First 2 Audio Fidelity Multichannel SACDs Announced - Supersession and Breezin'

[Clint Eastwood]

This thread is so bizarre. We've been waiting for this for years, finally new titles are being released and here's one that we've known existed and was never released before. Not to mention we are talking about a legendary recording, superb playing, awesome music. Seriously, you wanted different titles to be the first to come out? And you're bitching and moaning instead of celebrating this wonderful development?

Yes, I too hope the Breezin' mix is a new one, but you know what, I'll be getting both of these titles and anyone who can afford it should do the same. And I, for one, can't wait to listen to supersession, and am waiting with bated breath for the announcement of the next titles to come out.

I don't see anything bizarre about this thread at all. What I see is people expressing their thoughts and opinions about the titles that were selected. The most important thing that you should have noticed is that there is conversation about the titles, not if people liked the choices. That's an indicator of interest; not apathy. I would be much more concerned if nobody was talking about these titles at all.

Your statement about people buying the titles regardless of if they like them is another bad choice IMO. I understand that you want to support the multi channel movement, and I do as well. Purchasing discs that either don't offer the desired sound quality or doesn't interest you sends AF the wrong message in regards to the titles. They want to get a handle on the market and the only way they are going to gain any insight is thru sales and feedback. AF is not a mom and pop operation and they aren't going to shut down their company if they don't get a huge response from these initial multi channel offerings. If you just re-issue Breezin' with the same questionable sound quality(and it's been confirmed that it's the same mix)you can't expect experienced multi channel customers to buy this product. AF needs to learn these things and I'm sure they will as they are a successful company and didn't get that far by making bad business decisions.

Where you see "bitching and moaning", I see honest discussion and productive input. That's what this forum offers the individual, and that includes you. Your opinion is just as valid as the next poster. The point is that "marching to the same beat" and "falling in line" with everybody about buying these discs is counterproductive to both the individual and AF. I see those "symptoms" over at SHF and it just doesn't work. I think you have good intentions and respect your opinion but I can't agree on your methods in this instance.

 

[cupboy]

As to future releases, we all know that there isn't an album in existence that will please everyone. That's what discussing music so colorful.

I think everyone would like Best Of The Doors.

 

[key_wiz]

I suspect part of the problem with companies like AF issuing MC titles is while they may have access to some of the best mastering engineers in the business, re-mixing is an entirely different animal. And much more expensive.

As a MC newbie, I'd settle for re-releases of out of print (and ridiculously expensive on the used market) titles. Old Quad mixes would be great! But I understand the desire for new MC product. But who will do the mixes?

 

[bmoura]

I think everyone would like Best Of The Doors.

I doubt that. We've already heard comments complaining that the releases sound be from newer artists. The Doors wouldn't qualify there.

The way to find out would be to list some suggested titles for 5.1 SACD release and see if any of them received 100% of the votes. My guess would be that would be almost impossible to get everyone to vote for an album, no matter how noteworthy some found it.

 

[bmoura]

I suspect part of the problem with companies like AF issuing MC titles is while they may have access to some of the best mastering engineers in the business, re-mixing is an entirely different animal. And much more expensive.

As a MC newbie, I'd settle for re-releases of out of print (and ridiculously expensive on the used market) titles. Old Quad mixes would be great! But I understand the desire for new MC product. But who will do the mixes?

Good points.

Although the top mastering engineers are often quite busy. So if you want a specific mastering engineer (or recording engineer for that matter), it can delay a project as you wait to get on their schedule. In the past, that is one reason that some albums appeared on Stereo CD sometime before the corresponding SACD or DVD-A arrived - waiting for a specific mastering and/or recording engineer to have time on their schedule to do the project.

On a 5.1 remix, there is an added expense and time delay involved. As to 4.0 Multichannel releases, Audio Fidelity has not ruled that out. I'm guessing that most QQ fans here would be just as happy with a 4.0 mix as a 5.1 mix.

 

[wavelength]

As to 4.0 Multichannel releases, Audio Fidelity has not ruled that out. I'm guessing that most QQ fans here would be just as happy with a 4.0 mix as a 5.1 mix.

