Wise Words - Audio Fidelity Moves to Selective Multichannel SACD Releases

Find deals on ebay
Amazon
Advertise with us
QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
"Make them impulse purchases at the supermarket checkout aisles and market them to the classic rock fans who already have surround sound systems--get them interested in the new formats (or not) and then when a bunch of copies of that stuff is sold, they can then move on to the more esoteric titles and maybe even have the money for new surround mixes?

But no. Instead they treat them all as rare, precious commodities with gold-plated pressings that you have to be some sort of "insider" to know they were even released..."

Keywhiz, I've wondered this myself. They came close with the Lynyrd Skynyrd thing, but BD would be easier for most buyers to get the best sound out of. Also I found it stocked poorly and hard to find in the store.
 
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.

Surround sound is, in effect, a solitary exercise and was doomed from day one. We could go on ad nauseum at why and how it failed but the fact that it was always a niche market.......only had an extremely limited number of releases and thus limited appeal and always carried a premium price (to THIS day) precluded it from ever making a dent in the mainstream.

Even in the earliest days of QUAD.......No Beatles.......No Stones....no Led Zep in surround........WHO WERE THEY KIDDING?

Yeah, they put a man on the moon but they couldn't come up with the hardware/software to really do any of those early QUADS justice!

And NOW that we HAVE the technology..................still NO Beatles (except LOVE), NO Stones [yeah, a remix of Sympathy for the Devil in 5.1] and STILL.......NO Zeppelin in surround.

History always has a way of repeating itself.
 
We've got somewhere close to around 25 Multi-channel titles in less than 2 years? This is a Fantastic run of titles! Unreleased Quad, are you kidding? Totally great. Audio Fidelity is the Quadraphonic/Surround communities Forever Friend.

Let's all thank Marshall and the investors at AF for having faith in us. Also, thank Jon, Brian, Bob R and all the other unsung heroes working behind the scenes helping to get titles out to us. Also, Gus Skinas, Steve Hoffman and Stephen Marsh for making the music perfect.

Everyone here knows how it goes, buy titles now before they go and cost $$$. Case in point, Isley Brothers 3+3 Quadraphonic SACD now going for $150+ used: https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-lis...d_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=&sr=
Thanks.
 
4-earredwonder said:
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.

Surround sound is, in effect, a solitary exercise and was doomed from day one. We could go on ad nauseum at why and how it failed but the fact that it was always a niche market.......only had an extremely limited number of releases and thus limited appeal and always carried a premium price (to THIS day) precluded it from ever making a dent in the mainstream.
.....
Click to expand...

Well, sorry to remind you (were you really serious when you posted this? I mean, I don't mean to come off as someone who is picking a fight, although it may look like it, but , just listen to yourself...) , but STEREO would also be a "solitary exercise" because you also need to sit in the middle to appreciate it...your argument is not valid at all....

AAMOF , I think Surround is more "socially compatible" because there is more space to fit listeners in the soundfield...

The ONLY way to listen to music without a sweet spot is Mono....
 
Let's face it - it has little to do with the sweet spot, it's a solitary experience because we're obsessive bores who probably don't like people talking when we're listening.
 
Sweet Spot is a lot of hooey. Sure, it exists, and it's fine, but as previously posted, so does stereo. And when you're at a party or someplace that still has a "stereo", no one, and I mean no one, is ever in the stereo sweet spot, and they all can listen to the music just fine. With quad or 5.1, same thing. You just might be closer to one channel than the other. No big deal IMHO.

The biggest downer for surround is and will always be the added cost/added required equipment. These days, people don't even want two speakers in their living rooms, let alone 4 or 6. The days of the living room stereo, or console stereo as a center piece of the main living space - are OVER.
 
PS - I removed my name from the thread title. I appreciate that Brian thinks my words were wise, but others here have words just as wise or even wiser, and let's face it, "wise" is subjective and can mean many things, even a potato chip, So ...........
 
JonUrban said:
Shame. Damn shame. I would have gladly sacrificed the Judy Collins and the Breezin' for this one in quad. Gladly
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, although I would have kept Judy Collins in Quad and sacrificed something else.
This does however bring into clearer view the fact that while Audio Fidelity has released some huge barn burners, they have also released some very questionable titles too.
Take for example the recent release of "Fresh Aire 8". Does anyone on here honestly think that title was a great choice to release on Multichannel SACD in the grander scheme of things? I would say it was not. I think any of us could have advised Marsall to skip out on something like that in favor of a Multichannel BS&T Greatest Hits SACD, and not only would we be better off, but more discs would probably sell that way too.
But like I have said before, at least now I can put my money towards something else and wait for the better AF titles to come along, which I will gladly support. :)
 
