Would you pay extra for an Audio Fidelity Surround SACD?

[edisonbaggins]

I'm in the same boat. And there were several AF titles I didn't bother with until I saw a significant price drop. (I didn't buy Nightbirds until I was able to score it for $8.50!)

Meanwhile, there were plenty of posts encouraging us all to hurry up and jump on certain titles before they go OOP and get super-expensive...

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Meanwhile, there were plenty of posts encouraging us all to hurry up and jump on certain titles before they go OOP and get super-expensive...

Well, as one who started buying SACDs 10 years ago, I bought them right when titles went OOP. It was Crazy to try and chase them like this, not That rich, but even with money many, many titles could stuill not be had. Take the The O'Jays "Ship Ahoy" Quad for instance, I waited a year for even one to show up and when they did was in the $50-$75 dollar range. Finally got lucky and picked it up in a lot of 6 titles for $45. But had to stay glued constantly to eBay and be ready to strike at right time and place.

I had the $1000 Aerosmith "Rocks" in hand that I found at Fry's electronics, but looked at the back and saw it was a "stereo only" title and put it back on the shelf. I had not owned a SACD at the time, but was getting clued in by the wealth of info and kindness of folks here. Peter Tosh's "Legalize It" was only $15 bucks there too.

So yes, these discs are like the stock market in a way, and original disks will always be worth something. I've noticed something strange about prices over the years: prices go down dirt cheap for some reason and may even be available for some time, but there is a big enough market that eventually collectors get around to filling holes in collections, especially when runs are only in, presumably, the few thousands.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

I voted YES. But, would prefer to pay in the $5-$10 dollar range increase at the most. Most folks have only so much money to spend. It's a heavy lift to try and buy All titles, whether loved or not - all at once. I would just hope that the small labels understand most folks will eventually buy most things surround, they just need the time to collect over time without prices running away.

 

[fredblue]

Good question Adam and I did answer yes - but.....

As I think back and look at the list of what AF has released so far, I wonder how many of those titles I would have purchased if they were > $30 instead of = $30.

There are clearly some must buys, but there are also some I would have skipped.

Thank you Jon, I appreciate your candid and considered response.

I have to say, if it were not for the fact that Audio Fidelity has already performed quite some feats, not least what I consider (no hyperbole) a few minor miracles with regards to the Quad & 5.1's they have got out the vaults thus far..

(I still chuckle that they pulled off the nigh-on unthinkable with the likes of the unreleased Supersession & Child Is Father To The Man 5.1's, the unreleased Billy Cobham Spectrum Quad, the unreleased Bob Dylan 5.1, Quads of things like Head To The Sky/Open Our Eyes and big hitters like Doors & Bread Quads, among others)

..and up until recently I saw Audio Fidelity as our best hope for getting some of the Quads out again, I probably would not be postulating such a thing..

..but we all know the wind has changed direction.. and now we're in a rather strange limbo type scenario = are Audio Fidelity ever to deliver the Quad goods again at their current price point?

Seeing as Audio Fidelity couldn't make the financials stack up at that RRP when including Quad/5.1.. it may behove them & us to institute a modest price increase in order to fund the extra overhead of including the Quads.

"Do you want the truth or something beautiful..?" :music

 

[fredblue]

Meanwhile, there were plenty of posts encouraging us all to hurry up and jump on certain titles before they go OOP and get super-expensive...

Its happened before with this hobby and it will happen again.. someday some of those AF Surround SACDs will be very pricey and sought after, imho..

Case in point: have you checked the prices of some of those (mostly shitty and pointless, from dubious - at best - sources and masterings, imho) Universal HFPA Blu-rays lately, now they've gone out of print..?

Quite extraordinary..

 

[fredblue]

I'm in the same boat. And there were several AF titles I didn't bother with until I saw a significant price drop. (I didn't buy Nightbirds until I was able to score it for $8.50!)

(Saying this sincerely and modestly) some of us had been waiting (and hoping) for that Labelle Nightbirds Surround SACD from the Quad for years
(it was a cancelled Sony Single Layer SACD "back in the day") and even though I was late to SACD, I discovered as much a number of years ago and was gutted at learning of yet another surround release "missed opportunity"...

