Scott65
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
And they could make some money from those mixes.
Elton John "Madman Across The Water" 50th Anniversary Box Set (3 CDs & 5.1 Blu-Ray)
- Thread starter rtbluray
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
The only thing which puzzles me about no Atmos disc is that people are puzzled by it - as though it's just an oversight or a bad decision.
Much as people hate to hear it, I'll say it again because folks still seem confused by it. The powers-that-be are trying to kill the ownership model - which means physical discs - and push people toward the rental/subscription model. One of the easiest places to start, now that the delivery channels exist, is atmos/surround music. It has a small, but dedicated, fan base who will sign up for streaming services regardless if surround music is exclusive to streaming. So why give them the option when the profits from the one-time sale of a copy of their property are so small vs a perpetual subscription revenue stream?
Not only do they retain all control over their property, but they don't have to deal with things like production snafus and delays or trying to estimate demand to get the proper balance between revenues and costs to maximize profits.
I know people prefer to complain about speeding trains to create order out of disorder. I do it too. But it's called the music business - and not the music philanthropy - for a reason. Music surround is just the first shoe. CDs and downloads will be soon to follow. And vinyl isn't immune either.
Much as people hate to hear it, I'll say it again because folks still seem confused by it. The powers-that-be are trying to kill the ownership model - which means physical discs - and push people toward the rental/subscription model. One of the easiest places to start, now that the delivery channels exist, is atmos/surround music. It has a small, but dedicated, fan base who will sign up for streaming services regardless if surround music is exclusive to streaming. So why give them the option when the profits from the one-time sale of a copy of their property are so small vs a perpetual subscription revenue stream?
Not only do they retain all control over their property, but they don't have to deal with things like production snafus and delays or trying to estimate demand to get the proper balance between revenues and costs to maximize profits.
I know people prefer to complain about speeding trains to create order out of disorder. I do it too. But it's called the music business - and not the music philanthropy - for a reason. Music surround is just the first shoe. CDs and downloads will be soon to follow. And vinyl isn't immune either.
If this is truly the case, why bother with any physical release at all? Why not present this as a streaming option only?
hang on, is the suggestion that the industry is trying to kill physical releases by releasing physical product?
ah-ha!
i was thinking in a similar way to you at the same time! 
i mean, i just can't get my head around why any label would spend time/money/resources creating and releasing a physical product designed to force people ultimately not to buy the physical product? how does that work!?
Read what I wrote again - without QQ glasses. Particularly the part about surround music being an easy target...ah-ha!
i mean, i just can't get my head around why any label would spend time/money/resources creating and releasing a physical product designed to force people ultimately not to buy the physical product? how does that work!?
Think about it - what are the two biggest complaints here about this box (and many other recent boxes)? The price and the lack of atmos content. Hmmm. They’re milking these huge margin box sets - while giving you less and less content - for as long as they can. But once that cow is dry, they’ll be gone too.
Last edited:
There are surround tracks on the release. There is just no Atmos.
What you are suggesting is that the label intentionally sabotaged its potential profits on the sale of this release so it could reap more profit from an Atmos streaming only version, that for all we know, doesn't exist and may never see the light of day. Is that the gist of your argument?
+1 - no lossy toiletries allowedugh, rant over!)
Nah, I’ll bet you’ll be ready for some more pillow talk, once your MMATW 50th Cush. arrives
on a more serious note
Seems to me they’re trying to play to both sides of the business, give the old 5.1 folks a physical release in a more relevant format (non-niche SACD) and probably later release it also streaming in Atmos (no word yet, but why not) for the folks that are more up to date with music gear/listening habits. The only problem for me is, I’m happy with the SACD. But if it’s the start of a series towards unreleased EJ albums in surround
They may bring it on, but I will not buy them. I bought the latest Marillion, and that will be my last buy without Atmos, especially at the way prices are going. Streaming is OK for my old ears.
I have a 7.2.4 Atmos system and in my experience Dolby Atmos Audio doesn’t add hardly enough into the height speakers to differ that much from good 5.1 mixes to matter much. I have many 5.1 / Quad mixes that sound more discrete and are more adventurous that the Dolby Atmos mixes I have. I notice much more Dolby Atmos sounds in Movies than music.
I guess that Dolby Atmos music mixes are meant to be three dimensional than discrete but In my experience, Dolby Atmos doesn’t add that much from a good discrete 5.1 audio mix to buy twice.
If you have a great 5.1 surround mix I see no reason to pay for an expensive new Dolby Atmos surround mix IMO. Nothing against Dolby Atmos if you don’t already have a good 5.1 mix.
Don’t confuse noise for signal. The 5.1 mixes are meaningless - many have even said so themselves here, no? The cats out of the bag on the 5.1 mixes. They’ve been out there for 20 years. So no big deal including them. It makes non-surround fans think they’re getting something for their $125.
You’re right, the Atmos mix may not exist. But honestly, do you think UMe and EJ, Inc. went to the trouble of doing all of the recent atmos mixes - knowing that a Madman campaign was coming up - and they said not to bother with the rest of the album? I might be wrong, but I think that’s unlikely.
Do I think UMe would forego an extra $50k or $100k in profit from box sets not sold due to the lack of inclusion of an atmos set to get an extra, say, 1,000 streaming subscribers who generate revenue - monthly - into pepetuity? And not have to deal with production, supply chain, and inventory issues? And above all retain near absolute control over their property? Yes, I do. You might call it “sabotage”, but I doubt UMe sees it that way at all.
