on the disc. Most of the first generation SACDs are stereo only, just as most players were stereo only at first.

[aspaceintime]

I blame myself for not reading the label. Life's full of lessons.

[rdar]

I'll admit it, moods come over me when I want to hear contemporary five-discrete-channel discs from companies that care like Telarc, Bis and Channel Classics. It can be an extraordinary experience.

But the higher sampling rate and remastering that go into even old stereo CDs can make a revelatory difference. I wouldn't hesitate to go for the SACD version of a stereo CD you love.

All that aside, I'm afraid that if customers don't support the SACD format for stereo issues, SACD will be one more lost cause. It's established a precarious niche market, but if the only purchasers of SACDs are those with multichannel systems, it probably won't achieve the critical mass needed to sustain the format. And then where would we be?

[dblanch66]

Nobody ever said all SACDs are 5.1. Read the packaging. It ALWAYS says what is on the disc. Most of the first generation SACDs are stereo only, just as most players were stereo only at first.
Actually that isn't true. "Scary Monsters" by Bowie. Can't find a label to tell if it's stereo or multich.
Also, if the surround mix is done right, it far eclipses the stereo sound. Listen to Dark Side, or Elton John or Sea Change. New dimensions have been achieved here but it all depends on the engineer.

[supervij]

Not to mention the Rolling Stones SACDs. None of the ones I've seen actually say SACD on them. The packaging calls them remasters, but there's no other information on it.

cheers,
supervij