Why Don't Reissue Labels Do Surround Only Reissues ?

[fredblue]

Didn't DCC do a gold disc of "Johnny Winter And" the studio album from him. So I would guess "Still Alive and Well" is not out of the question.

What I didn't figure is that if a CD was recently reissued that there would be a quad block. So it's not only about recent SACDSs being licensed/reissues.

There'd be less Quad blocks if a label would go out on a limb and release Quad only discs (like Quadro Surround do) I can't think of the last time I bought one of those Audio Fidelity SACDs for the stereo, oh yeah it was that Legends compilation, say no more..

 

[fredblue]

That's correct. If an album was recently reissued on CD, it's unlikely to be reissued on SACD by Audio Fidelity or the other reissue labels.
Guess that would be a reissue block...

Let me get this straight.. this is not always specifically because licensing forbids it, it's more that labels view it as commercial suicide releasing something hot on the heels of another labels' reissue, even if mix and content differ?

Ps. Still so sad to think that Jeff Beck's Wired in Quad will never cut the mustard for Surround SACD release by Audio Fidelity due to tape quality issues, irrespective of another label Quadblocking.. are the master tapes like falling to bits or something..!?

 

[bmoura]

There'd be less Quad blocks if a label would go out on a limb and release Quad only discs (like Quadro Surround do) I can't think of the last time I bought one of those Audio Fidelity SACDs for the stereo, oh yeah it was that Legends compilation, say no more..

Unfortunately most of the buyers of the reissues are looking for the Stereo CD and Stereo SACD tracks, not Surround Sound.
A reissue that was Quad only would be a money loser. That's why it isn't done by the reissue labels.

 

[skherbeck]

Unfortunately most of the buyers of the reissues are looking for the Stereo CD and Stereo SACD tracks, not Surround Sound.
A reissue that was Quad only would be a money loser. That's why it isn't done by the reissue labels.

If only they knew what they were missing!

 

[bmoura]

A discussion of Surround Sound-only reissues (no Stereo CD and Stereo SACD tracks) and why reissue labels do not find them profitable.

 

[fredblue]

Unfortunately most of the buyers of the reissues are looking for the Stereo CD and Stereo SACD tracks, not Surround Sound.
A reissue that was Quad only would be a money loser. That's why it isn't done by the reissue labels.

With the greatest of respect... and I am NOT having a dig at AF at all, I'm so so happy with what they are doing with Surround SACD right now.. but...

..How would anybody know this unless they actually took a risk (yes, a record label taking a RISK.. oh lordy lordy.. fancy that) and released a surround only disc?

Its been a long decade-plus years since Brad Miller and DTS had the balls to do it and release such surround only discs..

..the audience for surround music must have now grown, I refuse to believe the market has shrunk in the years since DTS/Miller Nevada did it.

 

[JonUrban]

The Chicago Quadio was a sellout, the Aretha was a mis-step, but that program did not fail because they were quad only. It failed because it got swept away in a corporate reorganization.

A limited run of specifically targeted releases of surround only has been done twice, once by DTS and then by Rhino. Both programs were fairly successful, so we know that it can be done. It was also attempted by Music Valet, who released their first DVD-A from Better than Ezra, but faded away for the present time. (I wonder how Richard is doing and what the status of Music Valet is)

It's a shame that one of the victims of the SACD/DVD-A era was the DTS CD, as in many ways, that was the format that gave rebirth to surround music and it's a shame it did not live on. There were some amazing new discs released like the Don Henley and Sting titles that never saw the light of day as SACDs or DVD-As.

 

[Q-Eight]

The Chicago Quadio was a sellout, the Aretha was a mis-step, but that program did not fail because they were quad only. It failed because it got swept away in a corporate reorganization.

Right. I don't see how it would be "commercial suicide" if it has been attempted before in the past and worked!

Granted, I recall when the Quadio program debuted, the swine were squealing about it not having a stereo portion on the disc. Most folks tried to explain to the two-eared folks that it's a Surround Release. If you want a stereo version, go buy a stereo version! But, the stereo folks still complained.

Audio Fidelity has the right idea. A disc that is backwards compatible with a CD player, offers Hi-Rez stereo and a MCH Layer for those of us with more than two ears.

However, I still think the idea of an SQ-Stereo/Discrete MCH disc should be explored. But, having said that, I know of a forum already where there is much confusion over the Silver or Gold AF SACD releases. Releasing something with an SQ-Stereo layer and a MCH layer would certainly cause death and destruction.

Sometimes, we have to remind ourselves just how dense the general population is.