rtbluray said:
My thoughts exactly, although I would have kept Judy Collins in Quad and sacrificed something else.
This does however bring into clearer view the fact that while Audio Fidelity has released some huge barn burners, they have also released some very questionable titles too.
Take for example the recent release of "Fresh Aire 8". Does anyone on here honestly think that title was a great choice to release on Multichannel SACD in the grander scheme of things? I would say it was not. I think any of us could have advised Marsall to skip out on something like that in favor of a Multichannel BS&T Greatest Hits SACD, and not only would we be better off, but more discs would probably sell that way too.
But like I have said before, at least now I can put my money towards something else and wait for the better AF titles to come along, which I will gladly support. :)
Click to expand...

Rather than belittle or belabor what AF did or did not release, it wasn't OUR choice in the first place. Over the history of 5.1 releases on various formats did WE ever have a choice? We can probably trace the failure of 5.1/QUAD to catch on in the meanstream by what wasn't released.

Even in the early days of QUAD vinyl, look how much EASY LISTENING was released....which points to the culprit.......The Majors were always in the dark about who their target audience really was IN THE FIRST PLACE. Unlike the transition to Color TV which was a no brainer (the world IS in color not B&W), the transition from stereo to QUAD (unlike MONO to Stereo) was a giant crap shoot. It seems senseless that the biggest acts of the day (Beatles, Stones, Lep Zed) had NO representation via early Quad releases....at a time when the majors DID have control over their artists.

It may have been a different scenario if the launch from Stereo to QUAD had a different representation altogether. Let's be real: when Star Wars was released in Dolby Surround the major motion picture companies GOT it immediately and ensured that all their big budget releases had aggressive surround soundtracks.

Unfortunately, their sister music companies NEVER got the memo, instead plodding along and failing to release their best selling artists' A~list material in deference to their lesser output in the newer format.

And, MOST unfortunately, that same failure exists today and with the quagmire of endless red tape to release a single RBCD/Stereo/QUAD SACD, one must not point fingers at a small reissue company like AF who did manage in a relatively short period of time to release 30 QUAD/5.1 SACDs but to the artists and labels who have no desire to make that pot sweeter by making their master tapes available for remixing or release in ANY surround format....or possibly releasing the hundreds upon hundreds of unreleased QUAD/5.1 masters literally rotting in the vaults.....many of them A~list titles.
 
4-earredwonder said:
Rather than belittle or belabor what AF did or did not release, it wasn't OUR choice in the first place. Over the history of 5.1 releases on various formats did WE ever have a choice? We can probably trace the failure of 5.1/QUAD to catch on in the meanstream by what wasn't released.

Even in the early days of QUAD vinyl, look how much EASY LISTENING was released....which points to the culprit.......The Majors were always in the dark about who their target audience really was IN THE FIRST PLACE. Unlike the transition to Color TV which was a no brainer (the world IS in color not B&W), the transition from stereo to QUAD (unlike MONO to Stereo) was a giant crap shoot. It seems senseless that the biggest acts of the day (Beatles, Stones, Lep Zed) had NO representation via early Quad releases....at a time when the majors DID have control over their artists.

It may have been a different scenario if the launch from Stereo to QUAD had a different representation altogether. Let's be real: when Star Wars was released in Dolby Surround the major motion picture companies GOT it immediately and ensured that all their big budget releases had aggressive surround soundtracks.

Unfortunately, their sister music companies NEVER got the memo, instead plodding along and failing to release their best selling artists' A~list material in deference to their lesser output in the newer format.

And, MOST unfortunately, that same failure exists today and with the quagmire of endless red tape to release a single RBCD/Stereo/QUAD SACD, one must not point fingers at a small reissue company like AF who did manage in a relatively short period of time to release 30 QUAD/5.1 SACDs but to the artists and labels who have no desire to make that pot sweeter by making their master tapes available for remixing or release in ANY surround format....or possibly releasing the hundreds upon hundreds of unreleased QUAD/5.1 masters literally rotting in the vaults.....many of them A~list titles.
Click to expand...

Ok, first of all, I have NEVER belittled Audio Fidelity (and I will never do that either). You won't find a bigger supporter of their Multichannel SACD series than me. With the exception of Judy Collins, I have purchased every one of their Quad SACDs, and I have also purchased half (4/8) of their 5.1 SACDs too, but even despite all of that, they do not get a 'pass' when it comes to fair criticism.
Unfair criticism would be saying something like, "Why are they releasing Judy Collins instead of the Eagles or Doobie Brothers?" because chances are they never could have secured the rights to titles by those artists anyway.
But releasing a title like "Fresh Aire 8" on Multichannel SACD then cutting corners by not including the Quad mix on BS&T Greatest Hits is a fair criticism IMHO, especially since it sounds like Sony would have willing licensed the Quad mix to them if they wanted it.

