Should Audio Fidelity Issue Multichannel BD Audio Discs?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

0tto

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
2,034
Location
Canada
how much better would be for AF to move from SACD, which is directed to very narrow market,
to BDA format, which is acceptable for much wider consumer base.
 
how much better would be for AF to move from SACD, which is directed to very narrow market,
to BDA format, which is acceptable for much wider consumer base.

In terms of hardware I would agree with this, there are undoubtedly more BDA players out there.
But I doubt the software sales would increase, hi-rez is such a niche market regardless of format
 
maybe not as fast as we would like to see, but it appears that BDA in growth trend.
i don't have data but suspect SACD if not in process of shrinkage, then at least just in idle mode for most likely upcoming decline.
as for software, it's pretty obvious interest to HiRez and surround on the grows.
if it not, the suppliers wouldn't even bother themselves to supply the market with such offers.
 
how much better would be for AF to move from SACD, which is directed to very narrow market,
to BDA format, which is acceptable for much wider consumer base.

And lose their core audience that wants remastered classic albums in Stereo CD and Stereo SACD? Not likely.

As to BD Audio, we're seeing Universal Music, the main champion of that format releasing their latest Anniversary albums by Rick Wakemen and others on CD and DVD-A - not BD Audio lately. Which may provide a clue as to how the sales of BD Audio are doing in the market.
 
And lose their core audience that wants remastered classic albums in Stereo CD and Stereo SACD? Not likely.
that's quite doubtful conclusion. my guess everyone, who was in position to afford purchase of SACD player in past,
already have or can without going into debt, buy BD player. because AF isn't mega corporation with all inside bureaucratic
nuances and obstacles, transition shouldn't be difficult.
but what do i know. maybe they have their internal business agenda :)
 
that's quite doubtful conclusion. my guess everyone, who was in position to afford purchase of SACD player in past,
already have or can without going into debt, buy BD player. because AF isn't mega corporation with all inside bureaucratic
nuances and obstacles, transition shouldn't be difficult.
but what do i know. maybe they have their internal business agenda :)

I've discussed it with them. The only reason Audio Fidelity tried Multichannel is because they could add it and still issue more SACDs as their fans are requesting.

They don't see BD Audio as a profitable market.
 
Since this is the Suggestions for Audio Fidelity Multichannel SACD releases, feel free to suggest some of the artists and albums you have in mind that have strong sales potential and appeal to younger consumers.
Audio Fidelity is listening.... :)
firstly, for start i would suggest for Marshall Blonstein to establish alliance with producers/engineers, whose surround mixes
known to be outstanding. we can only guess what were done but never released but these folk knows for sure as they were
involved directly. could be for some stupid reasons they can't disclose such info publicly but on pro level between themselves
it works.


second suggestion, i would like to repeat myself - AF must take a look at BD-A perspectives. due to significant limitation of titles,
available for surround issue/reissue, sticking to such exotic format as SACD is, it's like imposing limitation on themselves.
advantage of copy protection (main reason popularity of SACD for record industry) long gone and my guess those, who continue
to emphasise on this format, doing it mostly by inertia. but today even less than 10 years ago of those, who willing to go into
expenses to buy SACD player just for few available titles of interest. it could be test batch, one title printed in both formats and
see which one will sales faster.
 
firstly, for start i would suggest for Marshall Blonstein to establish alliance with producers/engineers, whose surround mixes known to be outstanding. we can only guess what were done but never released but these folk knows for sure as they were involved directly. could be for some stupid reasons they can't disclose such info publicly but on pro level between themselves it works.

second suggestion, i would like to repeat myself - AF must take a look at BD-A perspectives. due to significant limitation of titles,
available for surround issue/reissue, sticking to such exotic format as SACD is, it's like imposing limitation on themselves.
advantage of copy protection (main reason popularity of SACD for record industry) long gone and my guess those, who continue
to emphasise on this format, doing it mostly by inertia. but today even less than 10 years ago of those, who willing to go into
expenses to buy SACD player just for few available titles of interest. it could be test batch, one title printed in both formats and
see which one will sales faster.

I know Marshall has talked with some producers/engineers. And he does have an alliance with Elliot Scheiner. That has already led to some interesting Multichannel SACD titles. Not sure it would include the young artists you mentioned.

As for BD Audio, there are several issues with such an approach - starting with losing the core Audio Fidelity audience that is after high quality Stereo CD and Stereo SACD releases. They are often uninterested in Multichannel. With Multichannel SACD, AF serves all 3 markets.
 
And BD-A is also a niche format to be fair.

But they play on any blu-ray player, not on a niche player. This is a plus in my books. It is backwards compatible without demodulators and decoders, won't be harmed by a stereo player, and is multichannel(source dependent) when you are ready for an upgrade. Even my technophobe mother has a blu-ray, even though she buys DVD's and can't tell the difference.
 
SACD is also a niche format...certainly not mainstream...BD-A is just at the beginning of audio useage...and it's advantages can't be overlooked...greater storage capacity and the players are much much cheaper...

Yes, that's what I meant - SACD and BD-A are both niche formats, so one over the other is not necessarilly a good thing.
 
But they play on any blu-ray player, not on a niche player. This is a plus in my books. It is backwards compatible without demodulators and decoders, won't be harmed by a stereo player, and is multichannel(source dependent) when you are ready for an upgrade. Even my technophobe mother has a blu-ray, even though she buys DVD's and can't tell the difference.