 

[fredblue]

Right. I don't see how it would be "commercial suicide" if it has been attempted before in the past and worked!

Granted, I recall when the Quadio program debuted, the swine were squealing about it not having a stereo portion on the disc. Most folks tried to explain to the two-eared folks that it's a Surround Release. If you want a stereo version, go buy a stereo version! But, the stereo folks still complained.

Audio Fidelity has the right idea. A disc that is backwards compatible with a CD player, offers Hi-Rez stereo and a MCH Layer for those of us with more than two ears.

However, I still think the idea of an SQ-Stereo/Discrete MCH disc should be explored. But, having said that, I know of a forum already where there is much confusion over the Silver or Gold AF SACD releases. Releasing something with an SQ-Stereo layer and a MCH layer would certainly cause death and destruction.

Sometimes, we have to remind ourselves just how dense the general population is.

Yeah, I hear ya.. some people still never worked out things like the difference between a DVD-A and a DVD-V so I'd hate for a surround only release to give them an aneurism or something just because it doesn't include the stereo mix that you could already pick up a zillion other ways.

The major labels' decision makers comprise too many risk averse yellow bellies that lack conviction and imagination.. Thank God for Panegyric, DGM, Audio Fidelity, etc..

 

[Scott M4]

Hey Jon, Why was the Aretha release a mis-step? I could only find a used copy, so it must have sold out. I like the mix too - fairly agressive. The singer and the songs are pretty good too.

The Chicago Quadio was a sellout, the Aretha was a mis-step, but that program did not fail because they were quad only. It failed because it got swept away in a corporate reorganization.

A limited run of specifically targeted releases of surround only has been done twice, once by DTS and then by Rhino. Both programs were fairly successful, so we know that it can be done. It was also attempted by Music Valet, who released their first DVD-A from Better than Ezra, but faded away for the present time. (I wonder how Richard is doing and what the status of Music Valet is)

It's a shame that one of the victims of the SACD/DVD-A era was the DTS CD, as in many ways, that was the format that gave rebirth to surround music and it's a shame it did not live on. There were some amazing new discs released like the Don Henley and Sting titles that never saw the light of day as SACDs or DVD-As.

 

[quicksrt]

Let me get this straight.. this is not always specifically because licensing forbids it, it's more that labels view it as commercial suicide releasing something hot on the heels of another labels' reissue, even if mix and content differ?

Ps. Still so sad to think that Jeff Beck's Wired in Quad will never cut the mustard for Surround SACD release by Audio Fidelity due to tape quality issues, irrespective of another label Quadblocking.. are the master tapes like falling to bits or something..!?

I'm wondering if the tape quality issues with "Wired" are that the mix now no longer holds up in 2015 for a high profile legendary guitarist, or it has faded, and now sounds dull, hissy and quite lifeless?

 

[fredblue]

I'm wondering if the tape quality issues with "Wired" are that the mix does not now hold up in 2015 for a higher profile legendary guitarist, or it has faded, and now sounds dull, hissy and quite lifeless?

Could be.. I liked the Q8 when I last heard it and the SQ LP is nice thru the Surround Master, though I don't feel the album's ever sounded as well recorded as Blow By Blow.. maybe that's it.. but then again how comes AF have reissued the earlier Jeff Beck Group Quad if the issues are aesthetic or artistic concerns rather than just that the tapes are f**cked?

 

[Simon A]

Hey Jon, Why was the Aretha release a mis-step? I could only find a used copy, so it must have sold out. I like the mix too - fairly agressive. The singer and the songs are pretty good too.

Scott, it's not sold out. I was able to order a copy a few months ago. Here's where to get it.

 

[quicksrt]

The Chicago Quadio was a sellout, the Aretha was a mis-step, but that program did not fail because they were quad only. It failed because it got swept away in a corporate reorganization.

A limited run of specifically targeted releases of surround only has been done twice, once by DTS and then by Rhino. Both programs were fairly successful, so we know that it can be done. It was also attempted by Music Valet, who released their first DVD-A from Better than Ezra, but faded away for the present time. (I wonder how Richard is doing and what the status of Music Valet is)

It's a shame that one of the victims of the SACD/DVD-A era was the DTS CD, as in many ways, that was the format that gave rebirth to surround music and it's a shame it did not live on. There were some amazing new discs released like the Don Henley and Sting titles that never saw the light of day as SACDs or DVD-As.

