Surround SACD-BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS S/T & THE BEST OF THE GUESS WHO coming 12/30 from Audio Fidelity.

I can understand how frustrating it must be to love an album and to expect it to sound "right". I actually heard this album for the very first time when I purchased the AF Quad SACD so I had no idea that what I was hearing was wrong. I've played this so many times now that I don't have an issue with it and really love the album and how it sounds.

 

I totally agree with you both on this situation, being a long time DCC and AF loyal customer. What would it cost to repress this BS&T SACD?
AF needs to take in consideration that we are the customers that pay their salaries, if we didn't support them, where would they be? Now this
is not including our mastering host Steve or Kevin. They hold up their end of the deal. AF said they would refund our money on this BS&T SACD
issue if we weren't satisfied, but I don't won't a refund, I want a good sounding quality of this SACD, are we worth it?

 

You bring up a point that I should reiterate...I was offered a refund and chose not to accept it.

In my case it's not the money per se that's the issue nor that the error occurred the first time nor that the replacement Sly disc is taking so long. And I'm only half PO'd that they're not repressing the BST disc. What really gets me is that they appear to have put no (or insufficient) measures in place after the first error occurred to prevent subsequent issues and have been less than forthcoming about the issue(s) (both to individuals and the general public) and what remedial actions, if any, they would be taking to rectify the situation beyond offering a refund.

That one can't simply go to the AF website and know for certainty what the status of each disc is and the answers to the questions being asked here today is irresponsible on AF's part IMO.

 

I'm also not bothered too much because I wanted the quad mix so bad on SACD or DVD-A, and finally got it. Had this been an SACD w/o surround, I never would have bought it in the first place. But I can see how it is bothersome to stereo listening folks, and more so about how the error was handled. Since the disc is not being repressed, it still (even with the error) has the potential to becoming one of the more rare and pricey SACDs AF have released. I love this disc. For stereo there are several other choices anyway.

They do need to get in front, and handle any problems more proactively, rather than let the buyers/ listeners report back.

 

Yes -- I got an e-mail response from Marshall Bronstein this morning, apologizing and taking responsibility for the mistake, but also saying they weren't going to re-manufacture the disc, and so my only recourse would be to return it for refund. Which, of course, means losing the multichannel version.

 

Let me ask everyone a technical question: having ripped this SACD, and having DSF files for the stereo layer, what (if any) is the proper technique to correct this problem. I'm assuming there's no way to edit DSD files directly -- if I were to convert them to, say, 32/384 PCM, could I fix the error in Audacity? I understand from another site that the "28-sample" offset isn't fixed, but actually varies track-by-track between 0 and 30 samples. Is there a way to figure out the offset for each track other than lengthy trial-and-error?

 

Yeah they know they have us by our b.......lls, knowing we are buying suckers for the multichannel, why replace them for the loyal customers, they will make sales anyway, Love it or leave it!

 

I've been meaning to try to do my own fixed version like you suggest, but simply haven't gotten around to it.

But if the time alignment is variable as you've read, I don't know - other than trial and error and/or looking at waveforms at the sample level - how to ascertain the length and location of the time shift corrections. This would be a challenge with the Sly Stone mono disc; with a stereo disc like BS&T it adds another layer of difficulty.

But I should state I am not a whiz at this and someone with even a modicum of expertise might have a simple answer.

 

While waiting for an answer on that, I downloaded the DSD remaster (based on the Columbia SACD remaster by Anesini) from Acoustic Sounds while they had their sale on. Quite nice to listen to, although the Redbook layer of the AF only suggests how good a fixed version of Steve's transfer at SACD resolution would be. But a question to those who have heard the MFSL as well as the Columbia SACD: is the former much of an improvement over the latter, and, if so, in what specific ways? Unless there's some way to correct the AF on computer, would it be worth it to shell out for the MFSL (cheapest price on eBay currently is $90), or is the Anesini close enough that the extra cost wouldn't really be worth it?

 

Just look at it as an incredible quad disc with a super-cool mono redbook layer as a bonus and you're good to go. Accept it and keep on gettin' up - life's short, man!

 

Mono Redbook layer?

