First 2 Audio Fidelity Multichannel SACDs Announced - Supersession and Breezin'

To release a 5.1 mix with known problems and not bothering to fix it looks like being out of touch or a big FU to the consumer. The other title may appeal to non quadies so those people are not going to have the widely available quad version. But why no bonus tracks as in the prior release? Two of them were 2002 remixes done by Kooper, plus an actual outtake and a live track. Because it violates the purity of the original album release?
There were no other 5.1 mixes still in the can, never released in any form that could have been candidates for AF? Don't want to be cynical but look for this program to last about as long as the Rhino Quadio....

Quadwreck said:

For now, AF is not getting any new 5.1 mixes, they're just releasing what is in the vaults.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have any problem with that IF they would just make better choices of existing titles. There are a lot of good surround mixes out there that are out of print. I know the demand is there because I'm in the market for these out of print titles and I'm paying a premium price for them. I certainly can give AF a pass on Breezin' but if the next round of releases are the same that's another situation. I would question their commitment to this multi channel "experiment" if they don't improve the next round.

leahypc said:

Thank you for that, Brian. From reading your article, it certainly seemed that they're just going to be adopting the existing mix. A lot of people here seem to think that it might be fixed, and I've been trying to think it through as to whether they would be able to do the necessary tweaking with Al Schmitt's approval and just update the credits, or... what? Don't know how that stuff works behind the scenes. It seems that if they just go ahead and re-release the mix with the same issues that people have complained about, then it would make them look really out of touch with the surround "community". Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

So everyone knows, I did ask AF about the perception by some that the existing approved 5.1 mix on Breezin' should be changed. They have chosen to proceed with the existing approved 5.1 mix.
And to be clear, changes in the 5.1 mix would be up to the artist, record label and producer as well as others (artist management, etc.). It's much more involved than asking the original remix engineer (Al Schmitt).

As to how it works you are correct. There are a lot of behind the scenes things to consider. Before a 5.1 mix can be released, it is often reviewed and approved by the creative team that includes the artist, record label, producer and engineer. In some cases, changes to the initial mix are requested and made and then the revised 5.1 mix is circulated to everyone for another round of review.

One example of this process is the anniversary 5.1 mix of Dark Side of the Moon. There was an initial 5.1 mix done by James Guthrie. Outside of the band and creative team, no one has ever heard that mix. The reason is that as Guthrie met with band members, they asked for and received changes in the initial 5.1 mix they wanted. After further discussions and review another 5.1 mix was circulated. So the 5.1 mix of Dark Side of the Moon that was ultimately approved and released can be looked at as the band's mix as much as it is James Guthrie's mix.

In the case of Breezin', the 5.1 DVD-A mix is the final product of the work the Breezin' creative team did and what was ultimately approved. To change it now means going back to the artist, producer, engineer, label, etc. and saying well, there are some people who think the approved mix should be changed. And then going through the review, mixing and creative process again. If this was done, it would add time and expense to the reissue. So you'd end up with a delayed release and perhaps one that could sell for something more than $30. Assuming, of course, that the folks who originally approved the 5.1 mix would agree that there is a problem with the work they originally participated in and approved.

Very disappointing that the opportunity to amend the 5.1 on the DVD-A isn't being taken but thanks for the efforts you've made to bring it to AF's attention anyway at least it's pretty much a cert there'll be a great sounding Stereo track on the new SACD.

Clint Eastwood said:

I wouldn't have any problem with that IF they would just make better choices of existing titles. There are a lot of good surround mixes out there that are out of print. I know the demand is there because I'm in the market for these out of print titles and I'm paying a premium price for them. I certainly can give AF a pass on Breezin' but if the next round of releases are the same that's another situation. I would question their commitment to this multi channel "experiment" if they don't improve the next round.

Click to expand...

The challenge for Audio Fidelity and the other reissue companies is that there isn't an artist or album in existence that everyone would agree is "improving the next round".

Inevitably some will like the next selection for 5.1 SACD release and others will not. Some like Aretha Franklin, others want Badfinger. There's no way to please everyone no matter what artist or album is selected. And this isn't a new situation. The reissue companies know they will get cheers and boos no matter what they choose to release. So they need to use their judgement as to what are the best choices going forward based on requests, past sales, etc.

