Wise Words - Audio Fidelity Moves to Selective Multichannel SACD Releases

Simon A · Mar 12, 2017

keywhiz said:
I can remember seeing/hearing ads as a kid in the 70s for what was probably Time/Life sets of 1940s Big Band music that had been remastered to sound "so much better than you remember it!" They would play clips of the old scratchy 78 soundings versions of "In the Mood" next to the new, clean, fuller sounding versions they were selling. (I guess this was maybe some of the first "remastering" of old music ever done?)

Those were actually re-recordings using the original arrangements. The orchestra was made up of musicians whom had been members of the original orchestras (40's & 50's) and was conducted by Billy May. Sessions were recorded to eight track in the late 60's and they sound amazing. I used to own these sets (about twelve I think) and they were great.

key_wiz · Mar 12, 2017

Simon A said:
Those were actually re-recordings using the original arrangements. The orchestra was made up of musicians whom had been members of the original orchestras (40's & 50's) and was conducted by Billy May. Sessions were recorded to eight track in the late 60's and they sound amazing. I used to own these sets (about twelve I think) and they were great.

Ahhh! OK. That makes sense.

But they could certainly use the same marketing strategy if they could somehow target customers who they are pretty sure have their 5.1 systems set up and operating. Play them some rather dingy sounding mono file of "Time" and then compare it to the 5.1 with the clocks going off all over the place and see if they can't move a bunch more units of Dark Side of the Moon. And, with any luck, create a bit of a new market for surround music?

What bugs me most is the lack of degree to which they even TRY to sell this stuff. Well, of COURSE there's no evidence of any market for it if you don't try to create one.

key_wiz · Mar 12, 2017

fredblue said:
Its just bonkers they can do stuff like that Mannheim Steamroller in Surround and not release these two lovely old Quads (clearly licensed with surround release in mind, can't be any coincidence) I don't care what anybody else thinks, I love them and am livid about the whole thing. End of conversation afaic

I can only guess that maybe since the Mannheim Steamroller comes from another label that the licensing was much cheaper so it penciled out much easier than do the Sony titles. Maybe they threw in the MC mixes for free so it ends up costing AF hardly anything to include them?

More interesting to me is the prospect that they were more likely sitting around the table and deciding where and how to be more "selective" about MC releases and, looking at the RTF, WR and the BOC titles --- all of which presumably cost about the same to license from Sony -- they decide that the BOC title is the one that will make the most sense to release with the Quad mixes.

Maybe that WAS the right choice to make. But my experience and instincts would tell me that it would be one of the two jazz-fusion titles that would be most likely to benefit from a boost in sales to the quad market.

Just a curious thought on my part, is all.

4-earredwonder · Mar 12, 2017

keywhiz said:
I can only guess that maybe since the Mannheim Steamroller comes from another label that the licensing was much cheaper so it penciled out much easier than do the Sony titles. Maybe they threw in the MC mixes for free so it ends up costing AF hardly anything to include them?

More interesting to me is the prospect that they were more likely sitting around the table and deciding where and how to be more "selective" about MC releases and, looking at the RTF, WR and the BOC titles --- all of which presumably cost about the same to license from Sony -- they decide that the BOC title is the one that will make the most sense to release with the Quad mixes.

Maybe that WAS the right choice to make. But my experience and instincts would tell me that it would be one of the two jazz-fusion titles that would be most likely to benefit from a boost in sales to the quad market.

Just a curious thought on my part, is all.

Ironically, I didn't buy the Mannheim Steamroller AF 5.1 SACD as I have a sterling DVD~A 5.1 version which is still available but I did [begrudgingly] buy the AF Stereo SACDs of RTF and WR knowing full well they had available QUAD mixes. I'm sure Adam's [fredblue] assessment that they were chosen to be QUAD reissues was absolutely correct but perhaps at this point the number crunchers @ AF [and NOT Marshall Blonstein, AF's CEO] decided that the profitability factor just wasn't there and nixed the QUAD releases. Perhaps if SONY had handed them the multichannel masters GRATIS, it wouldn't have been a factor but paying additional for those multis was the straw that broke the camel's back. The sad fact is that we'll probably never see these reissued again in QUAD unless, miraculously, Dutton Vocalion can release them as they'd likely be paying a lesser royalty fee [NOT likely, IMO].