..I would have been prepared to pay well over the odds for an SACD/DVD-A?BD-A reissue to finally hear the Labelle "Nightbirds" Quad in master tape discrete 4-channel quality, at last.. just as I am prepared to do likewise with the upcoming Sony Japan MultiCh SACD of Jeff Beck's "Wired" from the Quad.

Am I being totally rinsed for the "privilege" of hearing the "Wired" Quad from the 4-channel master tapes..? Yes.

Is it worth the high price tag to me? Absolutely.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Methinks that no coaxing [OR price increases] will alter Audio Fidelity's current position of increasing their future output of Quad/5.1 releases.

Perhaps we should direct our energies to Rhino/Warner [or other Majors] who not only own the goods and thus don't have to wrangle with expensive licensing fees.

SONY Japan is another candidate we should be turning our attention to. But hopefully, NOT at the $50 price point they've premium priced their Jeff Beck 5.1 remasters at.

At this juncture in time, I'm sure ALL the majors (and minors) are aware of a renewed interest in surround music but logically will only take chances with a major title. AF's hit and misses certainly resonate with me and even though I purchased almost every surround title they released (except the ones I had on DVD~A) from reading all the pertinent posts, I AM in the minority. I don't regret any of my purchases and of course had hoped for many more, but being the realist I am and the fact that the numbers DON'T LIE, the number of YES votes would have to exceed 10K for the poll on this thread to have any merit.

 

[fredblue]

Methinks that no coaxing [OR price increases] will change Audio Fidelity's current position of increasing their future output of Quad/5.1 releases.

Perhaps we should direct our energies to Rhino/Warner [or other Majors] who not only own the goods and thus don't have to wrangle with expensive licensing fees.

SONY Japan is another candidate we should be turning our attention to. But hopefully, NOT at the $50 price point they've premium priced their Jeff Beck 5.1 remasters at.

Well then this Poll is a waste of kilobytes and chit chat.. Axe it forthwith, if that's how you feel..

HOWEVER, the fact that Audio Fidelity tried so hard to find 4-channel Quad master tapes for their upcoming Santana Lotus SACD release (even if that search was unsuccessful) means that I for one have not written off Audio Fidelity in this regard.. to me they are still a potent and potential ally in our battle to get more 5.1 and Quad releases.

Maybe they just need to up the ante a little.. maybe a few quid more per disc could cover it, maybe not.. but lets have a debate and explore all angles rather than shut it down, please?

 

[4-earredwonder]

Well then this Poll is a waste of kilobytes and chit chat.. Axe it forthwith, if that's how you feel..

HOWEVER, the fact that Audio Fidelity tried so hard to find 4-channel Quad master tapes for their upcoming Santana Lotus SACD release (even if that search was unsuccessful) means that I for one have not written off Audio Fidelity in this regard.. to me they are still a potent and potential ally in our battle to get more 5.1 and Quad releases.

Maybe they just need to up the ante a little.. maybe a few quid more per disc could cover it, maybe not.. but lets have a debate and explore all angles rather than shut it down, please?

Actually, exactly the opposite Adam. Polling QQ posters, it was interesting to hear firsthand how individuals would feel about paying more for surround releases. I voted a resounding YES [NOT maybe] but that's ME and I can't speak for anyone else. The fact that living in the US where these discs are made, I do buy them VERY cheaply but I do feel for other QQ posters who pay upwards of $47 for a single AF disc (stereo or multichannel). And yes I did pre~order the Jeff Beck WIRED from CDJapan for $55 (incl. p/h)....but that's me (and obviously YOU, again).

And yes, Marshall CEO of AF does LOVE multichannel but his hands are tied, as well, as he has a board of directors to satisfy and when the numbers don't crunch....well, we all know the sad reality of that situation.

And don't forget Adam, Universal and Warners also have a huge QUAD inventory in their vaults and lately, AF has ONLY been releasing SONY [and almost NO RCA content] in QUAD so in reality, there IS a lot more territory to cover if this SURROUND 'crusade' is to be at all effective.

AM I WRONG?

