Bob James - ONE 5.1 SACD [Not Surround]

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

DuncanS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
6,223
Location
UK
You can still print label for use at post office just select ‘other’ option on Amazon returns and this will be an option for you.
I went to the PO and said can you? and they could, they had a label printer by the counter, wasn't there a while ago so must be new. Their carrier pigeon is now unemployed.... or eaten!
 

steelydave

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Apr 21, 2002
Messages
2,464
Location
Toronto, ON
Bob James owns the rights to all his albums, including the first four, which CTI had to forfeit the rights to, after James sued them for failing to pay royalties in a timely manner. I found a news article in Billboard about it from (I think) 1978 when I was trying to put together a timeline for CTI's collapse for my liner notes in the Deodato two-fer. It's kind of darkly hilarious that given how influential those early albums have been (not to mention being evergreen back-catalog sellers) that CTI lost ownership over them after quibbling about a petty sum amounting to barely $2700.

"NEW YORK - CTI Records has apparently forfeited its ownership of four Bob James masters through a combination of events that ended with a federal judge deciding CTI had breached its contract with James and must deliver the masters and all out-takes to him "forthwith."

Judge John J. Galgay, who also is handling the reorganization of CTI under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, dismissed CTI's contention that it withheld James royalties because CBS Records, which distributes James' Tappan Zee label, had itself withheld monies due CTI on James' "Head" LP because CTI owed CBS' pressing division money.

Galgay ruled that James' 1977 contract with CTI governing ownership of the disputed masters provides that "any failure or refusal" to pay James' royalties within the time specified in the contract "automatically triggers the default provisions."

The dispute began prior to CTI's bankruptcy filing Dec. 8. 1978, when CTI's Jack Hauptman, on Aug. 29, 1978, asked for an accounting of royalties on the "Heads" LP, which CTI was entitled to under the 1977 agreement.

The next day, however, Hauptman followed with a letter saying that although James himself was due $2,732.51 on Sept. 1. no payment was being sent because CBS was refusing to pay "Heads" royalties due to a prior debt CTI owed to Columbia Record productions for pressing CTI product.

"Thus," says Judge Galgay, "according to the terms of the contract, CTI was in default," despite the fact CTI forwarded a check for James' royalties on Sept. 11 in an apparent change of heart that came too late.

CTI says it will appeal Galgay's decision.

Under the terms of the 1977 agreement, however, James must still pay $25,000 in order to get his masters back, the judge adds.

James is also entitled, the court says, to buy back whatever inventory remains in CTI's possession.

The Masters involved are for four LPs entitled "Bob James I" through "Bob James IV"."
 

J. PUPSTER

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
8,669
Location
CALIFORNIA (CENTRAL)
Bob James owns the rights to all his albums, including the first four, which CTI had to forfeit the rights to, after James sued them for failing to pay royalties in a timely manner. I found a news article in Billboard about it from (I think) 1978 when I was trying to put together a timeline for CTI's collapse for my liner notes in the Deodato two-fer. It's kind of darkly hilarious that given how influential those early albums have been (not to mention being evergreen back-catalog sellers) that CTI lost ownership over them after quibbling about a petty sum amounting to barely $2700.

"NEW YORK - CTI Records has apparently forfeited its ownership of four Bob James masters through a combination of events that ended with a federal judge deciding CTI had breached its contract with James and must deliver the masters and all out-takes to him "forthwith."

Judge John J. Galgay, who also is handling the reorganization of CTI under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, dismissed CTI's contention that it withheld James royalties because CBS Records, which distributes James' Tappan Zee label, had itself withheld monies due CTI on James' "Head" LP because CTI owed CBS' pressing division money.

Galgay ruled that James' 1977 contract with CTI governing ownership of the disputed masters provides that "any failure or refusal" to pay James' royalties within the time specified in the contract "automatically triggers the default provisions."

The dispute began prior to CTI's bankruptcy filing Dec. 8. 1978, when CTI's Jack Hauptman, on Aug. 29, 1978, asked for an accounting of royalties on the "Heads" LP, which CTI was entitled to under the 1977 agreement.