key_wiz · Mar 12, 2017

4-earredwonder said:
Ironically, I didn't buy the Mannheim Steamroller AF 5.1 SACD as I have a sterling DVD~A 5.1 version which is still available but I did [begrudgingly] buy the AF Stereo SACDs of RTF and WR knowing full well they had available QUAD mixes. I'm sure Adam's [fredblue] assessment that they were chosen to be QUAD reissues was absolutely correct but perhaps at this point the number crunchers @ AF [and NOT Marshall Blonstein, AF's CEO] decided that the profitability factor just wasn't there and nixed the QUAD releases. Perhaps if SONY had handed them the multichannel masters GRATIS, it wouldn't have been a factor but paying additional for those multis was the straw that broke the camel's back. The sad fact is that we'll probably never see these reissued again in QUAD unless, miraculously, Dutton Vocalion can release them as they'd likely be paying a lesser royalty fee [NOT likely, IMO].

No. Doesn't seem likely. I would have bought these immediately had they had quad. I have no interest in the SACDs as I'm fine with the RBCDs on these.

Well, I guess Sony Japan could release them. But there very few albums I want SO badly I will pay $60+ for. I don't love these that much.

The other option is that, at some point, Sony starts selling downloads directly. To me this seems like such a no-brainer for low-interest titles where pressing physical discs doesn't make sense.

I mean seriously: They've got these quad masters. Transfer the tapes to digital and sell the downloads for $30 each. Even if they only sold 1500 downloads of each title on average, that's still $45k per title they didn't have last week. Yeah that's not big money for a big label, but why turn down free money?

What did the Chicago box sell anyway? Does anyone know? Isn't that pretty good evidence of the size of the MC market for classic titles today?

4-earredwonder · Mar 12, 2017

keywhiz said:
No. Doesn't seem likely. I would have bought these immediately had they had quad. I have no interest in the SACDs as I'm fine with the RBCDs on these.

Well, I guess Sony Japan could release them. But there very few albums I want SO badly I will pay $60+ for. I don't love these that much.

The other option is that, at some point, Sony starts selling downloads directly. To me this seems like such a no-brainer for low-interest titles where pressing physical discs doesn't make sense.

I mean seriously: They've got these quad masters. Transfer the tapes to digital and sell the downloads for $30 each. Even if they only sold 1500 downloads of each title on average, that's still $45k per title they didn't have last week. Yeah that's not big money for a big label, but why turn down free money?

What did the Chicago box sell anyway? Does anyone know? Isn't that pretty good evidence of the size of the MC market for classic titles today?

I don't think SONY Japan could be bothered releasing WR & RTF in QUAD. We'd be lucky if they release the SANTANA QUADS in their entirety. As for the AF Stereo SACDs of the aforementioned titles.....they are excellent, IMO, and if you can find them cheaply I'd say go for it.

As downloads will be the future, who knows if SONY will unleash all their QUAD and unreleased surround titles. From a business perspective it would make perfect sense but I'm sure they would still need the cooperation of the artists and sort out royalty fees, etc. And that goes for Universal Music and Warners, as well. I'm sorry to say that their first priority will be promoting current artists hot off the charts as QUAD and 5.1 does require extra bandwidth and may still be considered their 'bastard' child catering to a minuscule niche market.

I'm sure the Rhino Chicago QUADIO boxset sold well as they've printed up a second batch with the corrected BD~As. The price was right [especially with further discounting] and the band's still a hot commodity even in 2017.

key_wiz · Mar 12, 2017

4-earredwonder said:
I don't think SONY Japan could be bothered releasing WR & RTF in QUAD. We'd be lucky if they release the SANTANA QUADS in their entirety. As for the AF Stereo SACDs of the aforementioned titles.....they are excellent, IMO, and if you can find them cheaply I'd say go for it.

As downloads will be the future, who knows if SONY will unleash all their QUAD and unreleased surround titles. From a business perspective it would make perfect sense but I'm sure they would still need the cooperation of the artists and sort out royalty fees, etc. And that goes for Universal Music and Warners, as well. I'm sorry to say that their first priority will be promoting current artists hot off the charts as QUAD and 5.1 does require extra bandwidth and may still be considered their 'bastard' child catering to a minuscule niche market.

