Very good. You know that this will require exactly what you said, everyone to band together to write letters, make phone calls, etc. Question is, do we really have that kind of unity?

Hi Jerry:

Christina Yuin suggested that I forward my comments to you regarding Blu-ray and your article here. So, I will attach all below. I'm looking forward to your response. Thanks you.

Cheers!

Reid

Reid Hyams
the X-ART Entertainment Management Group
Music Industry Consulting | Production | Management
7706 N. Eastlake Terrace
Chicago, Illinois 60626
V (773) 274-0248 | F (773) 274-8077 | C (312) 371-2916
E-mail: reid.x.art@gmail.com | Site: www.xartentertainment.com
LI Public/Pro Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/reidhyams

Comment #1: Christina: I agree that Blu-ray is a superb format, if the source material is superb... otherwise it's simply another storage medium to store mediocre whatever with a lot of gigs. But, without reading your article, I question how much space is needed to do 96/24 audio that cannot be done on a DVD? Additionally, Blu-ray will play standard DVD's... so why go Blu-ray for audio, when you can get extraordinary audiophile quality on a DVD? Please explain as I'm very curious what someone can do with 40 gigs on a Blu-ray for an audio record that they can't do with the 4.5 gigs on a DVD? Thanks, Reid (Note: gigs are rounded off).

Comment #2: Hi Christina: I'd be more than happy to do that. Obviously, I realize that with more storage space, much more can be added to the individual product/disk... 5.1, 7.1, videos, interviews and so on, but the bottom line is that DVD is available now and can accommodate HD stereo audio and most likely even 5.1 surround with the DH stereo mixes for most records... Blu-ray has a long way to go before it ends up in the homes of consumers. Additionally, I've seen so many movies on Blu-ray where the source material was no better than if it were on a standard DVD. However, I do support the Blu-ray format... I would just like to see the Blu-ray format support the consumers. I'll copy Jerry Del Colliano on this as well. Cheers! Reid

Jerry,

I thought you might like to know that AIX Records is planning a whole series of Blu-Ray titles complete with HD Video of the sessions. In fact, one of the major CE BD player manufacturers will be bundling our latest BD sampler with every machine. Stay tuned.

However, I disagree with your assessment that BD makes a good music platform. It is no better than DVD-Audio or even DVD-Video for believers in 2-channel HD playback (DVD-V does 96 kHz/24-bit PCM stereo perfectly). And it doesn't come close to the convenience of REAL HD downloads...which by the way, most so-called HD downloads site are only delivering standard definition CDs.

Like so many others, you have mistakenly assumed that BD audio can deliver a better experience than previous formats. It can match some of the older formats...but only if the material presented on the new format was newly recorded at a resolution that matches the new Blu-Ray specifications. An older analog track from the archives of any label will NOT benefit from being released on BD discs any more than an analog transfer to DVD-Audio or SACD miraculously improved the quality of the source recording. The fidelity of an individual recording is locked in when the musicians are in front of the mics and being recorded on a recording machine (analog tape or standard definition digital audio). Simply putting a standard definition recording in a format that has the potential of HD performance doesn't elevate the original track. I wish it did...but it doesn't. Sorry.

That's why the only REAL HD recordings are ones that were captured on equipment capable of 96 kHz/24-bits or better. Labels will not waste their time learning the ins and outs of BD authoring when they are reaping the benefits of putting out their catalogs again on vinyl...which is erroneously regarded as the holy grail of audio fidelity. BD will work for music only if there is a compelling HD video playing at the same time.

Mark Waldrep, Ph.D.
AIX Records and iTrax.com (REAL HD Downloads!)

Taking a forward look at where professional recording equipment is headed, we see that 96Kz/24-bit gear is the current baseline sample rate and word length. Even low-end 1U form factor pre-amps are commonly available and affordable. Further, digital recording consoles with 96/24 or higher internal bus structures, effects, compressors, gates, etc. are now common as well. More and more aurally superior content will be produced in the months and years ahead - more than ever before.

While the debate over the medium and the format rages, it is clear that higher fidelity content is plentiful now and it will only continue to increase.

Mark Rabne
Seismos Productions

I love the idea of high def audio on Blu-ray, but I'm afraid it is very likely that it would fail. If any high def format takes off, it's much more likely to be an HD file format that can reside on ANY medium, including Blu-ray. HD audio has to be portable as a file, not as a physical medium, to be successful.