And the Best of Aretha was not a "major" misstep afaik, just not a real hot one compared to CTA. The CTA being a double album, and one never on commercial reel to reel format, one of the original band's finest efforts - was a slam-dunk. I think it made Aretha look worse than Aretha deserved to look in sales performance. Many other titles would of been small run sellouts, but it would most likely been in a few years time, and not just 3 months to achieve that. I think CTA was all gone in less than six months.

The main reason I see a "surround only" disc release being a success is the cost control associated with not mastering for stereo. Once you eliminate the Bernie, Kevin, Steve, Stan Ricker or Doug Sax type billable hours for stereo, you are trimming a minimum of $1,000 to 2,000 off the production cost of the (stereo + surround) disc right there. I've also read that each layer is a license fee for publishing (to publisher), if not also mechanical fees paid (stereo + quad master tapes to label) as well. I'm not sure on this (if each layer is a licensing fee).

Over-all, the budgeted cost is reduced by not paying licensing fees, nor having pay a top mastering guy's fees for a stereo layer.

So with thousands trimmed from the production budget of the project, you have a major cost savings and the break even point comes much sooner. You even have money left for mini LP-type jackets, and an obi strip to make it stand out as a "SURROUND-SOUND" only product like the beautiful Quadio packages had.

Then you only issue titles that are still white hot! Since you no longer worry about the competition from a MFSL, AP, etc. you now can concentrate on pure class-A titles for this particular series. And since you are issuing only the real hot ones (already desired in stereo by those other SACD and vinyl companies), you are again at much less risk of a retail "stiff".

It's just a brave thing to do. And one must accept smaller runs in the current economic climate, and music industry reality than what could have been 10 or more years ago.

 

[quicksrt]

However, I still think the idea of an SQ-Stereo/Discrete MCH disc should be explored. But, having said that, I know of a forum already where there is much confusion over the Silver or Gold AF SACD releases. Releasing something with an SQ-Stereo layer and a MCH layer would certainly cause death and destruction.

Sometimes, we have to remind ourselves just how dense the general population is.

The layer in stereo would need to not be in a quad format like SQ. SQ is a CBS records format as we all know. There are to be tons of 4.0 releases that were in the CD-4 format (which was the better higher quality LP format anyway), or Q8, and Q4. So if one is talking about Warner titles, SQ is almost insulting to even think about running (processing) their tapes through.

If one wanted to include a stereo listening experience on the disc without the costs associated with another master tape, then a "quad to stereo" fold-down on the stereo layer would be the ticket. However this presents a problem, as some quad LPs (as we've seen and heard) sound spectacular folded down to stereo, while others are add or even shocking in their differences. To the label, or/and the artist, this odd (or shocking) mix difference has the strong potential to be off-putting, or simply unacceptable. I would personally have preferred a fold-down on the Doors SACD that AF just issued. That mix was designed to be a fun ride even in stereo.

So I'd prefer to see a quad folded-down on the stereo layer, or nothing at all.

 

[quicksrt]

Yeah, I hear ya.. some people still never worked out things like the difference between a DVD-A and a DVD-V so I'd hate for a surround only release to give them an aneurism or something just because it doesn't include the stereo mix that you could already pick up a zillion other ways.

The major labels' decision makers comprise too many risk averse yellow bellies that lack conviction and imagination.. Thank God for Panegyric, DGM, Audio Fidelity, etc..

I remember well when the CTA Quadio was announced, and over at that other forum I replied to one poster that this new Rhino Quad release is like an invitation to a party, and you were not invited to this party, and so you need to go have your own "stereo" party!

 

[fredblue]

I think the Aretha wasn't exactly the best choice for the 2nd Quadio title, they needed to get Classic Rock titles out for a while and then go for something like Aretha.. I remember scratching my head at the time and thinking, you've just done Chicago, its done the business, why not follow it up with the Eagles, the Doors, the Doobies, etc..?

I do wonder if the Quadio programme had continued where Rhino planned to go with it.. does anyone have any inside info on what was up their sleeve at the time? (All immaterial now obviously but its kinda fun in a morbid way!).

Would we have seen all the Chicago Quads reissued? Would we have got Bread and The Doors in Quad anyway, "albeit" on DVD.. perhaps some unreleased Quads..?

