Anyone know if any PJ albums are in the plans for release in super audio format? If you haven't heard the surround sound/multi-channel versions (stereo versions are so-so) you're missing out. Like one person said, "It's like listening to music in 3-D".

I've been wondering the same thing. I bought The Doors "LA Woman" on DVD-Audio and it sounds pretty awesome, especially "Riders on the storm."

maybe dvd-a might happen sometime but i dont see sacd catching on as quickly as dvd-a. i have 2 albums (not pj) on dvd-a its fantastic

SACD is a Sony proprietary thing isn't it? If PJ albums get re-released in advanced formats, it will almost definitely be SACD and not DVD-A.

--PunkDavid

thats true though mate.

i just think dvd-a is gonna win the battle, advantage it has is being able to add foto galleries/videos and lyric pages etc etc.

but yea i forgot about the sony thing.

I find SACD to be much better sounding. The warmth (for lack of a technical term) is much more evident. I think it has to do with 6 discreet analogue channels vs. 1 digital cable connected to the amp. I dunno, I'm not an audiophile but I can tell you I've heard NIN's TDS from the dualdisc and from the SACD on my stereo and there is no comparison.

To make myself completely unpopular, I am going to say that I don't think PJ's music is complex enough to warrant a multichannel release. Or at least to redo their catalogue...
There are some artists that benefit greatly from surround mixing and others that sound worse. On the plus side, Peter Gabriel's later output sounds fantastic in multichannel and on the negative, the Police doesn't sound as good.

Sorry for being naive, but what is the difference between the two?

SACD is a Sony product and DVD A is backed by Panasonic/Philips - they are basically the same product - delivering higher quality audio on a disk. However, there is a war between the two sides for the industry standard. Artists on Sony owned labels eg Epic with Pearl Jam would be released on SACD. Labels not affiliated with Sony or Panasonic have to make a choice which format to release their product on or both. Releasing on both formats increases mastering and production costs, while producing for only only format can alienate consumer who cannot play both formats.

Smart call in my opinion is to ride it out and wait for the next higher quality format to become industry standard.

Thats probably a fair point. I can imagine bands like Pink Floyd and Radiohead sounding good in surround sound. Straight out rock would probably be better with just the two channels. I could be wrong though

To elaborate a bit further, the two formats use completely different methods of storing the audio data. DVD-A uses the same method as traditional CDs (PCM), but at a higher sampling rate and bit depth.

But SACD uses a new proprietary way of representing the audio called Pulse Density Modulation (PDM), aka Direct-Stream Digital (DSD). The end result of each format is pretty similar, higher quality and multi-channel audio, but I agree with the previous poster who said that SACD is better. I think another advantage for SACD is the ability to play the 2-channel audio on a standard CD player.

SACD is a Sony/Phillips product, who were also responsible for CD-Audio in the first place.

I don't know that either format will truly win out over the other before a new technology comes along, so I'd just buy a player that supports both formats.

I don't have the means to test either format. I have a dvd player but lack the sound capabilities to make any dvd-a purchase a valid one. However i do have a few SACD's just because that's how they came. Tool's Lateralus is one. I also bought the re-issue of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon neither of which ive been able to use because i don't have an SACD capable player. The one feature is that it still is playable on regular CD players, just not the full SACD format. I like not having to buy 2 different copies of the same album just to enjoy it in a new format when i finally get around to getting the proper equipment.

If you just have a standard DVD player, it will not play DVD-A discs. You need a DVD-A player to take advantage of that format.

And Tool's Lateralus is actually an HDCD, which was another proprietary format that is just a slight improvement over standard CD-Audio, and is not worth purchasing a player for unless you're in the market for a new CD player already.

That isn't entirely true. Most DVD-A come with a high resolution DVD-A mix and an inferior Dolby Digital mix aswell which is playable in standard DVD players. The Dolby mix will give you surround sound but no improvement in quality.

Of course correct me if I'm wrong but I think I remember playing LZ How the West was Won on my standard DVD player before I got my SACD DVD player.

good call. i think i'm going to wait this round out and see what comes of it before i start making any major audio purchases. what would make sense is if all the companies got together and formed a new standard for high definition audio and go from there. im sure it would improve sales of the new formats...or perhaps a unit that can play them all (if it doesn't exist already)

Yes you're right, I just didn't feel like typing that much. But to take full advantage of the DVD-A format, you need a new player.

Don't hold your breath. If new developments in DVD Video are any example there will never be 1 standard again. http://chud.com/specialed/1272

And then there's DualDisc....

Riders on DVD-A is mind blowing. I love the thunder intro and then the music comes in and it's just...wow.

I think SACD has the edge right now. I think the quality is slightly better, and they have *way* more titles available, including the big names.

SACD right now has:
Kind Of Blue (and many other Miles releases)
Dark Side Of The Moon
Tommy
Ziggy Startdust
Blue Trane
catalogs of: The Kinks, Rolling Stones, The Police

and a lot of other huge names.

Both need to have a big release year and just unload dozens of titles.