Would you pay extra for an Audio Fidelity Surround SACD?

[MIDIQ]

I want to add that i did buy a couple of AF's stereo only sacds. The Styx one, and the first America album. AF did a great job on them, but i already had them on cd. They sound a little better on sacd, but not a big difference, they were 2 really good sounding cds already. So i probably won't be buying many more stereo only sacds, unless it something that sounds harsh on regulat cd, like Styx Grand Illusion, i would love if they did thar one. Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

 

[fredblue]

I want to add that i did buy a couple of AF's stereo only sacds. The Styx one, and the first America album. AF did a great job on them, but i already had them on cd. They sound a little better on sacd, but not a big difference, they were 2 really good sounding cds already. So i probably won't be buying many more stereo only sacds, unless it something that sounds harsh on regulat cd, like Styx Grand Illusion, i would love if they did thar one. Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

Great post, thank you!

There are absolutely some worthwhile AF Stereo SACDs (its all in things like the mastering and potentially superior tape sources, etc.. of course) but if you throw the Redbook cat among the Hi-Res pigeons you could argue that those expert remasterings could be quite merrily presented on a regular CD and only the cats and pigeons could perceive the sonic improvement in that Stereo SACD, us 'oomans can't!

As a quick follow on, a couple of random thoughts (possibly equally contentious to some but as this debate is evolving amongst us all at QQ, I'm getting to thinking I ought to lay some more of my cards on the table here.. I voted "YES" btw.. )

1.) Storage capacity-wise/technically one can easily accommodate MultiCh on an SACD disc.. so why not include MultiCh if a Quad or 5.1 mix of that album is available?

if you bump up the RRP a bit to cover the added cost to the label, its just a waste of a rather nifty underused feature of SACD in general imho..

..this is not exclusive to SACD of course, you could say the same about the criminal under use of the capabilities and capacity of Blu-ray Audio discs..
but I feel its worth saying, seeing as AF are seemingly committed to SACD as that is the format of choice among their customer base..

2.) Its so readily apparent with a Surround SACD that there's a difference (*) compared to any other Stereo mastering you may have already, that if you're into your surround it makes any Surround SACD a worthwhile purchase if you've already got that album in Stereo imho..

..which is not something you can say of a Stereo only SACD where the difference between it and the Stereo version you already have may be scant at best.

( * not always an improvement, sonically or subjectively from that almost intangible 'fun factor' point of view.. and not always a guarantee of a superior mix to the Stereo.. but what i feel is undeniable in a Surround mix is that it will always be "new and different" compared to the familiar/regular Stereo you already have.. its a remix not a remaster and that's always gonna be a very clear alternative to the existing version you have in your collections, no matter what, no questions asked, imho..)

 

[fredblue]

Ps. I see we're at:

YES = 42
NO = 10

..right now.. which surprises me somewhat.. I quite thought it'd be closer to a 50/50 split rather than 80% saying YES they would pay more for an SACD from Audio Fidelity that includes MultiChannel..

..ok, so its only 52 responses so far but its interesting as a representative sample of QQ members, I think so anyway.. I wonder if AF or any other labels might be lurking and potentially mildly encouraged a tiny bit maybe..

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Well YES, because if we don't pay, we don't get anything. And I don't own what has Not been re-released.

The other thing to keep in mind, as what has been already said in other threads too is getting the artist or right's holders permission on titles in surround that would be Big sellers. I was told by a famous industry insider, who is more than willing to give permission, ect., that it took 4 years to get just the rights released for a famous title as there was, presumably, more than one right holder at the table. So we have that going with vintage media.

Also, we have "1970s rocker's mentality" for some rock titles as it has only come to light recently that their material was released in Quad. And they may have some old grudge with a formal label or don't want the mix released or whatever. The thing is in these cases, it's stupid for the artist as we already have the released Quad anyway for decades - and don't you want some revenue? So old artists need to get up to speed with education beyond low-rez streaming/MP3. This would help the stereo fan as well.

We just need to stay at this and support titles as we can. We're certainly Not getting titles out as fast as we would like, but I do believe our efforts here over the years has amounted to a Whole Lot, thanks to each person's small contributions. Even if you only buy one title.

Let's remember what it was like 10 years ago.. Hardly any new titles to talk about at all.