I wouldn't be happy with 4.0 mixes instead of 5.1 mixes at all. A good 5.1 mix isn't just a 4.0 with a center and a sub added. A proper 5.1 mix is a different animal altogether. I get way more fulfillment from a 5.1 mix then from the few 4.0 mixes that I have heard. For me 5.1 represents a major step in the evolution of surround sound. 4.0 is a creature of the past that was the pinnacle of surround at one time but that time is past. Even if you want to get into a 4.0 vs. 5.1 debate, the fact is that I have been listening to so many 5.1 mixes for so many years that I simply can't get excited about 4.0.

 

[proufo]

I'm guessing that most QQ fans here would be just as happy with a 4.0 mix as a 5.1 mix.

Or even happier (no forced non-defeatable bass management), but 4.0 is so 70s!

 

[PK]

I'm guessing that most QQ fans here would be just as happy with a 4.0 mix as a 5.1 mix.

This is something that I'd been wondering about myself as I missed the quad days. Is 5.1 music audio an evolution (thanks Wavelength) or is it a byproduct from the development of surround audio for movie soundtracks or ??? Has this been discussed in a separate thread?

 

[bmoura]

This is something that I'd been wondering about myself as I missed the quad days. Is 5.1 music audio an evolution (thanks Wavelength) or is it a byproduct from the development of surround audio for movie soundtracks or ??? Has this been discussed in a separate thread?

There have been past discussions on QQ where some Surround Music fans see 4.0 mixes as more natural and preferable to 5.1 which they see as more of a movie format.
Others do not agree. Again, different preferences out there.

My guess is that if AF finds classic 4.0 Surround tapes of interest, they may make it to their 5.1 Surround SACD series.

Would some Surround music fans reject, say a Rick Wakeman Multichannel SACD because it was the original 4.0 mix vs. a Stereo only SACD instead?
Something to ponder.

 

[wavelength]

Okay, somewhat off topic but then again the discussion of 4.0 applies if indeed Audio Fidelity is considering releases in that format. I only have to look at what Scheiner and Wilson have done with the 5.1 format to be pretty sure that 4.0 is going to be a questionable purchase. And besides that the 4.0 mixes were all done 30 to 40 years ago. There must be surround mixing knowledge gained since then that becomes a factor in the 5.1 mixes of today.

 

[bmoura]

Okay, somewhat off topic but then again the discussion of 4.0 applies if indeed Audio Fidelity is considering releases in that format. I only have to look at what Scheiner and Wilson have done with the 5.1 format to be pretty sure that 4.0 is going to be a questionable purchase. And besides that the 4.0 mixes were all done 30 to 40 years ago. There must be surround mixing knowledge gained since then that becomes a factor in the 5.1 mixes of today.

Yes, Audio Fidelity is indeed looking at 4.0 Multichannel material from the Quad era - both released and unreleased - in addition to 5.1 mixes (released and unreleased).

In terms of mixing knowledge gained, that could be true. But some QQ fans would tell you that the Quad era mixes, even in 4.0, were often more immersive and aggressive in terms of their use of the Surround soundfield than today's Surround Sound mixes. Whether that is a good thing or not, depends on the type of mix you prefer.

 

[Scott M4]

Okay, somewhat off topic but then again the discussion of 4.0 applies if indeed Audio Fidelity is considering releases in that format. I only have to look at what Scheiner and Wilson have done with the 5.1 format to be pretty sure that 4.0 is going to be a questionable purchase. And besides that the 4.0 mixes were all done 30 to 40 years ago. There must be surround mixing knowledge gained since then that becomes a factor in the 5.1 mixes of today.

So, to choose a well known album with a both a quad and 5.1 mix, you would choose the 5.1 mix of Dark Side of the Moon automatically because of all the surround mixing knowledge gained in 30 or 40 years and because the quad mix would be a questionable purchase?

 

[bmoura]

So, to choose a well known album with a both a quad and 5.1 mix, you would choose the 5.1 mix of Dark Side of the Moon automatically because of all the surround mixing knowledge gained in 30 or 40 years and because the quad mix would be a questionable purchase?

It's an interesting question. Especially since the choice may be between a Stereo SACD release or one with Stereo SACD, Stereo CD and 4.0 SACD Multichannel.
Not surprisingly, I'd select the one with all three tracks - including the 4.0 Multichannel SACD!