Looking at the Acoustic Sounds sales charts, Audio Fidelity has the top 2 selling SACDs today - the two "Legends" discs. So one could say they know their market. On the other hand, there are a number of Vinyl LPs and even a pair of DSD Music Downloads (Michael Jackson and Shelby Lynne) that are outselling all SACDs at the moment at Acoustic Sounds. Which explains the need to offer multiple releases and formats to address what music fans will buy. It's an interesting market, to be sure.

fredblue said:

Very disappointing that the opportunity to amend the 5.1 on the DVD-A isn't being taken but thanks for the efforts you've made to bring it to AF's attention anyway at least it's pretty much a cert there'll be a great sounding Stereo track on the new SACD.

Click to expand...

I don't want to belabor this point or kill the messenger(bmoura) but this is merely "corporate speak" coming from AF. I'm familiar with a lot of the "behind the scenes" activities required to get a project like this up and running. It's not as simple as most music fans think but it's not rocket science either; and to be candid that is what these companies have to do as part of their job description.

IMO the real reason this was chosen is purely economics and the content was accessible. I say this because the other explanation would be hard to accept, given their reputation. I choose not to believe that the evaluators missed so badly on this surround mix. I guess I'd rather accept the fact that the commitment to surround is only "luke warm" and they decided to not invest the required time and financial resources to find the better surround mixes available.

With no track record behind them for surround releases (yet) they see what they are doing as a huge risk. These titles must hit ratios (licensing to sales projections) they find acceptable for the initial round. The Al Kooper release is less of a sure thing than Breezin (pop million seller) but has the cache of bringing a first time 5.1 mix to market. My theory is many who bought the DVD-A are blissfully unaware of its imperfections and it's an album most remember, love it or hate it. I can't wait to get past the initial titles.


From QQ deep space

bmoura said:

The challenge for Audio Fidelity and the other reissue companies is that there isn't an artist or album in existence that everyone would agree is "improving the next round".

Inevitably some will like the next selection for 5.1 SACD release and others will not. Some like Aretha Franklin, others want Badfinger. There's no way to please everyone no matter what artist or album is selected. And this isn't a new situation. The reissue companies know they will get cheers and boos no matter what they choose to release. So they need to use their judgement as to what are the best choices going forward based on requests, past sales, etc.

Looking at the Acoustic Sounds sales charts, Audio Fidelity has the top 2 selling SACDs today - the two "Legends" discs. So one could say they know their market. On the other hand, there are a number of Vinyl LPs and even a pair of DSD Music Downloads (Michael Jackson and Shelby Lynne) that are outselling all SACDs at the moment at Acoustic Sounds. Which explains the need to offer multiple releases and formats to address what music fans will buy. It's an interesting market, to be sure.

Click to expand...

I don't question the title involved based on musical content; just the surround quality. I know people have preferences and styles that vary, that's understandable. When you embark on a niche market product, quality has to be the first consideration. Surround mixes are a niche within a niche market and sound quality separates the surround mix from the conventional mix. If you don't provide a quality surround mix it doesn't matter what "popular" title you release because once the word gets out about the poor sound quality you won't get repeat customers.

As far as the Legend releases are concerned, the content is so impressive that most people jumped on the thought of having a great song list in hi rez. I will be curious to see how that works out for their next release after people(outside of the SHF)get a chance to actually hear these discs. I'll be curious to see how much repeat business they generate.

Clint Eastwood said:

I don't want to belabor this point or kill the messenger(bmoura) but this is merely "corporate speak" coming from AF. I'm familiar with a lot of the "behind the scenes" activities required to get a project like this up and running. It's not as simple as most music fans think but it's not rocket science either; and to be candid that what these companies have to do as part of their job description.

IMO the real reason this was chosen is purely economics and the content was accessible. I say this because the other explanation would be hard to accept, given their reputation. I choose not to believe that the evaluators missed so badly on this surround mix. I guess I'd rather accept the fact that the commitment to surround is only "luke warm" and they decided to not invest the required time to find the better surround mixes available.

Click to expand...

I'd been thinking about a week ago that a great way to launch these releases, would be to do three: one, (like Super Session) that had been sitting unreleased, a second one that was out of print, didn't have a controversial mix, and was in very high demand, and lastly have a brand new surround mix of something done specifically for this series. That would've been ambitious and shown more seriousness about the project - in my humble opinion. That's what I would've pushed for, if I was in a position there to do so.

...........or, as I have surmised earlier, these two titles were the easiest titles to get clearance on to start the product roll-out. I will be looking forward to the next set of releases, as the next batch may have been the titles that they wanted to make their splash with, but were unable to use because of the time it may take to get all of the permissions required.

