Should Audio Fidelity Issue Multichannel BD Audio Discs?

[quicksrt]

I'm completely OK with a reissue on Blu-Ray audio of "Frantic", but it's not likely to happen over reissues of albums like "Avalon" or "Boys & Girls" since those are classics with a much greater sales potential.

And BTW (to whom it may concern), why was my original post moved from an "Avalon" thread into this one when my original post had absolutely NOTHING to do with Audio Fidelity?
I don't really get that aggravated when posts are moved around and reorganized on a whim, but moving that post into this particular thread made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Sometimes, threads and posts should be left as they are…

Maybe next year it will make more sense, I don't know.

 

[rtbluray]

Maybe next year it will make more sense, I don't know.

No, it won't make more sense next year, because not only are Audio Fidelity not likely to release Blu-Ray Audio discs at any point, but Universal (who now own Virgin Records, who own the Roxy Music & Bryan Ferry recordings) are not likely to ever license these albums to Audio Fidelity for a reissue on Multichannel SACD either, especially since that was the original format for these surround releases anyway.
My point still remains that my original post was better off in an "Avalon" thread than in this one, but hey, it's already done, so that's that...

 

[quicksrt]

No, it won't make more sense next year, because not only are Audio Fidelity not likely to release Blu-Ray Audio discs at any point, but Universal (who now own Virgin Records, who own the Roxy Music & Bryan Ferry recordings) are not likely to ever license these albums to Audio Fidelity for a reissue on Multichannel SACD either, especially since that was the original format for these surround releases anyway.
My point still remains that my original post was better off in an "Avalon" thread than in this one, but hey, it's already done, so that's that...

Internationally Virgin controlled the Roxy catalog, but in the US it was Atco and Warner Brothers. Unless the Warners deal expired, Avalon was certainly on Warners just for US.

But anyway, you sound really po'd. Maybe go out and get some fresh air and get away from all forums would be a good thing for a day or two or three. I do this now and again and feels great.

 

[rtbluray]

Internationally Virgin controlled the Roxy catalog, but in the US it was Atco and Warner Brothers. Unless the Warners deal expired, Avalon was certainly on Warners just for US.

But anyway, you sound really po'd. Maybe go out and get some fresh air and get away from all forums would be a good thing for a day or two or three. I do this now and again and feels great.

I think the Warners deal definitely expired, cause every time I pull up a Roxy Music album on Spotify, it shows copyright notices owned by Virgin Records (now under Universal)
And I'm not really po'd, just confused. I have seen plenty of posts from certain threads moved and consolidated into others for good reason, but I think in this instance, not so much. But hey, it's done, and I've already said what I wanted to say about it.

 

[cupboy]

Maybe someone should put up a poll asking if we want threads moved and consolidated. I'm not quite sure what the category would be.

 

[Simon A]

I for one was happy when AF chose to start releasing SACDs and eventually drop the Gold CDs. I'm ecstatic that they're releasing Nat King Cole's The Christmas Song on SACD. Should they ever decide to change format, I'll keep buying as long as the masterings are on par with their best releases and that they's keep offering Multichannel mixes.

 

[cupboy]

They still haven't dropped the Gold CDs for the titles that already came out. They are still having them made and restocking.

 

[bmoura]

They still haven't dropped the Gold CDs for the titles that already came out. They are still having them made and restocking.

Audio Fidelity tells me they stopped making Gold CDs "over 2 years ago". Any Audio Fidelity Gold CDs on the market are from earlier batches.

 

[Eclectic]

I will start buying if AF switches to a current, LPCM-based format such as Blu-ray or flac download. But given what bmoura has told us, I don't expect this to happen any time soon.

 

[bayards]

SACD is such a bad arse to rip to my PC - BD please!

 

[Jim the Oldbie]

SACD is such a bad arse to rip to my PC - BD please!

Yes! Let's face it, SACD is a proprietary, optical-disc-based software format that the collective hardware makers barely even acknowledge anymore. That ain't a recipe for longevity.

-- Jim

[EDIT] Sorry if this has already been discussed to death (I did poke around a bit), but are there perhaps additional licensing costs associated with releasing a title in Blu-Ray format that aren't encountered with SACD? That would have to be factored in...

