Wise Words - Audio Fidelity Moves to Selective Multichannel SACD Releases

[Quadwreck]

Wise is also the way to pronounce ways in Birmingham, UK.

Australia too.

 

[cupboy]

Australia too.

As in, tie me kangaroo down in all sorta wise?

 

[4-earredwonder]

If they put out Holiday in stereo there is no way I'd buy it. They may as well just do Greatest Hits instead if that's what they're thinking. And, anything by BS&T is way stronger than L&M, EWF, and especially Mavavishnubishi.

Remind me NOT to come to your tea party, C~boy. NO L&M, NO EWF, NO Holiday and NO Mahavishnu Orchestra. :violin

 

[cupboy]

Remind me NOT to come to your tea party, C~boy. NO L&M, NO EWF, NO Holiday and NO Mahavishnu Orchestra. :violin

I didn't say no Holiday. A quad one would be purchased for sure. Stereo, no way. And I do have L&M, EWF, and Mitsubish Orchestra, just saying BS&T is better.

 

[Franklin]

There's also a gag over here involving Noddy Holder from Slade (I think he's from Wolverhampton which is very close to Birmingham - pronounced Birming-um over here) which basically ends

"Kipper Tie?"
"Yes please, two sugars."

 

[ar surround]

Shame. Damn shame. I would have gladly sacrificed the Judy Collins and the Breezin' for this one in quad. Gladly

I'm not with you on this one. I bought both Judy Collins and Breezin' and very happy to have them both. I would buy BS&T Greatest Hits if released in QUAD to get the the four tracks not on Child is Father to the Man and BS&T. But for me, there is not enough additional content on Greatest Hits beyond the other two releases to justify buying it only in stereo. There are a number of premium-priced releases that I've bought in multichannel SACD/DVD-A/BR-A just to get one killer song...I've never done that when a high priced album was just in stereo. Regardless, I can't criticize AF for anything they've done because without them we would have virtually nothing...nada...rien...niente...niks...jack shit...

 

[bigbillquad]

Hi. All

Wise Words A.

Well a little story.
In my younger days of work we were told by or union to look out for some of the bosses might come out to your work site and start pumping you for information of your work how long does it take to do a certain job this is - time and motion - sort of thing you now, a Engineer from my depot came to my work site one day & started asking these questions of my jobs, then the penny dropped this was time & motion that union told about, I had to think of something quick and replied with this " Time has no relevance in the pursuit of perfection " he then looked at me with amassment and said I cant counter that and went back to his car & drove of.
Bill...

 

[dr. simple]

"Time has no relevance in the pursuit of perfection"

Words to live by!

 

[4-earredwonder]

Perfection is a gift of the tormented!

 

[ssully]

that's interesting point. seems like for early issues CDs (late 80s - beginning 90s) labels was in hurry to print as much as possible titles
and have used original source-masters, which was done for previous vinyl runs. even on some old CDs obvious tape noise can be heard
but nevertheless, they still sound way better than majority of following from mid 90s so call "remaster editions".
as for suggested test, i've been through it. its easy to spot difference between original LP and same LP but recorded at 16 bit.

Not really. Not in a level-matched blind test, though they are not easy to set up -- you won't get sources exactly in synch, for example. (And, such a test still means you are playing two run-throughs of teh same vinyl disc. There are of course measureable differences between every physical playback of a record. These shouldn't rise to the level of audible unless a tic or pop has appeared since the first playback).

And 16bits is *certainly* enough to encompass the dynamic range of any known LP, thanks to LP's noise floor and loudness limits.

As for early CDs, a source tape that was EQ'd for LP production isn't going to be identical to a recording of an actual turntable/cart playback of a vinyl record. Physically playing a record adds its own set of (to some) 'euphonic' distortions. These are all captured in a digital recording of turntable/cart output, but they are not on those early edition CDs. Neither are the scratches, tics, vinyl background noise, off-centeredness, warping, tracking issues that can accompany actual LP playback.

If those early CDs 'sound better' to you it's probably because you prefer the EQ/compression/noise characteristics (it could be one or some combo of such factors), or you simply have a bias for 'early CDs'. It's usually impossible for consumers to compare them fairly in such a way as to determine exactly what the cause is.

 

[ssully]

When I first heard DVD~A at an upscale audio boutique on a Meridian/Krell System with B&W 801s, the first thing I said to the store's proprietor..........I love the sound and the concept but it does require the listener to sit at rapt attention in the sweet spot and as there is really only ONE sweet spot it could never be enjoyed [truly effectively] by more than one person at a time.

That's true of 2 channel too.

Actually with 3channels in front , you are getting a wider 'sweet spot' for the *front soundstage* than you ever would with 2 channel, in the sense that the center image can be much more stable , wherever the listener is sitting.

And you do realize that every movie and home thater today -- designed for group watching/listening -- uses surround sound, right? So how is it inherently a 'solitary' thing?

 

[wavelength]

And you do realize that every movie and home thater today -- designed for group watching/listening -- uses surround sound, right? So how is it inherently a 'solitary' thing?

Well, the theaters just don't worry about it. There's still a sweet spot.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Well, the theaters just don't worry about it. There's still a sweet spot.

Thanks, wavelength and absolutely true. There's always a SWEET spot and my argument recently regarding 5.1 car systems was that the driver is literally sitting on top of the front left speaker (or right front in countries like the UK, etc). so it would seem to me to be somewhat out of whack.

And to reiterate, I wasn't knocking car surround systems at all.......just pointing out a fact.

And for theatergoers: 13th row center (Orchestra) is considered THE sweet spot (they're called the Producer's seats).

 

[ssully]

Well, the theaters just don't worry about it. There's still a sweet spot.

In an actual movie theater, the sweet 'spot' isn't 'spot' it's more a multi-seat 'area', at least for mid and treble. The sweet 'spot' for bass is even bigger, in rooms that size, if there's enough subwoofage 9which there usually is, these days).

And the point is still, surround sound since its *inception* has been linked to 'group listening'. Not 'solitary'. And the flat claim that "it could never be enjoyed [truly effectively] by more than one person at a time.' is elitist nonsense.

And as an exercise, go through Floyd Toole's book on Sound Reproduction, and see how often he's referring to strategies for satisfying more than one listener at a time.

 

[4-earredwonder]

In an actual movie theater, the sweet 'spot' isn't 'spot' it's more a multi-seat 'area', at least for mid and treble. The sweet 'spot' for bass is even bigger, in rooms that size, if there's enough subwoofage.

And the point is still, surround sound since its *inception* has been linked to 'group listening'. Not 'solitary'. And the flat claim that "it could never be enjoyed [truly effectively] by more than one person at a time.' is elitist nonsense.

Well, a home isn't a movie theater (unless you're SUPER rich) so if you want to line up let's say three seats across the middle of the room, the sweet spot is still IN THE MIDDLE. I was once told (don't know if it's true) that left and right fronts should be equidistant according to the size of a grand piano [8' 11 3/4"]* So even with a center channel there is still that sweet spot unless you want to sit off axis on top of left front or left right and then the rears would also be off axis.

*http://www.steinway.com/pianos/steinway/grand/model-d/

Yes, ssully, How Sweet It IS....especially when you're sitting in the sweet spot!:51banana:

 

[ssully]

Well, a home isn't a movie theater (unless you're SUPER rich) so if you want to line up let's say three seats across, the sweet spot is still IN THE MIDDLE.

Depends on how big your home theater room is. And how much of a fusspot you are about having the absolute most perfect measured response where your head is (and if your room is small in that case, you'd better not move your head while you listen)

I was once told (don't know if it's true) that left and right fronts should be spaced according to the size of a grand piano. So even with a center channel there is still that sweet spot unless you want to sit off axis on top of left front or left right and then the rears would also be off axis.

The 'piano' premise is wrong, and so is the conclusion.

 

[4-earredwonder]

ssully said:





The 'piano' premise is wrong, and so is the conclusion.[/QUOTE]

So what's the correct conclusion? And while we're at it, ssully, why don't you inform Mr Banana that he's wasting his time dancing around in the sweet spot when he could be up in the balcony making out with a Red Hot Chili Pepper :51banana:

:yikes

 

[wavelength]

In an actual movie theater, the sweet 'spot' isn't 'spot' it's more a multi-seat 'area', at least for mid and treble. The sweet 'spot' for bass is even bigger, in rooms that size, if there's enough subwoofage 9which there usually is, these days).

And the point is still, surround sound since its *inception* has been linked to 'group listening'. Not 'solitary'. And the flat claim that "it could never be enjoyed [truly effectively] by more than one person at a time.' is elitist nonsense.

And as an exercise, go through Floyd Toole's book on Sound Reproduction, and see how often he's referring to strategies for satisfying more than one listener at a time.

Maybe surround can be enjoyed by a group but in my personal music listening setups, starting with stereo in the 60s through to surround music for the last 15 years, there has always been a sweet spot. I set up my speakers-to-listening position to purposely create a sweet spot because, and this is key, that is where the best listening experience exists.

 

[steelydave]

Wow, how ridiculous.

Wonder if these were negotiated with a view toward a quad release and then the financing for the quad layers was pulled?

Won't be buying these and encourage others to do the same to send a message about quadblocking.

 

[Simon A]

I HATE to be the bearer of BAD NEWS, but Marshall Blonstein emailed me back this afternoon and broke the news that both Tail Spinning and Musicmagic will be hybrid STEREO SACDs.

No one is MORE bummed out than I am since logically, they'd make SUPERB QUAD releases.

Thank you for confirming this with Marshall.

I have learned my lesson ever since I firmly believed that the Audio Fidelity SACD of Blood, Sweat & Tears would contain the original Quad mixes to only be bitterly disappointed when a Stereo only release was announced. I had little hope for these two releases to contain Quad mixes so although I am sad to hear this, I am not surprised.

I know Audio Fidelity will release two superb sounding Stereo SACDs that will please many collectors and fans of these two legendary bands.