We need a Quad First/Surround First reissue label

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

fredblue

Middle-aged Multichannelist
QQ Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
29,705
Location
London, England
Hmm.. you know, it seems pretty clear to me we need a Quad First/Surround First reissue label, with a smaller customer base and lower expectations for sales.

If this approach can't be adopted and then made to work out and be financially viable by somebody somewhere, with a totally different approach to everyone else, then we will forever be stuck in a Stereo First situation.

Is the future really for us to be at the mercy of the major labels and accept the (relative, compared to stereo releases) crumbs they throw our way?

The independents are pretty amazing and mostly keep the surround show going.. no denying too, AF have delivered many times with their Surround titles with no real major missteps.. and we get the odd thing from the other speciality labels every now and again of course.

I just would hate to "accept defeat" when it feels like this sector of the market is on a (modest) roll (rewind 6/7 years thngs were dismal).. no, there has to be another way, imho..
 
Hmm.. you know, it seems pretty clear to me we need a Quad First/Surround First reissue label, with a smaller customer base and lower expectations for sales.

If this approach can't be adopted and then made to work out and be financially viable by somebody somewhere, with a totally different approach to everyone else, then we will forever be stuck in a Stereo First situation.

Is the future really for us to be at the mercy of the major labels and accept the (relative, compared to stereo releases) crumbs they throw our way?

The independents are pretty amazing and mostly keep the surround show going.. no denying too, AF have delivered many times with their Surround titles with no real major missteps.. and we get the odd thing from the other speciality labels every now and again of course.

I just would hate to "accept defeat" when it feels like this sector of the market is on a (modest) roll (rewind 6/7 years thngs were dismal).. no, there has to be another way, imho..

Bring back DTS ENTERTAINMENT!!! All surround, all the time.
 
Show me the dough and sure! Just be prepared to lose some. What is a price point that would sell more and recover more funds than the price point AF has? I believe the list is too expensive to get a serious fan base.

Abso-bloody-lutely..!!!!!!! :banana:

They were amazing...!!!! :worthy

Do you think any label could pull off such a similar feat now?
 
Show me the dough and sure! Just be prepared to lose some. What is a price point that would sell more and recover more funds than the price point AF has? I believe the list is too expensive to get a serious fan base.

I agree that reissued music, especially in hi res (whether Stereo or Surround) 'seems' way overpriced but when you consider that vendors like Deep Discount and ImportCD are selling them for as low as $20 each and the reissue companies have to pay a hefty licensing fee to the Majors [incrementally MORE for surround] and ship everything to Austria for SACD replication it doesn't seem that "hefty" after all. The profit margin isn't really THAT great ..... ALL things considered!

Ironically, the Rhino Quadio Chicago boxset boasts 9 QUAD BD~As and with steady prices decreases one can pay as little as $9 and change for each BD~A which is an ASTOUNDING bargain in this day and age.
 
Show me the dough and sure! Just be prepared to lose some. What is a price point that would sell more and recover more funds than the price point AF has? I believe the list is too expensive to get a serious fan base.

Well you're the pro with first hand experience I just buy the stuff so I don't have the foggiest about how it works at all but I kinda struggle with the notion that its purely a price point issue that deters the surround crowd.. and why?

1.) the astronomical sums that can change hands for certain Quad titles on old 8-tracks, records and reel to reel tapes, etc..
2.) the excessive amounts spent on box sets stuffed full of mostly unwanted items just to get the surround release that's part of the package..
3.) the crazy after market for out of print Surround SACD/DVD-A/DTS titles, once these things are all gone at retail they can rapidly become unattainable unless you fork out for them..

If money was such a big issue, how comes that all goes on to this day in this surround/Quad hobby?

A big part of it surely has to be the titles themselves, no?

Any label wanting to do a Quad reissue programme properly must have to try and secure the top tier stuff at first (if possible, if they cannot do that, it may just be a non-starter altogether).. and once you've made a few quid out of some of those bigger name artists, you can then more comfortably afford to take a hit on any lesser rung albums and artists down the line, if the programme gets that far.. maybe? :eek:

I do also feel a little creativity and thinking outside the box with regards promotion, social networking, crowdfunding, etc as Cookie Marenco suggested on QQ the other day ought to be factored into any strategy at this point, with the music biz the way it is said to be now.

Audio Fidelity have an established market, high quality Stereo remasters essentially.. so in a way one can see it may be tough for them to sell a title purely on the basis of it including the Quad/5.1 surround, nigh-on impossible I'd say unless they produced titles specifically targeted at a group such as this and designed from the ground-up to be for a surround audience as opposed to being for the stereo customers with a little added incentive of an old Quad or 5.1 for the much smaller surround customer base.

If all the permissions etc could be worked out, a 1,000 copy print run of a Hi-Res Surround 4.0 reissue of Aerosmith's Rocks Quad from the master tapes (don't include the Stereo) for the same price as one of the Audio Fidelity SACDs, would surely sell out, or I'll eat my hat!

The question is would £25,000 gross cover all the licensing, manufacturing, promotion overhead etc for that one title..? I may be completely wide of the mark but no I believe it would not.