Several areas that will kill this idea

- Bluray is less portable than MP3s. A tumbdrive sized player to take to the gym, on the bus and be able to plug into a multitude of other devices will win out.
- You have to buy the whole disk, not just the individual song from the "One Hit Wonder"
- Most people don't have a speaker system that is high enough quality to show the difference between Bluray and CD, let alone DVDA or SACD.
- If it's copy protected then it will need to be able to be stored (with a license of some sort) on a media server along with the 10,000 other songs in a end-users collection.
- People didn't care enough about DVDA or SACD so why would they care about Bluray Audio?

Whie I wholeheartedly hope BD Audio will achieve more popularity amongst artists, record companies, hardware makers, retailers and consumers alike than SACD and DVD-Audio did, some of the arguments stated above don't make sense. You don't need 9 cables to connect an SACD player, you can do it with a single HDMI cable, just like with Blu-ray Disc. Of course, analogue connections are an option, like they are with BD (in which case you'll need 11 of them).

While I wholeheartedly hope BD Audio will achieve more popularity amongst artists, record companies, hardware makers, retailers and consumers alike than SACD and DVD-Audio did, some of the arguments stated above don't make sense. You don't need 9 cables to connect an SACD player, you can do it with a single HDMI cable, just like with Blu-ray Disc. Of course, analogue connections are an option, like they are with BD (in which case you'll need 11 of them).

I 100% agree with you here. I think what folks fail to remember about DVD-A and SACD is that most folks never could attain hardware that supported these formats and both formats suffered from the effects of a prolonged format war. Bottom line is that most folks today still don't have a player capable of playing these formats, while a tremendous amount do have a BD player, and those numbers are growing by the day.

While in some cases, the quality will be no better, getting the industry behind new format with so much headroom will lead to further innovation that will take advantage of that headroom. In every technology field, once you have the space, you fill it up. We've seen it time and time again. As to the agrument of convieinece, sure I have an Ipod full of crappy music, even the lossless stuff. But it still doesn't hold a candle to my CDs. It's not even close. I want better, and I'm willing to pay for that.

I truely hope the labels see the potential here. For myself, I make it a point to pick up every piece of music I can find on BD that I could enjoy. We all have to vote with our wallets, so lets all show the industry we're behind this concept by buying BD music as we see it.

I've got a 20-30 disk SACD/DVD-A collection (which I listen to with a Denon 2910 "universal" DVD player). I'm now buying Blu-Ray concert disks, the lossless audio tracks of which sound just as good decoded by my Panasonic BD50.

To the commenter above who points out that a standard DVD has enough space for a lossless audio recording (just leave off any video) that may be true, but no standard piece of hardware can play it!

The exciting thing about Blu-ray is that first-rate sonic capabilities are piggybacking along with the great video that's the selling point for most consumers. No need to persuade folks to buy a specialized player. To those who are interested in the best sound possible, it's just a matter of making sure they can decode the lossless formats, either by getting a player that can do it for an older amp or by buying a new receiver.

The exciting part is the emergence of a mainstream disk format that anyone can listen to with as much sound quality as they're interested in extracting.

You say that "The days of selling retro-vinyl titles or dead-format SACDs are over. "

but that's not true,

Vinyl sales are increasing!

and SACD format is definitely not dead...

just look at Analogue Productions releases http://puresuperaudio.blogspot.com/2009/05/nat-king-cole-titles-coming-to-sacd.html or Mobile Fidelity or Pentatone, Boston Symphony, Channel Classics, or this new labels which just started (and is recording in DSD) Mariinsky Label, Harmonia Mundi, Opus 3, Groove Note, Chandos, Chicago Symphony etc

we don't need another HD audio format when already have one, SACD.

Releasing Hybrid SACD all audiophile labels can reach any customer (using CD or SACD player).

Releasing blu-ray discs they force audiophiles to buy either Sony's game console or a home theater player which is ridiculous!

Super Audio CD format was created as audio only format and is currently supported by companies like Mark Levinson, Luxman, Wadia, Krell, Denon, Marantz, EMM Labs, dCS, Korg, Tascam, Sony, Accuphase, Yamaha, Ayre etc.

