Audio Fidelity Quad SACD Titles Definitely NOT Happening

[Quadwreck]

There is no way MFSL can have a permanent lock on the rights to the titles they have put out without essentially buying ownership of them, and I don't see that happening. Licensing agreements tend to be for a short duration, and the record companies usually don't care how many times an eligible title gets licensed, as long as they get their money. I think a lot of these MFSL titles will be available to AF in a year or two.

 

[Fourplay]

There is no way MFSL can have a permanent lock on the rights to the titles they have put out without essentially buying ownership of them, and I don't see that happening. Licensing agreements tend to be for a short duration, and the record companies usually don't care how many times an eligible title gets licensed, as long as they get their money. I think a lot of these MFSL titles will be available to AF in a year or two.

My impression is not that it is so much a permanent rights issue, but that since a title has already been released in the DSD format, the stereo layer of the disc is less marketable in an additional reissue. In other words, the Audio Fidelity releases are targeted to both the stereo and quad markets, and if one of those markets is already satisfied by a previous release, then it makes the title less attractive as a reissue, marketing-wise.

 

[Quadwreck]

My impression is not that it is so much a permanent rights issue, but that since a title has already been released in the DSD format, the stereo layer of the disc is less marketable in an additional reissue. In other words, the Audio Fidelity releases are targeted to both the stereo and quad markets, and if one of those markets is already satisfied by a previous release, then it makes the title less attractive as a reissue, marketing-wise.

That's a logical argument, but offering something that has long been unavailable makes the title attractive again. In our case, it's the surround sound market (quad or 5.1), which is not a huge one, but since most of these licensed releases are in small runs (no more than 5000 units), it's a successful one, and there's also a nuance in the marketing of the accompanying stereo mix, it's mastered by Steve Hoffman, who has successfully marketed his name among a group of audiophiles who will buy anything with his name on it. I don't want to divert this thread to an argument between the anti and pro SH camps, I'm only highlighting the marketability of the SH name/work, and combining the two audiences makes the AF licensing of previously-released titles a winner.

 

[Fourplay]

That's a logical argument, but offering something that has long been unavailable makes the title attractive again. In our case, it's the surround sound market (quad or 5.1), which is not a huge one, but since most of these licensed releases are in small runs (no more than 5000 units), it's a successful one, and there's also a nuance in the marketing of the accompanying stereo mix, it's mastered by Steve Hoffman, who has successfully marketed his name among a group of audiophiles who will buy anything with his name on it. I don't want to divert this thread to an argument between the anti and pro SH camps, I'm only highlighting the marketability of the SH name/work, and combining the two audiences makes the AF licensing of previously-released titles a winner.

No argument here. Just a rationale as I understand it.

Your point about Steve Hoffman is a good one. Heck, any excuse to release a title with a quad or surround mix is a good enough excuse for me.

And obviously, the reissue of titles like Ship Ahoy, 3+3, and many other titles which command high prices in the aftermarket would make sense business-wise.

Just to reiterate, we are simply listing titles that seem to have some obstacle to being released, and naming what the obstacle is thought to be, so that the information is gathered in a centralized place for easy reference. And in this case we are focused on quad mixes, rather than known or out of print 5.1 mixes.

 

[ar surround]

My impression is not that it is so much a permanent rights issue, but that since a title has already been released in the DSD format, the stereo layer of the disc is less marketable in an additional reissue. In other words, the Audio Fidelity releases are targeted to both the stereo and quad markets, and if one of those markets is already satisfied by a previous release, then it makes the title less attractive as a reissue, marketing-wise.

Well, I've bought that BS&T album five times: LP, DBX LP, CD, MoFi SACD, AF 5.1/2.0 SACD. I think that the really hot titles will continue to sell over and over, that is until people in their target market die off or can't hear anymore. So they had better release them now while they still have a market. I have those Doobie Brothers titles on MoFi SACD, but would love to get hold of the quads on SACD.

 

[Fourplay]

New update here:

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...-NOT-Happening&p=267517&viewfull=1#post267517

Remember, I am trying to consolidate information from other threads. If any of the information is incorrect, just post and I will edit.

 

[quicksrt]

Hi Adam,

Which tapes are bad? The 1st gen multi-track or the 2nd gen Quad mix master tape(that was made).

I'm hearing that the 2-channel stereo tapes are what is bad. It was not the quad masters. I also heard that this title was declined by AF for this reason before AP even considered it.

 

[quicksrt]

My issue with this thread is having AF in the title. They are not AF quad titles are they?

On the summery post it says Ten Years After was out on SACD. Is that correct? I've not seen that one.

 

[quicksrt]

That's a logical argument, but offering something that has long been unavailable makes the title attractive again. In our case, it's the surround sound market (quad or 5.1), which is not a huge one, but since most of these licensed releases are in small runs (no more than 5000 units), it's a successful one, and there's also a nuance in the marketing of the accompanying stereo mix, it's mastered by Steve Hoffman, who has successfully marketed his name among a group of audiophiles who will buy anything with his name on it. I don't want to divert this thread to an argument between the anti and pro SH camps, I'm only highlighting the marketability of the SH name/work, and combining the two audiences makes the AF licensing of previously-released titles a winner.

Yes but the math does not add up. You are overinflating the value of the SH name assuming a market (large one at that) will buy anything he masters.