None of this is at all surprising - and the writing has been on the wall for a decade. For surround music, IMO we’re finally seeing the “suddenly” part in “gradually, then suddenly”.
I don’t think we’ll ever see the 5.1 mix on streaming platforms. If you don’t have the old SACD or buy this set (or, ahem, obtain it via other measures), it will be become extinct.+1 - no lossy toiletries allowed
Nah, I’ll bet you’ll be ready for some more pillow talk, once your MMATW 50th Cush. arrives
on a more serious note
Seems to me they’re trying to play to both sides of the business, give the old 5.1 folks a physical release in a more relevant format (non-niche SACD) and probably later release it also streaming in Atmos (no word yet, but why not) for the folks that are more up to date with music gear/listening habits. The only problem for me is, I’m happy with the SACD. But if it’s the start of a series towards unreleased EJ albums in surround
well in the meantime i'm ordering more Madman Across The Water Cushions, they'll come in handy for smothering people with!! 
To me many of the newer Atmos mixes on disc and streaming uses the heights very well and even some 5.1 mixes up mixes well with Dolby Surround. The latest Marillion is an example. I recently went from an old AVR with 5.2.4 to a new one with 7.2.4, and I'm surprised in the rise in sound quality from the old to the new one.
I have lots of 5.1 and quad on disc, so now I only want to pay for releases with Atmos.
I have lots of 5.1 and quad on disc, so now I only want to pay for releases with Atmos.
Last edited:
That is a generalization. There is a sizeable percentage of people who will just say "screw it". We can argue over the actual percentage but I will not pay someone monthly to listen to music. I have invested thousands of dollars in my music collection and have 99.99% of everything I will ever desire to listen to. I am not paying $9.99 a month to capture that 0.01%. Now if I were 16 years old and had a choice of buying all the music that I have accumulated over 50 years, or just pay for the right to stream it, then it probably would be a much more attractive proposition.
Right now I use two streaming services. Netflix and Apple music. I know more than a dozen friends, family, and acquaintances that use those same services plus others. But apparently, I am the only idiot who actually pays for them. Everyone else just steals it through various means.
In my sons circle of friends (which is young and sizable) no one pays for anything that's streamed it seems. Movies or music. Its services theft on a grand scale.
Netflix just reported that they lost 200k customers in the last quarter. They expect to lose 2 million more in the coming year. They blame a lot of it on the end of the pandemic, but also admit part of it is due to theft and competition.
If you were 16 years old, you probably wouldn't consider paying for streaming. You would probably just steal it like all your friends do.
If it really was that simple, Audio Fidelity would have done that years ago, but I highly doubt that DV could afford to license any of the EJ albums, even if they really wanted to.
just taking off the QQ glasses for a moment and thinking of a potentially wider audience than the Surround niche (allegedly so tiny yet labels keep on catering to it for some reason!) i'm wondering how people feel about a Blu-ray disc in a Super Deluxe Edition set not having Hi-Res Stereo of the original mix..? 
not getting bogged down in the detail of which mastering would be used for the Stereo when initially considering this btw, just the fundamental question since it would seem to me to be a strange omission if there is in fact no Stereo included on the BD in this set after all.
not getting bogged down in the detail of which mastering would be used for the Stereo when initially considering this btw, just the fundamental question since it would seem to me to be a strange omission if there is in fact no Stereo included on the BD in this set after all.
It is an odd omission. But a lack of HR stereo never stopped me from buying surround music that I wanted.just taking off the QQ glasses for a moment and thinking of a potentially wider audience than the Surround niche (allegedly so tiny yet labels keep on catering to it for some reason!) i'm wondering how people feel about a Blu-ray disc in a Super Deluxe Edition set not having Hi-Res Stereo of the original mix..?
not getting bogged down in the detail of which mastering would be used for the Stereo when initially considering this btw, just the fundamental question since it would seem to me to be a strange omission if there is in fact no Stereo included on the BD in this set after all.
Calling it a “sizable” subset is a generalization too - and a assumption as well. Sizable according to who and by what standard? Yours or UMe’s, Sony’s, etc.? Because all that matters is the latter. They hold virtually all of the cards - and by almost all evidence, they don’t seem to think it’s particularly sizable.
So that “sizable” subset can dig in its heels and be content with the discs they have and get nothing NEW - and continue to be perplexed why and complain about how much money they’re leaving on the table, blah, blah. Great, but it’s not going to change anything.
And my guess (and likely the guess of the music industry) is many of that “sizable” subset will eventually succumb.
we know now AF did have an EJ licensing opportunity but couldn't make the numbers stack up because Universal insisted they took on the whole lot and would have had to reissue all those albums that were previously released on SACD, so they demurred.
meantime, it could be contended DV's released SACDs of several fairly top tier titles by pretty prominent artists already, possibly not quite in the realms of EJ i guess (?) but they were not lesser albums by nobodies and i think maybe that surprised a few people.. i'm thinking things like the Guess Who, Earth Wind & Fire, Art Garfunkel, etc., i suspect some of those weren't cheap or easy to negotiate on and we really don't know DV's situation, they may be small but still able to financially pull it off however the offer's not on the table with Universal in the UK/Europe whereas it was with Universal in the USA.. ah i dunno, it would've saved a lot of hassle if they had included Stereo and Atmos on this Madman set (like i wanted!)
oh and a cushion, they could've thrown one of those in too, the miserable buggers, it would make the sweet spot all the sweeter to sit in! Similar threads
- Poll
