Would you pay extra for an Audio Fidelity Surround SACD?

[rtbluray]

Kinda funny.
8 pages of a What If? thread.
9 reviews of the latest Audio Fidelity actual Quad release.

Seems this forum isn't much different from the much maligned SHF.
Speculation is sometimes more engaging than an actual release.
Far more reviews of this title there.
Just an observation.

Another point I would add is that instead of spending time speculating on whether or not Audio Fidelity will release more Multichannel SACDs if the price went up, I would suggest that more members spend time reviewing and voting on surround discs that have already been released.
Remember, each disc needs 10 votes to make it into the High-Res Poll Chart, and there's definitely some discs that could use a lot more votes.
"Your Wilderness" by the Pineapple Thief needs 2 more votes, "Scintilla" by Nosound needs 3 more votes, "A Slight Departure" by Birdsong at Morning needs 5 more votes as does "Love Fear and the Time Machine" by Riverside, and "1984" by Anthony Phillips needs 9 more votes as does the "Beck Bogert & Appice" SACD.
Now I understand that not everyone has these discs, but for those that do, consider spending some time with these discs instead of worrying about the future of Audio Fidelity's Multichannel SACD series.
If AF does not want to give us what we want, then why should we care about them?
There's always going to be some artist and label out there providing surround releases to us, so let's focus on them and not bother with the ones that do not.

 

[JonUrban]

... I would suggest that more members spend time reviewing and voting on surround discs that have already been released.....

"Hear, Hear!"

Or is it "Here, Here!", or maybe "Hear Here", or "Here, Hear"??? I give up.................

 

[Old Quad Guy]

I suppose "imaginary" discs are more wonderful than actual ones. How abut this as the question:

"Would you Please buy an Audio Fidelity Surround SACD now?"

Let's support what is actually here For Sale before us now. Don't want to read in a couple of years: "Geez, the Alice Cooper SACD is so expensive used on Amazon now."

Let's buy out the AF surround stock, as one can afford, and then maybe, perhaps, more titles might follow.

 

[fredblue]

Well, shall we kill it then?

I'd hate for this little poll to be taking any focus away from new releases.

I'd have thought we might be able to discuss this topic and vote on new titles in the QQ Polls..
(Multichannel multitasking.. maybe a predominantly male membership is incapable ) but if this discussion is a distraction please do end it.

Meantime, I do hope that nobody here who wishes to stop discussing this topic never wants to hear any of these old Quads in pristine quality someday.. because those people may well find they are fresh out of of luck in the years to come.

Personally there was a time, almost to my shame only up until fairly recently, when I couldn't have cared less about the preservation and reissue of old Quads.. but now I do it would be great, I feel, to have a debate about the future reissue and preservation of Quad, particularly poignant and apt on a forum that has Quad in its name and at its heart, if we here lose the spirit then Quad's future is doomed imho.

Thanks.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

I don't see a reason to close the thread, but point is, we need to Buy titles now that are out there.

Edit: I too came to the conclusion with intensity that Quad masters MUST be saved, as well as all tape that still exists. But now that we have a chance to do so, more folks need to step up to plate and buy. Even if, one already own's it in another format.

 

[fredblue]

I don't see a reason to close the tread, but point is, we need to Buy titles now that are out there.

With respect, you don't but others clearly do feel this is an unwarranted/needless discussion.

Many of us here have bought all the AF Surround releases and it still wasn't enough..

..a new approach is needed, imho.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

..a new approach is needed, imho.

Well, for small labels, they need a few more years on the contracts to let their stock sell out at the retail price. Titles WILL sell out. History has proven this time and again, but the buying public needs a little time to reflect, consider, save and buy. Not everyone can buy everything all at once, even if they want to. Also, our members in distant lands have a difficult time having these titles reach them without it costing a ridiculous price.

 

[fredblue]

Well, for small labels, they need a few more years on the contracts to let their stock sell out at the retail price. Titles WILL sell out. History has proven this time and again, but the buying public needs a little time to reflect, consider, save and buy. Not everyone can buy everything all at once, even if they want to.

If a few more years were needed to make the most of the contracts etc, why pull the plug on the AF Surround titles when they did?

Was the inclusion of surround really such a hugely contributing loss-making factor..?

Also, our members in distant lands have a difficult time having these titles reach them without it cost a ridiculous price.

Indeed.. this I know to my own personal impecunity..
..the UK isn't that far flung from the States.. and yet each one of the single-disc AF Surround SACDs ended up costing me in the region of $40 with international shipping and import duty..