 

[JonUrban]

The key to more surround is not labels like AF, MFSL, and AS. These people not only have to pay to have the discs mastered and created, they have to pay the licensing fees to the mother labels and guarantee a fixed amount of profit to those labels before they can even begin their project.

The real key is to look at the Chicago Quadio and Sony Japanese Quad SACD revivals (Becks, BB&A, etc). The big guys don't have to license the titles and they don't have to guarantee a fixed amount of sales to anyone but themselves.

Can you imagine, just think, how much something like the Quadio Box would have cost if it came from Audio Fidelity!! It would have to be over $300 at least. If AS charged $300+ for the 6 Doors SACDs w/Surround Mixes, the 9 Chicago's would have probably had to sell for $450 or so list. YIKES!!

Sony, UMe and WB/Rhino can do BluRay surround and get it out there will far less stress and headaches than someone like Marshall can. The problem is that while we can email or call someone like Marshall, good luck getting in touch with someone at Sony, UMe, or WB/Rhino to talk surround. If the surround fan base is a small portion of Audio Fidelity's market, we're a pinprick on an continent to the big guys.

Say what you will about AF, they tried and they will still provide, but for the real mother load, we need to rely on the big guys, and that's not easy.

 

[rtbluray]

The key to more surround is not labels like AF, MFSL, and AS. These people not only have to pay to have the discs mastered and created, they have to pay the licensing fees to the mother labels and guarantee a fixed amount of profit to those labels before they can even begin their project.

The real key is to look at the Chicago Quadio and Sony Japanese Quad SACD revivals (Becks, BB&A, etc). The big guys don't have to license the titles and they don't have to guarantee a fixed amount of sales to anyone but themselves.

Can you imagine, just think, how much something like the Quadio Box would have cost if it came from Audio Fidelity!! It would have to be over $300 at least. If AS charged $300+ for the 6 Doors SACDs w/Surround Mixes, the 9 Chicago's would have probably had to sell for $450 or so list. YIKES!!

Sony, UMe and WB/Rhino can do BluRay surround and get it out there will far less stress and headaches than someone like Marshall can. The problem is that while we can email or call someone like Marshall, good luck getting in touch with someone at Sony, UMe, or WB/Rhino to talk surround. If the surround fan base is a small portion of Audio Fidelity's market, we're a pinprick on an continent to the big guys.

Say what you will about AF, they tried and they will still provide, but for the real mother load, we need to rely on the big guys, and that's not easy.

Excellent point, Jon, but there's something else that we're missing in this discussion, and that is the fact that we also have had many instances where there was a big push from the artist (or key members of the group) to get some surround sound releases out there.
When we have an artist that is passionate about surround sound (King Crimson, Jethro Tull, XTC, Yes, Genesis, Talking Heads, Depeche Mode, etc.) things get done!
That is the most symbiotic relationship that produces the best results, the artist (or key members) working closely with the label on these releases, and that is a big part of what is missing from Audio Fidelity's releases.
Sure the artist might give the go-ahead for these releases, but there's not the same kind of passion and involvement in these releases on the artist's end as I have seen on many of the best releases featuring remixes from Steven Wilson. Just imagine how much better some of these AF releases might sell if AF partnered with the artists for advertising on the artist's website, email newsletter, and other social media pages. I would bet that a big chunk of these artists' fanbases do not even know about AF's releases, but I guess it's a little too late for all of that now.

Like Jon, I also agree that the ball once again firmly resides in the possession of the major labels, and if they don't make more moves towards surround sound releases, our hobby could be on the decline once again, but at least it's not in decline now!

 

[Lute]

And if all else fails, there's always the old fashioned way...

beg, plead and grovel on hands and knees. :worthy :worthy :worthy :worthy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7nFfgtOek

 

[JonUrban]

Excellent point, Jon, but there's something else that we're missing in this discussion, and that is the fact that we also have had many instances where there was a big push from the artist (or key members of the group) to get some surround sound releases out there.
When we have an artist that is passionate about surround sound (King Crimson, Jethro Tull, XTC, Yes, Genesis, Talking Heads, Depeche Mode, etc.) things get done!
That is the most symbiotic relationship that produces the best results, the artist (or key members) working closely with the label on these releases, and that is a big part of what is missing from Audio Fidelity's releases.
Sure the artist might give the go-ahead for these releases, but there's not the same kind of passion and involvement in these releases on the artist's end as I have seen on many of the best releases featuring remixes from Steven Wilson. Just imagine how much better some of these AF releases might sell if AF partnered with the artists for advertising on the artist's website, email newsletter, and other social media pages. I would bet that a big chunk of these artists' fanbases do not even know about AF's releases, but I guess it's a little too late for all of that now.