Time will tell. Before you lump this in with Quadio, let it play out a bit more.

I think its great that we're finally getting a few more non classical multichannel sacds., with more hopefully in the pipeline.

I think Super Session is great choice...

I'll also be happy to pick up Breezin - pity is not corrected.

I hope they have some great "unreleased" titles in the pipeline. Can we take Breezin as a good sign for some of the Warner ones to be issued?

JonUrban said:

...........or, as I have surmised earlier, these two titles were the easiest titles to get clearance on to start the product roll-out. I will be looking forward to the next set of releases, as the next batch may have been the titles that they wanted to make their splash with, but were unable to use because of the time it may take to get all of the permissions required.

Time will tell. Before you lump this in with Quadio, let it play out a bit more.

Click to expand...

With Super Session there were also requests for the unreleased 5.1 mix to be issued from music fans and even Al Kooper himself. Not to mention the industry praise of these mixes.
So it may have looked like an obvious choice. Of the two, it certainly seems to have the most interest. Come August 5th, we'll see how they do in the real test - the market.

LizardKing said:

I think its great that we're finally getting a few more non classical multichannel sacds., with more hopefully in the pipeline.

I think Super Session is great choice...

I'll also be happy to pick up Breezin - pity is not corrected.

I hope they have some great "unreleased" titles in the pipeline. Can we take Breezin as a good sign for some of the Warner ones to be issued?

Click to expand...

Agreed. There could indeed be more unreleased - as well as released - 5.1 Surround and even 4.0 Quad in the future from AF and their SACD titles.

As to Breezin', we need to remember that the Breezin' creative team approved the original 5.1 mix and masters before they were released.
So they may not agree that the mix is in need of "correcting"!

I noticed that Super Session has an August 15th date on Acoustic Sounds and August 5th of amazon HERE

Clint Eastwood said:

I noticed that Super Session has an August 15th date on Acoustic Sounds and August 5th of amazon HERE

Click to expand...

Audio Fidelity has been saying August for both 5.1 SACDs. So it could have slipped to mid-month vs the 5th. We'll see as August arrives.

LizardKing said:

I think Super Session is great choice...

Click to expand...

I understand that when Audio Fidelity recently heard the 5.1 DSD mix/mastering of Super Session as mixed by Al Kooper and mastered by Bob Ludwig, they were as wow'd as the industry insiders that heard it earlier.
A good sign!

fredblue said:

On a related tangent, I think I'm just about to jack it in over @SHF.

Click to expand...

I got booted from SHF for daring to question — after reading Hoffman's own admission that he didn't care for surround — why he had gone ahead and accepted 5.1 remixing projects. And I was pretty diplomatic about it too, considering how angry it made me. Ah, well. I can still read forums there of course, and I'm not too upset that I my thoughts/responses are banned.

As for this topic, have to say that I agree with everyone's tepid reaction to AF's initial 5.1 releases. I realize they're probably dipping their toes (gingerly) into the 5.1 waters, but at least one sure-fire "must have" title would have been nice.

This thread is so bizarre. We've been waiting for this for years, finally new titles are being released and here's one that we've known existed and was never released before. Not to mention we are talking about a legendary recording, superb playing, awesome music. Seriously, you wanted different titles to be the first to come out? And you're bitching and moaning instead of celebrating this wonderful development?

Yes, I too hope the Breezin' mix is a new one, but you know what, I'll be getting both of these titles and anyone who can afford it should do the same. And I, for one, can't wait to listen to supersession, and am waiting with bated breath for the announcement of the next titles to come out.

admsh said:

This thread is so bizarre. We've been waiting for this for years, finally new titles are being released and here's one that we've known existed and was never released before. Not to mention we are talking about a legendary recording, superb playing, awesome music. Seriously, you wanted different titles to be the first to come out? And you're bitching and moaning instead of celebrating this wonderful development?

Yes, I too hope the Breezin' mix is a new one, but you know what, I'll be getting both of these titles and anyone who can afford it should do the same. And I, for one, can't wait to listen to supersession, and am waiting with bated breath for the announcement of the next titles to come out.

Click to expand...

Well said. I agree.
Super Session in 5.1 SACD has been long-awaited by many and I'm looking forward to it.

As to future releases, we all know that there isn't an album in existence that will please everyone. That's what discussing music so colorful.

Exactly, support a new beginning.


From QQ deep space