IMPORTANT: Thoughts please regarding legit 5.1 downloads

[kokishin]

Welcome to the forum...are you from the US?

Yep. I live in Silicon Valley. I joined QQ in July 2016 and have perused it and the surround polls many times since then. Didn't realize I've never posted here until this morning. I mostly post at avsforum and steve hoffman under the same handle. QQ is a great forum too.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Yep. I live in Silicon Valley. I joined QQ in July 2016 and have perused it and the surround polls many times since then. Didn't realize I've never posted here until this morning. I mostly post at avsforum and steve hoffman under the same handle. QQ is a great forum too.

Great to have you join in the discussions...we have some great members from California

 

[atrocity]

If for the sake of this thread, HDTracks offered a HiRez 5.1 download of an album like the Eagles/On the Border, for under twice the price of the HiRez stereo download, would you spend the money and purchase it? Be honest.

Yes, absolutely! Though with a few "if"s:

1. Price would have to be right. I'm absolutely willing to pay a premium, but I'm not willing to be raped and laughed at.

2. If there's a simultaneous or previous physical release, the download version must not omit any content whatsoever from the physical release.

3. No audible watermarking or other stupid vandalism.

Or would you be more inclined to "find" it elsewhere once it came out?

Intellectually I know that theft is theft, period. Emotionally and practically, I can think of two cases where I found something elsewhere because Doing The Right Thing meant being forced to buy redundant/useless (to me) vinyl *AND* even factoring that in, the sets were absurdly overpriced. It's not a habit and I'm way, way more likely to go legit.

The real issue is that places like HDTracks do not see a market for 5.1 downloads, but I feel that it's out there but untapped. Now we all know that if they offered titles that no one wanted to buy they would not sell, but I am talking stuff like "On the Border", "Gorilla", "Court & Spark", etc.

My most emphatic piece of advice to them would be to start with "captive" titles that can't be purchased elsewhere.

 

[skindzier]

My take is this. If I could get the title as a physical release, I would buy that over a download. But if there was a title that I wanted and it was only available as a download I would certainly buy it.

YES.

That's the way I'd operate as well.

 

[dr. simple]

Yes, absolutely! Though with a few "if"s:
1. Price would have to be right. I'm absolutely willing to pay a premium, but I'm not willing to be raped and laughed at.
2. If there's a simultaneous or previous physical release, the download version must not omit any content whatsoever from the physical release.
3. No audible watermarking or other stupid vandalism.

These are three excellent points that I agree with completely.

 

[kokishin]

Great to have you join in the discussions...we have some great members from California

Thanks Clint!

A man's GOT to know his limitations

 

[skindzier]

A couple of things for the potential industry folks lurking... Obviously, many folks here are enthusiastic about the possibility. However, most folks here already have the common/recent titles that they want, so while something like Hotel California would be an obvious choice to be a winner, I would assume the vast majority of folks here that want it already have it. Not saying Hotel California shouldn't be offered, however, we certainly wouldn't want the success of the project to hinge on titles we already have. To really judge how successful this might be, we'd want to see quads that have never been released in digital format, unreleased 5.1's like the Elton titles, and older out of print 5.1 titles that are now commanding big bucks like Toys in the Attic and Avalon.

 

[JonUrban]

A couple of things for the potential industry folks lurking... Obviously, many folks here are enthusiastic about the possibility. However, most folks here already have the common/recent titles that they want, so while something like Hotel California would be an obvious choice to be a winner, I would assume the vast majority of folks here that want it already have it. Not saying Hotel California shouldn't be offered, however, we certainly wouldn't want the success of the project to hinge on titles we already have. To really judge how successful this might be, we'd want to see quads that have never been released in digital format, unreleased 5.1's like the Elton titles, and older out of print 5.1 titles that are now commanding big bucks like Toys in the Attic and Avalon.

This is an excellent point, and why I mentioned a title like "On the Border", that's unavailable other than a 40 year old LP or Q8. If someone put up a download of "Hotel California", the purchase response from QQ would not be very high because we already have it, well, most of us already do. Same with DSOTM, GBYBR, other popular titles that were all instant buys.

To really get the bean counters attention if a program like this was started by a label or a reseller, you would have to select titles that will make people dive for their credit cards, like the unreleased Elton's, the Quadradisc titles that never appeared on DVD-A/SACD that were popular titles (Eagles, Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, etc.)

 

[skindzier]

Another potential selling point might be to UnBrickwall some of the existing 5.1's like The Game and the Foreigner titles.