Like Jon, I also agree that the ball once again firmly resides in the possession of the major labels, and if they don't make more moves towards surround sound releases, our hobby could be on the decline once again, but at least it's not in decline now!

I was thinking more along the lines of '70s quad reissues. The newer stuff like Steven Wilson's great work is of course mostly artist driven and label supported. Labels like MFSL, AS and AF would rarely be involved in a "new" mix without some direct connection like the Elliot Scheiner Christmas deal

 

[rtbluray]

I was thinking more along the lines of '70s quad reissues. The newer stuff like Steven Wilson's great work is of course mostly artist driven and label supported. Labels like MFSL, AS and AF would rarely be involved in a "new" mix without some direct connection like the Elliot Scheiner Christmas deal

Oh yes, of course! I thought you were speaking more about surround sound releases in broader terms, but artists can still be heavily involved in getting those old 70s quadraphonic mixes back out there too!
We saw this about 10 years ago when the Moody Blues SACDs were released, we have seen it with the Pink Floyd box sets (including the upcoming 'Early Years' set), and I know at least one member of Chicago (and maybe more) was involved in QC on the recent Quadio box set.
The quadraphonic mixes (some unreleased) have even made their way onto all of the (relevant) Jethro Tull releases, so it's still a very valid point that artist involvement can be very productive in getting surround mixes out there for us, both old and new!

 

[4-earredwonder]

And if all else fails, there's always the old fashioned way...

beg, plead and grovel on hands and knees. :worthy :worthy :worthy :worthy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7nFfgtOek

So is that a YES or NO vote, Brett?

And a Danny Osmond, fanboy..........heh?

Actually, he's really good.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The key to more surround is not labels like AF, MFSL, and AS. These people not only have to pay to have the discs mastered and created, they have to pay the licensing fees to the mother labels and guarantee a fixed amount of profit to those labels before they can even begin their project.

The real key is to look at the Chicago Quadio and Sony Japanese Quad SACD revivals (Becks, BB&A, etc). The big guys don't have to license the titles and they don't have to guarantee a fixed amount of sales to anyone but themselves.

Can you imagine, just think, how much something like the Quadio Box would have cost if it came from Audio Fidelity!! It would have to be over $300 at least. If AS charged $300+ for the 6 Doors SACDs w/Surround Mixes, the 9 Chicago's would have probably had to sell for $450 or so list. YIKES!!

Sony, UMe and WB/Rhino can do BluRay surround and get it out there will far less stress and headaches than someone like Marshall can. The problem is that while we can email or call someone like Marshall, good luck getting in touch with someone at Sony, UMe, or WB/Rhino to talk surround. If the surround fan base is a small portion of Audio Fidelity's market, we're a pinprick on an continent to the big guys.

Say what you will about AF, they tried and they will still provide, but for the real mother load, we need to rely on the big guys, and that's not easy.

Regarding e~mails to Rhino: I have sent them several over the years and they do reply promptly....problem, is they say they will forward the e~mail to "Dr. Rhino" who is probably so busy with his special patients (read: stereo fanboys) that he has no time to get back to his minority ones [read: Quad fanatics].

So much for specialized medicine!

 

[Fourplay]

Well the short answer is nope. I'd categorize my purchasing as:

$0.00-$25.00 = I'll experiment in this price range. If I think I might like it or even just one track I'll take the plunge.

$25.00-$35.00 = Gotta know that I like several tracks on the release.

$35.00 and up = This is my really want, gotta have, no-brainer price range.

I like the way PK laid this out. There is a way in which this has already been answered by current market activity. At the nominal SACD price point of $30 I have pretty much purchased every quad AF SACD offered. I passed on New Your Voices because I am not a fan of Christmas music - it tends to get overplayed in the season, and I don't need it off season. Everything else I have supported as a way to "vote with my wallet."

