http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 22 Oct 2002 03:05:31 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/22/030531.php Chris DaleyJim Schwab's comments on SACD and DVD-A here on Blogcritics made me cranky enough to write a reply. Jim is reporting on a blog post by Scott commenting on this CNN story. As both posts and the "mainstream media" story are full of whoppers (and I don't mean they went to Burger King...) I just had to toss in my two cents.Let me start with CNN since they are the starting point. CNN says:"SACDs and DVD-Audios, when coupled with the right speakers, sound superior to regular CDs."Before dealing with this, I should note that I am an audiophile. I have a very expensive two channel stereo system (Audio Research electronics with Martin Logan speakers for those who care) using a Sony SACD player as my digital source. I even have a 24bit capable digital convert and some DADs- early DVD based 24 bit recordings. And there is no doubt that having high quality speakers makes it easier to hear differences in source material. But I have been at a get together at a friend's house where he played SACD discs over his ancient Apple computer speakers and everyone present could clearly hear the difference between the CD and SACD versions. I see no evidence the CNN journalist actually listened to either format- they just quoted people who did. As someone with direct experience with SACD let me tell you- there is a difference and you will hear it on most equipment. The question is whether that difference is enough to justify the expense of the player and software.Another CNN gem: "Most SACDs can only be played in SACD players."This was true when SACD launched almost two years ago. But today almost all SACDs issued are hybrids. That means that your CD player will see only the CD information and play the hybrid SACD just like any other CD. When you place it in a SACD player, you can also access the SACD high resolution data stream. Only Sony and a few small labels issue SACD only discs. Hybrids have even been issued as regular CDs. All of the recent ABKCO Rolling Stones re-mastered discs are hybrid SACDs and are stocked in the regular CD bin of your record store. CNN seems totaly ignorant of hybrids when they write:"Another drawback: Unlike CDs and MP3s, which you can play just about anywhere, DVD-Audio and SACDs don't have that portability. Cars, portable CD players or boomboxes don't have the technology to play them yet."They are half right at least- DVD-A won't play in your CD player, but all the current and future SACD hybrids will. CNN does mention the Stones re-issues further on but fail to understand that this undermines their argument.Scott has his own spin on the CNN story. For the record I'm 100% on with his comment that "...a whole raft of assertions are a really pure example of what happens when a marketroid and a particularly clueless press monkey get together to hatch a story." But some of his other statements are questionable. Consider:"The folks who really cared about recording actual performances, mostly classical guys (is Telarc even still in business any more?) had been making digital recordings for several years when CDs came out. "Yes, Telarc is still in business. In fact they are one of the major proponents of SACD. Telarc, among other small labels who emphasized recording quality, have for many years been recording at higher bit and sample rates that the 16 bit, 44.1 Mhtz required for CD. Why buy the equipment to do more than the CD standard required? Because they felt strongly that the CD standard was not enough. Now they are able to release those higher resolution recordings.Scott then says "Lots, and I mean lots, of people have home theater rigs nowadays, and more are adding them every day. Now that you can get an AC3 receiver for less than $300, you have very little reason not to. CDs don't have the ability to take advantage of these new developments because of the way their standards were written back in the late 70s. DVD-Audio lets you leverage your existing home theater investment. Because of this, Sony's attempt to set yet another standard will fail just like Beta and those minidisc recorders."I agree that the market is going home theater. But this is not a reason to reject SACD. SACD is a multi-channel format just like DVD-A is. The reason I prefer SACD is the hybrid advantage I discussed above. No matter how impressive they are you will never be able to play your DVD-A discs in your car CD player. Many DVD-A discs can not be played without access to a TV monitor though this is more a limitation in the user interface design of the players than a limitation of the disc. But anyone who has played DVDs knows that interface menu design is far from a science at this point."Record companies are still completely out of touch with their own customer base. DVD audio costs more than CD audio?!? When you can already buy DVD movies for less than their CD soundtracks?!? I'll stick to DVDs thank you. They're more fun and don't cost as much."I'm with Scott on pricing. But he should note that you can buy a Rolling Stones hybrid SACD for $13.98 at Amazon.Scott does not come out and say it, but the implication is that he has not heard either DVD-A or SACD. CNN touts them without