 

[bmoura]

Sorry if this has already been discussed to death (I did poke around a bit), but are there perhaps additional licensing costs associated with releasing a title in Blu-Ray format that aren't encountered with SACD? That would have to be factored in...

That's my understanding. The licensing and authoring costs for Blu Ray - Audio and Video - are above those for SACD and CD.
Probably helps to explain why more record labels are issuing SACDs today than Blu Ray Audio discs.

 

[bmoura]

Yes! Let's face it, SACD is a proprietary, optical-disc-based software format

Actually all of the Optical Disc audio and video formats are proprietary and require licensing payments:

• Laserdisc (MCA & Pioneer)
• CD (Sony & Philips)
• SACD (Sony & Philips)
• DVD Video (Toshiba, Dolby, Sony, Philips, Pioneer, etc.)
• DVD Audio (Toshiba, Dolby, Meridian, Warner Music, Pioneer, etc.)
• Blu-Ray Video (Sony, Philips, Toshiba, Dolby, DTS, etc.)
• Blu-Ray Audio (Sony, Philips, Toshiba, Dolby, DTS, etc.)

 

[Jim the Oldbie]

Actually all of the Optical Disc audio and video formats are proprietary and require licensing payments:

Yes, I was in a hurry and typed "proprietary" when I should have typed "very difficult to back up." The hardware problem is still very much a thing.

-- Jim

 

[steelydave]

Steelydave, perhaps this may answer your question as to who remixed the Rhino DVD~Audio of Machine Head http://www.allmusic.com/album/release/machine-head-dvd-audio-mr0001397777/credits

Paul Klingberg.

The DVD~A also contains a bonus track: When a Blind Man Cries and two videos (480p) of Lazy and Highway Star.

I wasn't speaking of the DVD-A, which was a new 5.1 mix done specifically for that release in 2001, I was talking about the 1974 Warner Bros. quad mix. Unlike the majority of the Warner Bros. quad releases which usually carried the 'Re-mixed for QuadraDisc by' credit on the back cover, Machine Head has no such credit leaving the identity of the person responsible a mystery. I would assume it was someone like Lee Herschberg or Donn Landee or one of the other senior WB engineers, but there's no way to verify conclusively without interviewing some of those people.

Having said that, the 5.1 remix of Machine Head is also really good and the inclusion of the B-Side 'When A Blind Man Cries' makes it even more worth owning. The 2003 EMI SACD (which contains the EMI European quad mix) has 2 or 3 of the 5.1 remixes (including When A Blind Man Cries) tacked on at the end as bonus tracks.


Regarding your other point that AF should concentrate on unreleased quad mixes for future releases, I couldn't agree with you more in principle but they also occasionally have to go for the 'low hanging fruit' sales-wise and do some of these big name titles that have been reissued to death previously because they sell a lot of copies. Every big name title they do (even if they aren't necessarily as exciting to us) puts more money in their coffers and ensures that their reissue series continues. I think between Brian and Jon and all the people who've emailed Marshall/AF directly with their want-lists they have a very good idea of what people want - I doubt Marshall is sitting at the controls of his spaceship going 'well, I've had hundreds of requests for Santana and Edgar Winter and BOC and Aerosmith, but I'm going give 'em Mannheim Steamroller just to mess with their minds!'

If AF or other multichannel reissue labels haven't been able to get their hands on some of these bigger, more desirable artists it's not because they don't want to - you have to assume there's some kind of impediment to it happening, either legal, licensing, or just the major labels wanting to put it out themselves. Look at the Chicago Quadio box - Warners could have licensed those albums one at a time to AF or AP or MoFi but they chose to put them out as a box set themselves. If you look at it from their viewpoint, licensing makes sense for albums where selling a couple thousand is literally not worth their time. But for something bigger, why would you license an album to a smaller company that's going to sell 5,000 copies and split the profits with you when you can sell it on your own, sell way more than that, and pocket 100% of the profits? Personally I think that's why we haven't seen licensed reissues of Sony titles like Aerosmith, or the majority of the big WB artists (Doobies, Joni) and pretty much nothing from the UMG owned labels.