Hiro -

If you have $100 in your checking account (all you had to your name) and I gave you $50 - you would have a 50% increase in your networrth - would you be rich?

Vinyl sales are increasing. From 900k to 1.3 meaning that the FORMAT as a WHOLE barely could "go platinum". The sales are tiny. SACD is smaller than that.

I spoke with a music industry insider who told me FRIDAY that the reason why the music business doesn't want to sell music in HD is because they don't believe that there is anyone to buy it. If Vinyl and SACD are the platforms - they are right.

Note: The Dark Knight sold 1.7 copies at 24 a copy in its first week in HD video AND AUDIO (Dolby TrueHD). That's more than EVERY LP and SACD combined in one week!!!

See what I am talking about? One cable connection. HD bandwidth. Copy protection for the suits. 21% market penetration and growing.

Hi Jerry,

but your letter was addressed to Audiophile Labels, they don't release Batman (pop) soundtracks in HD, they are releasing Nat King Cole recordings, The Band, Blue Note jazz titles or the Impulse! in HD, of course they don't sell as much as batman movies but that doesn't mean they aren't successful.

come on, you can't compare jazz and classical numbers with batman sales.

PS the new classical label, Mariinsky, has just started releasing SACDs http://www.mariinskylabel.com/page/1/Home there's no need for another HD audio format when we already have one.

Best Regards
Hiro
http://puresuperaudio.blogspot.com/

I LOVE what the small audiophile labels do but its SO SMALL that its hard to justify the investment in your system when you compare what is on Blu-ray (mostly movies) and the power of Apple via products like Apple TV.

People are FLIPPING OUT with joy because Vinyl is back. its not back. Its a tiny niche. A niche loaded with tons of noise and limited dynamics. Blu-ray beats it at EVERY LEVEL. Copy protection, one cable connection, 21% market penetration (and growing), affordable players, audio AND video performance etc...

Look into 2L records from Norway. They are putting out music on Blu-ray. Chesky, AIX and the others should too but SADLY that won't make much of a difference. Blu-ray needs the MAJORS to put out their music on Blu-ray. Would you buy the Blue Note catalog all over again in 24/192? I would!!! Would you buy Dark Side of the Moon and or Electric Ladyland? I would.

Blu-ray's copy protection is already broken, the only protection that is still intact is DSD/SACD.

PS Analogue Productions is releasing Blue Note SACDs as we speak, I have many titles on my "to buy" list :-)

I would buy them however SACD likely doesn't have 1% market share.

Blu-ray has 21%.

SACD is an abandoned format that even Sony's top players (I know as I have one) wont play. Its dead. Its for audiophiles only who horde old players.

Moreover its not clear if SACD can do 24/192 (DVD-Audio can). Its unlikely its a full DSD recording because of the age of the records thus defeating many of the advantages of SACD.

I have a 24/192 version of Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section that is STUNNING. These records can sound GREAT despite their age HOWEVER to sell them in a venue where nobody can buy them (SACD and LP) is a total waste.

"I would buy them however SACD likely doesn't have 1% market share."

Ok, but I still prefer SACD format (because it sounds great) to mp3, although the latter has greater market share than Hybrid SACD format.

"Blu-ray has 21%."

so? DVD has still 80% of the market, also what about video downloads market that many reports do not show in the stats at all...

"SACD is an abandoned format that even Sony's top players (I know as I have one) wont play. Its dead."

Sony has just released new SACD player (5400ES), new Vaio computers support SACD playback too, so it's not dead or abandoned (new titles are coming out every month) it's just a niche but Hi-rez music in general (DAD 24/96, hi-rez downloads) is a niche market.

DVD has 91% market share.

This is the INCREDIBLE JOKE of it all.....

Even if SACD sounds better (it sounds best when it is a FULL DSD recording from top to bottom which nearly ZERO SACDs are) than say DTS on a DVD-Video disc what would you rather have? A complete catalog of music released on a format that 91% of the market can enjoy OR one that in SACD has NO VIDEO or.... one in DVD-Audio that has video but needs up to 9 cables to connect as well as a new player AND preamp/receiver. Its a joke.