hearing, Scott rejects them. I say both approaches are wrong.That brings me to Jim Schwab's comments. Jim sounds to me like the average consumer coming into this format war and trying to figure out what the heck is going on. His concerns are:--Ability to rip material from the discs. --Portability.As far as access to the data stream, I'm not presently aware of any way to access the high resolution data stream from either DVD-A or SACD discs. I'm sure DVD-A will be cracked by someone with a DVD drive. SACD may prove a bit tougher to crack as the content may not be as easily to read on a PC. What you can access is the CD track on a hybrid SACD. They are as readable as any other CD.On the portability front, DVD-A will never be as portable as hybrid SACD. Again, this was the deciding factor in my decision to put my money behind SACD. I like to play music in my car and on portable players. At this point only SACD allows me to do that. And only on the hybrid discs- Sony discs are still all SACD only.Final thought- Jim hasn't heard them either, but he has an open mind about giving them a try. I promise- you don't need a high end rig to hear a difference. What is a matter of taste is whether that difference is worth paying for. As a music lover who happens to be an audiophile, it is worth it to me. I hope that when Jim does give them a listen he reports back on his findings. Culture1437@blogcritics.org Tue, 22 Oct 2002 03:05:31 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/02/205829.php Chris DaleyJohn C. Dvorak the well known columnist for PC Magazine has an editorial that says the true price of a CD should be $1.40. With CD prices hovering around $16 that is a revolutionary statement.Now I'm not fan of the music industry. I think they missed the boat on dealing with Napster. I think they produce and promote a ton of absolute dreck. Of course producing and promoting dreck is nothing new. For every all time classic record like Sgt. Peppers there were probably dozens of blessedly forgotten nuggets of dreck. But I digress. As bad as the music industry is I think some of Dvorak's arguments are questionable to say the least.Dvorak starts by quoting statistics that the RIAA has been trumpeting:It's rampant. The new P2P systems, such as KaZaA and Morpheus, have picked up where Napster left off, and blank CDs now outsell prerecorded discs. The trend is clear: concern not for the law but for economics. This happens with disruptive technologies. Dvorak makes the same mistake with this statistic as the RIAA does. He assumes that all of those CD blanks are being used for ripping music. No firm evidence exists on how many of those blanks are being used for music and how many contain software or backed up files. I'm sure Dvorak himself has a spindle of blanks sitting around and that he probably uses more of them for software than for music.Dvorak next stresses that economics is driving music piracy:Likewise, too many people are asking why they should buy a CD for $16 when they can copy one for 35 cents. We are a mercantile culture, and this is a pure cost/benefits analysis. It has nothing to do with laws. There are laws against public kissing in many cities, too. Who cares? It's about economics, plain and simple.Well I can steal a Lexus for a lot less than I could buy one. It's economics, plain and simple.Of course a copy of a $16 CD will not have a nice booklet or cover art but then again that never stopped all my college friends from making tape copies of everything (this was the 1980's mind you- no CD blanks then).Another Dvorak argument is about the true cost of making a CD:When Edison first released his prerecorded cylinders, they sold for $4 each. With mass production, he eventually brought the price down to 35 cents, nearly a 90 percent reduction. If the same ratio held true with $16 CDs, the cost of which has been perpetually propped up by price fixing, they would cost $1.40. Since it costs less than 25 cents to mass-produce a CD, $1.40 is reasonable and profitable.All very interesting, but Dvorak fails to control for an important factor- inflation. According to the Dvorak's article Edison started selling cylinders in 1887 and dropped them in favor of a disk in 1913. So over 27 years he obtained a 90% price drop. The inflation rate over those 27 years was an average of .21% In contract since the 1983 introduction of the CD the inflation rate has averaged 3.25%. It would have been an economic miracle if CD prices had achieved the same results as Edison given an inflation rate of 3% a year more.In effect since CD launched with a suggested retail price of $16.95 the fact that they are still around $16 despite 19 years of 3% inflation is fairly impressive. As a comparison consider what you paid to go to the movies in 1982 and what you are paying now.Credit where it is due: Dvorak does have a point regarding production. Production costs have decreased since the launch. The cost at launch of stamping a CD was approximately $3.20. It is now below $0.18. But that is just the cost of the disc itself. Using the price of the recorded medium as a starting point is a bit of a straw man. To calculate the true cost of a CD you must take into account the cost of recording the album, promotional costs, and distribution costs. And to fully compare