Royalties are what they are. A percentage of what you sell. They don't cost the label anything. And I think the "artist cooperation" aspect gets overblown. They don't own the masters in most of these cases. If they did, they wouldn't be sitting in Sonys vault

I'm sure the Rhino Chicago QUADIO boxset sold well as they've printed up a second batch with the corrected BD~As. The price was right [especially with further discounting] and the band's still a hot commodity even in 2017.

I just wonder what that number was. 1000? 5000? Yeah the price was right for the size of the set, but without the buyer being interested in MC in the first place, the price of the set and popularity of the band are irrelevant.

I doubt very many sets were sold to people only wanting the stereo mixes.

4-earredwonder · Mar 12, 2017

keywhiz said:
Royalties are what they are. A percentage of what you sell. They don't cost the label anything. And I think the "artist cooperation" aspect gets overblown. They don't own the masters in most of these cases. If they did, they wouldn't be sitting in Sonys vault

I just wonder what that number was. 1000? 5000? Yeah the price was right for the size of the set, but without the buyer being interested in MC in the first place, the price of the set and popularity of the band are irrelevant.

I doubt very many sets were sold to people only wanting the stereo mixes.

Royalties still have to be paid to the artists on sales of these discs and keep in mind that supposedly 40 5.1 remixes on Michael Jackson's THRILLER were 'attempted' and he nixed them ALL....perfectionist that he was. But who knows if that was even true.

I DO know that Van Morrison was royally pissed when Warners released MOONDANCE as a BD~A disc even though Warners controlled the masters. Oh well, I'm sure Van will get over it ....at some point......because in reality, it deserved to be heard!

So, will we ever get Thriller on multichannel SACD?.....yeah, probably when MJ is observed WALKING ON THE MOON...or the Jackson Family Trust runs out of CASH!

key_wiz · Mar 12, 2017

4-earredwonder said:
Royalties still have to be paid to the artists on sales of these discs and keep in mind that supposedly 40 5.1 remixes on Michael Jackson's THRILLER were 'attempted' and he nixed them ALL....perfectionist that he was. But who knows if that was even true.

I DO know that Van Morrison was royally pissed when Warners released MOONDANCE as a BD~A disc even though Warners controlled the masters. Oh well, I'm sure Van will get over it ....at some point......because in reality, it deserved to be heard!

So, will we ever get Thriller on multichannel SACD?.....yeah, probably when MJ is observed WALKING ON THE MOON...or the Jackson Family Trust runs out of CASH!

Yeah but that's doing a new remix. Completely different from selling copies of a mix the artist already signed off on decades ago.

And I don't know the Van Morrison story but it kind of proves my point. Ain't his masters. He doesn't have a say in what is done with them.

bmoura · Mar 12, 2017

4-earredwonder said:
I don't think SONY Japan could be bothered releasing WR & RTF in QUAD. We'd be lucky if they release the SANTANA QUADS in their entirety. As for the AF Stereo SACDs of the aforementioned titles.....they are excellent, IMO, and if you can find them cheaply I'd say go for it.

As downloads will be the future, who knows if SONY will unleash all their QUAD and unreleased surround titles. From a business perspective it would make perfect sense but I'm sure they would still need the cooperation of the artists and sort out royalty fees, etc. And that goes for Universal Music and Warners, as well. I'm sorry to say that their first priority will be promoting current artists hot off the charts as QUAD and 5.1 does require extra bandwidth and may still be considered their 'bastard' child catering to a minuscule niche market.

On the release of more Multichannel downloads in the future, that will depend in large part on their sales. To date, the music downloads market is largely a Stereo market with few download sites offering more than a handful of Multichannel downloads due to a lack of interest and sales in Multichannel downloads. See the numbers on the Music Downloads tab of the NativeDSD Database at http://www.nativedsd.com/database for a look. The real Multichannel downloads action there is from the independent labels/companies (NativeDSD, Primephonic/Pentatone, Channel Classics, Turtle, 2L) - not the major label titles on sites like Acoustic Sounds and HDTracks.

