petergabriel.com

http://www.petergabriel.com/live/tourdiary/ ". . .On other notes yes there will be vinyl versions of the record, and there's also a great new box set in the works, but there will not be a SACD or DVD A release."

just adding my support to this idea. The SACD of Up was very good, and the multichannel mix contributed a great deal to the sound of this release. I would hope to see the same for SMB in some high-rez format.

Here to add my support for the SACD release. That would be awesome.

Bad news guys. This from Dickie Chappell's latest tour diary: 'On other notes yes there will be vinyl versions of the record, and there's also a great new box set in the works, but there will not be a SACD or DVD A release.' Oh well.

This is really a bad news . I would have bought it immediatly ! So now I'm obliged to buy the deluxer boxset to have a 96kHz/24bits version of the album. This will be rather expensive .

I think this is what they are after I really do not get it, why it is easier to put out a USB stick, which BTW wears out arount the 1000th time of use, rather then releasing a DVD-A? If there is a physical release why USB???????? I had gotten it if they released it as a download only, no manufacturing costs, but on USB? Is it really cheaper to manufacture a USB stick than a DVD-A? Should be about the same amount of plastic. And does the majority of audiophiles really have a system hooked up to the computer rather than to a player? Again, I don't get it. Especially after Peter stated that he was fond of 5.1 music.

I'm not a big Peter Gabriel fan, i own 2 of his albums: "Up" and "Us", both on SACD of course I would love to see SMB on SACD and definitely would buy it. So, please Peter, consider this.

Yes Please, release the album on SACD, also release the other albums on SACD, like "big blue ball", "OVO" and all the others. Don't let SACD die.

Dear Peter and Co., Please go against the sheer business current (you have always done so in a way) and put out SMB on SACD, at least try to convince Virgin/EMI to do so in Japan, devotees of SACD could/would easily get it on the web in case there is a concern it would not sell well in a worldwide release. Best wishes, Peter Antonyi (Hungary)

Well guys, Unless they release SMB on SACD, I am not going to bother buying it.

I totaly agree.... Peter should put effort to release SMB and also New Blood on SACD !!!

I totaly agree.... Peter should put effort to release SMB and also New Blood on SACD !!!

I totaly agree.... Peter should put effort to release SMB and also New Blood on SACD !!!

I think that it SACD is mostly a placebo effect, unless you are a bat with an extremely expensive hi-fi. . . In the audiophile community, the sound from the SACD format is thought to be significantly better compared to older format Red Book CD recordings.[37] However, In September 2007, the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.[38] The authors commented: Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.[39][40] This conclusion is contentious among a large segment of audio engineers who work with high resolution material and many within the audiophile community.[41] Some have questioned the basic methodology and the equipment used in the AES study.[42] Double-blind listening tests in 2004 between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM recordings reported that among test subjects no significant differences could be heard.[43] DSD advocates and equipment manufacturers continue to assert an improvement in sound quality above PCM 24-bit 176.4 kHz.[44] Despite both formats' extended frequency responses, it has been shown people cannot distinguish audio with information above 21 kHz from audio without such high-frequency content.[45] More details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacd Either you want to hear the music or you don't. . . what is the sampling rate of pure enjoyment?

Here's a really interesting set of articles on the difficulties of testing audio quality and human hearing in general - http://www.moultonlabs.com/weblog/more/24_bits_can_you_hear

Damn this stupid new forum system - just realised I was replying to a post that was 18 months old. . . how did it come to the top of the forum listing? It's still interesting though. . . PS for the record, I am posting this on 3 Jan 2012. . .