CD to Edison's technology we need to compare those production costs as well.All of this does not mean that the music industry should be blissfully along without making some changes. Change is coming whether they like it or not. But we should be clear about what is driving the change and what is realistic. Making historical comparisons when the historical situations are dissimilar is not the best way to proceed. Music1044@blogcritics.org Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:58:29 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/25/220625.php Chris DaleyMy home blog covers all sorts of topics- everything from geopolitics to Wal-Mart is fair game. For whatever reason I've never become widely read in blogland so I get most of my traffic via Google. Makes me feel like I'm talking to more than just the folks in the blogsphere. So what is my #1 traffic generating topic? How to get a job at the TSA. That is Transportation Security Administration to the acronym challenged. When Eric requested "Everybody Blog!" (which sound like some 1960's Austin Powers dance commandment) I decided to publish my TSA experience.You've read all the blogs about bad security. You've read Mr. Instapundit's Fox News columns. Now here is the "inside story".Man that sounds like something from that old Current Affair show.I've been looking for some permanent employment since around the start of the year. The economy here in Silicon Valley smells worse than Alviso, which any good Silicon Valley resident knows is the location of the dump and the sewage plant. The current unemployment rate in Santa Clara County is 7.6%. And there are very few job openings. After months of getting nowhere my strategy evolved to include a possible move back to Southern California. The economy is hotter there. I have friends and family there. But it is hard to get a job long distance.I did not want to bet the farm on one avenue, so besides the usual job hunting techniques I decided to watch for the TSA hiring at Southern California airports. I figured if all else failed I could get the security job, move, and keep hunting for something I'd rather do. When the opening posted I applied. This began a long hurry up and wait encounter with our Federal Government. Over the next couple of posts I'll walk you through what happened to me and what I think it all means for security and the future of the airlines.First some ground rules. Part of the process involved an NDA. So there are some things I will not talk about. For example, I can not discuss specifics about the various assessment tests. So if you are wondering about what to bone up on if you want to be a security screener don't ask me. If I find out something I've written about is verboten it is coming down. I had considered doing an anonymous blog about all this but it isn't worth the bother and I don't need that den Beste guy on my butt (just kidding- I like his stuff).My first impression was pretty favorable. The TSA advertises the jobs extensively on the internet. I knew they were posting the listing on Monster.com so I set up a job search agent to email me when they went up. They utilized the Monster.com apply online link to take you to a questionnaire. It asks questions such as:Are you a US citizen? Do you have prior experience? Do you have a high school diploma? And so on. After completing them the system will make an immediate determination about whether you are qualified. For example, if you are not a citizen it will bounce you. But if all your ducks are in a row you get a message confirming you are a viable candidate. It informs you that the TSA will contact you by phone or email when your assessment is scheduled.I did all on this online, but you can also go through an 800 number. They really push for you to do things online and that is my preference as well.A couple of weeks went by and then I received an email telling me I had been scheduled for an assessment. The date it gave was approximately 10 days away at 7:30am. If I wanted that time I was to reply to the email with my with word ACCEPT and applicant ID number as the subject to the message. I could also DECLINE or RESCHEDULE. I accepted and promptly received a second confirmation email. I was impressed that they were using email and internet to drive the process.The first email also contained lots of information about the process. Here are some of the relevant bits:The first part of the assessment is a computer-based examination. After the initial examination, you will be asked to perform physical tests such as lifting luggage, and you will have a medical examination. Please wear comfortable clothing and shoes for the testing. There are other tests as well, and there is also an interview that is part of the complete assessment.Some of this information could also be dug up in the job descriptions posted on the TSA web site. I already knew, for example, that the lifting requirement was 40 pounds. I read this to say you would do all of this in a day. But that proved to be a mistake.You must be prepared to show two forms of personal identification. Both must have your signature, and one of the two must have your photo. Failure to present the required identification may disqualify you from the assessment process. I couldn't have guessed this at the