[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
It's not a question of surround sound having its merits... It's a question of whether or not there is a big enough profit to be made, and that's what QP are interested more than anything.[/QUOTE]
Just as for every other record company since the record was invented.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Rick wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Indeed and Q+PR stuff.
Seriously, if Paul sticks around for a few years (which isn't bad at all) all Queen material with Freddie will stay in the shadows.
So, it's a bit of a dilemma...[/QUOTE]
you are deluding yourself if you think that Paul Rogers and Kween will ever overshadow anything Freddie did with the band.
Seriously, if Paul sticks around for a few years (which isn't bad at all) all Queen material with Freddie will stay in the shadows.
So, it's a bit of a dilemma...[/QUOTE]
you are deluding yourself if you think that Paul Rogers and Kween will ever overshadow anything Freddie did with the band.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
It's not a question of surround sound having its merits... It's a question of whether or not there is a big enough profit to be made, and that's what QP are interested more than anything.[/QUOTE]
Just as for every other record company since the record was invented.[/QUOTE]
That's right, every company thinks about the profits.
Yet some companies have found it to be profitable to release these surround albums.
Why do you think that is?
Is it because Queen would sell less copies than Genesis, or is it because QP would want a BIGGER profit than Genesis?
¨
I know you like to defend Queen as much as I like to question their motives, but you have to look at it with some objectivity:
Two major bands who own the rights to their material. An equally long career with an equal amount of previous re-issues, and neither is very fashionable at the moment... Yet one of them thinks it's a good idea to release surround albums and archive material.
It really makes you wonder, doesn't it?
It's not a question of surround sound having its merits... It's a question of whether or not there is a big enough profit to be made, and that's what QP are interested more than anything.[/QUOTE]
Just as for every other record company since the record was invented.[/QUOTE]
That's right, every company thinks about the profits.
Yet some companies have found it to be profitable to release these surround albums.
Why do you think that is?
Is it because Queen would sell less copies than Genesis, or is it because QP would want a BIGGER profit than Genesis?
¨
I know you like to defend Queen as much as I like to question their motives, but you have to look at it with some objectivity:
Two major bands who own the rights to their material. An equally long career with an equal amount of previous re-issues, and neither is very fashionable at the moment... Yet one of them thinks it's a good idea to release surround albums and archive material.
It really makes you wonder, doesn't it?
I think there's time for DVD audio releases. IMO, new stuff + archive box set must come first.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]paulsmith2001 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Rick wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Indeed and Q+PR stuff.
Seriously, if Paul sticks around for a few years (which isn't bad at all) all Queen material with Freddie will stay in the shadows.
So, it's a bit of a dilemma...[/QUOTE]
you are deluding yourself if you think that Paul Rogers and Kween will ever overshadow anything Freddie did with the band.[/QUOTE]
Well I can tell your I prefer Queen with Freddie too. That's where it all started. I love to see old shows being released. On the other hand, it's nice to see brand new material too. Paul is a great singer and a perfect vocalist for nowadays Queen. And being able to the see guys live again is a nice bonus.
As I stated before: dilemma
Seriously, if Paul sticks around for a few years (which isn't bad at all) all Queen material with Freddie will stay in the shadows.
So, it's a bit of a dilemma...[/QUOTE]
you are deluding yourself if you think that Paul Rogers and Kween will ever overshadow anything Freddie did with the band.[/QUOTE]
Well I can tell your I prefer Queen with Freddie too. That's where it all started. I love to see old shows being released. On the other hand, it's nice to see brand new material too. Paul is a great singer and a perfect vocalist for nowadays Queen. And being able to the see guys live again is a nice bonus.
As I stated before: dilemma
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]QueenSite wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think there's time for DVD audio releases. IMO, new stuff + archive box set must come first. [/QUOTE]
It's taken fifteen years and there hasn't been anything even remotely like archive releases by Queen... So by the time the surround mixes are available, not only is DVD-A dead, but all the current Queen fans as well.
It's taken fifteen years and there hasn't been anything even remotely like archive releases by Queen... So by the time the surround mixes are available, not only is DVD-A dead, but all the current Queen fans as well.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]brians wig wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Make that five minutes before. I still cannot believe how anyone could've been so stupid as to come up with this format.[/QUOTE]
Don't tell me you're one of those people who doesn't see the point in surround sound and the ability to hear instruments and backing vocals that are normally hidden under the top layers of Lead Vocals and Lead Guitar?
Maybe I've heard the albums for far too many years that hearing them in different ways is great.
Do you understand the point of hearing a demo of a well known song? For me it's like that. Surround sound allows me to hear well known songs in a different form.[/QUOTE]
I support binaural stereo. We have only two audio inputs (ears), and there is nothing six channels can generate that can't be generated better in the form of binaural stereo. Unless you wish to hear separate instrumental tracks, like in the case of DVD-audio, where they are spread over the boxes, but multitrack stereo would be far superior to that. I don't like listening to music through speakers all that much; I like good headphones, and therefore have no use for a silly DVD format that stops engineers from producing higher quality stereo CD audio.
Make that five minutes before. I still cannot believe how anyone could've been so stupid as to come up with this format.[/QUOTE]
Don't tell me you're one of those people who doesn't see the point in surround sound and the ability to hear instruments and backing vocals that are normally hidden under the top layers of Lead Vocals and Lead Guitar?
Maybe I've heard the albums for far too many years that hearing them in different ways is great.