One thing about the majors though is that they love a proven formula, so if the Chicago Quadio box sells well don't be surprised to see WMG or the other labels doing similar sets for other artists.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I wasn't speaking of the DVD-A, which was a new 5.1 mix done specifically for that release in 2001, I was talking about the 1974 Warner Bros. quad mix. Unlike the majority of the Warner Bros. quad releases which usually carried the 'Re-mixed for QuadraDisc by' credit on the back cover, Machine Head has no such credit leaving the identity of the person responsible a mystery. I would assume it was someone like Lee Herschberg or Donn Landee or one of the other senior WB engineers, but there's no way to verify conclusively without interviewing some of those people.

Having said that, the 5.1 remix of Machine Head is also really good and the inclusion of the B-Side 'When A Blind Man Cries' makes it even more worth owning. The 2003 EMI SACD (which contains the EMI European quad mix) has 2 or 3 of the 5.1 remixes (including When A Blind Man Cries) tacked on at the end as bonus tracks.


Regarding your other point that AF should concentrate on unreleased quad mixes for future releases, I couldn't agree with you more in principle but they also occasionally have to go for the 'low hanging fruit' sales-wise and do some of these big name titles that have been reissued to death previously because they sell a lot of copies. Every big name title they do (even if they aren't necessarily as exciting to us) puts more money in their coffers and ensures that their reissue series continues. I think between Brian and Jon and all the people who've emailed Marshall/AF directly with their want-lists they have a very good idea of what people want - I doubt Marshall is sitting at the controls of his spaceship going 'well, I've had hundreds of requests for Santana and Edgar Winter and BOC and Aerosmith, but I'm going give 'em Mannheim Steamroller just to mess with their minds!'

If AF or other multichannel reissue labels haven't been able to get their hands on some of these bigger, more desirable artists it's not because they don't want to - you have to assume there's some kind of impediment to it happening, either legal, licensing, or just the major labels wanting to put it out themselves. Look at the Chicago Quadio box - Warners could have licensed those albums one at a time to AF or AP or MoFi but they chose to put them out as a box set themselves. If you look at it from their viewpoint, licensing makes sense for albums where selling a couple thousand is literally not worth their time. But for something bigger, why would you license an album to a smaller company that's going to sell 5,000 copies and split the profits with you when you can sell it on your own, sell way more than that, and pocket 100% of the profits? Personally I think that's why we haven't seen licensed reissues of Sony titles like Aerosmith, or the majority of the big WB artists (Doobies, Joni) and pretty much nothing from the UMG owned labels.

One thing about the majors though is that they love a proven formula, so if the Chicago Quadio box sells well don't be surprised to see WMG or the other labels doing similar sets for other artists.

I should think in order to attract newbies to the Surround arena, the reissue companies are going to have to dig deeper.

One of the pleasures of the early DVD~A releases were companies like DTS Entertainment who started with DTS RBCDs (and probably singlehandedly created THE movement) with some of their esoteric offerings across all genres. Artists we never would've heard of were suddenly remixed into spectacular 5.1 and like the hoarder I am, I fell for the bait and added them ALL to my collection.

AF is of course playing it VERY safe and every time a new release is announced I can hear groans across the board. Glad to see that Laura Nyro is FINALLY being released in QUAD as I always petitioned but really never expected to see that title reach fruition. Mannheim Steamroller, of whom I'm a fan, released what I consider one of their least interesting albums and ironically it's still available rather inexpensively on DVD~A. So they're 'tweaking' it but so what. Sonically, it's incredible, AS IS.

But I wholeheartedly agree that the Majors are holding out the BEST titles for their own release, either as stereo/mch downloads or pricey boxsets (which I generally abhor).

But, IMO, They ALL missed the boat by NOT taking FULL advantage of the BD~A format which could've been THE kingpin as far as I'm concerned. There are literally hundreds of 16/44.1 boxsets released every year and since most of the Majors HAVE upgraded their back catalogs to 96/24 (or higher and DSD), they could have crammed literally HUNDREDS of these boxsets onto a miniscule number of BD~As.

And with 4K.......imagine the real estate on a SINGLE UHD 4K Disc? Mind boggling. But guaranteed the Major record companies won't budge and take advantage of this newest format.