I have done the listening tests. 3:1 compression on DTS is like a Ferarri F430 compared to a Model T when comparing to MP3. The fact that an Enzo goes faster is a moot point that audiophiles diddle themselves over. See for audiophiles its all about being a techno-snob NOT getting the best music out to the masses. Now we are left with the moronic majors in love with MP3 because Apple made it easy to buy music that way (AAC actually). Its CD or lower quality. Its standard def to be POLITE. That's not good enough for me or for you.

People with your enthusiasm need to promote something that a wider audience can hear. Be it HD downloads or music on Blu-ray.

What if the majors started releasing their back catalog discs with TWO discs in the package for $13? One Blu-ray and one CD. Backwards compatable with 100% of the world. HD compatible. and MP3/CD compliant. THEN the disc would be worth $13. Back fill the bins at Best Buy with these disc. Energize the 1/2 of 1 percent of the buying audience known as audiophiles to prime the pump for sales and make money from the 10,000 popular records that have ALREADY BEEN PAID to create.

I use a mac. I don't need a Vaio computer.

Yet, I have a Sony BDP-S5000ES Blu-ray player. Profile 2.0. Latest machine. $2,000. Guess what? No DVD-Audio (it will play the default Dolby Digital or DTS track but no MLP) and it spits out an SACD like two day old Sushi.

Let me REPEAT - SONY, the power behind SACD. SONY - the company that had to fight DVD-Audio - their TOP $2,000 Blu-ray player will NOT play an SACD only years after the introduction of the format.... You have to be kidding me.

What Sony COULD DO is to release their best SACD titles on Blu-ray but NOOOOOOOOOO......

"People with your enthusiasm need to promote something that a wider audience can hear. Be it HD downloads or music on Blu-ray. "

I promote SACD as it sounds the best to me but I also honestly believe it's a better option (business wise) for Audiophile Labels to release Hybrid SACDs than Blu-Ray or HD downloads. Many, if not all, HD downloads aren't copy protected so for example all HDtracks.com titles have already leaked to the Internet, HDGiants has just filed for bankruptcy (link: http://www.twice.com/article/CA6661607.html?nid=2402& ), and Blu-ray? I wish the format much success on the video market (where it has to face strong competition from both DVD and movie downloads) as it's a great improvement over earlier video formats, but when it comes to audio IMHO there's no need to switch formats.

"Let me REPEAT - SONY, the power behind SACD. SONY - the company that had to fight DVD-Audio - their TOP $2,000 Blu-ray player will NOT play an SACD only years after the introduction of the format.... You have to be kidding me."

but their current TOP AUDIO PLAYER SCD-XA5400ES plays SACD and it even has newly developed by SONY advancements like DSD discs playback and DSD over HDMI.

But that player doesn't play BLU-RAY!!!!!!

Regarding your position - I wish you the best of luck promoting SACD as SACD's biggest supporter Sony has basically given up on it as has every other major label.

The idea of gaining an increasing share of a decreasing market (or in the case of SACD - a market that never happened) is one that isn't something that I EVER EVER EVER invest in. I warn you to be very careful with where you put your money.

"But that player doesn't play BLU-RAY!!!!!!"

because it's a pure audio player (no video functions are included).

"Regarding your position - I wish you the best of luck promoting SACD as SACD's biggest supporter Sony has basically given up on it as has every other major label."

Majors are currently pushing mp3s, but specialist, audiophile and classical labels (Analogue Productions, Opus 3, Boston Symphony, Harmonia Mundi, Mobile Fidelity, Alia Vox, Chandos, Channel Classics, Pentatone, RCA Red Seal etc ) who care about sound quality continue to release great music on SACD!

"Majors are currently pushing mp3s, but specialist, audiophile and
classical labels (Analogue Productions, Opus 3, Boston Symphony,
Harmonia Mundi, Mobile Fidelity, Alia Vox, Chandos, Channel Classics,
Pentatone, RCA Red Seal etc ) who care about sound quality continue to
release great music on SACD!"

------

I am sure there were people still making very nice horse drawn carages when Henry Ford was making Model T's too.

SACD is dead for 99.8% of the world. Blu-ray reaches 21% of that world. Why in the world would ANYONE want to market to such a small audience?

I support ANYONE pushing for better sound as I always have but audiophiles have always picked the MOST esoteric format to support. SACD is no exception.

Plus Blu-ray sounds better. More data. EASY to put 24/192 stereo on there PLUS HD video. PLUS the discs sell for more.