When it comes to reissues in Surround, or even in Stereo, you are correct that artist licensing and royalties are a major issue. There are entire catalogs of some very big name artists - and in some cases not so big name artists - where the albums are either a) not available for reissue or b) the requested royalty is far higher than what would pencil out for a successful reissue.

rtbluray · Mar 12, 2017

bmoura said:
On the release of more Multichannel downloads in the future, that will depend in large part on their sales. To date, the music downloads market is largely a Stereo market with few download sites offering more than a handful of Multichannel downloads due to a lack of interest and sales in Multichannel downloads. See the numbers on the Music Downloads tab of the NativeDSD Database at http://www.nativedsd.com/database for a look. The real Multichannel downloads action there is from the independent labels/companies (NativeDSD, Primephonic/Pentatone, Channel Classics, Turtle, 2L) - not the major label titles on sites like Acoustic Sounds and HDTracks.

Multichannel downloads are going to continue to be a bust unless a major label steps in with some high profile Multichannel releases to get things going. Just imagine if say Warner Music had the courage to release lossless Multichannel downloads from the likes of major artists such as Fleetwood Mac and Jethro Tull. Even though many of us have already bought the recent lossy DVD-V releases from these artists, I'm sure many would pony up again if lossless options became available. I know I sure would!
Heck, the lossless Multichannel downloads could even be packaged in with the stereo downloads if that's the only way to get a major label to get on board with something like this!

Anyway, this is getting off-topic from the specific discussion on Audio Fidelity.

4-earredwonder · Mar 12, 2017

bmoura said:
On the release of more Multichannel downloads in the future, that will depend in large part on their sales. To date, the music downloads market is largely a Stereo market with few download sites offering more than a handful of Multichannel downloads due to a lack of interest and sales in Multichannel downloads. See the numbers on the Music Downloads tab of the NativeDSD Database at http://www.nativedsd.com/database for a look. The real Multichannel downloads action there is from the independent labels/companies (NativeDSD, Primephonic/Pentatone, Channel Classics, Turtle, 2L) - not the major label titles on sites like Acoustic Sounds and HDTracks.

When it comes to reissues in Surround, or even in Stereo, you are correct that artist licensing and royalties are a major issue. There are entire catalogs of some very big name artists - and in some cases not so big name artists - where the albums are either a) not available for reissue or b) the requested royalty is far higher than what would pencil out for a successful reissue.

But the reality does exist that limited bandwidth is still available to sizable swaths of the US (and I'm sure in other countries) and in a blurb in this month's Sound & Vision Vinyl sales exceeded downloads in the UK (p.17). Downloads were actually halved in deference to Vinyl sales. And all this points to the sobering fact that STEREO is still KING!

TWO eyes + TWO ears = 2D and Stereo.........or the VAST majority of viewers/listeners would like to think!:yikes HOW POSITIVELY RETRO! How long before Mankind reverts to eating Baby Food with those tiny little spoons? http://karenmcelroy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Baby-Eating.jpg

key_wiz · Mar 12, 2017

4-earredwonder said:
But the reality does exist that limited bandwidth is still available to sizable swaths of the US (and I'm sure in other countries) and in a blurb in this month's Sound & Vision Vinyl sales exceeded downloads in the UK (p.17). Downloads were actually halved in deference to Vinyl sales. And all this points to the sobering fact that STEREO is still KING!

TWO eyes + TWO ears = 2D and Stereo.........or the VAST majority of viewers/listeners would like to think!:yikes HOW POSITIVELY RETRO! How long before Mankind reverts to eating Baby Food with those tiny little spoons? http://karenmcelroy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Baby-Eating.jpg

Bandwidth is really the least of concerns I would think. We are already in an era where streaming TV and movies are overtaking broadcast and physical media.

But yes. Stereo is king. Although just as a matter of industry-standard/default. I doubt if more than 10% of people buying/listening to music care if they are listening to stereo or mono or even just the left channel.

quicksrt · Mar 12, 2017

JonUrban said:
Because they did not charge extra for the surround SACDs, I would guess that, as stated above by many, the added cost of the work and acquisition of the quad tracks would have to reflect in added sales to the same title being sold without those quad tracks.

This might be very hard to figure. I mean, if you release a stereo SACD of Paul Anka's "The Painter", how many sales would you get. With all due respects to Paul, probably not many. If you went the extra mile and added the discrete quad tracks to the SACD, would you get many more sales? Again, probably not.

So now, does this Paul Anka "The Painter" 4.0 SACD get slammed by the bean counters claiming that it did not sell because it had a 4.0 red circle on the cover, or because buyers thought it would not play on their stereo-only system? The quad track inclusion would be a convenient way to blame the lack of sales on a release, instead of blaming the selection of the title itself as the reason it did not sell.