time, but you needed these to get through security to even take the various tests.Bring a voided personal check for direct deposit initiation. Please also bring with you copies of your two most recent pay stubs for the purpose of current salary verification.I found that request interesting. Apparently they were moving fast.....You will receive a packet which will contain the following materials that you will need to complete and be prepared to return at the assessment center:Standard Form 85P: Public Trust, which must be completed prior to arriving at the center. You may either complete this paper form, or you can complete the form on the Internet using the URL: www.tsaapply.com. If you have any difficulty completing the SF-85P online form, please contact: Choice Point Customer Service at 800 749 9554, press 2. You are strongly encouraged to use the secure Web-base form. Standard Form 93 Report of Medical History, which must be completed prior to arriving at the center.When you receive this packet, please review it carefully. All of the forms in the packet must be legibly completed, and brought with you to the assessment.As the days found down I waited in vain for this packet. I expected it to come in the mail. Nothing ever came. I took advantage of the web based 85P form and printed it out. Sadly because it was browser based printing the 85P came out looking like crap. I Googled up a PDF of an 85P and brought it along. I was betting they would reject my printed form because it was not just like everyone else's. I could then hand copy the information.Form 85P is a fairly extensive background check going back 7 years. For any normal person it would be impossible to fill out in person at an interview. So providing an electronic version to fill out is an excellent idea. On top of that the web based form error checked itself, prompting you to fill in key information.When no packet arrived in the mail I also Googled up the 93 Medical History and filled it out. I knew that getting this type of job required following directions and doing paperwork. I figured that when I arrived I would tell them I never saw this mysterious packet but that I had all the forms.This missing packet was the first evidence of disconnect between what you read online and reality. But more about that later.On the assigned day I showed up at the assessment center. It was at a major hotel near LAX. I wanted to be assigned to Ontario airport. It is newer, closer to my relatives, and doesn't have an El Al counter. But apparently all the testing in Southern California was being held at LAX. Several candidates remarked that they had gotten up at 4:00 am to get to LAX for the 7:30 am start time.I got there about 10 minutes early. A somewhat imposing but jovial man was guarding a pair of escalators that lead up to the next floor. I gave him my name and he looked over a list of candidates. My name wasn't there. He gave me a form to fill out and then had me sit and wait for my name to be called. I was surprised they didn't have my name and decided not to mention my lack of a packet. As it turns out no one received a packet.I sat around with about 30 other people for about 45 minutes until my name was called. Hurry up and wait was going to be the name of the game. Small groups of 3-5 people were called and sent up the escalators. When my name was called the reason for the delay became apparent. You when up the escalators and then had to proceed through security.Want more? The other parts are available at Daley Weather:Part 2: Where we get to fill out paperwork and take the dreaded computer assessment.Part 3: Where we are given the old medical once over.Part 4: Where both physical limits and our ability to play the waiting game are tested.Part 5: The big conclusion with my thoughts on the system and where airport security is headed.Rating the Blog coverage of TSA: Thoughts on the coverage of the TSA in two prominent blogs.Current Status: Where I currently stand and when I start work. Culture903@blogcritics.org Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:06:25 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/06/165638.php Chris DaleyJaguar, a unit of Ford Motor Company, has a new ad campaign for their cars featuring the song London Calling by The Clash. This immediately seemed totally wrong. I was never a huge punk rock fan but I heard my share of Clash tunes and you only had to read their album covers to understand their politics (Sandinista anyone?). I really doubt they intended London Calling to be a tool the capitalists could use to sell more high end automobiles. The song is about the collapse of Western civilization. Example lyric:The ice age is coming, the sun is zooming in Engines stop running and the wheat is growing thin A nuclear error, but I have no fear London is drowning-and I live by the riverAt the end of the day, though the Jaguar ads bug me, the recent avalanche of Pontiac ads featuring Walking on the Sun by Smash Mouth was much worse. It seemed like it was on every five minutes. And the crowning moment was when I saw it on TV just before midnight on September 3rd and had to listen to the pitchman say "Hurry - sale ends September 3rd". Sorry Charlie. Too late.Back to The Clash. A quick Google search revealed plenty of other people who