Will We See Surround Sound Downloads from Major Music Labels?

[ar surround]

I think they are waiting to jump to downloads which is the real cash cow....no pressing plant costs...no logistic problems with distribution...it's like printing money....their problems are technology related...but they have some obstacles...the Baby Boomer generation is reducing in number...so they can't sit on these classic albums much longer... and the current generation of artists don't need record companies anymore....they can get their music out without the backing of studios...the old business model of going into these elaborate studios isn't necessary anymore...I'm just glad that I have enough music to last me for a LONG time...so when they stop selling physical media...it won't affect me that much....of course I'd like some new surround versions of albums that were never done....but I'll get over it...

Yes, that's what I meant to say in my post...that downloads represent unlimited profits. But my wife was reminding me that I we had to leave for an early show, so I couldn't finish. So continuing with my thoughts: If the labels do not release material for which demand exists, either as physical media or downloads, an increasing computer-savvy public may seek other avenues to obtain these titles.

 

[bmoura]

Yes, that's what I meant to say in my post...that downloads represent unlimited profits. But my wife was reminding me that I we had to leave for an early show, so I couldn't finish. So continuing with my thoughts: If the labels do not release material for which demand exists, either as physical media or downloads, an increasing computer-savvy public may seek other avenues to obtain these titles.

Downloads don't represent "unlimited profits".
You still have to pay the record label, the artist, the cost to transfer the tapes to files, the cost to add metadata (album art, etc.), storage costs for the titles, etc. when offering downloads.

At the end of the day, just another option to purchase the music.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Downloads don't represent "unlimited profits".
You still have to pay the record label, the artist, the cost to transfer the tapes to files, the cost to add metadata (album art, etc.), storage costs for the titles, etc. when offering downloads.

At the end of the day, just another option to purchase the music.

And I wouldn't hold my breath as to when and if the majors decide to release A list Rock and POP titles in either 4.0 or 5.1!

And you can bet the prices won't be as incredibly reasonable as Dutton Vocalions current pricing...most especially their two~fers.

 

[bmoura]

I would agree. The independent record labels and music companies are the innovators when it comes to exploring new markets.
And the independents are continuing to release new albums in Surround Sound as well as Stereo. Even though Stereo sales remain king in all types of music.

 

[antoine555]

FYI, Qobuz provides a few (between 50 and 70) classical records in surround, available to download or to stream if you have the correct subscription.

I have asked if and when we will be able to have other titles, they said they would ask the labels, but no news since (it was last month)

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Downloads don't represent "unlimited profits".
You still have to pay the record label, the artist, the cost to transfer the tapes to files, the cost to add metadata (album art, etc.), storage costs for the titles, etc. when offering downloads.

At the end of the day, just another option to purchase the music.

Sure there are expenses...but they don't have as many time delays...like dealing with all the problems and expenses associated with these box sets...not only the problems and TIME with pressing the discs and dealing with publishers for the books included all the related items....there are a lot of moving parts in these box sets....

 

[Kal Rubinson]

FYI, Qobuz provides a few (between 50 and 70) classical records in surround, available to download or to stream if you have the correct subscription.

Cool. I had not thought even to look for them.

 

[César]

We must also bear in mind the need to have the right application on the client side to be able to decode and play the streamed content. Vendors will have to develop and make available new versions compatible with a certain set of hardware.
An example of this (a not so positive one) might be Amazon Prime Video and Netflix offering Atmos content. They have updated their clients only for a subset of the newer TVs, mine not included among them. Even removing the costs to have a certain album released on any physical media does not mean that streaming costs are negligible (and the return of the investment to be able to play surround content may not be worthy)

 

[antoine555]

We must also bear in mind the need to have the right application on the client side to be able to decode and play the streamed content. Vendors will have to develop and make available new versions compatible with a certain set of hardware.
An example of this (a not so positive one) might be Amazon Prime Video and Netflix offering Atmos content. They have updated their clients only for a subset of the newer TVs, mine not included among them. Even removing the costs to have a certain album released on any physical media does not mean that streaming costs are negligible (and the return of the investment to be able to play surround content may not be worthy)

The mac Qobuz client does not support 5.1 either. It's ok through Audirvana though...

 

[ar surround]

Downloads don't represent "unlimited profits".
You still have to pay the record label, the artist, the cost to transfer the tapes to files, the cost to add metadata (album art, etc.), storage costs for the titles, etc. when offering downloads.

At the end of the day, just another option to purchase the music.

I respectfully question the statement that "Downloads don't represent unlimited profits" when compared to physical media. Once a run of physical media is sold out, does not the income and profit stream cease barring a rerun of the discs? However, cannot downloadable content remain on servers theoretically forever? Is the cost of storage capacity not decreasing every year? Why can't the conglomerates negotiate a 'per unit sold' deal with the artists (and perhaps others)? Cannot a small-volume product be highly profitable when sold direct to an end user...no wholesaler, no retailer, no Amazon...to one who is willing to pay a premium price for said product?

I guess the major labels are running pro formas which show that offering multi-channel music as part of big box sets is more profitable than offering digital downloads. Or perhaps they are too set in their ways to think differently than they have in the past. Will one of them be the next Kodak?

 

[bmoura]

FYI, Qobuz provides a few (between 50 and 70) classical records in surround, available to download or to stream if you have the correct subscription.

There are a lot of albums - primarily classical and jazz - available as surround sound downloads. And more coming almost every week.
Over 1,000 and counting at Native DSD Music.

https://www.nativedsd.com/new_browse/#channel=multi

 

[bmoura]

I respectfully question the statement that "Downloads don't represent unlimited profits" when compared to physical media.

There are differences in costs. With physical media there are costs associated with pressing and warehousing discs.
With downloads, there are online file storage costs that do not exist with physical media.

And they both involve pulling tapes, preparing a release for sale (transfer, quality control, etc.)
In both cases, the costs have to be compared with the potential sales and return, to decide what to release - and what not to release.

 

[key_wiz]

How much are the “online storage costs”? (I ask in all honesty. I have zero idea. )

And “pulling tapes”? Aren’t we talking about digital media?

Let’s say we are talking about Universal (I believe that’s who owns it now?) making the 5.1 of Roxy Music’s Avalon available for download. It’s obviously already on a digital file somewhere. It doesn’t necessarily have to be remastered or anything, right?

Put it wherever it needs to be stored and whatever else needs to be done to make it accessible and everyone who is due money from the sales gets a piece of however many are sold.

Sure, it will never sell as many as the 2-channel version, but could the costs of making it available really be the dealbreaker here?

 

[beerking]

Perhaps we should start our own file sharing club?

Just a thought.

As I'm busy ripping all of mine this year...eventually!!

You show me yours and I'll show you mine...