I have to admit, I have told Marshall over the last year or so that titles he mentioned to me as possible releases were not worth the extra cost of doing the quad tracks if it meant that the mentioned release might be the eventual reason the quad program got canned. As big a quad-guy as I am, I admit there are/were some shitty titles released in quad and 5.1 over the last 40 or so years. Many un-worthy titles. And bringing them back at the expense of a worthy release, to me, is not a good idea.

If it had no impact on future releases, I would say "Go for it". Who cares? There are always people out there who like something, and those people might have been thrilled with these 4.0 SACD. The rest of you would have gone nuts, proclaiming "I'm not buying that crap" and "Why are they doing that lousy album?"

I've said it before and will again, we are at the END of the physical media era. Check out your local Targets, Best Buys, Walmarts, etc. See how their CD/DVD/BluRay sections are shrinking. My local Sams does not even sell DVD/BluRay movies anymore. And the BJ's and Costco's who once had CDs and large DVD sections now have a token shelf. People are now living with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Spotify, etc etc. Earbuds don't care about surround.

For companies like AF, the future is tenuous. They can't afford to make many mistakes.

We want a lots of surround SACDs, they want to stay in business.

We can only hope that those two goals merge from time to time.

Yes, this means that the titles they choose needed to be white hot evergreens, or at least prime albums from the given artist. And looks like thy needed a higher list price if quad was included. I say they needed a high list price period if they are running as tight a bottom line as it appears. I've noticed that my trips through the drive through are higher in the last 4 months or so. A part of it is that minimum wage has gone up in California. I'm fine paying a higher $11.75 for my #2 meal if it means the guys and girls flipping this food are going to get a raise.

I would also accept a higher price on AF discs not only because of the 4.0 master / licensing costs, but because everything is going up lately. If AF needs more for their (stereo) discs to stay in business, I can see and accept that.

So why not raise the prices for everyone except the old subscribers? I can afford $4.00 or $5.00 more per disc if it means more titles that are as strong as Sly, Doors, Alice, Bread, Mahavishnu, L&M Full Sail, Billy Cobham, and the like.

I know, they are afraid of insulting their stereo crowd who don't care about or want a 4.0 master layer. But the truth is AF have not raised their prices in many years. And it is time to make that rare and unfortunate move to a price hike. Then they can also discount the slower sellers a bit faster than normal. Have higher prices and more discounts as well when title is just not moving as expected.

Then get on with the business of top quality mastering, and first class album choices, and a few more quad 4.0 in there as well. Why not higher prices, and then every third release include surround 4.0 unless a great album just can't be licensed.

At this late stage, the buyer who wants a physical disc simply wants a physical disc. A few bucks is not going to matter that much. This is not 5 or 6 years ago when some of us got laid off, or were otherwise flat broke. It is better times now.

4-earredwonder · Mar 12, 2017

quicksrt said:
Yes, this means that the titles they choose needed to be white hot evergreens, or at least prime albums from the given artist. And looks like thy needed a higher list price if quad was included. I say they needed a high list price period if they are running as tight a bottom line as it appears. I've noticed that my trips through the drive through are higher in the last 4 months or so. A part of it is that minimum wage has gone up in California. I'm fine paying a higher $11.75 for my #2 meal if it means the guys and girls flipping this food are going to get a raise.

I would also accept a higher price on AF discs not only because of the 4.0 master / licensing costs, but because everything is going up lately. If AF needs more for their (stereo) discs to stay in business, I can see and accept that.

So why not raise the prices for everyone except the old subscribers? I can afford $4.00 or $5.00 more per disc if it means more titles that are as strong as Sly, Doors, Alice, Bread, Mahavishnu, L&M Full Sail, Billy Cobham, and the like.

I know, they are afraid of insulting their stereo crowd who don't care about or want a 4.0 master layer. But the truth is AF have not raised their prices in many years. And it is time to make that rare and unfortunate move to a price hike. Then they can also discount the slower sellers a bit faster than normal. Have higher prices and more discounts as well when title is just not moving as expected.

Then get on with the business of top quality mastering, and first class album choices, and a few more quad 4.0 in there as well. Why not higher prices, and then every third release include surround 4.0 unless a great album just can't be licensed.