But there's so many universal players been long out and continue to come out, so SACD is frequently playable on both DVD and BD players. I'm not kidding myself that SACD is mainstream, and I'm not an SACD fanboy but why kill the format for the sake of a new toy? BD itself is not necessarily a dominant format let alone the niche within that that is BD-A. I'm not saying it's a bad format, though.
 
Yes, that's what I meant - SACD and BD-A are both niche formats, so one over the other is not necessarilly a good thing.

But in this case it doesn't have to be either or..it can be both...this isn't a format war..SACD is deeply embedded in classical music..that's not going to change..and blu ray isn't going to be simply audio...it's primarily a video format...blu ray has a greater chance to be a "gateway" to surround music for a new core group of customers than SACD...because of the initial cost of the machines...
 
Kind of, except there are many SACD players already out there. Both would be fine, I doubt many companies would go to the expense of producing even smaller numbers of two formats though. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Not everyone has BD, and who knows how far that will go before HD streaming really bites in for video. Then there's having to upgrade A/V amps, etc if their current one doesn't accept HDMI. It's messy.

SACD is the format established by the brand, and generally accepted/loved by their market.
BD-A is upcoming format, very few titles, could require hardware upgrades
DVD-A/V is cross compatible on several levels including BD, but is still a format change for the company and the market
Dualdisc - possibly the answer, but really not the answer.
 
But in this case it doesn't have to be either or..it can be both...this isn't a format war..SACD is deeply embedded in classical music..that's not going to change..and blu ray isn't going to be simply audio...it's primarily a video format...blu ray has a greater chance to be a "gateway" to surround music for a new core group of customers than SACD...because of the initial cost of the machines...

I have the capability to play all CURRENT digital formats in surround and can not hear the difference between them. I can tell the difference between digital and analogue though. What I appreciate is surround sound. Blu-Ray seems to be the standardising format, if we don't include downloads. nCan you imagine if we got stuck with 12" 78rpm book sets in drop sequence for classical, 45rpm discs for rock and roll, and 12" 33 1/3 rpm discs for jazz, country and other "niche" music types? How about separate players for all? 1949 all over again....
 
In all sincerety I don't understand how BD-A is a standardising format, as it's still too much in infancy. I can understand how it is a *desirable* format for many in this community, but wouldn't the standardised be the most cross compatible, which in theory is dualdisc but in terms of actually being able to play the things for some people: DVD A/V (with a CD tucked in, or seperate track files on the DVD, which isn't unheard of.)
 
SACD is also a niche format...certainly not mainstream...BD-A is just at the beginning of audio useage...and it's advantages can't be overlooked...greater storage capacity and the players are much much cheaper...

Unfortunately you lose the Stereo SACD & Stereo CD fans with BD-A. So it's a non starter for many companies.
In fact, a writer over on the Computer Audiophile forum mentioned having lunch with Universal Music Europe - who asked him at lunch why is there a lack of interest among consumers in BD Audio? Hmm....
 
Unfortunately you lose the Stereo SACD & Stereo CD fans with BD-A. So it's a non starter for many companies.
In fact, a writer over on the Computer Audiophile forum mentioned having lunch with Universal Music Europe - who asked him at lunch why is there a lack of interest among consumers in BD Audio? Hmm....

This puzzles me...I could never understand the inclusion of a CD layer on an audiophile product..what purpose does that serve?..why would someone that's interested in sound quality want the CD layer...there are other ways to achieve that for portable uses(like in the car)..it's a massive contradiction to me...and you can have stereo on blu ray..doesn't have to be soley multi channel..
 
This puzzles me...I could never understand the inclusion of a CD layer on an audiophile product..what purpose does that serve?..why would someone that's interested in sound quality want the CD layer...there are other ways to achieve that for portable uses(like in the car)..it's a massive contradiction to me...and you can have stereo on blu ray..doesn't have to be soley multi channel..

Sorry but I can't believe that's even a question.
Putting CD together with Blu-Ray, or CD together with DVD-A/V, or a CD layer on a Hybrid SACD still gives people the optical disc with the biggest compatibility and portability, while providing all of the added benefits of these higher res surround discs.
EVERYONE WINS!

To me that's why DVD-A failed to take off. WB, UMe, and other companies insisted for the longest time on selling DVD-A discs on their own without CDs, and once they did try to provide CD with DVD-A/V, they did so in the most abysmal way with Dualdisc, which has a CD layer that's too thin for most players, making it completely unreadable!
It wasn't until 2005 that Warner finally got their act together and released CD/DVD-A combo packs (like they always should have), but by that point, their interest in DVD-A had dwindled too much anyway.

And let's not forget the mistakes made on the SACD side as well. Too many discs released in the early years were playable only on SACD players. BIG MISTAKE! Why? If people weren't getting a CD layer too, why would they want to invest in discs and a player that would cost them a lot of money if they didn't have that safety net of backwards compatibility with CD players? Once again, by the time they made Hybrid discs the standard, the interest disappeared for the most part.

And now we're on to Blu-Ray Audio. UMe has made the mistake at times of only offering a Blu-Ray audio disc with no CDs. Then again when they do offer CDs with Blu-Ray discs, it can be in really expensive packages! CD/Blu-Ray should be a new standard, but it hasn't yet caught on from a convenience and affordability standpoint.

Essentially this is why labels are so scared of surround and the various formats...
 
Back
Top