Would you pay extra for an Audio Fidelity Surround SACD?

[fredblue]

For an artist that I like?

Yes, count me in.

Regards,

Thank you Sergio

I did consider adding a "maybe" or some other option but then thought well lets make it a very simple Question that boils down more of a matter of principle..
so, in theory would you pay more for a Surround SACD from Audio Fidelity than a Stereo only SACD from Audio Fidelity is the crux of the matter and then we can discuss why we voted ~Yes or No, as you have just qualified your vote. Much appreciated.

 

[fredblue]

Also, just to make it clear, this is:

1.) A purely "Hypothetical Question"

&

2.) Completely of my own making, unprompted by any external influence, with no prompting from Audio Fidelity or anyone connected with Audio Fidelity, nor QQ Jon, nor anyone else connected with QQ in any way.

Thanks! :upthumb

Over to you...

 

[fredblue]

I voted no, reason is AF, and thank God for them, is still a niche market and they could ruin themselves. Also what they have released in stereo and mch is more of soft rock, lets say compared to classic rock. When classic rock gets mentioned on QQ it really gets people going, whereas a lot of AF soft rock or obscure rock fits even less people in an already niche market. It's up to them and I am sure they are making money but as I see it I don't want to blindly support them to charge more money for more of what they have been doing. Now Acoustic Sounds and Japanese releases are fewer but they can really release some blockbusters, and most rock artists love that Japanese market.

Thank you so much for this excellent, considered response, Markie! :upthumb

You demonstrate that a "NO" vote here is very much a constructive one, since it opens the debate further and you have given a solid explanation for your reasoning behind why you think it would not be a good idea (imho).. nobody wants to see any label take a risk for Surround that could be detrimental to that label in general and that is a valid concern which would have to be addressed by anyone looking to charge a premium for the Surround niche within the Hi-Res niche..

Also, very good point, the Sony Japan Surround SACDs are primarily intended for their domestic market and the Japanese market must be quite different in some ways to the domestic market in the U.S.A.

Thanks!

More please??

 

[bmoura]

The bigger question is would the core audience for Audio Fidelity SACDs, who are looking for Stereo CD and Stereo SACD audio, pay more for an Audio Fidelity SACD that had SACD Surround sound included.

 

[Snood]

Favorites type well known sought after releases yes :banana: - like Doobies, Billy Joel, Santana etc

Judy Collins and Mannheim type nah :howl

 

[4-earredwonder]

The bigger question is would the core audience for Audio Fidelity SACDs, who are looking for Stereo CD and Stereo SACD audio, pay more for an Audio Fidelity SACD that had SACD Surround sound included.

An excellent, point, Brian.

ONLY Audio Fidelity knows it's business like none other and since it's definitely a FOR profit business and because it must carefully select its titles for a maximum profitability factor, it does impose a crimp on the future of mch SACD production even though I hate to admit it..

And since in the states AF's SACDs are MORE cannilly priced [read: heavily discounted] than their MoFi and ESPECIALLY AP competitors, it becomes even more of a challenge to maximize all future reissue ventures.

Point well taken.

 

[Q-Eight]

I voted "No" because, quite frankly, I thought we were paying extra for these SACD's. They're not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
However, I would happily pay the same amount, $29.99 for an SACD devoid of a Stereo option; Multichannel only. Quite frankly, I have not played any of the ones I have purchased in stereo. I'm buying them for the Quad content.

Would I pay slightly more, (say, $34.99) for a heavy-hitter? Absolutely. Aerosmith, The Raiders, Johnny or Edgar Winter, Paul Simon, Eagles, Doobies, etc. Those names alone you just know are going to command a premium.

 

[sperezmore]

Of the 140 titles that I own in High Resolution Music (Blu-ray Audio, DVD Audio, SACD, DTS CD, Audio-DVD, Dolby Surround CD and DualDisc) in my modest collection 12 titles are Stereo only. I do not count DVDs or Blu-ray concerts/videos.

That says what's my priority.

So Yes, i will pay more for a title in surround SACD from Audio Fidelity if I like/want the album.


I do own 1488 Blu-ray, 1180 DVD and 7 HD DVD titles in films and concerts for a total of 2675 titles but that's my main hobby (Home Theater). Also have close to 800 CD titles.

Now, my wife...... she's The Queen of mp3 music, she has close to 9000 songs in her iPad‎, iPhone. CRAZY!!!!@::yikes:yikes:music

Well, she's from Venus... I'm from Mars


Regards,

 

[fredblue]

The bigger question is would the core audience for Audio Fidelity SACDs, who are looking for Stereo CD and Stereo SACD audio, pay more for an Audio Fidelity SACD that had SACD Surround sound included.

Indeed.. very good question and potential counter argument for saying "NO", thank you

I could see there is a case for customers with no interest in Surround not wanting to subsidise the minority that do want Surround and would be prepared to pay more, perhaps.

Meantime, what is your response to the simple, honest and purely hypothetical YES or NO question at hand, please?