But I have passed on Beck Bogert Appice from Japan, (although I will bite on Wired). So at the higher price points I become more picky. Passed on Tusk, but bought Tull Aqualung and Quadrophenia twice each. So at higher price points it becomes very title specific.

I bet you could chart sales volume against retail price and make up a lovely declining graph. The question would be - which is more profitable: smaller quantities at higher price points or higher unit sales at lower price points? Because sales are often title driven, it might be hard to even make the comparison.

This brings up another point: does ANYONE around here have sales data on surround discs? I should think we could poll Djabe and some of the others to determine how many surround specific units they have shifted, and maybe even in comparison to their stereo versions.

I am torn about voting. I WANT to vote YES to encourage surround releases, but maybe I SHOULD vote NO if I would not buy a more expensive title that does not interest me, but which I would have bought at the lower price point. I am still mulling.

 

[Lute]

So is that a YES or NO vote, Brett?

And a Danny Osmond, fanboy..........

Actually, he's really good.

"Yes. A thousand times...YES!"

Lord knows we've given mountains of cash to these companies over the years. @: @: @:

Donny is looking good there, isn't he.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I like the way PK laid this out. There is a way in which this has already been answered by current market activity. At the nominal SACD price point of $30 I have pretty much purchased every quad AF SACD offered. I passed on New Your Voices because I am not a fan of Christmas music - it tends to get overplayed in the season, and I don't need it off season. Everything else I have supported as a way to "vote with my wallet."

But I have passed on Beck Bogert Appice from Japan, (although I will bite on Wired). So at the higher price points I become more picky. Passed on Tusk, but bought Tull Aqualung and Quadrophenia twice each. So at higher price points it becomes very title specific.

I bet you could chart sales volume against retail price and make up a lovely declining graph. The question would be - which is more profitable: smaller quantities at higher price points or higher unit sales at lower price points? Because sales are often title driven, it might be hard to even make the comparison.

This brings up another point: does ANYONE around here have sales data on surround discs? I should think we could poll Djabe and some of the others to determine how many surround specific units they have shifted, and maybe even in comparison to their stereo versions.

I am torn about voting. I WANT to vote YES to encourage surround releases, but maybe I SHOULD vote NO if I would not buy a more expensive title that does not interest me, but which I would have bought at the lower price point. I am still mulling.

In general, we have ALWAYS paid more for hi res music in comparison to RBCDs. SACDs, DTS RBCDs and DVD~As have always been generally priced higher.

Lately, though, smaller speciality labels like Bandcamp, K~scope, et alia have offered us some astonishing Surround Music deals for $10~$15 and have hardly scrimped on quality.

I really think the consensus is that if the majors were to re~enter the QUAD/5.1 arena as recently displayed by Rhino's Quadio Boxset, the tides would change and render surround music once again MORE affordable and thusly make it attractive to a newer generation who perhaps cannot afford the $30~50 list prices currently associated with hi res music.

I have noticed in the last few months that the few and far between newer BD~A releases carry a $19.95 list price which used to be higher ($29.95) and it does cost more to author and press a BD~A than an SACD or DVD~A.

But my reigning champ of a bargain this month is Nosound's Scintilla: A deluxe BD~A/V/RBCD and a very attractive hardcover booklet enclosure for under $11. HOW DID they do it?

 

[MIDIQ]

I would pay more if quad mix was included, within reason. I would not mind 35.00 much at all, above that it wouldd depend on the album. I paid over 100.00, as we most all did, for the Pink Floyd quad mixes. But i knew wxactly what i was getting, having the Q8s. It was really more than i wanted to pay, but dark side of the moon was my favorite album, and favorite quad mix, and having gone that far i thought i might as well get wish you were here, also a great quad mix. But the Jethro Tull Aqualung i didn't get at the high price, fortunately they released it at a cheaper price, took a while, but now i can enjoy it. The Fleetwood Mac sets i would love to have but are too high priced for me to afford. Maybe someday they will release them in a cheaper set without the lps, i can hope .