So, what do do? You could make em £50 each, they will still sell if the product is properly handled I reckon.. there is a demand for surround, the market is very small but the pockets of the people who comprise it are deep, for the right product.

As I've also touched on here before, a number of the 'bigger' Quad titles are already done and dusted, AF has done some recently (Doors Best, Bread, etc).. do they require another release purely from a surround perspective? Probably not.. maybe fresh transfers of the Quads that already made it out to DTS & SACD and fetch tidy sums to this day (Wings, Isleys, O'Jays) might warrant a rehash but put those to one side for a moment, I feel there are enough mainstream popular (rock/pop/jazz/soul/r&b) titles to sustain a programme, a "4-channel Top 40" range, 2 titles a month with an extra 1 or 2 at Christmas or other important selling periods in the year, should keep you going for a few years before you start having to even consider less desirable titles & artists. Maybe :eek:
 
Show me the dough and sure! Just be prepared to lose some.

That is the question.
Since the Surround/Quad buyers are only 10-15% (at best) of the buyers for Multichannel SACDs, a Surround Only label would have quite a mountain to climb.

Unless, of course, the goal was to lose money for tax write-off purposes....
 
ISO downloads? You'd at least save on manufacturing costs, not to mention shipping, disc defect recalls and stuff like that. Keep the cost down and the price down.

That would probably be the way to go for an upstart, boutique-style company. But, would the major labels be willing to accommodate? That's the big question.
 
ISO downloads? You'd at least save on manufacturing costs, not to mention shipping, disc defect recalls and stuff like that. Keep the cost down and the price down.

They could be ISO downloads (as Pentatone, for example offers) or track by track Stereo and Multichannel downloads that are buyable by track, by album or both.
As a side note - Pentatone offers their albums as Stereo and Multichannel downloads both ways - as ISOs via Pentatone Music web site and as tracks via Native DSD and Primephonic web site.
 
What's your source for this information, Brian?

There have been multiple record company studies that show the vast majority of interest and purchases are for Stereo music (85% and above), not Multichannel music (10 to 15% at best).
The challenge for Multichannel is the added production costs to make such releases without a matching increase in sales when that feature is added.
 
Two things that spring to mind:

1. These need to be Blu-ray formatted ISOs to encourage: a) a new generation of listeners b) gives an option to add video info - to help a)

2. $$$$ - I'm not sure what the typical split of revenue for an online/download title but there is a need for a 'music community' website where artists can sell their titles and MOST of the revenue goes back to the artist (I mean almost all!). This should lead to greater revenue for artists and lower prices for consumers.

The actual cost to run an online store is relatively cheap. Any artist should be able to create an account, provide details on where their payment goes, upload an ISO, set their own price, add their own metadata/marketing info (1 page per title). Even manage 'special sale' and promotions on their own titles. Website take a small % and almost all the rest goes to the artist (instant transfer of $).

Now this should apply to OOP titles too. Once a title is OOP why can't the Artist/Copyright owner upload their ISO and start selling and reaping some financial benefit for their work? (yea, I know its a bit more complicated than that, but surely an Artist and record company could agree on a split on revenue on an old Quad title that was release in 1974 and rotting away doing nothing!). This may also mean Artists getting paid for their work as opposed to just having it bootlegged because it is not available to buy!

Excuse Me. I am dreaming again...
 
fredblue said:
If all the permissions etc could be worked out, a 1,000 copy print run of a Hi-Res Surround 4.0 reissue of Aerosmith's Rocks Quad from the master tapes (don't include the Stereo) for the same price as one of the Audio Fidelity SACDs, would surely sell out, or I'll eat my hat!

The question is would £25,000 gross cover all the licensing, manufacturing, promotion overhead etc for that one title..? I may be completely wide of the mark but no I believe it would not.

Assuming that the Aerosmith albums were made available for reissue in the future (not the case today from what I hear), you'd need more than £25,000 to cover the license guarantees for artist and recording label.
Transfer, mastering, manufacture, shipping, warehousing of SACDs, marketing, etc. would be extra costs above that.

As always, if you have enough money....
 
That is the question.
Since the Surround/Quad buyers are only 10-15% (at best) of the buyers for Multichannel SACDs, a Surround Only label would have quite a mountain to climb.

Unless, of course, the goal was to lose money for tax write-off purposes....

Run it as a not for profit thing, do charity tie-up's with the labels, make it for the preservation of vintage Quads, etc.. whatever you have to do.. the traditional model of licensing these things, paying upfront for everything clearly isn't/doesn't work for the purposes of getting out the stuff we all enjoy most round here, imho, we need a new approach.

Now, I have a few general questions if I may..

- How have the Classical labels managed to pull off the feat of releasing thousands of Surround titles? The market for those cannot be that large.

- Are all the Classical titles similarly predominantly intended for the Stereo only crowd, with 10%-15% acquired by MultiCh fans?

- The inference is no label has ever turned a profit out of a Multichannel title.
Why do some labels (such as the guys behind the King Crimson/Yes/XTC 5.1's) persevere with surround on all their titles if its such a non-starter?
Have DGM/Panegyric been losing money hand over fist all these years? Surely they'd have gone bust by now if that was the case..!?
 
Back
Top