Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here Surround Sound SACD

I know this is the Quadraphonic Quad forum but I find any decent 5.1 superior to quad.

milt said:

I know this is the Quadraphonic Quad forum but I find any decent 5.1 superior to quad.

Click to expand...

More speaker channels is always better of course. Goes without saying...

But 5.1 is just quad at its core with an extra front solo channel and extra silly bass fx channel thrown in.

At the end of the day it still has a lot more to do with the quality of the mix.
A full fidelity mono mix can be more immersive than a poor 5.1 mix at one extreme.

These Pink Floyd quad mixes are a bit special. Not only some of the earliest surround sound mixes, they're done to a very high level of finesse and at audiophile fidelity. Remixing revered groundbreaking mixes such as these is akin to redoing the Sistine Chapel painting. The critical reviews on these come more from expectations already set in stone from the originals and the inevitable "Why remix those?!" questions that come with the territory. The 5.1 remixes are actually more well done than most releases too. It's just that you can't really compete with the weight of the originals in a case like this.

jimfisheye said:

At the end of the day it still has a lot more to do with the quality of the mix.

Click to expand...

I am in total agreement with this. For me, the 4.0 Floyd albums offer a more discrete and imaginative mix. The 5.1's offer slightly better fidelity and better dynamics. I wish we could have gotten the benefits of both, but we didn't. We do however, get the choice.

I liked both the quad and the 5.1 of Wish You Were Here, but I was a little disappointed by both the quad and 5.1 mixes of Dark Side of The Moon...

Mike the Fish said:

I liked both the quad and the 5.1 of Wish You Were Here, but I was a little disappointed by both the quad and 5.1 mixes of Dark Side of The Moon...

Click to expand...

DSOTM you must remember was a very long time ago. The best tape equipment then, does not come close to the equipment WYWH was done with. I think both are terrific

leevitalone1 said:

DSOTM you must remember was a very long time ago. The best tape equipment then, does not come close to the equipment WYWH was done with. I think both are terrific

Click to expand...

There's only two years maximum between the two quad mixes isn't there??

Mike the Fish said:

There's only two years maximum between the two quad mixes isn't there??

Click to expand...

The Tech had improved in that time, although it was a tape master, the recording equipment was so much better. The difference is in the sound. BTW both were done at Abby Rd studio's, because of the commercial success of DSOTM, more money was invested, (usual shit) But WYWH almost was a failure because not enough albums were printed to keep up with demand, and it did get mixed reviews at first

leevitalone1 said:

The Tech had improved in that time, although it was a tape master, the recording equipment was so much better. The difference is in the sound. BTW both were done at Abby Rd studio's, because of the commercial success of DSOTM, more money was invested, (usual shit) But WYWH almost was a failure because not enough albums were printed to keep up with demand, and it did get mixed reviews at first

Click to expand...

I think we're discussing different things. I've got no big problem with the sound quality of the mixes, it's the mix style/balance of the quads and 5.1 Dark Side mixes that I was less impressed with compared to both for WYWH.

Mike the Fish said:

I think we're discussing different things. I've got no big problem with the sound quality of the mixes, it's the mix style/balance of the quads and 5.1 Dark Side mixes that I was less impressed with compared to both for WYWH.

Click to expand...

oh shit! sorry it's 4-20 don't ya know?

Nobody has answered my Q

Why don't they just cut some more SACD disks?

Or is there anywhere I can buy the tracks downloaded for the original $35 price or whatever it was..

This is BS.. It's just pure and un-adultered gouging..Pure and simple. The cut is only what 12 months old?? Just total BS...

Whats in it for Acoustic Sounds if they run out of production so quick and don't cut some more?

I can't answer for Acoustic Sounds, but it was released in 2011, not last year. Why not hunt down an Immersion set, probably cheaper than the SACD at this point.

John Svensson said:

I can't answer for Acoustic Sounds, but it was released in 2011, not last year. Why not hunt down an Immersion set, probably cheaper than the SACD at this point.

Click to expand...

OK, I need to say something that is slightly off topic here....OK, totally off topic. But, reading these last few pages has made it alarmingly clear that I need to start buying those Pink Floyd mini boxes out now. You know the $40 dollar ones....I've not bought a single one...will I regret it a year from now? Uhm, I think so.

Off to Amazon to buy 2 of them now! Hee!!

There's two parts to the equation. #1 - Usually the specialty labels only get the rights to a title for a certain period of time, so Acoustic Sounds may not be able to do another batch without a very expensive licensing fee. #2 - Labels need to know they are going to make money on a project & surround is not a given. We are a niche group. I don't know specifics about the sale numbers on surround releases, but they aren't huge. That's why the surround mix is often thrown into the box set world, so that they can offer a product that will appeal to several niche groups to boost sales. The casual Fleetwood Mac fan just isn't interested in dropping $100 on a Tusk box set. However, include vinyl to appeal to the vinyl freaks, a live show to appeal to the live freaks, rare and unreleased tracks to appeal to the hardcore Fleetwood Mac freaks, and surround to appeal to the freaks here, and at least you've got multiple groups of people who may buy a release.

At any rate, like the rest of us, you need to decide how important a given title is and figure out your price point on it. I would really like to get Avalon, but haven't seen it at a price that made me pull the trigger yet.

John Svensson said:

I can't answer for Acoustic Sounds, but it was released in 2011, not last year.