At this late stage, the buyer who wants a physical disc simply wants a physical disc. A few bucks is not going to matter that much. This is not 5 or 6 years ago when some of us got laid off, or were otherwise flat broke. It is better times now.

I just think AF wanted to keep their prices in line with fellow US reissue companies Analogue Productions and MoFi @ that $30 mark. Remember, there are a MAJORITY of stereo only consumers who really only want the Stereo SACD remaster and could care less about the multichannel layer.

Discount online vendors Deep Discount and ImportCD normally offer a deeper discount also on AF SACDs than on MoFi and AP SACDs. That probably also means they were getting a better deal from Audio Fidelity on the wholesale level which also means AF probably made less of a profit on their SACDs. AmazonUS typically charges $25 for an AF Stereo/Multi SACD whereas they charge more for AP and MoFi as well. Can't imagine why.

bmoura · Mar 12, 2017

quicksrt said:
I know, they are afraid of insulting their stereo crowd who don't care about or want a 4.0 master layer.

Since the Stereo SACD fans make up 85-90% of their market, what these buyers think is very important!

bmoura · Mar 12, 2017

rtbluray said:
Multichannel downloads are going to continue to be a bust unless a major label steps in with some high profile Multichannel releases to get things going.

Major labels - and the stores that license their downloads - won't be stepping into the Multichannel downloads market until the sales of Multichannel downloads increases.
In the meantime, the independents will be the ones releasing Multichannel downloads as we see today.

key_wiz · Mar 13, 2017

bmoura said:
Major labels - and the stores that license their downloads - won't be stepping into the Multichannel downloads market until the sales of Multichannel downloads increases.
In the meantime, the independents will be the ones releasing Multichannel downloads as we see today.

Not really seeing the logic here. Seems they could make more money selling the downloads directly than they could make licensing them out to another company to make physical CDs who needs to make a profit selling, at most, the same number of units.

niche markets mean there is a ceiling on how many you can sell. Why license something out for $10K when you can sell it yourself for $20K? (Totally fake numbers of course.)

I get it in terms of having to go to the trouble to have it remastered and when the independents already have a certain established foothold in the market as a specialty "audiophile" label. People are willing to pay extra for that "Audio Fidelity" brand and the names of the engineers they have on staff.

But in terms of just letting some old quad masters loose? Seems if they just do it themselves there would be more profit for them.

bmoura · Mar 13, 2017

keywhiz said:
Not really seeing the logic here.

Several of the independent labels are operating their own music downloads stores - and selling downloads via third party music downloads stores like HDTracks, Acoustic Sounds, NativeDSD, etc.
The major labels in the US are only selling their music downloads via the third party music downloads stores today.

Could that change in the future?
Time will tell.

key_wiz · Mar 13, 2017

bmoura said:
Several of the independent labels are operating their own music downloads stores - and selling downloads via third party music downloads stores like HDTracks, Acoustic Sounds, NativeDSD, etc.
The major labels in the US are only selling their music downloads via the third party music downloads stores today.

Could that change in the future?
Time will tell.

iTunes and Amazon probably being the biggest 3rd party download music sellers.

These smaller 3rd party sellers make some sense to the degree they can specialize the product. Classical or Jazz or Hi-Rez or...perhaps....Multi-channel?

Yeah, maybe it will always continue to make sense for them to use 3rd party sellers for at least the foreseeable future.

But, at least from a theoretical standpoint, there is no smaller market for any particular MC title than there is for a LOT of stuff that is available for download today, I wouldn't think. I can go to Amazon right now and download the first Doobie Brothers album from 1971 for under $10. I can stream it for free with Amazon prime. Good album and all, but how many of this title is WB or Amazon actually selling a year? It's ranked #60,232 for Amazon. How much revenue is this title bringing into the WEA coffers? Not much I wouldn't think, but it's available because it's essentially free money. It costs them virtually nothing to make it available at this point. Whatever it brings in just helps add to the yearly receipts. Sure, they have to pay out a share to whoever is in line for a cut, but that's the same with every album.

They really couldn't give Amazon the quad or 5.1 files of "The Captain & Me" and do just about as well?

Wise Words - Audio Fidelity Moves to Selective Multichannel SACD Releases

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

Hi-Res Moderator

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!