Would you pay more for an Audio Fidelity Surround SACD than a Stereo only Audio Fidelity SACD?

Thank you.

 

[GOS]

Frequent cost of $50 is a lot...but there is no doubt I would pay that for my favorites.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[4-earredwonder]

I voted "No" because, quite frankly, I thought we were paying extra for these SACD's. They're not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
However, I would happily pay the same amount, $29.99 for an SACD devoid of a Stereo option; Multichannel only. Quite frankly, I have not played any of the ones I have purchased in stereo. I'm buying them for the Quad content.

Would I pay slightly more, (say, $34.99) for a heavy-hitter? Absolutely. Aerosmith, The Raiders, Johnny or Edgar Winter, Paul Simon, Eagles, Doobies, etc. Those names alone you just know are going to command a premium.

ALL the Stateside SACD reissue companies, stereo or multichannel, carry a $29.95 list price so, in effect, we were not being charged a premium for AF's QUAD/5.1 Hybrid SACDs. And unlike MoFi and AP, there are/were a number of AF Stereo SACDs that were even listed at $24.95 (the upcoming Musicmagic comes to mind).

And keep in mind, I always thought the AF HYBRID QUAD/5.1s were bargains as even purists could pick and choose what layer of the SACD they chose to play as all three layers were carefully mastered without prejudice. Additionally, MoFi and Audio Fidelity's 24k Gold RBCDs were also priced at $24.95/$29.95 and were lower res 16/44.1 and I'm sure this same 'careful mastering' carried over to both companies hybrid SACD's CD layer, whether stereo OR multi.

 

[fredblue]

I voted "No" because, quite frankly, I thought we were paying extra for these SACD's. They're not cheap by any stretch of the imagination.
However, I would happily pay the same amount, $29.99 for an SACD devoid of a Stereo option; Multichannel only. Quite frankly, I have not played any of the ones I have purchased in stereo. I'm buying them for the Quad content.

Would I pay slightly more, (say, $34.99) for a heavy-hitter? Absolutely. Aerosmith, The Raiders, Johnny or Edgar Winter, Paul Simon, Eagles, Doobies, etc. Those names alone you just know are going to command a premium.

Thank you! Very good point.. and premium artists one may expect to pay a premium for.. you also raise an excellent follow-on question, too:

Are Audio Fidelity SACDs seen as expensive premium product already, regardless of whether they include Surround or not..?

To me, the Audio Fidelity Surround SACDs are not expensive, just a couple of reasons:

1.) In order to purchase the Warner DVD-Audio titles Audio Fidelity reissued on Surround SACD (including Grover Washington Jr./Winelight, America/Homecoming) required ordinarily paying more money for a used copy of the DVD-Audio on the after market than the price of the Audio Fidelity SACDs new at retail, plus the Audio Fidelity SACDs have remastered sound, etc.,

2.) In order to hear the vintage Quads Audio Fidelity have already released on Surround SACD, one would need to either resort to certain not entirely legit methods and get resourceful online.. and/or get even more resourceful and shell out a shedload on old Quad hardware and software, presenting a whole new can of financial wriggly worms (and then you have again as in my previous point, the subjective sound quality discussion.. taking it a stage further, could/would any vintage Quad record or tape ever even approximate the kind of sound quality Audio Fidelity could achieve remastering Quads from the original master tapes for their Surround SACDs...?

 

[4-earredwonder]

Thank you! Very good point.. and premium artists one may expect to pay a premium for.. you also raise an excellent follow-on question, too:

Are Audio Fidelity SACDs seen as expensive premium product already, regardless of whether they include Surround or not..?

To me, the Audio Fidelity Surround SACDs are not expensive, just a couple of reasons:

1.) In order to purchase the Warner DVD-Audio titles Audio Fidelity reissued on Surround SACD (including Grover Washington Jr./Winelight, America/Homecoming) required ordinarily paying more money for a used copy of the DVD-Audio on the after market than the price of the Audio Fidelity SACDs new at retail, plus the Audio Fidelity SACDs have remastered sound, etc.,

2.) In order to hear the vintage Quads Audio Fidelity have already released on Surround SACD, one would need to either resort to certain not entirely legit methods and get resourceful online.. and/or get even more resourceful and shell out a shedload on old Quad hardware and software, presenting a whole new can of financial wriggly worms (and then you have again as in my previous point, the subjective sound quality discussion.. taking it a stage further, could/would any vintage Quad record or tape ever even approximate the kind of sound quality Audio Fidelity could achieve remastering Quads from the original master tapes for their Surround SACDs...?

Another point of clarification, Adam: for US residents where discounting is prevalent and postage and handling is MUCH cheaper (with NO VAT or other added tariffs), reissued SACDs can be had for price points of between $21~$24 [delivered] whereas for Canadian and European residents, those prices are or can be WAY higher (as much as $47 per disc).

So every increase in list price does pose a potential financial burden to oversea's customers.