thought the mix of The Clash and Jaguar was, well, read their words:Leanleft.com: "...the fact that Jaguar is using the Clash's "London Calling" in their TV commercials is just, well, wrong."A poster on the Commercials I Hate board: "But NOW... NOW oh my GOD, it's almost too terrible to think about... The Clash's "London Calling" being used in a... JAGUAR ad!!!!!!! It was like an aural lobotomy..."I think you get the picture. There were a few people who said they were cool with it, but they are totally outweighed by those who decry it as a crime against nature. But assuming it was the band members who took the money (and extensive Googling did not come up with any evidence on who owns the song), why shouldn't they profit from their work? Perhaps the band thought that if Jaguar was dumb enough to give them millions for a song that condemns Western culture then the joke would be on Jaguar. I doubt they worried too much about the band's reputation considering the band hasn't existed since the mid 1980s. Instead the opinion seems to be that the band had no right to do this because "selling out" hurt the fans. The extreme viewpoint is that the song should not belong to the band at all, but to the public:"legitimate or not, there was a popular culture in the 1960s and 70s (punk) that, while commercial, represented ideals of freedom for a lot of people. music is very powerful, perhaps the most powerful form of human expression (other than sex I suppose). we do need symbols to fight back. to reclaim public space.i was watching shaw cable (formerly the public access station) city council tv and the councilers describing public space as 'city property' (they were saying anyone who posts a sign on a city street pole is a vandal of city property) the public needs to take things back. badly. If we didn't have so many goddamn 'intellectual property rights' we wouldn't be able to sell out revolutionary songs and ideas because they would be owned by those who know them and not some mytholigical 'artiste' who 'invented' then 'patented' the idea."I suspect that writer doesn't own a Jaguar....The problem with that solution is that with no "goddamn intellectual property rights" what would stop Jaguar from using the song without any payment to anyone? Why would a corporation not have equal claim to use the now free music or ideas? Of course in that world view I suppose we wouldn't have any corporation either.One thing is for sure, symbols are powerful and music is one of the most powerful. It evokes strong memories of the past. For those who truly believed in the message of The Clash the song represents a step back to when things were more black and white than they seem today. We were going to change the world and stick it to the Man. As the excellent commentary on this topic in Art For A Change puts it:"The point really is, the music of the CLASH served as a backdrop for the turmoil of the late 1970s and early 80s. They sang their opposition to war, police violence, the arms race... and we believed them."But now many of those people either depend on the Man to pay their salary so they can send their kids to college or worse yet they now are the Man. The ad agency was ordered to target that demographic group and programmed music they would identify with. The song's message was already weakened by the passage of the years. Its use in a commercial only put a spotlight on those changes. That is the real underlying shock.Things change. Punk is dead. A Jaguar is just a dressed up Ford. The Clash, the only band that mattered, are just another band. Life is dynamic- thank God!But hey, if The Clash or whoever owns the songs has indeed sold out perhaps I can look forward to having Rock the Casbah serve as the official theme song for the campaign to squish Saddam. Music456@blogcritics.org Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:56:38 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/04/201351.php Chris DaleyThough it has been big news in the Rolling Stones fan and high end audio circles the release of remastered Rolling Stones discs by ABKCO seems to be very quiet for a potential revolution. One of the few "main stream" media sources to cover the story was Slate (see why I put main stream in those ""?). And even that article by Fred Kaplan opens with:The next hi-fi revolution begins a week from today, with a whimper.So what is the big deal? Simple- ABKCO has put out 22 Stones discs from 1964-1971 not on CD but on hybrid SACD. And unlike most SACD products to date it is not charging a premium- in fact they are in most cases less expensive than CDs. Amazon for example is offering the single disc albums for $13.99.SACD? ABKCO? Too many consonants, not enough vowels? I think some explanation is in order. What many folks are blissfully unaware of is that a high resolution format war has been going on between two new music formats. Sony developed SACD or Super Audio CD based on their DSD (Direct Stream Digital) recording process. An opposing group of manufacturers released DVD-A or DVD Audio discs. In both cases the discs offer superior resolution and sound quality over standard 16 bit CD audio and support multi-channel sound. Where the formats part company is in the backwards compatibility department.DVD-A discs are only playable in DVD-A