 

[fredblue]

Case in point, below is the breakdown of the order summary for the Secret Treaties AF SACD I recently received from Amazon.com:

Disc was $24.99 (which seems fair and reasonable to me for a premium product and in surround) but when you add in shipping and import duty it becomes a less palatable $41.96..

Order Summary

Item(s) Subtotal:
$24.99

Shipping & Handling:
$9.98

Total before tax:
$34.97

Estimated tax to be collected:
$0.00

Import Fees Deposit:
$6.99

Grand Total:
$41.96

 

[Old Quad Guy]

One can only speculate, but it's simple math why AF stopped. Money goes out, money don't come back in, in a timely manor to keep it going properly. That and the lag time to get titles licensed that might be even bigger sellers than another title. Although, most surround fans do and will collect just about everything and anything with more than two speakers.

If a few more years were needed to make the most of the contracts etc, why pull the plug on the AF Surround titles when they did?

Was the inclusion of surround really such a hugely contributing loss-making factor..?

Indeed.. this I know to my own personal impecunity..
..the UK isn't that far flung from the States.. and yet each one of the single-disc AF Surround SACDs ended up costing me in the region of $40 with international shipping and import duty..

 

[fredblue]

I too came to the conclusion with intensity that Quad masters MUST be saved, as well as all tape that still exists. But now that we have a chance to do so, more folks need to step up to plate and buy. Even if, one already own's it in another format.

I'm with you all the way.. but I fear we may be flogging a dead horse.. people just don't want the old Quad stuff in significant enough numbers, imho..

 

[fredblue]

One can only speculate, but it's simple math why AF stopped. Money goes out, money don't come back in, in a timely manor to keep it going properly. That and the lag time to get titles licensed that might be even bigger sellers than another title. Although, most surround fans do and will collect just about everything and anything with more than two speakers.

Well.. I kinda understand how to run a business (I've run a couple into the ground myself! ) but why should surround be the first thing to get the chop..?

Why not choose different titles and different groups?

I notice there have been a fair few rumblings over at the SHF recently that - surround or no surround - the offerings from AF haven't been that desirable due to the actual albums and artists they're releasing..

 

[Old Quad Guy]

I'm with you all the way.. but I fear we may be flogging a dead horse.. people just don't want the old Quad stuff in significant enough numbers, imho..

That's how We All felt 10 years ago when we saw DVD-A and SACD die by mutual destruction. But we didn't give up, we hung in there, and over the years titles that were unheard of coming out did make it's way as official releases. We've also shown that Surround is a legitimate form of listening to music. The proof is in just the listening to any great title, both musically and surround mix wise.

 

[colsky]

Another point I would add is that instead of spending time speculating on whether or not Audio Fidelity will release more Multichannel SACDs if the price went up, I would suggest that more members spend time reviewing and voting on surround discs that have already been released.
Remember, each disc needs 10 votes to make it into the High-Res Poll Chart, and there's definitely some discs that could use a lot more votes.
"Your Wilderness" by the Pineapple Thief needs 2 more votes, "Scintilla" by Nosound needs 3 more votes, "A Slight Departure" by Birdsong at Morning needs 5 more votes as does "Love Fear and the Time Machine" by Riverside, and "1984" by Anthony Phillips needs 9 more votes as does the "Beck Bogert & Appice" SACD.
Now I understand that not everyone has these discs, but for those that do, consider spending some time with these discs instead of worrying about the future of Audio Fidelity's Multichannel SACD series.
If AF does not want to give us what we want, then why should we care about them?
There's always going to be some artist and label out there providing surround releases to us, so let's focus on them and not bother with the ones that do not.

Its funny, Ryan's bollocking has reminded a few of us to vote on some things, he's a scary guy :beer2:upthumb !!

 

[DuncanS]

Why not choose different titles and different groups?

I notice there have been a fair few rumblings over at the SHF recently that - surround or no surround - the offerings from AF haven't been that desirable due to the actual albums and artists they're releasing..

I think that maybe more the reason that they didn't sell that well. I like to hear music I've never heard before old & new, and in Quad, so I bought all the AF Quad titles (apart from the Xmas one!) by artists or of albums I hadn't heard, and I may not have been wowed by all of them, but I have enjoyed them all. But by the sounds of it there aren't enough music nutters like me out there. If the mainstream labels (or artists) won't let/can't find the Quad albums from well known artists then AF does have its hands tied. I think its a travesty that the Doobies/Eagles/Joni Mitchell Quads haven't been re-released by anyone. The Blue Oyster Cult is great, shame more like that weren't forthcoming. Even my own brothers who're music nuts as well don't understand my surround obsession, even when you point out great things in the mix that get buried and missed in the stereo. Almost fell off my soapbox there! C'est la vie..........