WAY too many missed opportunities and it is a little too late in the game to rectify what's already been done.

Is SACD necessarily the best format? For backward compatibility, YES but for ultimate storage and Sound Quality......HARDLY! MOST music has been recorded either analogue or PCM (VERY few DSD~recorded titles) and the DSD conversions of PCM material to SACD could've been avoided by transferring the music to BD~A [PCM>PCM] ....makes MORE sense to me.

 

[bmoura]

But, IMO, They ALL missed the boat by NOT taking FULL advantage of the BD~A format which could've been THE kingpin as far as I'm concerned.

The problem with that approach is you lose the listeners who want to buy the new transfers and remastered albums on Stereo CD. That is the lion's share of sales for Audio Fidelity, Mobile Fidelity, Analogue Productions, and all of the record labels. Even today.

Your main options to reach that audience are Stereo CDs and SACDs. Stereo CDs cost less to make and continue to sell, albeit at a lower rate each year.
SACDs bring you Stereo CD customers plus some additional sales from fans of Stereo SACDs while Multichannel SACDs bring you the base sales of Stereo CD + the add-on sales of Stereo SACD + the add-on sales of Multichannel SACD.

Other options would be the Deluxe Collections the major labels issue with CDs and other formats in the same box. But those don't pencil out for the reissue labels.
And I suppose there's always the Dual Disc, although it's out of spec CD Stereo tracks proved problematic when that format was active on the market.

When you look at it that way, or talk with the record company folks, their approach to the market does make a lot of sense.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The problem with that approach is you lose the listeners who want to buy the new transfers and remastered albums on Stereo CD. That is the lion's share of sales for Audio Fidelity, Mobile Fidelity, Analogue Productions, and all of the record labels. Even today.

Your main options to reach that audience are Stereo CDs and SACDs. Stereo CDs cost less to make and continue to sell, albeit at a lower rate each year.
SACDs bring you Stereo CD customers plus some additional sales from fans of Stereo SACDs while Multichannel SACDs bring you the base sales of Stereo CD + the add-on sales of Stereo SACD + the add-on sales of Multichannel SACD.

Other options would be the Deluxe Collections the major labels issue with CDs and other formats in the same box. But those don't pencil out for the reissue labels.
And I suppose there's always the Dual Disc, although it's out of spec CD Stereo tracks proved problematic when that format was active on the market.

When you look at it that way, or talk with the record company folks, their approach to the market does make a lot of sense.

Brian, I absolutely agree that the reissue companies are not wont to do box sets [or BD~A] because of excessive licensing fees, etc. and/or backward compatibility issues. I was referring to the majors who own the rights to the recordings and could easily transfer copious "single" cuts to BD~A from higher res masters. Instead of 20 Motown Number 1 hits...how about 100 on a single BD~A [as an example]. Of course they'd be stereo but anything at this juncture beats 16/44.1....don't you agree?

Rhino/Warner's Chicago Quadio BOXSET is a bold move and a step in that direction but will others follow even if the set sells well as I believe it will.........

 

[bmoura]

The majors are able to avoid the label guarantee payment - unless they factor it in on the books I suppose.
But they still have to pay royalties and guarantees to all of the artists on a number 1 collection.

So if this proposed collection has 100 songs, the majors would then owe guarantees for 100 songs (vs. say 10 or 12 songs on a typical album).
Not to mention the transfer and mastering expenses, etc.

In short, it could be done - but the cost would be higher than an album with 12 tracks.
Regardless of format.

 

[4-earredwonder]

It would be a Idea to put a list of all the
Titles that they may be able to release in
Multi Channel and get members to vote on them?

A splendid idea.....but they'd have to canvas votes from forums other than QQ, as well, to effect a more democratic approach.

And one wonders, do the owners of these reissue companies have their own bias when choosing a title which would supercede that democratic approach. I would think that would have more leverage in ultimately deciding what titles get released.

I know if I owned one of these companies I would certainly take that approach, HANDS DOWN!

And why newer and more mainstream artists don't take an interest in multichannel when recording their albums from scratch has always mystified me. Why THAT stigma?