The next day, however, Hauptman followed with a letter saying that although James himself was due $2,732.51 on Sept. 1. no payment was being sent because CBS was refusing to pay "Heads" royalties due to a prior debt CTI owed to Columbia Record productions for pressing CTI product.

"Thus," says Judge Galgay, "according to the terms of the contract, CTI was in default," despite the fact CTI forwarded a check for James' royalties on Sept. 11 in an apparent change of heart that came too late.

CTI says it will appeal Galgay's decision.

Under the terms of the 1977 agreement, however, James must still pay $25,000 in order to get his masters back, the judge adds.

James is also entitled, the court says, to buy back whatever inventory remains in CTI's possession.

The Masters involved are for four LPs entitled "Bob James I" through "Bob James IV"."
what a FU mess ☹
 

4-earredwonder

QQ Lifetime Supporter
QQ Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
17,297
Bob James owns the rights to all his albums, including the first four, which CTI had to forfeit the rights to, after James sued them for failing to pay royalties in a timely manner. I found a news article in Billboard about it from (I think) 1978 when I was trying to put together a timeline for CTI's collapse for my liner notes in the Deodato two-fer. It's kind of darkly hilarious that given how influential those early albums have been (not to mention being evergreen back-catalog sellers) that CTI lost ownership over them after quibbling about a petty sum amounting to barely $2700.

"NEW YORK - CTI Records has apparently forfeited its ownership of four Bob James masters through a combination of events that ended with a federal judge deciding CTI had breached its contract with James and must deliver the masters and all out-takes to him "forthwith."

Judge John J. Galgay, who also is handling the reorganization of CTI under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, dismissed CTI's contention that it withheld James royalties because CBS Records, which distributes James' Tappan Zee label, had itself withheld monies due CTI on James' "Head" LP because CTI owed CBS' pressing division money.

Galgay ruled that James' 1977 contract with CTI governing ownership of the disputed masters provides that "any failure or refusal" to pay James' royalties within the time specified in the contract "automatically triggers the default provisions."

The dispute began prior to CTI's bankruptcy filing Dec. 8. 1978, when CTI's Jack Hauptman, on Aug. 29, 1978, asked for an accounting of royalties on the "Heads" LP, which CTI was entitled to under the 1977 agreement.

The next day, however, Hauptman followed with a letter saying that although James himself was due $2,732.51 on Sept. 1. no payment was being sent because CBS was refusing to pay "Heads" royalties due to a prior debt CTI owed to Columbia Record productions for pressing CTI product.

"Thus," says Judge Galgay, "according to the terms of the contract, CTI was in default," despite the fact CTI forwarded a check for James' royalties on Sept. 11 in an apparent change of heart that came too late.

CTI says it will appeal Galgay's decision.

Under the terms of the 1977 agreement, however, James must still pay $25,000 in order to get his masters back, the judge adds.

James is also entitled, the court says, to buy back whatever inventory remains in CTI's possession.

The Masters involved are for four LPs entitled "Bob James I" through "Bob James IV"."
Dave, according to ALL MUSIC, Bob James ONE, TWO, THREE and FOUR are now under the Warner Brothers/Tappan Zee Label

 

steelydave

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Apr 21, 2002
Messages
2,464
Location
Toronto, ON
Tappan Zee is James' label. He's used various distributors over the years - initially it was CBS, which eventually became Sony, and then later Koch. I wouldn't put too much stock in what allmusic says, that assertion seems based on the fact that a 1995 CD release was distributed by Warner Bros.
 

The Rang

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
1,806
Location
Delta, BC, Canada
Amazon Canada pre-order on this is $22.49 which strikes me as a good price.
I can wait 'till the end of the month and not worried about the lack of 5.1
 

kfbkfb

800 Club - QQ All-Star
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
802
Location
Midwest USA
I'll stick with my LP and CD (I bought the LP soon after buying my Shure V15 3 in 1976, I had read Bob James One was a good high fidelity LP).

One question about (stereo) remastering and matrix decoding/synthesizing (also might apply to upmixing):

Do the remasters yield better surround sound (because the phase accuracy [between L and R] may be better)?


Kirk Bayne
 
Last edited:

Colin London

Active Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
71
Location
Brighton England UK
Even though SACD Stereo I still bough it
as its upgraded to DSD.