You are also assuming that everything AF releases is mastered by SH. And you are describing the surround market as a successful one because the average run on a good title is 5,000 units, and the surround market is small, so that makes it successful?

You are really reaching, that is a nice way to put it.

This thread seems to be creating an argument, one that calls into question AF's business model and marketing strategy.

 

[fredblue]

My issue with this thread is having AF in the title. They are not AF quad titles are they?

On the summery post it says Ten Years After was out on SACD. Is that correct? I've not seen that one.

EMI released it in the UK on a DVD-V included with the 40th Anniversary LP reissue.

They got both sets of channels totally reversed so Front L & R are in the Rear.. and vice versa...

 

[fredblue]

Regarding unreleased DVD-As with quad mixes, does anyone know if this occurred with The Eagles "Desperado"?

afaik this was a new 5.1 remix... I suspect Warner (and The Eagles?) have plans for 5.1 releases down the line but don't quote me on that just in case they never happen, the mixes are in the can (don't quote me on that either!)

 

[fredblue]

I'm hearing that the 2-channel stereo tapes are what is bad. It was not the quad masters. I also heard that this title was declined by AF for this reason before AP even considered it.

Interesting.. I am curious as to what source AP are using for their LP and SACD reissue of Wired, if the tapes have already been rejected by AF..!?

 

[fredblue]

Yes but the math does not add up. You are overinflating the value of the SH name assuming a market (large one at that) will buy anything he masters.

You are also assuming that everything AF releases is mastered by SH. And you are describing the surround market as a successful one because the average run on a good title is 5,000 units, and the surround market is small, so that makes it successful?

You are really reaching, that is a nice way to put it.

This thread seems to be creating an argument, one that calls into question AF's business model and marketing strategy.

Sales of 5,000 SACDs (the initial print run of Sony's single layer discs according to insider Black Elk over @ SHF.. with many titles never seeing a 2nd press btw) were a disappointment back then.. but things have moved on.. call it progress, I don't know.. but now sales of 5,000 SACDs is a different proposition altogether.

I don't know about this thread creating an argument, I actually think its very worthwhile as I'd really just like it straight what is off the table now with AF's Surround programme so I can make alternative arrangements and make transfers of the Quads myself, etc.. but I do think we should stop bickering amongst ourselves, QQ now hosts many key industry players, it must be a huge turn off for them to see people squabbling and it gets us nowhere if things get personal imho.. anyway I don't have any beef with anyone here so.. keep it up Fourplay.. moving on!

 

[Fourplay]

I don't know about this thread creating an argument, I actually think its very worthwhile as I'd really just like it straight what is off the table now with AF's Surround programme so I can make alternative arrangements and make transfers of the Quads myself, etc.. but I do think we should stop bickering amongst ourselves, QQ now hosts many key industry players, it must be a huge turn off for them to see people squabbling and it gets us nowhere if things get personal imho.. anyway I don't have any beef with anyone here so.. keep it up Fourplay.. moving on!

Yeah, sorry for all the controversy. I am really just a list guy, and I saw people saying elsewhere that this title and that title were off the table for a variety of reasons, so I thought it would be useful to gather all that information (conjecture?) in one location. I should hope that nothing in this thread prevents nor discourages industry from TRYING to release a given title. Many of the titles listed on the first post are ones I would love to own, as I am sure is true for most of us. So again, just culling information from other threads...

 

[privateuniverse]

I am really just a list guy...

Must be all that Roger Waters you've listened to!

 

[fredblue]

Yeah, sorry for all the controversy. I am really just a list guy, and I saw people saying elsewhere that this title and that title were off the table for a variety of reasons, so I thought it would be useful to gather all that information (conjecture?) in one location. I should hope that nothing in this thread prevents nor discourages industry from TRYING to release a given title. Many of the titles listed on the first post are ones I would love to own, as I am sure is true for most of us. So again, just culling information from other threads...

You're a great list guy! Please don't be discouraged from what you're doing!

I'm hopeful these AF no-go's won't be off the table forever.. but life is too short to hang around for the labels and the lawyers and whoever else to get their act together so I'd like to know what the score is right now and then make an informed decision to sit tight or start making my own conversions, etc.. Seemples!

 

[privateuniverse]

....but on a serious note..... Should In Search of the Lost Chord be on the list? I don't believe that one is a case of a missing quad master, but rather a quad was never able to be prepared due to missing multi-tracks.

 

[Fourplay]

....but on a serious note..... Should In Search of the Lost Chord be on the list? I don't believe that one is a case of a missing quad master, but rather a quad was never able to be prepared due to missing multi-tracks.

Hey PU,

It's a good point, but I think this thread is focused on existing quads that may or may not be released. I wonder how long the list would be for "mixes that could never exist."

 

[fredblue]

I wonder how long the list would be for "mixes that could never exist."

MASSIVE! :yikes

 

[privateuniverse]

Hey PU,

It's a good point, but I think this thread is focused on existing quads that may or may not be released.

I know, that's why I was suggesting that Lost Chord should be removed from the list! :yikes

Maybe you were thinking about the quad mix of Hayward & Lodge's Blue Jays? I seem to remember someone mentioning in a thread that AF attempted to license that one but got shot down by Universal.