I'm surprised that Warners haven't really gone for it with Audio Fidelity in the same way as Sony, in so far as getting their Quads licensed to the same extent.. but no denying the Bread and Doors Audio Fidelity SACDs are biggies.. and the upcoming Judy Collins and Alice Cooper SACDs would indicate Warner are still up for licensing titles even if its not quite on the scale of Sony, which when you look at it on paper is astonishing (what is it so far? like, 2 x unreleased 5.1 mixes and 10 x Quad mixes, from some cherished artists too including Billy Joel, Loggins & Messina, Blood Sweat & Tears, The Guess Who, Sly & The Family Stone, etc.). Hats off to Audio Fidelity..! :worthy

 

[quicksrt]

Let me get this straight.. this is not always specifically because licensing forbids it, it's more that labels view it as commercial suicide releasing something hot on the heels of another labels' reissue, even if mix and content differ?

I can imagine that the company considering issuing the quad mix on a new SACD are somewhat adverse to opening up their risk exposure when a new reissue has just come out on MFSL, or the original label. While the original label is not exactly ecstatic about having a product coming out that is competing with their own brand new reissue. Both sides I would think avoid this type of competition when possible, but I doubt that (in general) there is block in place. Or if there is a block it is a short one.

My opinion is that it's best to wait a year, two or three after the current item in print has run it's course. It need not be 5 to 10 years of waiting. This is especially true if the new release being planned has something new on it to offer up. Many major labels have reissued Deluxe Edition CDs with the added bonus tracks (or even a full live album bonus disc) while the original issue with no bonus tracks is still there in the retail bins. The new issue with bonus material included is often a couple bucks (or more) higher in price. Not a biggie because you either want the deluxe version or you do not. With surround, you either want it and will pay for it, or you have no interest.

 

[quicksrt]

I think the Aretha wasn't exactly the best choice for the 2nd Quadio title, they needed to get Classic Rock titles out for a while and then go for something like Aretha.. I remember scratching my head at the time and thinking, you've just done Chicago, its done the business, why not follow it up with the Eagles, the Doors, the Doobies, etc..?

I think that if the Quadio series had continued, then the Aretha would not have seemed an odd choice. Had they followed it up with "What Once Were Vices" and then a few months later Gold's Gold, it would all make sense. I really doubt Arlo Guthrie or "Waitress in a Doughnut Shop" was coming around the corner on Quadio. Aretha is the Queen of Soul, nothing wrong with that choice imo.

In fact, I think AF are doing something similar, they are issuing some very strong titles, along with things that are of high quality, but not exactly ones that are in highest demand. Labelle and Earth Wind and Fire are lovely recordings, but not ones that we've been most waiting for. The reason is that AF are pacing themselves. Very hot, as in white hot titles are likely approved, tapes passed QC tests, and mastering complete. They are being held "on hold" so that next year can be just as great as this year or even greater. Imagine "Best of the Guess Who Vol. 2" arriving, which will sound even better than volume one.

And three titles (I am imagining) that are 10/10s are all set all ready to go (again fantasizing). But they will be paced and spread out so as to have consistency over the year's releases. We will get some more great R&B like the two we got, and then a mind blower, then a GW hits 2, and other things before another mind blower.

It's better marketing to pace the releases over four quarters. The Quadio likely had planned like this before the ax just fell.

 

[fredblue]

I think that if the Quadio series had continued, then the Aretha would not have seemed an odd choice. Had they followed it up with "What Once Were Vices" and then a few months later Gold's Gold, it would all make sense. I really doubt Arlo Guthrie or "Waitress in a Doughnut Shop" was coming around the corner on Quadio. Aretha is the Queen of Soul, nothing wrong with that choice imo.

In fact, I think AF are doing something similar, they are issuing some very strong titles, along with things that are of high quality, but not exactly ones that are in highest demand. Labelle and Earth Wind and Fire are lovely recordings, but not ones that we've been most waiting for. The reason is that AF are pacing themselves. Very hot, as in white hot titles are likely approved, tapes passed QC tests, and mastering complete. They are being held "on hold" so that next year can be just as great as this year or even greater. Imagine "Best of the Guess Who Vol. 2" arriving, which will sound even better than volume one.

And three titles (I am imagining) that are 10/10s are all set all ready to go (again fantasizing). But they will be paced and spread out so as to have consistency over the year's releases. We will get some more great R&B like the two we got, and then a mind blower, then a GW hits 2, and other things before another mind blower.

It's better marketing to pace the releases over four quarters. The Quadio likely had planned like this before the ax just fell.

I agree with much of what you say.. but personally I'm over the moon about the Labelle and Earth Wind & Fire Quad SACDs and hope beyond hope that Audio Fidelity choose to give Labelle's "Phoenix" and E,W&F's "Head To The Sky", "That's The Way Of The World" and "Spirit" similar Surround SACD treatment

Out of interest what are those three 10/10 fantasy titles?