 

[sperezmore]

I want to add that i did buy a couple of AF's stereo only sacds. The Styx one, and the first America album. AF did a great job on them, but i already had them on cd. They sound a little better on sacd, but not a big difference, they were 2 really good sounding cds already. So i probably won't be buying many more stereo only sacds, unless it something that sounds harsh on regulat cd, like Styx Grand Illusion, i would love if they did thar one. Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

Like you, I also did buy a couple of Audio Fidelity stereo only SACDs. America: America SACD and Loggings and Messina: Sittin' In. (the only single artists that I own in stereo only SACD except for compilations SACD in stereo from Hong Kong and Japan / Also planning to buy the two The Cars stereo SACDs from Mobile Fidelity) It has to be an artist/album that I really love and have to own in the best quality possible but stereo only SACD never will be my priority.

Blu-ray Audio is a different story for me, I do own a few titles in stereo only (I wish they were surround also).

Regards,

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Yes, that's the thing, we all have bought stereo SACDs and other stereo titles in other formats for years. So, without knowing "what the raw numbers are" in order to get Quad titles out, we could only speculate very badly what the hold-up was for not adding the surround part to a SACD. We weren't too off, but the picture is coming in now more clearly, it would seem.

IMHO, with surround titles released by the small labels - is that they should be marketed to the "stereo only" folks (as that's the bigger marker) and titles chosen to be released should have been big enough to cover the surround part as well. Or so the thinking goes. The last thing we Do Not want is for the "stereo only" folks to be turned off/confused or whatever by silver packaging when they're used to the gold. I thought the sales numbers would work better for surround this way. Just as they we're able to add no problem the "secret" so-called surround recently on the Beach Boy's titles. We can find the surround on titles, just release it.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Yes, that's the thing, we all have bought stereo SACDs and other stereo titles in other formats for years. So, without knowing "what the raw numbers are" in order to get Quad titles out, we could only speculate very badly what the hold-up was for not adding the surround part to a SACD. We weren't too off, but the picture is coming in now more clearly, it would seem.

IMHO, with surround titles released by the small labels - is that they should be marketed to the "stereo only" folks (as that's the bigger marker) and titles chosen to be released should have been big enough to cover the surround part as well. Or so the thinking goes. The last thing we Do Not want is for the "stereo only" folks to be turned off/confused or whatever by silver packaging when they're used to the gold. I thought the sales numbers would work better for surround this way. Just as they we're able to add no problem the "secret" so-called surround recently on the Beach Boy's titles. We can find the surround on titles, just release it.

But ironically, OQG, MOST classical SACDs are multichannel and that didn't seem to bother the prospective buyers who ONLY had stereo rigs......as the quality control was usually top notch in the mastering all three layers.

I guess AF wanted to be straightforward and alert their customers that a QUAD/5.1 layer was present but I think you're right in asserting that they just could've released ALL their titles in the standard gold stereo slipcases (which also housed their 24K Gold RBCDs) as people are creatures of habit and sometimes easily confused and called it a day and just put stereo/multichannel in smallish lettering on the rear.

Hindsight IS 50/50!

 

[Old Quad Guy]

But ironically, OQG, MOST classical SACDs are multichannel and that didn't seem to bother the prospective buyers who ONLY had stereo rigs......as the quality control was usually top notch in the mastering all three layers.

I guess AF wanted to be straightforward and alert their customers that a QUAD/5.1 layer was present but I think you're right in asserting that they just could've released ALL their titles in the standard gold stereo slipcases (which also housed their 24K Gold RBCDs) as people are creatures of habit and sometimes easily confused and called it a day and just put stereo/multichannel in smallish lettering on the rear.

Hindsight IS 50/50!

It is, it gives one superpowers. I just want to support Audio Fidelity. This market must be so fickle I'm surprised Stereo gets released. But titles do sell-out, eventually. Labels like Audio Fidelity must obviously need a quick enough sales for a title, so that the label can do another. And based upon some info here Audio Fidelity only gets a limited time to sell a certain product. Whereas, the Classical labels must work with different right deals and different time frames.

There are some of the greatest recordings and surround mixes that are just now seeing the light of day. Opera and Classical music has been go to music for me lately. I highly recommend those unreleased Quad, very active surround recording mixes. Really love the dynamics in these recordings of vintage Quadraphonic from Pentatone: http://www.pentatonemusic.com/

Anyway, hope Audio Fidelity can put more surround out. Whatever works for them, works for me. I'll support them.