That's my opinion, and it won't change.
 
Sure, the sweet spot is great and all that. But, I am often moving around the room doing things while listening to music. I love how the whole room is filled with music with Quad or 5.1. I'll probably get clobbered for saying this here, but even ambient use of the rears channels (when done well) creates a wonderfully full sound that allows the music to rise up & fill the room naturally with gorgeous music. Who can sit still in such an environment! :banana:
 
JonUrban said:
I believe it's just a fair to be disappointed an AF release is not multichannel as it is to be disappointed an MFSL or AP release is not multichannel. However in the case of AF since they have put their money where their mouth is, they deserve the largest amount of slack.
Click to expand...

It's also worth mentioning that the extent of disappointment is also very dependent on the title in question.
In the case of BS&T Greatest Hits, over half of the tracks are already available in either 4.0 or 5.1 on Multichannel SACD, so there's that.
I think many of us would be even more disappointed if albums like "Native Sons" (from Loggins & Messina), "Spirit" (from Earth Wind & Fire), "Between Nothingness and Eternity" (from Mahavishnu Orchestra) and ESPECIALLY "Holiday" (from America) were released just as stereo SACDs, especially if the Quad tapes for any of these are there and in usable condition.
 
Lute said:
Sure, the sweet spot is great and all that. But, I am often moving around the room doing things while listening to music. I love how the whole room is filled with music with Quad or 5.1. I'll probably get clobbered for saying this here, but even ambient use of the rears channels (when done well) creates a wonderfully full sound that allows the music to rise up & fill the room naturally with gorgeous music. Who can sit still in such an environment! :banana:
Click to expand...

So in effect Brett, you're listening to 5 point MONO with a boom boom sub. Hey, it's nice to have a roomful of music whether it comes from in ceiling whole house speakers or even a boombox set to maximum volume.

Even when I watch my videos, I'm a stickler about having the center of my eye aligned with the center of the screen. Many because of room constraints place their TVs high above the fireplace which is a No No for me because it places the head at an unnatural angle.

For me, sitting in the sweet spot listening to surround (critical listening if you please) is that rare treat. And as Kap noted, even critical stereo listening requires that one sit in a sweet spot.

But in the end, it's whatever floats your boat.
 
Larry Geller said:
The desire for 45 mixes on the stereo is a red herring, anyway. There's no reason the stereo couldn't have been the 45s, while retaining the quad mix, as released, on the MC layer (they don't have to be the same times). And I love the Judy, weak as the quad mix may be, so lay off of it!
Click to expand...

Right on the mark concerning Judy Collins......Larry. She's as valid as any other artist out there. If we're to have diversity then Ms Collins certainly fits the bill. Similar grumblings have also been lodged against Laura Nyro, a spectacular artist, IMO.

Why this or why that? My advice....start your own reissue company and see how far you get in the current market mindset of tempermental artists, accountants, lawyers and DUMB record executives [M.B. of AF exempted, of course].
 
Last edited:
rtbluray said:
It's also worth mentioning that the extent of disappointment is also very dependent on the title in question.
In the case of BS&T Greatest Hits, over half of the tracks are already available in either 4.0 or 5.1 on Multichannel SACD, so there's that.
I think many of us would be even more disappointed if albums like "Native Sons" (from Loggins & Messina), "Spirit" (from Earth Wind & Fire), "Between Nothingness and Eternity" (from Mahavishnu Orchestra) and ESPECIALLY "Holiday" (from America) were released just as stereo SACDs, especially if the Quad tapes for any of these are there and in usable condition.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

steelydave
Arthur Stoppe on mixing the O'Jays, Spinners and Sigma Sound's quad output
Replies
12
Views
1K
staygroovy
staygroovy
ArmyOfQuad
Does anyone build quality atmos receivers?
4 5 6
Replies
117
Views
10K
MixerRog
MixerRog
5
The Spinners: 'Ain’t No Price On Happiness – The Thom Bell Studio Recordings' (7CD Box set-9/29/2023-Cherry Red UK)
Replies
11
Views
1K
steelydave
steelydave
reedfoot
Need Help or Recommendations for PC Audio Issues
Replies
7
Views
677
mandrix
mandrix
popshop
Ryan Ulyate on mixing Tom Petty's Greatest Hits in Atmos
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
popshop
popshop

Latest posts

Back
Top