Would you pay extra for an Audio Fidelity Surround SACD?

[dobyblue]

I'd pay $50 no problem for a brand new 5.1 mix of a Sony title like Pearl Jam Ten, Dave Matthews Band Under The Table and Dreaming, Rage Against the Machine debut, where the album was recorder to analogue.

New 5.1 mix by ES
New 2.0 analogue > DSD mastering by Steve Hoffman

Hello!

 

[kap'n krunch]

I'd pay $50 no problem for a brand new 5.1 mix of a Sony title like Pearl Jam Ten, Dave Matthews Band Under The Table and Dreaming, Rage Against the Machine debut, where the album was recorder to analogue.

New 5.1 mix by ES
New 2.0 analogue > DSD mastering by Steve Hoffman

Hello!

Totally agree about the source being analog...aamof, now that you mention Dave Matthews Band, the LP reissue of "Crash" sounds WAY better than the CD!!!

 

[ManWhoCan]

I would consider paying a LITTLE more for an SACD with a GOOD Mch mix on it, over a 2ch only disc, but if the price of all SACDs rose to deal with adding surround mixes then I might end up buying less discs overall. Probably a good thing for me, as I'd be more discerning about what I'd buy, but not so good for AF, as not only me but the buying public in general (99% 2ch peeps) would end up buying less discs.
I respectfully suggest leaving AF well alone, as they are doing OK as far as I'm concerned, thank you.
So, in the end, I think my vote has to be NO!

 

[JonUrban]

I would consider paying a LITTLE more for an SACD with a GOOD Mch mix on it, over a 2ch only disc, but if the price of all SACDs rose to deal with adding surround mixes then I might end up buying less discs overall. Probably a good thing for me, as I'd be more discerning about what I'd buy, but not so good for AF, as not only me but the buying public in general (99% 2ch peeps) would end up buying less discs.
I respectfully suggest leaving AF well alone, as they are doing OK as far as I'm concerned, thank you.
So, in the end, I think my vote has to be NO!

I agree.

I think they made the proper decision on the Joe Cocker and GFR SACDs *not* to include the quad mixes because those particular quad mixes are not good enough to foot the cost, so to speak. A worthy title would be welcomed, but if in fact the number of M/C SACDs is limited due to financial restraints, saving those funds for one or two worthy releases is far better than - a) No M/C releases at all, b) or one or two suspect releases that even the quad community won't fully embrace - thus leading to the possible ending of the M/C release program altogether.

Marshall is in OUR corner. I trust his judgement, now more than ever.

 

[Quadzilla]

I agree.

I think they made the proper decision on the Joe Cocker and GFR SACDs *not* to include the quad mixes because those particular quad mixes are not good enough to foot the cost, so to speak. A worthy title would be welcomed, but if in fact the number of M/C SACDs is limited due to financial restraints, saving those funds for one or two worthy releases is far better than - a) No M/C releases at all, b) or one or two suspect releases that even the quad community won't fully embrace - thus leading to the possible ending of the M/C release program altogether.

Marshall is in OUR corner. I trust his judgement, now more than ever.

Exactly right! Let's not forget how excited everyone was about the DVD-Audio format ... then Silverline came along.

 

[Ninecats]

I agree.

I think they made the proper decision on the Joe Cocker and GFR SACDs *not* to include the quad mixes because those particular quad mixes are not good enough to foot the cost, so to speak. A worthy title would be welcomed, but if in fact the number of M/C SACDs is limited due to financial restraints, saving those funds for one or two worthy releases is far better than - a) No M/C releases at all, b) or one or two suspect releases that even the quad community won't fully embrace - thus leading to the possible ending of the M/C release program altogether.

Marshall is in OUR corner. I trust his judgement, now more than ever.

Wise words!

 

[bmoura]

I would consider paying a LITTLE more for an SACD with a GOOD Mch mix on it, over a 2ch only disc, but if the price of all SACDs rose to deal with adding surround mixes then I might end up buying less discs overall. Probably a good thing for me, as I'd be more discerning about what I'd buy, but not so good for AF, as not only me but the buying public in general (99% 2ch peeps) would end up buying less discs.
I respectfully suggest leaving AF well alone, as they are doing OK as far as I'm concerned, thank you.
So, in the end, I think my vote has to be NO!

The bigger question is whether the 85%+ of the market that is looking for Stereo SACD editions of album reissues would be willing to pay more for an album because it also had a Surround Sound SACD track on it.
My guess is they would not be happy about such a program. And that is why I don't think you will see such a proposal come to pass.

 

[quadtrade]

The bigger question is whether the 85%+ of the market that is looking for Stereo SACD editions of album reissues would be willing to pay more for an album because it also had a Surround Sound SACD track on it.
My guess is they would not be happy about such a program. And that is why I don't think you will see such a proposal come to pass.

They will not like it and sales will suffer.
I am not sure how much these guys are getting for downloads at 24/96. If these guys had it together, you would get a license that would allow for a disc with both stereo and mc issued at a few bucks apiece, and a licence to create a download at 24/96 in the multichannel files only, that you could get for 5 bucks and sell at a profit after doing the work to get the file together and a cover that matches. Costs would be much less. Server space can't be that much. Everyone wins, we get a hi res quad file, discs sales will not suffer much as only some of us would grab the files, some would want a disc. Record Company wins with a contract for a few bucks more for a file. I just do not know how well files sell online and have no data to confirm this path has a profitable side. I also am not sure about the desires of these mega companies and how they view downloads for cash instead a hard disc. My guess is they best come around.

 

[bmoura]

They will not like it and sales will suffer.
I am not sure how much these guys are getting for downloads at 24/96.

The markets are different.

The major labels license albums to the reissue labels for LP, SACD editions but retain rights to the remastered tapes.
On downloads, the major labels are licensing music downloads directly to the web sites that sell them vs. working with the reissue labels.

 

[Beefalo]

This is an old thread. Back when we were young and could still dream....