 

[4-earredwonder]

It is, it gives one superpowers. I just want to support Audio Fidelity. This market must be so fickle I'm surprised Stereo gets released. But titles do sell-out, eventually. Labels like Audio Fidelity must obviously need a quick enough sales for a title, so that the label can do another. And based upon some info here Audio Fidelity only gets a limited time to sell a certain product. Whereas, the Classical labels must work with different right deals and different time frames.

There are some of the greatest recordings and surround mixes that are just now seeing the light of day. Opera and Classical music has been go to music for me lately. I highly recommend those unreleased Quad, very active surround recording mixes. Really love the dynamics in these recordings of vintage Quadraphonic from Pentatone: http://www.pentatonemusic.com/

Anyway, hope Audio Fidelity can put more surround out. Whatever works for them, works for me. I'll support them.

Old Quad Guy, I have a huge classical SACD presence in my collection and I totally agree that Pentatone's Philips and DGG QUAD reissues are among some of my very favorites. And I've paid as little as $10 for Pentatone SACDs brand new.

I also support all the reissue labels (AP, AF and MoFi) although, like most QQers, lament the fact that MoFi and to a lesser degree AP don't release QUAD/5.1 layers when they're available. Ya can't fight City Hall.

Sono Luminous, a relative newcomer to BD~A also has some exquisite and very discrete 5.1 releases (again very inexpensive for BD~A/RBCD sets) and of course TACET and MDG's discrete surround classical titles are superb, as well.

There are tons of great multichannel releases out there at wildly varied price points and if one is so inclined.....I'd say GO FOR IT!

 

[bmoura]

The last thing we Do Not want is for the "stereo only" folks to be turned off/confused or whatever

That's why the new Blue Oyster Cult Multichannel SACD has a Multichannel logo on the back of the album jacket at the bottom vs. the text about 4.0, Surround, etc. on the cover found on earlier AF Surround SACD releases.

 

[bmoura]

There are some of the greatest recordings and surround mixes that are just now seeing the light of day. Opera and Classical music has been go to music for me lately. I highly recommend those unreleased Quad, very active surround recording mixes. Really love the dynamics in these recordings of vintage Quadraphonic from Pentatone: http://www.pentatonemusic.com/

And the Multichannel Classical and Opera music keeps coming. It's part of the reason NativeDSD Music already has almost 800 Multichannel DSD Downloads, much of it is indeed from the Classical world and labels like Harmonia Mundi, Channel Classics and Pentatone, among others.

 

[4-earredwonder]

That's why the new Blue Oyster Cult Multichannel SACD has a Multichannel logo on the back of the album jacket at the bottom vs. the text about 4.0, Surround, etc. on the cover found on earlier AF Surround SACD releases.

So all that glitters isn't GOLD, heh, Brian. I personally liked the change from Gold to Silver to distinguish the multi AF releases but I'm afraid some potential customers MIGHT have been put off by the change as I mentioned ALL prior AF releases, 24K Gold and then Stereo SACDs all came in the 'traditional' gold slipcases.

 

[bmoura]

So all that glitters isn't GOLD, heh, Brian. I personally liked the change from Gold to Silver to distinguish the multi AF releases but I'm afraid some potential customers MIGHT have been put off by the change as I mentioned ALL prior AF releases, 24K Gold and then Stereo SACDs all came in the 'traditional' gold slipcases.

I thought the Multichannel SACDs were in Platinum Slip Covers. Not silver.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I thought the Multichannel SACDs were in Platinum Slip Covers. Not silver.

Platinum is a silvery~white precious metal so I suppose we're both right. Semantics.

 

[ubertrout]

There are some of the greatest recordings and surround mixes that are just now seeing the light of day. Opera and Classical music has been go to music for me lately. I highly recommend those unreleased Quad, very active surround recording mixes. Really love the dynamics in these recordings of vintage Quadraphonic from Pentatone: http://www.pentatonemusic.com/

It is an interesting question, why Pentatone is able to charge $18 for stereo/quad SACDs that are uniformly audiophile-grade by all accounts. These are titles that must sell a fraction of what most AF titles sell, and Pentatone is licensing from Universal Classics - the biggest major of all. Is it really artist whims and licensing fees that make releasing popular titles in Quad/5.1 at $30 a losing proposition?