Click to expand...

That's probably the answer.

Reissues are licensed from the record label and artist for a limited term, typically 3 to 5 years, in exchange for a sizable guaranteed payment plus the purchase of the finished discs from the licensing record label.

Wish You Were Here shows as a January 2012 release on Amazon.
Which means it's outside both a 3 year and a 5 year reissue licensing agreement.

wappinghigh said:

Nobody has answered my Q

Why don't they just cut some more SACD disks?

Or is there anywhere I can buy the tracks downloaded for the original $35 price or whatever it was..

This is BS.. It's just pure and un-adultered gouging..Pure and simple. The cut is only what 12 months old?? Just total BS...

Whats in it for Acoustic Sounds if they run out of production so quick and don't cut some more?

Click to expand...

Don't be such a drama queen. "Gouging" refers to essentials ... raising the price of food and water in a disaster, for example. We are talking about music here, not Insulin! Cry and whine all you want, but you are never going to buy one for thirty-five bucks. That might sound cruel to you, but you don't NEED it to survive.

wappinghigh said:

Nobody has answered my Q

Why don't they just cut some more SACD disks?

Or is there anywhere I can buy the tracks downloaded for the original $35 price or whatever it was..

This is BS.. It's just pure and un-adultered gouging..Pure and simple. The cut is only what 12 months old?? Just total BS...

Whats in it for Acoustic Sounds if they run out of production so quick and don't cut some more?

Click to expand...

The moral of this story is to get the products you want when (or soon after) they are released. The 5.1 WYWH became available over 5 years ago. These are not your typical CD's where once they go out of print the record company just presses more. They are limited runs. Have you tried buying OOP Mobile Fidelity products? Have you seen those prices?

No one is gouging anyone. These are collectors items, not bottled water or gasoline. The record producers have no more stock, and they aren't going to press any more (even if their license allows them to) because the demand is simply not there. Its the same with any OOP SACD or DVDA or even SQLP. The only availability is on the used market, and the pricing is what the market will bear. I understand your outrage on the matter, but all the ranting and carrying on isn't going to help.

I often find the knowledge that I'm listening to something that many others are deprived from enjoying due to the industry's business model of ensuring there is limited supply to drive up costs and demand really brings out the detail and beauty of the mix...

I totally get wappinghigh's anger over this. I get the backlash that has come as well, yes this is a number of years old, and the 3rd party labels only license it for a limited time....but the whole business model sucks! The industry constantly takes advantage of us. Including desirable mixes only in deluxe premium priced boxes, only having limited supplies for limited time periods, keeping desirable titles out of print....personally, I'm sick and tired of the excuses. As surround lovers, we deal with nothing but pure grade A bullshit day after day. Expecting us to just accept that these are the costs, and we have to buy things immediately at a premium price, and just be glad to have anything at all, really gets old. Especially when I can walk into any store, and be surrounded by numerous movie dvds that all contain 5.1 as a STANDARD! On EVERY DAMN DISC! Don't tell me it's not possible, there's a whole other industry that has proven it to be very possible.

We're the customers....shouldn't the industry have to play by our rules, and not the other way around? It should be simple....it's no secret we are here. A group of people that come to this place, day in and day out, talking about our desire to own high quality copies of out of print materials. Just fucking reach out to us, print up some copies, and sell them directly to us for a reasonable price! I'm sick and tired of this same song and dance. New format (no one bought the old format that we barely promoted and barely put any titles out on, so we can't use that technology that you all already bought players for), new player that everyone must go out and buy, promise of more titles, print up a few discs, no promotion, barely any sales, blame the customers, and then tell us we're wrong when we point out who's really to blame for this bullshit. Then watch the prices skyrocket in the used market as the limited titles that "no one wanted" become collectible.

Yes, perhaps calling it gouging is a little over the top, but I have no love for the industry, and anyone and everyone that's involved with it, that continue to screw us over every chance they get. It gets old.....

ArmyOfQuad said:

Yes, perhaps calling it gouging is a little over the top, but I have no love for the industry, and anyone and everyone that's involved with it, that continue to screw us over every chance they get. It gets old.....

Click to expand...

I totally agree with your comments about the music industry, and I have no love for them either ... however his "gouging" accusation was targeted at collectors who had the good sense to order an extra copy or two in anticipation if the title's appreciating value. Nobody is forcing him to buy, and he does not NEED this SACD. He IS being a drama queen.

ArmyOfQuad said:

I often find the knowledge that I'm listening to something that many others are deprived from enjoying due to the industry's business model of ensuring there is limited supply to drive up costs and demand really brings out the detail and beauty of the mix...

Click to expand...

Record companies do not limit supply to drive up costs and demand. It does not work that way. They press as many as they think they can sell. There is no gouging or collusion on their part. They are in business to make money and it would be stupid of them to limit supply when the demand is there.

seilerbird said:

Record companies do not limit supply to drive up costs and demand. It does not work that way. They press as many as they think they can sell. There is no gouging or collusion on their part. They are in business to make money and it would be stupid of them to limit supply when the demand is there.

Click to expand...

That is true, and specialty labels are usually licensed to release a limited number of each title, and often for a limited time. This can raise the selling price substantially, since companies must reach their break-even and profit points with fewer unit sales. That is why some titles are $30 or $40 versus $10 or $15 for Redbook CDs of the same titles.