 

[rtbluray]

I'm not going to vote in this poll for two reasons:

1) There's only one Quadraphonic title I would gladly fork over more than $30 for in any lossless format, and that's the "Blue Jays" album from Justin Hayward & John Lodge. (Moody Blues-offshoot)
2) Based on Brian's question, I think the answer is no, I do not think that the vast majority of AF's (stereo) audience would pay more for a Multichannel SACD than they are paying now, so I just don't see this scenario playing out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fredblue]

I'm not going to vote in this poll for two reasons:

1) There's only one Quadraphonic title I would gladly fork over more than $30 for in any lossless format, and that's the "Blue Jays" album from Justin Hayward & John Lodge. (Moody Blues-offshoot)
2) Based on Brian's question, I think the answer is no, I do not think that the vast majority of AF's (stereo) audience would pay more for a Multichannel SACD than they are paying now, so I just don't see this scenario playing out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough.. you're sounding more of a "maybe"..?

although.. only really wanting one title at a "Surround Premium" in conjunction with your agreeing with Brian's suggestion, is kinda indicating you're veering more towards a "No" vote..?

..maybe?

Oh I wish I'd added a "maybe" option now..

..too late to turn back, I imagine (first Poll and all that.. rookie Pollster error! )

 

[4-earredwonder]

Fair enough.. you're sounding more of a "maybe"..?

although.. only really wanting one title at a "Surround Premium" in conjunction with your agreeing with Brian's suggestion, is kinda indicating you're veering more towards a "No" vote..?

..maybe?

Oh I wish I'd added a "maybe" option now..

..too late to turn back, I imagine (first Poll and all that.. rookie Pollster error! )

Stick to your original guns, Adam.

A Maybe is way too indecisive and could go either way.

Casting a Yes or No IS decisive.....leaving no room for error.

 

[ubertrout]

I said no, but of course the real answer is maybe. For every disc there's a cost/interest calculus, and at the $30 price point I have to be fairly interested. I'd pay $50 for a quad of Paranoid and a few other albums done from master tapes, but not for the vast majority of them.

 

[quicksrt]

The bigger question is would the core audience for Audio Fidelity SACDs, who are looking for Stereo CD and Stereo SACD audio, pay more for an Audio Fidelity SACD that had SACD Surround sound included.

To further this line of thought, another way to frame the question is, would the core audience reject an SACD priced higher because it has a surround layer that they have little interest in?

I think the answer would have a lot to do with how much higher is the price on this stereo/multi-chan disc, and what the title is to begin with.

I've always felt $5.00 higher list for surround layer included was acceptable for quad fan and not objectionable to everyone else. I suggested it many weeks ago.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I said no, but of course the real answer is maybe. For every disc there's a cost/interest calculus, and at the $30 price point I have to be fairly interested. I'd pay $50 for a quad of Paranoid and a few other albums done from master tapes, but not for the vast majority of them.

On occasion, Analogue Production has raised their SACD prices (stereo or mch) incrementally to reflect the costs associated with licensing certain titles. Pink Floyd comes to mind and the stereo Norah Jones Blue Note SACDs and Nat King Cole 3 channel SACDs. All three artists did come at a premium. In the case of Pink Floyd (Wish You Were Here and Water's solo Amused to Death) I'm sure the $35 list price hardly threatened sales 'potential' but I'm not so sure with the Norah Jones' $33 list price and the Coles $35 list price (and $65 for the two disc NKC retrospective). Only AP knows how well ALL three artists sold at increased premiums.

But when considering Adam's original YES or NO question: Would potential customers be willing to pay upwards of $40 or MORE for future QUAD titles, bmoura's answer posed an even greater and MORE logical question: Would AF's target STEREO audience be willing to pay a premium for a QUAD layer they really had no interest in.

Until we have a reissue company which ONLY specializes in QUAD/Multichannel releases, I'm afraid we're at the mercy of these reissue companies whose sole interest, first and FOREMOST, is satisfying the majority of their STEREO base customers, so really, this is a moot point.

I just pre~ordered the latest SONY 5.1 hybrid SACD remix of Jeff Beck's WIRED for $49 + $5 s/h from CDJapan. Having just purchased the AP Stereo hybrid SACD of the same title [@$30], I considered this double dip a no brainer purchase since I, personally, want this title in multichannel. So in effect, I invested $84 for a Jeff Beck SACD.

Would I invest $40 for an AF QUAD title of a desirable artist.........SURE.....but that's me.

I voted YES not MAYBE but let's be clear..........It's up to the reissue companies to decide whether it's prudent [read: profitable] for them to continue QUAD/MCH SACD production so whether we vote YES or NO or MAYBE...........THAT future is not ours, you see, Que Sera....Sera!

 

[sperezmore]

I just pre~ordered the latest SONY 5.1 hybrid SACD remix of Jeff Beck's WIRED for $49 + $5 s/h from CDJapan.

Would I invest $40 for an AF QUAD title of a desirable artist.........SURE.....but that's me.

Same here. Agree 100%

Regards,