Oh don't forget video as there are over 3,000,000 HDTVs sold EACH MONTH in the US. There weren't 3,000,000 SACD players sold in the history of the format including the SACD HTIBs which nobody knew played SACDs. Add in laptops with that too. I say this as some who still has an SACD player in his rig but hopes for more music in a more viable format.

"The idea of gaining an increasing share of a decreasing market (or in the case of SACD - a market that never happened) is one that isn't something that I EVER EVER EVER invest in. I warn you to be very careful with where you put your money."

from a business perspective I certainly wouldn't invest my money in releasing music in a new format that isn't compatible with CD players in hopes that PS3/home theater owners will become audiophiles!

As a music lover, I am completely satisfied with SACDs I purchase, don't regret $1 I invested in them.

home theater crowd and hi-fi/audiophiles are two different worlds.

PS there are 20,000,000 SACD players sold to date

new SACD players from Pioneer, Marantz, and Onkyo has just been released.

The Compact Disc is a 25 year old Standard Def audio format that plays back flawlessly on a Blu-ray player.

Blu-ray is an HD audio and video format with 21% market penetration and growing on a daily basis. It is copy protected. It can provide more bits than ANY audiophile format on the market today WHILE providing studios the copy protection they demand.

"The Compact Disc is a 25 year old Standard Def audio format that plays back flawlessly on a Blu-ray player."

-----

but the Blu-ray disc doesn't play in a CD player - Blu-ray audio format isn't backwards compatible.

As a record label I wouldn't invest in it since it would mean that I would hugely limit my own profits. Releasing Hybrid SACDs I could sell the discs to all SACD players owners BUT ALSO to all CD players owners.

Every modern Blu-ray player I have owned (I have had 6 so far) has played CD. Only a few early models didn't play CDs.

"Every modern Blu-ray player I have owned (I have had 6 so far) has played CD. Only a few early models didn't play CDs."

but like I said, no blu-ray audio disc plays in CD player. blu-ray audio format isn't backwards compatible :-(

mass customers want ease of use, they want to be able to play the discs in the kitchen, in a car etc. Blu-Ray audio disc just does not allow it.

After 25 years + don't you think its time to move on?

Look at the record buying public....
- They grew up on the Internet (an audio/video format)
- They play video games (an audio/video format)
- They watch their music on everything from MTV for Gen Exers to YouTube.com for Gen Yers (both audio-video) formats.

SACD and CD are AUDIO-ONLY formats.

NOW to make yet another KEY point.... Audiophiles are stereotypically Baby Boomers meaning they are in their 60's now. How many more times can you sell them the same records? If you aren't selling to a younger audience (even classic records with an audiophile bent) you are dead.

Everything everyone buys today in media is HD if they pay a premium for it OTHER than music. Its time to move past dead formats to ones where people can have a chance to hear HD music.

mass customers want ease of use, they want to be able to play the discs
in the kitchen, in a car etc. Blu-Ray audio disc just does not allow
it.

--------

Hunh?

You are missing the whole point.

3,000,000 HDTVs sold a month. Are those SD sets because they are cheaper or more easy to use? NO - they are High Definition!!!!!

Consumers want HD.

You sell HD.

The problem is your distribution model. It should be on Blu-ray. 21% market penetration. SACD doesn't have that. Your 20m number is WAY off as the highest selling disc on SACD was Dark Side of the Moon and that sold 1.3m units as a hybrid SACD/CD. What did the next highest sell? The BEST selling DVD-Audio title (Queen Night At the Opera) sold 40,000 units. I doubt there is an SACD other than Dark Side that has sold 100k. Note: the Dark Knight sold 1.7m units at $24 each in ONE WEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is the highest selling record on your label?

"After 25 years + don't you think its time to move on?"

I think it's time to move on that's why I listen to hi-rez SACDs

but unfortunately majority of customers (even many audiophiles) are completely happy with CD quality (XRCD, MFSL, DCC Gold etc).

Do you really think that major record labels should invest $$$ in Blu-Ray Audio?? when 99% of customers are happy with CD quality?

or do you think that Audiophile labels should invest in Blu-Ray audio and release music in the format when there are no audiophile blu-ray players on the market, only a game console and home theater players?

As a movie producer (of the first film ever made natively in 4k also with HD audio - April Showers) I can ask you the question backwards.