I have Pioneer SACD player that goes into surround sound Pioneer Amp
and I can use all my 6 speakers , on it.

It does sound great.
Better than the normal CD.

It has a great write up by Music writer Charles Waring
Remastered at BK Audio in Amsterdam

I really hope that Watford , UK company
can do a Quadraphonic SACD, at some point.
 

elroy

701 Club - QQ All-Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
749
Location
Orange County, CA
When I went back to Amazon to return it due to teh description being inaccurate, they described this as a "No Return Refund", which apparently means I get a full refund and still get to keep it! I had not seen that optiuon before.

Consolation prize for no 5.1 I guess!
 

Imbobman

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
250
Location
New Berlin, WI
When I went back to Amazon to return it due to teh description being inaccurate, they described this as a "No Return Refund", which apparently means I get a full refund and still get to keep it! I had not seen that optiuon before.

Consolation prize for no 5.1 I guess!
Elroy, did you get the actual disc already? If so, I wonder why they wouldn't want it returned.
Sounds like they mean just the pre-order being refunded & canceled.
I received mine a few days ago & just sent it back today to ' Deep Discount'. No hassles from them, they emailed me a return label ASAP.
You know, this has got to be a fiasco for all vendors with so many returns/ cancelations 😕
 

humprof

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
3,048
Location
NoCal
Elroy, did you get the actual disc already? If so, I wonder why they wouldn't want it returned.
Sounds like they mean just the pre-order being refunded & canceled.
I received mine a few days ago & just sent it back today to ' Deep Discount'. No hassles from them, they emailed me a return label ASAP.
You know, this has got to be a fiasco for all vendors with so many returns/ cancelations 😕
Jealous of all you guys getting no-hassle returns. I pre-ordered from ImportCDs (Deep Discount's sister site), and the disc had already shipped by the time the lack of an advertised surround mix was confirmed. Since I haven't opened it, they're willing to refund the purchase price--but not shipping. (And I pay to ship it back, too.) Not gonna break me, exactly, but it's still annoying.
 

Imbobman

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
250
Location
New Berlin, WI
Jealous of all you guys getting no-hassle returns. I pre-ordered from ImportCDs (Deep Discount's sister site), and the disc had already shipped by the time the lack of an advertised surround mix was confirmed. Since I haven't opened it, they're willing to refund the purchase price--but not shipping. (And I pay to ship it back, too.) Not gonna break me, exactly, but it's still annoying.
You are right to be annoyed since the problem isn't your fault. Personally, I think the way importCDs is handling it is a poor way to do business!
 
Last edited:

humprof

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
3,048
Location
NoCal
You are right to be annoyed since the problem isn't your fault. Personally, I think that's a poor way to do business!
To be fair: it turns out that ImportCDs was one of the few (two?) resellers that somehow had a proper product description all along. But like everyone else, I pre-ordered it on the basis of the advance description at Evo88, which remained uncorrected until days after the error was spotted. EvoSound still haven't answered my email.
 

Imbobman

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
250
Location
New Berlin, WI
Deep Discount also had it correctly discribed but I went by what Evo88.com had said.
I believe they are linked to EVOSOUND in some way.
Evo88 initially had it as a multi-channel 5.1. They have since corrected their discription to say 'hybrid Stereo SACD'. So somebody knew they screwed up🥴
 
Last edited:

4-earredwonder

QQ Lifetime Supporter
QQ Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
17,297
I'm certain this will be the last time EVOSOUND makes another faux pas like this as I'm sure it did create havoc among many disappointed buyers and vendors, alike. And yeah, I WAS initially disappointed but after hearing the EXCEPTIONAL remastering on this Stereo SACD and considering the price wasn't exorbitant ..... I elected to keep it .... and GLAD I DID!
 
Last edited:

JediJoker

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Deep Discount also had it correctly discribed but I went by what Evo88.com had said.
I believe they are linked to EVOSOUND in some way.
Evo88 initially had it as a multi-channel 5.1. They have since corrected their discription to say 'hybrid Stereo SACD'. So somebody knew they screwed up🥴
Evo88.com is Evosound direct.
 
Top