Sometimes I guess it's hard to face reality!
Here's a question for you. It must have been expensive for a label like UMG to support both SACD AND DVD-A. As I recall, UMG leaned more towards SACD at first, and with more titles (Eltons, etc). Was this because Sony "chipped in"? If so, why did UMG bother with DVD-A at all? Was it an artist driven choice?
Also, are there any figures on how many titles were pressed. For example, the second Michael McDonald SACD was in stores for only a few minutes. I would assume that one had a real short run, and there was no DVD-A of that title like the first one.
Also, the Steely Dan early titles. How close did they get to release?
One last Q: Once the titles were withdrawn, why doesn't a label call them back and try and sell them directly to generate some cash back instead of destroying the stock? I know it's probably not worth doing, but it would make for some good PR. Folks are spending a lot of money on eBay for titles that the labels could sell themselves.
More proof the labels just don't get it.
CD had how many titles at launch?
DVD-A had how many?
I'm not saying dvd-a definitely could have taken off like the CD. I'm just saying that if the labels gave DVD-A the launch that CD got, it would have stood a fair chance.
Can anyone prove that to be wrong? Yes...by actually trying to do it.
And I know it would take more than just the labels doing it. The state of the industry is a sickening thing, they kill themselves by fighting themselves.
Besides, we don't even have to talk about discs when it comes to high resolution and/or surround sound.
What about flac? Lossless. You can easily do CD quality audio with the downloads using that. You can do better than CD. It's great.
And, while I haven't actually tested it myself, I've not had a need or reason to, it can support 5.1.
And if high resolution isn't worth doing, then how come vinyl continues to thrive? How come audiophile releases continue to be released? There is very much a market for high resolution audio.
If no one cares about surround, why do 5.1 systems continue to sell? Why is 5.1 standard on just about any dvd you purchase?
Heck, it's difficult to even get a 5.1 system anymore, it seems anything has the capability to do 7.2, or more.
And yet the music industry is still cranking out and churning out CDs and mp3, complete with brickwall limiting, completely ignorant at the possibilities there for the taking. These companies need people with visions running them. The music sucks, the looks of the bandmembers are more important then the talent of the bandmembers, the loudness of the CD is more important than the quality, and the cheapness of the media is more important than the technology.
And they wonder why sales are down. yeah, it must be the downloading.
Sorry, but I can't help but feel nothing but utter disgust for the music industry as a whole these days.
I think I've gone off topic.
Would the "big labels" ever consider HiRez surround downloads?
Even if you took all of the titles that were released on DVD-A and/or SACD and sold them online, folks could make their own DTS CDs, DTS DVDs, DVD-Audio's or Media Player files. Maybe that's the next step for surround. Labels like AIX have started doing this.
I mean, for crying out loud, when I sit and watch the big bang theory on tv, every scene change has a woosh sound effect that moves to the back of the room. Even TV sitcoms are getting 5.1. But not music? How can anyone not think this world is insane when we give tv commercial jingles the 5.1 treatment, but take the art of music and brickwall limit it and compress it into a crappy mp3?
Any masters finished in the last 15 years or so are probably in good shape. We have all that stuff preserved either digitally, or on robust analog formats. I really can't comment on quad mixes from the early 70s. I don't know what we have, and I have never done a vault listing to see what turns up. That is just before the tape binder problems started to infiltrate recordings in the late 70s (resulting in oxide flaking off, and tapes needing to be baked), so I assume any quad masters we have are probably ok (if they can be found!)
We've had to deal in the last 10 years with problems like the gradual disappearance of 3M digital audio recorders from the early 80s. (We had to fly an engineer to Minnesota to spend a few days in a former 3M engineer's basement transferring a bunch of the Steely Dan masters to modern 96/24 PCM format.)
That is not to say that everything is preserved and nothing is lost, but we try our best.
Thank you for your insight and reply. It's great having your input here at QQ.
Another issue we’ve wondered about is what are the amount of sales that would be required for out of print or older releases? We do understand that big sales from popular artists are important to keep the labels going. But if there is a certain market for well, Quadraphonic titles and the Master tapes are there in the vaults and costs to release a product could be kept down to turn a profit, might smaller runs still work? Perhaps DVD-A/SACD was not a 100% failure in that a permanent market was created, if only 10 to 20,000 fans, if that’s the case. We have more people adding Multi-Channel with Blu-Ray/HDTV to their homes as well. Could there be a new business model or way to make small runs work? If expenses are kept low enough and other stars align, smaller profits from many different small releases might work. Perhaps it's not so simple.
Regarding releasing older material, Turner Classic Movies (TCM) would appear to be doing well with their back catalog of movies from MGM and pre 1950s Warner films (many titles are being released monthly now on DVD and Blu-Ray for the first time and sold at TCM.com). I know film / music are different animals, and a certain business model or market needs to be in place in order to turn a profit for there to be more releases. Many old films from the 30s and 40s are getting releases on DVD/Blu-Ray now that a market has sprung up for them. Of course interest is there for these films now because TCM has been broadcasting them for more than 15 years (having its first film festival in Los Angles last week).
The #2 question would be:
Could the Quadraphonic mixes be added to a release as an "extras feature" on a DVD-V or Blu-Ray concert title (assuming other factors also align)? Or could an interested 3rd party be granted a license for Quadraphonic material if they were to pay tape transfer expenses, royalties and other expenses?
If there are no immediate plans to release certain Quadraphonic material in the vaults now, might a 3rd party be able to generate a certain amount of income with perhaps (hopefully) not much effort on the major label part, letting the 3rd party that wants to license the material do the heavy lifting with costs, etc. with its own business model. Perhaps one of the smaller labels within the Record companies’ control could release such Quadraphonic material, assuming all the ducks were in a row.
Again, thank you Jimby for all your input here at QuadraphonicQuad.com.
Jim
Jimby - What do you think of the Rhino "Quad-Tastic" effort, starting with the direct-sale "Chicago Transit Authority" release. Is this a 'pet project' type thing, or could there be actual interest by the label in releasing surround music, and old quad mixes at that. It seems to contradict your feelings.
Quite frankly, if you read my initial posts about this release, I was totally shocked, stunned, and floored that it was coming, and am still amazed that I am holding it in my hand and able to play and listen to it. I would imagine you are as well.
Enter your email address to join: