When will we know what is bing released and when?
New SACD 5.1 from Audio Fidelity
- Thread starter peterzach
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
- Status
cordobaman
New member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
- Messages
- 9
On The SHF site, Early this morning, someone with "knowledge of the subject" gave a hint that the first one was originally a MasterSound Gold release. I chimed in with a guess of S&G BOTW. These posts have mysteriously vanished...
There were a number of MasterSound Gold CDs released in addition to Bridge Over Troubled Water. See the list at http://www.24-karat.de/sony/
cordobaman
New member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
- Messages
- 9
You are right. I'm just guessing based on old old posts pertaining to quad masters of BOTW being available, and comment made by SH himself regarding S&G.
Sure would be excellent if AF would release Stevie Ray Vaughan - Couldn't Stand The Weather. That would surely stick it to Analogue Productions who for some unknown reason decided to pass on it.
Janis Joplin - Pearl,
Al Kooper - Super Session,
Blood, Sweat & Tears - Child Is Father To The Man,
Boston - 1st album,
Boz Scaggs - Silk Degrees..
..would be my most desired for 5.1's from that Mastersound list
Janis Joplin - Pearl,
Al Kooper - Super Session,
Blood, Sweat & Tears - Child Is Father To The Man,
Boston - 1st album,
Boz Scaggs - Silk Degrees..
..would be my most desired for 5.1's from that Mastersound list
oh and these too but I doubt there's much chance..
Earth, Wind & Fire - All 'n All,
Wendy Carlos - Switched On Bach
What have AP really come up with in terms of 5.1 SACD? The same 5.1 mixes from The Doors' "Perception" set, the same Norah Jones 5.1 as the old Blue Note SACD, the same pseudo-5.1 of Brubeck's "Time Out" as the old SACD.. from a MultiCh perspective only the Nat King Cole is anything worthy and that's in 3-channel..
@:
All Up in that All N All and Silk Degrees............but no matter -Sood will be buying most if not all that come out :51banana:
Mchoop
Member
Not anticipating it but personally I would be juiced up to hear they were releasing Al Stewart's YOTC. Pink Floyd's Meddle would be ok too.
McHoop
McHoop
milt
800 Club - QQ All-Star
Jeez, hit the activity stream on this thread and it's like being on SHF...
1 part information, 99 parts speculation.
1 part information, 99 parts speculation.
Releasing Switched on Bach in surround would be up to Wendy Carlos, since she acquired the rights many years ago. She re-released it on both a single CD and as part of the Switched-On box set, which you need if you don't already own it. Ms. Carlos is reputed to loathe S-O-B in Quad, at least as SQ.
That's because Audio Fidelity hasn't announced their initial 5.1 SACD titles yet. The good news is that the 5.1 Multichannel SACDs are coming.....
I'm going to install that SACD head unit soon!
From my phone
From my phone
That's because Audio Fidelity hasn't announced their initial 5.1 SACD titles yet. The good news is that the 5.1 Multichannel SACDs are coming.....
All the same, that was funnier than all get out!
I'd like to see Boston "Don't Look Back", Janis Joplin "Pearl", Boz Scaggs "Silk Degrees" (Never heard it), Broadway Cast "West Side Story", Roger Waters "Amused To Death" (Oh, wait! That's coming), Eddie Money "Self Titled", Loggins & Messina "Sittin' In" and both of the Electric Light Orchestra albums. Van Morrison & BS&T could be interesting.
Looks like I may be the only Phil Collins fan here (No Jacket Required - and No Abuse Required...)
Homer, you'll want to check out the recent video podcast of Home Theater Geeks with recording engineer Allen Sides. He mentions an unreleased 5.1 mix of a Phil Collins album that he worked on with Phil !
http://twit.tv/show/home-theater-geeks/199
Thanks for the tip!
I have the No Jacket Required AF gold (stereo CD) release with nice dynamic range. Fingers crossed. I also have the AF gold Face Value CD too. Both sound very good!
Check out this nut job from the SH forums; his response is baffling. This guy is an idiot.
I’m afraid that my take on this is going to offend a few of you. I think that Steve and Kevin spending their precious time on 5.1 surround is a very bad idea. Here’s why:
5.1 surround, as it stands right now, is a “gee whiz” format, not a true audiophile format. It’s hard enough to create a realistic audiophile stereo effect with all of the voices and instruments in the right place spatially left and right and front and back with the right phase and time alignment. Then add to that mix the need for high resolution, frequency response, dynamic contrast, freedom from distortion, analog sound and all of the variables in playing back the source tape properly through the finest electronics (and making sure that they are aligned, cleaned, oiled and working properly.)
Why is 5.1 surround a “gee whiz” format. We expect music that we play to be presented to us accurately as we would hear it as a spectator; in other words a band or music group is off to one side or the other from our vantage point, and we turn our head toward the music group so we can perceive the best sound. If you’ve ever played in a band or music group, your perspective as a musician is that you are surrounded by other musicians or singers. You can hear yourself the loudest and the closest other musicians next loudest, and the more distant musicians weaker in volume. Truly, the sound that you are hearing by any measure sucks, big time! Surely, you would never want to recreate this unbalanced sound using 5.1 surround sound, would you? Thankfully as a musician, you are aware that your spectator off in the distance is getting a fairly balanced presentation of the sound, because of where they are sitting or standing.
How many times in your life have you been surrounded by members of a band, performing for you, while you stand in the middle? I admit that would be cool if say a marching band all surrounded you in a circle and played toward you with you in the middle of the circle. That would be something you’d never forget. 5.1 surround would be cool in trying to duplicate that phenomenon. Also one of nature’s best sound shows is when you go out in the pouring rain, and you can hear sound in all directions; up as the rain hits trees, buildings and your umbrella, down as it hits the ground, and 360 degrees around you. Then add to that the distant sound of thunder. As spectacular as that is, 5.1 surround could not recreate that accurately as there is no element (no speaker placed) for the up and down spacial aspect.
I could see use for 5.1 surround as an audiophile format only if it could accurately portray how you would hear a music performance as a spectator. The main source of the sound would come from up front, and the sounds coming from the sides and behind you would be reflected sounds, or sounds of applause or cheers from members in the audience. For Steve or Kevin to get all of the presentation done correctly (by the parameters listed in paragraph two) in the 5.1 format would be a logistical nightmare, and my guess is that it would take five to ten times more time and effort (which equates to dollazzzz fellazzz) to get a project right enough to satisfy “audiophiles.”
I’d rather see them spend all of that precious time on more releases in stereo. Stereo done right can offer pseudo-surround sound, nearly as good because of the reflection of the sound from the two speakers off of the walls, floor and ceiling of the space that you have your system set up in. 5.1 surround done correctly could arguably do it a little better, but is it worth the time, cost and headaches? And is it worth time lost that could have been spent on other projects? Steve and Kevin only have so much time to go around. You decide.
Cheers! Mark
I’m afraid that my take on this is going to offend a few of you. I think that Steve and Kevin spending their precious time on 5.1 surround is a very bad idea. Here’s why:
5.1 surround, as it stands right now, is a “gee whiz” format, not a true audiophile format. It’s hard enough to create a realistic audiophile stereo effect with all of the voices and instruments in the right place spatially left and right and front and back with the right phase and time alignment. Then add to that mix the need for high resolution, frequency response, dynamic contrast, freedom from distortion, analog sound and all of the variables in playing back the source tape properly through the finest electronics (and making sure that they are aligned, cleaned, oiled and working properly.)
Why is 5.1 surround a “gee whiz” format. We expect music that we play to be presented to us accurately as we would hear it as a spectator; in other words a band or music group is off to one side or the other from our vantage point, and we turn our head toward the music group so we can perceive the best sound. If you’ve ever played in a band or music group, your perspective as a musician is that you are surrounded by other musicians or singers. You can hear yourself the loudest and the closest other musicians next loudest, and the more distant musicians weaker in volume. Truly, the sound that you are hearing by any measure sucks, big time! Surely, you would never want to recreate this unbalanced sound using 5.1 surround sound, would you? Thankfully as a musician, you are aware that your spectator off in the distance is getting a fairly balanced presentation of the sound, because of where they are sitting or standing.
How many times in your life have you been surrounded by members of a band, performing for you, while you stand in the middle? I admit that would be cool if say a marching band all surrounded you in a circle and played toward you with you in the middle of the circle. That would be something you’d never forget. 5.1 surround would be cool in trying to duplicate that phenomenon. Also one of nature’s best sound shows is when you go out in the pouring rain, and you can hear sound in all directions; up as the rain hits trees, buildings and your umbrella, down as it hits the ground, and 360 degrees around you. Then add to that the distant sound of thunder. As spectacular as that is, 5.1 surround could not recreate that accurately as there is no element (no speaker placed) for the up and down spacial aspect.
I could see use for 5.1 surround as an audiophile format only if it could accurately portray how you would hear a music performance as a spectator. The main source of the sound would come from up front, and the sounds coming from the sides and behind you would be reflected sounds, or sounds of applause or cheers from members in the audience. For Steve or Kevin to get all of the presentation done correctly (by the parameters listed in paragraph two) in the 5.1 format would be a logistical nightmare, and my guess is that it would take five to ten times more time and effort (which equates to dollazzzz fellazzz) to get a project right enough to satisfy “audiophiles.”
I’d rather see them spend all of that precious time on more releases in stereo. Stereo done right can offer pseudo-surround sound, nearly as good because of the reflection of the sound from the two speakers off of the walls, floor and ceiling of the space that you have your system set up in. 5.1 surround done correctly could arguably do it a little better, but is it worth the time, cost and headaches? And is it worth time lost that could have been spent on other projects? Steve and Kevin only have so much time to go around. You decide.
Cheers! Mark
- Status
Similar threads