Do you think it was a good idea for the movie studios to sell their product in HD? Do you think they make money selling their back catalog discs in HD with little to no remastering costs and huge profits?

Music needs to be an AV experience in HD. SACD can't provide that NOR can it reach anything but the lunatic fringe of audiophiles (myself included) which is a VERY SMALL audience. If I were a major - I would not have done SACD nor would I do it today. I would however master HD content for 24/192 stereo reissues of classic records on Blu-ray. 21% of the market, copy protection, 1 cable connection and high profit per disc. It adds up.

"Do you think it was a good idea for the movie studios to sell their product in HD?"

movies market is completely different than music market

We already had DVD 24/96 albums (DAD 24/96) playable on all DVD players (which still have 80-90% percent of the video market), but there was simply not enough demand for DADs as 99% of people are satisfied with CDs.

"Music needs to be an AV experience in HD."

I don't need any video experience when I listen to music...

"SACD can't provide that NOR can it reach anything but the lunatic fringe of audiophiles (myself included) which is a VERY SMALL audience

Hybrid SACDs can reach any customer using SACD or CD player (it's a much bigger customer base than blu-ray home theater owners).

Hiro,

If you have all of the answers and you are right about every issue - you must make what 10 mill a year? 20m?

The music business is dead. I have explained to you why and how to fix it yet you argue like a Christian Fundamentalist argues the world was created 7,000 years ago when I am standing here with the carbon dating and fossil record data. Hell, I could nail your SACD to a 10,000 year old redwood tree and you would still argue that you are right.

Best of luck to you. I am going to stick with Blu-ray. You stick with selling to Baby Boomer audiophiles.

"If you have all of the answers and you are right about every issue..."

I just see the three possibilities for Audiophile labels

1 - Hybrid SACD
2 - Blu-Ray audio
3 - HD downloads

...and personally think that the first option is the best; for audiophiles (HD stereo and HD m.ch. programs are included), mass customers (CD layer allows for playback in regular CD player), and record labels (selling Hybrid SACDs they can reach the largest customer group).

1 - Hybrid SACD
2 - Blu-Ray audio
3 - HD downloads

-------

Above is your list.....

1. Hybrid SACD is good for backwards compatibility but little more. NOBODY can use the HD portion of it. No video which for audiophiles doesn't mean anything. To the 40,000,000 paying subscribers of satellite TV - video is pretty important as people believe what they SEE much more than what they hear. Video drives the CE business like it or not

2. Blu-ray - Good solution. Good and growing market share. HDMI is a MESS. People value the disc MUCH more than a CD.

3. HD Download - Unless Apple is selling them its WAY to hard to get them into your system. I just spoke with Scott Banheman from Music Giants on FRIDAY. The labels can only understand the "lowest hanging fruit" idea thus they go with downloads because they are easy. They don't care about better EVEN if the movie business is making BILLIONS upon BILLIONS selling Blu-ray for new and more importantly back catalog files.

There is no reason why you can't have a combination.

My call is for Blu-ray with an actual CD inside of it. That's backwards compatible and high value. MP3 on the BR. HD videos. HD interviews and HD 5.1 or 7.1 music on the BR. Now you have a disc worth $18.95!!!! A CD or SACD isn't worth that to mainstream consumers. Don't believe me? Look at the sales over the past 5 years.

"A CD or SACD isn't worth that to mainstream consumers. Don't believe me? Look at the sales over the past 5 years."

IMHO the reason behind dropping CD sales is not a price or the fact that mass customers demand HD audio (more controlled bass, more detailed midrange with more air around instruments and better separation) or they want a bonus video (enhanced CD idea was a complete flop), CD sales are dropping because mass customers are moving to mp3 downloads (they don't care about sound quality and they watch videos on youtube)!

"1. Hybrid SACD is good for backwards compatibility but little more. NOBODY can use the HD portion of it. "

EVERYBODY who WANTS to listen to HD music can buy a SACD player, there are SACD players ranging from $200 to $20000

" They don't care about better EVEN if the movie business is making BILLIONS upon BILLIONS selling Blu-ray for new and more importantly back catalog files."

they don't care about blu-ray because movie business and music business are two different worlds... movie business was (and still is) making billions selling DVDs yet no major record label decided to release DAD 24/96 albums...