 

[JanBakker]

Its funny, Ryan's bollocking has reminded a few of us to vote on some things, he's a scary guy :beer2:upthumb !!

Was it that obvious?

 

[fredblue]

Its funny, Ryan's bollocking has reminded a few of us to vote on some things, he's a scary guy :beer2:upthumb !!

I take a good bollocking on the chin as much as the next man (that was not a "tea-bagging" gag btw!) but it would be nice to have a discussion on this topic that didn't turn into the kind of impasse we're at now where just because some people don't appreciate the old Quads the way others do, its suggested we shouldn't be discussing this as its somehow detrimental to discussion of new releases.. sheesh.. kebab!

Hmm.. that's a nice idea..

 

[rtbluray]

Its funny, Ryan's bollocking has reminded a few of us to vote on some things, he's a scary guy :beer2:upthumb !!

Ah, come on, I'm not that scary, am I?
But in all seriousness, I'm glad to see that a few of those discs now have a few more votes. They all deserve to be voted on and reviewed by this forum.

Plus there's another point in relation to all of this that I should make.
I mentioned that the "Beck Bogert & Appice" SACD only has one vote so far, and it only has one review so far too (thanks, SteelyDave!)
This is a classic Quadraphonic title reissued on SACD, yet it's not hardly being discussed at all.
Why is that?
Is it because not enough people are interested? I don't think that's the answer…
Is it because it's too expensive and so not enough people have bought it so far? BINGO!
I think this title proves that there are definitely price limits that will inhibit a lot of people from picking up certain discs.
So a price increase from Audio Fidelity might scare off a lot of potential buyers if the title and price is not something that they can fit into their budget.
Just a thought…

 

[fredblue]

Let me also say (on the subject of "new 5.1's Vs. old Quad reissues") I should hope we at QQ can cope with discussion of releases of both new and old..?

I hold my hands up, one of the reasons I went 'back to the future' and threw myself into the Quad thing was (having tried to track down as many "mainstream" rock and pop Surround titles as possible, the still in print and those very much out of print!) I had come to have my fill of obscure Surround SACDs of things like middle aged European women with squeezeboxes between their legs pumping out 5 channels of glorious ambience.. :music

..time and again the last 18 months-ish of my crazy Quad odyssey the lovely old Quads have proven to be a more satisfying, more engaging, more interesting and frankly more surround-y multichannel listening experience than so many 'newer' 5.1 titles..

..there are still many great new titles and I enjoy a great number of them and support the cause buying even some I have little or no interest in at the time.. but I'm open to any new 5.1 growing on me or heading for the back of the shelf never to be played again.. just as I am open to any old Quad I find being equally excellent or lousy... its all good til it turns bad!

as they say "once you've gone Quad, you'll always be odd.."

 

[fredblue]

Ah, come on, I'm not that scary, am I?
But in all seriousness, I'm glad to see that a few of those discs now have a few more votes. They all deserve to be voted on and reviewed by this forum.

Plus there's another point in relation to all of this that I should make.
I mentioned that the "Beck Bogert & Appice" SACD only has one vote so far, and it only has one review so far too (thanks, SteelyDave!)
This is a classic Quadraphonic title reissued on SACD, yet it's not hardly being discussed at all.
Why is that?
Is it because not enough people are interested? I don't think that's the answer…
Is it because it's too expensive and so not enough people have bought it so far? BINGO!
I think this title proves that there are definitely price limits that will inhibit a lot of people from picking up certain discs.
So a price increase from Audio Fidelity might scare off a lot of potential buyers if the title and price is not something that they can fit into their budget.
Just a thought…

Yes, you're scary..! :yikes

You're also wonderful, so stop fishing for compliments, you scary surround guru, you..!!!

Bingo indeed..!!! :upthumb ...The Japanese Jeff Beck Quad SACDs are way too expensive.. but people are still buying them..

Also, I could name 10 way overpriced out of print SACDs off the top of my head that next to no-one has ever voted for on QQ (even though I bugged Jon to create Polls for some of them cos I thought they had great surround mixes, which I feel kinda bad about to this day.. and even some of you here might not have heard of some of them they are that off the radar!) yet they still cost a bloody arm and a leg (and a kidney) on the after market.. in these kinds of situations, a lack of QQ votes could be an indicator of many things, people haven't voted on those discs yet because they don't even know about them not just because they are expensive.. maybe.. I dunno?

still.. a prod to get more folks here to Vote is a good thing under any circumstances though I reckon, so prod away I say... prod prod prod..!!!
Is that like a Facebook poke btw? In which case, please do poke gently, I'm British!