players. They will not play in standard DVD movie players (though if you bought your DVD player recently it might actually be a DVD-A player as well). Thus if you buy a DVD-A disc you will be unable to play it in your car or with your portable CD player.Sony's potential trump card is that SACD's come in two flavors. SACD only and hybrid. SACD only discs will only play in SACD players. All of the SACD discs issued by Sony's record label Columbia are SACD only, something that obviously limits their appeal. But Sony also developed the hybrid disc. This uses a dual layer technology allowing the disc to contain both a normal CD layer and a SACD high resolution layer. A SACD player's laser can read through the CD layer to the SACD layer, but a normal CD player only sees the CD information and plays the disc like a normal CD. Sony wisely used the limited hybrid pressing capacity to produce SACD's for other labels to encourage them to produce SACD discs.Up until now most the SACD production outside of Sony's Columbia has been smaller niche labels that lack artists with huge following. And that is what makes the appearance of the new Stones discs so important. Not only are the Rolling Stones a huge name but ABKCO, the record label with rights to these albums, decided to do all 22 titles at once. And they did it without an emphasis on SACD. Unless you know ahead of time nothing on the packaging tells you that you are buying a hybrid SACD. The discs are stocked in the regular CD section of your local record store. Millions of people will end up with SACD discs and Sony hopes their curiosity will eventually drive SACD hardware sales.OK, that is all wonderful for Sony, but how about you the music lover? I'm not a huge Stones fan but I picked up Hot Rocks 1964-1971 to spin on my Sony 333ES SACD player. Hot Rocks is a two disc hits collection with all the songs a casual Stones fan would want. You've got Satisfaction, Ruby Tuesday, Sympathy for the Devil and other classics. I also spun the disc on my JVC mini-system I use for computer sound to get a handle on the pure CD sound since most people will experience these discs that way.I won't waste your time talking about the music. You have all heard this music on the radio and know if you like it or not. Instead I'm going to talk about I'm familiar with all the songs on Hot Rocks but the SACD versions are a revelation. The first batch of songs are not great sounding but as the Stones grow as a band and learn to use the studio the sound improves. Listen to the crunchiness of the guitar in Jumpin' Jack Flash or Brown Sugar for example. If you enjoy listening to the tone and flavor of instruments you'll really dig this. The percussion on Honky Tonk Woman has a slam and impact I haven't heard before. Even songs I've never really liked had a new sense of depth and emotional attachment to them. Wild Horses is a great example. The song has a very subtle build to it. On the radio it always sounded flat and, well, boring to me. Not anymore.The main impression you come away with is one of slam and impact. On both the SACD and CD layer you have a sense of tremendous dynamic range. At the same time the more intimate moments such as the opening of You Can't Always Get What You Want put the band in your living room. Often times you can have one or the other. If a disc does a good job on the intimate stuff it runs out of steam when it should be rocking. Or the entire album is compressed to hell so everything is equally loud and any sense of emotional range and building to a climax is absent. Not here. The lack of dynamic range is my main problem with MP3's- they have no sense of life in them. I call them undead music. But that is another post....The differences between the two layers is detectable but subtle. On an SACD player expect to hear a bit more of that slam and a better sense of air and space around the instruments. Everything also is a bit more laid back and smooth. While smooth and slam sound like mutually exclusive options on SACD they are not. I want to stress that these are minor differences between the SACD version and the CD are subtle. Everything I said about the sound of the SACD is true about the CD, just not as true. With the CD you give up the air and space but still get the slam and impact. I'm listening to the second disc of the set as I write this and I don't feel cheated that it is only on a pair of tiny speakers on my JVC mini system. And I say that as a confirmed sound snob.Like the Stones? Buy these re-issues. They are way better than your present CDs. You don't need a SACD player to benefit from them. They are identifiable by their packaging. They are using the cardboard type cases and have stickers that proclaim they are remastered. I know, I hate those cardboard sleeves too. I remember when Sting issued The Soul Cages in one and it was a bad idea way back then. That cover looks like crap now and unlike a broken jewel case I can't fix it.These discs will rock you now and if SACD technology catches on you'll eventually end up with a SACD player and you'll get the chance to re-experience them all over again. Isn't that the way great music and great technology should be? Music: Classic Rock and Oldies417@blogcritics.org Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:13:51 EDT