Do you understand the point of hearing a demo of a well known song? For me it's like that. Surround sound allows me to hear well known songs in a different form.[/QUOTE]
I support binaural stereo. We have only two audio inputs (ears), and there is nothing six channels can generate that can't be generated better in the form of binaural stereo. Unless you wish to hear separate instrumental tracks, like in the case of DVD-audio, where they are spread over the boxes, but multitrack stereo would be far superior to that. I don't like listening to music through speakers all that much; I like good headphones, and therefore have no use for a silly DVD format that stops engineers from producing higher quality stereo CD audio.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like good headphones, and therefore have no use for a silly DVD format that stops engineers from producing higher quality stereo CD audio.[/QUOTE]
How about SACD then? In addition to the surround mix, the same disc can contain a higher resolution stereo album as well as the basic cd.. ;)
How about SACD then? In addition to the surround mix, the same disc can contain a higher resolution stereo album as well as the basic cd.. ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like good headphones, and therefore have no use for a silly DVD format that stops engineers from producing higher quality stereo CD audio.[/QUOTE]
How about SACD then? In addition to the surround mix, the same disc can contain a higher resolution stereo album as well as the basic cd.. ;)[/QUOTE]
I don't absolutely object to those, I just don't give a light for the surround mix. What I'm opposed to is DVD-Audio.
How about SACD then? In addition to the surround mix, the same disc can contain a higher resolution stereo album as well as the basic cd.. ;)[/QUOTE]
I don't absolutely object to those, I just don't give a light for the surround mix. What I'm opposed to is DVD-Audio.
That's bizarre TQ, cause you say you don't like dvd-a's, but don't mind sacd's. Fact is, they're practically the same and both offer the same things! So why do you pray for dvd-a's death, but not sacd's? Is this a hd-dvd vs bluray thing we're getting into here?
Adam.
Adam.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]That's bizarre TQ, cause you say you don't like dvd-a's, but don't mind sacd's. Fact is, they're practically the same and both offer the same things! So why do you pray for dvd-a's death, but not sacd's? Is this a hd-dvd vs bluray thing we're getting into here?
Adam.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that I can play a hybrid SACD on a regular good quality cd-player, but not so for DVD-A. As I said, I couldn't care less for the surround mix, I want a good stereo mix I can play with my cd-player.
Adam.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that I can play a hybrid SACD on a regular good quality cd-player, but not so for DVD-A. As I said, I couldn't care less for the surround mix, I want a good stereo mix I can play with my cd-player.
DVD-Audio has surround mixes of course, but it's possible to play it in stereo downmix (with higher sound quality compare to Audio CD). The same goes for SACD.
It's not an argument that (hybrid) SACD is possible to play on CD player while DVD-audio not. True, DVDA isn't playable on standard CD, but it could be played on standard DVD player (which isn't so rare in these times, is it?).
I don't want too much plead for DVD-Audio, I should say, I like SACD more too, but the main disadvantage using DVD-Audio for me is necessarity of having TV on to navigate through menus and sound settings. On the other side, there could be some video bonus on DVD-Audio.
Every thing on the world has its cons and pros, and DVDA and SACD formats are not too interesting for common people (in the era of mp3s). But I think, there are people (and market) for these formats (and Genesis (soon) the whole catalogue on SACD shows that it could be done).
It's not an argument that (hybrid) SACD is possible to play on CD player while DVD-audio not. True, DVDA isn't playable on standard CD, but it could be played on standard DVD player (which isn't so rare in these times, is it?).
I don't want too much plead for DVD-Audio, I should say, I like SACD more too, but the main disadvantage using DVD-Audio for me is necessarity of having TV on to navigate through menus and sound settings. On the other side, there could be some video bonus on DVD-Audio.
Every thing on the world has its cons and pros, and DVDA and SACD formats are not too interesting for common people (in the era of mp3s). But I think, there are people (and market) for these formats (and Genesis (soon) the whole catalogue on SACD shows that it could be done).
I can see your point about using a good cd player, but then, didn't they make hybrid cd/dvd-a discs so you could do just what you describe?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/14/dualdisc_approved/
Yup.
Adam.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/14/dualdisc_approved/
Yup.
Adam.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I can see your point about using a good cd player, but then, didn't they make hybrid cd/dvd-a discs so you could do just what you describe?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/14/dualdisc_approved/
Yup.
Adam.[/QUOTE]
I've never seen a hybrid DVD-A/CD in any Dutch store; if they exist, fine. I still consider the surround mix redundant, but I guess there's a market for everything, and as long as I can play it in my cd-player, I'm satisfied.
Now what I don't understand, is why the extra space offered by the DVD medium isn't employed to create 8- or 16-track audio, where one can mix the tracks by hand. So, in essence, a 'downmixable' digital multitrack Now I'd sure be willing to buy myself new playback equipment for that!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/14/dualdisc_approved/
Yup.
Adam.[/QUOTE]
I've never seen a hybrid DVD-A/CD in any Dutch store; if they exist, fine. I still consider the surround mix redundant, but I guess there's a market for everything, and as long as I can play it in my cd-player, I'm satisfied.
Now what I don't understand, is why the extra space offered by the DVD medium isn't employed to create 8- or 16-track audio, where one can mix the tracks by hand. So, in essence, a 'downmixable' digital multitrack Now I'd sure be willing to buy myself new playback equipment for that!
There are hybrid DVD players (they can play SACD, DVDA and of course CD audio). If you choose Pioneer, Denon or Marantz (among others), they all have acceptable sound quality even for Audio CD.