 

[rtbluray]

My vote is definitely 'YES'!
However, like others have mentioned before, I would not repurchase a download of a 5.1 or 4.0 title that I already have on either Blu-Ray or DVDA-V.
But if it is a title I don't have, or a title that is on a less than ideal format (like SACD or lossy DVD-V) then in that case I would rebuy the title!

So it mostly depends on the title and its current availability (or lack thereof) but I certainly want to see the majors give this a try!

 

[kvsawilson]

While I would prefer a physical disc that I can rip myself, I would absolutely buy a download of a title I want if offered at a reasonable price. And, if it means I can just get the multichannel music I'm looking for without having to buy a box set with cd's and vinyl I'll never play, it would awesome.

K

 

[Ick]

I am all about paying for my music as I work in the entertainment industry and I want to see the artists get paid. Heck, I buy the hi-res stuff all the time now! I have however "found" items that were no longer in print in which then NOBODY got paid because they were already paid for. If the music industry would at least make these items available so people like me can buy them, they would still make some money as opposed to getting nothing for nothing. Short answer: I would spend tons of money on 5.1 downloads!!

 

[privateuniverse]

My preference will always be for physical product. However, I can see the future coming (heck, it's already here) and if the major labels decide to completely abandon physical media, then downloads and streaming it is. I would happily pay for 5.1/4.0 downloads assuming that they are not overpriced. (HFPAs can be purchased for around $20, so a download certainly shouldn't cost more.)

Now here's the thing, if they're going to test the waters on this, they need to be smart about it. There's no need to start up the program with albums like Gaucho, Dark Side of the Moon, Rumours and Tommy. Folks who are enthusiastic about surround music most likely already have these. Sales of these would probably not be impressive. They need to do a little work and head into the vaults and find things that consumers don't have. The unreleased Elton John 5.1 mixes would be a perfect way to test the market. Or some quads that have never been released in a digital format like the Eagles, Billy Joel or Joni Mitchell titles. I would certainly love to have all of those on blu-ray or sacd, but if a hi-res 5.1/4.0 download was the only option, I'd certainly buy.

Take my money!

 

[4-earredwonder]

As long as Dutton Vocalion continues to release 70 QUAD titles in pristine remasterings at their extremely affordable prices, I will continue to patronize them and as other posters, who are in the know have speculated, if and when HD Tracks and other download sites offer multichannel downloads, doubtful their prices will be in D~V's 'present' ballpark [MOST especially their two~fers] and as far as the providence of their 'HD Masters ....' will they offer refunds if those tracks aren't up to par?

And of course, for this transition from stereo to multichannel to materialize, will ALL the major record conglomerates be on board to participate?

Downloading IS the future but we've all been burned, even with 5.1 remasters on physical disc but at least one has the option to sell unwanted or sub par PHYSICAL DISCS on eBay, Amazon or other sites whereas unwanted downloads have NO intrinsic value other than to the purchaser.

Time will tell.

 

[holland123]

YES, I too would certainly be in, However; price would need to be considerably lower than the physical disc, if it's just 5 or 10$ cheaper why bother, I am only really interested in the multichannel album, I don't much care about the new stereo mixes, or the studio outtakes.( unless they too are MCH) they should be preferably in flac so that I can then easily convert to whatever i want and without any BS copy protection limitations, because at this point I do not listen from a file based system, and it must be a quality remastering like the Chicago or the Lennon set, not just a regurgitated upsample like some stereo titles that are commonly offered for sale at hdtraks.

 

[milt]

One other factor is on the very near horizon for me where I live, multi-gig synchronous Internet service.
The keyword being synchronous, upload == download.
When that becomes reality all of my files will get sent to a Cloud Service stat.
Download chunks directly to my music server and go.

 

[Strilo]

Now that I can play files using my 4k Blu Ray Player, I am far more likely to purchase. Except I will always purchase physical media, if it exists. If not, then I would consider a hi res surround download.

 

[JerseyEd]

I've never downloaded, but if the conditions were right I'd give it a try.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

Heck yes, I'd be happy to pay for legal downloads.

But I start Medicare next month, so don't take too long getting product to market.
My peak consumption will be in the next 5 years.
I probably won't care much about 60th anniversary releases in 2028.
Giddy-Up!

 

[krishough]

I generally try not to buy physical media as I have no real need for it, and I try not to be a "collector", so this would be ideal. I would definitely buy more than I currently do.