And, sorry, but no to your glib "move on" rhetoric. The main reason for my getting the AF disc was the SACD stereo layer -- I got into the game only after the MFSL had gotten rare, plus I was hoping SH would be able to uncover something extra in the master tapes (and the frustrating thing is that the Redbook layer suggests that he would have). Sure, having the quad mix is nice, but only as a bonus. By a huge margin, most of my listening will be to a two-channel version, whether the Anesini DSD download, the AF Redbook layer, or possibly the MFSL if I can find it at a reasonable price (and if people here concur that it's a substantial improvement over Anesini).

 

Whoops - I was thinking about Sly & The Family Stone, sorry. Wasn't everyone complaining about that one as well?

 

I'll send you a sample so you can compare for yourself. I haven't heard the Columbia, but the MoFi sounds excellent, I think it's a very close competitor to the AF SACD.

 

I buy these discs for hi-rez stereo. Inclusion of a multi-channel track does not influence my buying decision. For me, this is a disappointing release. Regardless of one's listening preference, product quality matters.

 

Has Marshall said why he won't have new copies pressed? Why repress Sly & The Family Stone but not this one?

 

I suspect that sales were disappointing to begin with. The title being previously issued on SACD twice was not helpful. So with less than strong demand it might not have reached a number that made sense. Buyers of surround bought this for sure. Did everyone one else buy it as well?

 

I bought it specifically for the mastering and play it exclusively in high resolution stereo. The product is defective and regardless of the number of units moved, it should have been corrected, repressed and replacement discs sent out. The four month wait on S&TFS is ridiculous too.

 

Perhaps, but Audio Fidelity released their SACD knowing there were two earlier SACDs and went ahead with it anyway. I'm sure they saw multi-channel as the draw for their release, but they also had to know that some people would buy it for the hi-rez stereo. Unless Sony is preventing Audio Fidelity from fixing it for some reason, they need to fix it and show a commitment to quality.

I realize that we aren't going to solve this. Just venting.

 

Huh? BS&T is not mono. And the Sly is being replaced.

 

In AF's defense, there are 2 reasons for the delay. One, SACD production capacity is limited; you can't just call up the plant and ask if they can squeeze you in. Two (and I can't recall the exact details, but they're in this thread somewhere) the plant used/received the wrong plate for the 1st repress.

I personally don't really care how long it takes. Just get it right. But then again, I never understand those who go off the deep end when a release gets delayed. There is more than enough available at any given time to spend money on.

 

There could be any number of reasons - almost all of which likely deal with money in some shape or form.

 

An update:

I emailed Gloria again yesterday and she did get back to me. Didn't necessarily answer all of my questions, but did say that the Sly Stone discs should start going out this week.

 

Possibly, but there was this...

Plus, there's the issue of whether there was more than one SACD master, and whether at least one was right. We know the person with the most experience in the matter wrote this:

Now, unless someone wants to argue that Steve has problems with his hearing , I'm going to have to assume that means that at least disc number 325 plays as it should, since it sounds like he went to a lot of trouble testing it out. OTOH, my disc (529) does not. That tells me there must be more than one master out there -- at the moment, I fail to understand why it would be so difficult for AF to do test pressings from each master, listen to the results, and have the pressing plant run off a small series from that particular correct master for those who write in to complain.

 

If Steve's disc is a production disc, I'll bet it has the same matrix #'s and the same authoring issue too. I doubt there are two different pressings using different sources in the original (and only) production batch.

As for why he didn't hear the issue, I have no explanation or theory.

As I said earlier, there are many possible reasons why it isn't being repressed. It isn't necessarily because the disc wasn't selling.

But im pretty confident that somebody wants more money and/or somebody doesn't want to spend/lose money in order to make it happen.

 

I have no problem waiting for a new release. My complaint is how this is being handled. Specifically the lack of communication from AF to the customer who, like me, emailed three times and did not receive the courtesy of a reply and finally resorted to calling the company to get an answer. A proactive approach would have gone a long way, like an email or post on the company website acknowledging the issue with status update about the resolution. I have bought every AF title to date but after the BS&T and SATFS defects, I think I'm justified in my opinion.