 

[timbre4]

By the same token some classic 4.0 mixes have been ignored with some less compelling 5.1 mixes issued instead. It's all subjective and there are no absolutes. Each should be judged on individual merits.


From QQ deep space

 

[LizardKing]

So, to choose a well known album with a both a quad and 5.1 mix, you would choose the 5.1 mix of Dark Side of the Moon automatically because of all the surround mixing knowledge gained in 30 or 40 years and because the quad mix would be a questionable purchase?

Case in point above - some of the 4.0 mixes are regarded better than the 5.1 mixes. The quad mixes (both of them) of Machine Head smoke the 5.1 mix (IMHO)...

And where a 5.1 doesn't exist I'll take the quad.

I'll take any multichannel that's offered.

Also interestingly - I REALLY like the quad version of Super Session - It'll be interesting to see if the 5.1 is better. Personally - I'd be happy with the 4.0 on SACD of Super Session.

 

[bmoura]

Case in point above - some of the 4.0 mixes are regarded better than the 5.1 mixes. The quad mixes (both of them) of Machine Head smoke the 5.1 mix (IMHO)...

And where a 5.1 doesn't exist I'll take the quad.

I'll take any multichannel that's offered.

Also interestingly - I REALLY like the quad version of Super Session - It'll be interesting to see if the 5.1 is better. Personally - I'd be happy with the 4.0 on SACD of Super Session.

I'd agree on the Deep Purple 4.0 mix - sounds excellent on the Multichannel SACD.
As to Super Session, I remember listening to "Season of the Witch" in Quad back in the '70s. It will be great to hear it updated in 5.1 SACD Multichannel soon.

 

[wavelength]

So, to choose a well known album with a both a quad and 5.1 mix, you would choose the 5.1 mix of Dark Side of the Moon automatically because of all the surround mixing knowledge gained in 30 or 40 years and because the quad mix would be a questionable purchase?

Hey that's a rigged example. That 5.1 mix was done by...what's his name?...ah who cares. The quad was done by Alan Parsons. Ever heard A Valid Path? Outstanding.

 

[steelydave]

It's not a rigged example at all, the 5.1 mix was done by James Guthrie, who's been working with Pink Floyd since at least the time of The Wall in the late 70's, not some fly-by-night nobody. There are lots of albums where the quad mix bests newer 5.1 mixes, and lots of newer 5.1 mixes that blow all the previous mixes out of the water. Scott is right, you can't automatically assume a mix is better because it's newer.

 

[leahypc]

I wouldn't be happy with 4.0 mixes instead of 5.1 mixes at all. A good 5.1 mix isn't just a 4.0 with a center and a sub added. A proper 5.1 mix is a different animal altogether. I get way more fulfillment from a 5.1 mix then from the few 4.0 mixes that I have heard. For me 5.1 represents a major step in the evolution of surround sound. 4.0 is a creature of the past that was the pinnacle of surround at one time but that time is past. Even if you want to get into a 4.0 vs. 5.1 debate, the fact is that I have been listening to so many 5.1 mixes for so many years that I simply can't get excited about 4.0.

I definitely prefer 5.1 to 4.0, but if the position they're going to take with some of these releases is, 'we can't do a new 5.1 mix, but we can reissue the old quad release', then I will definitely take it. Some of the quad reissues from recent years have reminded me how good they can sound, and how much I liked them before. Some examples:

Gentle Giant - Free Hand (DTS 4.1)
Gentle Giant - in'terview (DTS 4.1)
Electric Light Orchestra (DTS 4.1)
Chicago Transit Authority (DTS 4.0)(mistakenly marked on the packaging as a DVD-Audio)

I certainly wish that these were all DVD-A, but the basic fact is they all sound excellent. If there were more quad releases, I would certainly snap them up whether they're SACD or DVD. If they're albums that I like, that is...

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I would much rather have a quad release with good sound quality instead of a 5.1 release with "audio problems". You don't have to look very hard to see the obvious comparison. If they aren't going to fix the audio problems on Breezin' with this new release there are plenty of quality quad releases that I would prefer over that title. I always look for 5.1 first but I'm all about the sound quality.