 

[4-earredwonder]

It is an interesting question, why Pentatone is able to charge $18 for stereo/quad SACDs that are uniformly audiophile-grade by all accounts. These are titles that must sell a fraction of what most AF titles sell, and Pentatone is licensing from Universal Classics - the biggest major of all. Is it really artist whims and licensing fees that make releasing popular titles in Quad/5.1 at $30 a losing proposition?

Ubertrout, as I've stated, Pentatone Quadro classics sell in the states for as little as $10~$12, come beautifully packaged in Super Jewel cases with quality slipcovers and sound magnificent on my system. I usually pay $21 for AF titles (stereo and/or QUAD/5.1). But we must remember that classical music in the states is not as popular as non classical titles as I do note that AmazonUK does charge more for Pentatone than in the states and conversely more for AF, MofI and AP as well. Would I pay more for Pentatone, BIS, Chanel, etc., if I had to? Absolutely and we must also remember that Pentatone [non reissue titles], Bis, Chanel, et alia, also have the much added expenditure of recording these classics, mastering, mixing, having them pressed and then paying for distribution to their various vendors so its a lot more complicated that solely licensing, mastering for SACD, pressing [Austrian SACD plant] and distribution which the US reissue companies endure.

So it comes down to supply and demand. Pop/Rock SACDs, multichannel or otherwise, are usually pressed in limited quantities. Once they sell out, the OOP titles demand a king's ransom. From my days at SA~CD.net (now HRAudio.net), I fondly remember bissie claiming that all BIS titles are constantly replenished and never go OOP. The Japanese SHM~SACDs which initially were priced @ $60 quickly sold out because of their limited status but in a rare twist were repressed and re~priced at half of their original list [albeit, foregoing the original more elaborate packaging in deference to a generic RBCD case w/obi].

Will any of us ever quite figure out the music business? Nay, Nay a thousand times Nay. I always thought music was overpriced in relation to DVD and Blu Ray movies/music videos. Same companies operate the music industry but one is comprised of GREED [music] while the other is more cannily managed [movies]. And I've always maintained.....it has to be more costly to remaster a film from scratch, sometimes remixing the original stems into 5.1 than to just remix a music album into 5.1.

 

[ubertrout]

So it comes down to supply and demand. Pop/Rock SACDs, multichannel or otherwise, are usually pressed in limited quantities. Once they sell out, the OOP titles demand a king's ransom. From my days at SA~CD.net (now HRAudio.net), I fondly remember bissie claiming that all BIS titles, i.e., are constantly replenished and never go OOP. The Japanese SHM~SACDs which, initially, were priced @ $60 quickly sold out, as well, because of their limited status but in a rare twist of fate were repressed and were re~priced at half of their original list.

Pentatone's SACDs are pressed in limited runs and sell out too. For instance: https://www.amazon.com/Overture-Solennelle-Tchaikovsky/dp/B000IY06CU/. BIS is one of the very few labels not to let discs go OOP.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Pentatone's SACDs are pressed in limited runs and sell out too. For instance: https://www.amazon.com/Overture-Solennelle-Tchaikovsky/dp/B000IY06CU/. BIS is one of the very few labels not to let discs go OOP.

Thank the stars I have that Pentatone OOP title. I suppose, except for BIS, most physical hi res music, DVD~A, SACD or otherwise, classical and popular/jazz, is pressed in limited quantities only the Classical labels don't penalize the buying public through price gouging.

No BULL. For what I have invested in music and movies I could buy a small MANSION.....with it's own theme song!

 

[Simon A]

It is an interesting question, why Pentatone is able to charge $18 for stereo/quad SACDs that are uniformly audiophile-grade by all accounts. These are titles that must sell a fraction of what most AF titles sell, and Pentatone is licensing from Universal Classics - the biggest major of all. Is it really artist whims and licensing fees that make releasing popular titles in Quad/5.1 at $30 a losing proposition?

I could be wrong, but I think that Pentatone, like Dutton Vocalion, is a European based company where licensing costs are lower than those that Audio Fidelity and other U.S. based companies have to pay. This makes a big difference in the long run.

 

[quicksrt]

However small the quad market is for SACDs from AF, when any AF disc goes OOP, I'd be willing to bet the ones that will rise in value the most will be the ones with the surround layer included.

Interesting isn't it. These discs turn to gold after the run is sold out.