IMPORTANT: Thoughts please regarding legit 5.1 downloads

[JonUrban]

Well, not much happening here unless you consider the DSD download world which is 99.9% classical, of which 80% of that is ambient rears.
I just can't imagine why Rhino or HDTracks or ProStudioMasters hasn't at least tried to offer some of the DVD-A and SACD 5.1 titles as downloads. What could it cost them really? Just server space. But how many titles do these guys offer that rarely sell a download a month? I bet there are quite a few. Face it, they have a lot of obscure stuff available. Yet a download of Fleetwood Mac in 24/96 5.1 would probably sell a lot more than some of those odd stereo titles.

Such a missed opportunity.

 

[JonUrban]

(I am not sure why this thread was closed, but I reopened it)

I have to say that I created this thread for ForagingRhino, to show him that yes there are people who would buy 5.1 downloads if Rhino or Rhino Handmade offered them. They already offer stereo stuff. If they took their quad masters and fixed them up for 4.0 downloads I was trying to show him that it would be worth it with this thread. The fact that so many of you voted YES was great. However, it appears that it had no effect.

Not sure why, as I've said before, this stuff is just sitting there, and with all of the 50 year copyright stuff, and the disappearing physical media window, selling downloads to me is a no-brainer. The longer they wait, the smaller those interested buyers numbers are. We're only here for a short time, sell us some stuff!!!

 

[Q-Eight]

It's why businesses fail.
It's why classic cars sit and rot in fields.
It's why hoarders won't sell their collectibles.

The answer? GREED.

And to be honest, nobody wants to lose money, but this is where logic and common sense must come in to play.

"I want 50-bajillion dollars for my 1974 Ford Pinto and you'll never convince me it's worth any less." So, the car sits and rots until the heirs throw it away and receive nothing.

"I want eleventy-quintillion dollars for this Montgomery Wards Record player because I know for a fact they only made 3 of them!" That's right. Nobody wanted them when they were new, either. Trash.

I would imagine the record companies are cut of the same cloth. "We'd love to release this record in Quad or 5.1, but we want to see a return of 100 million dollars and we expect to sell 999,004 units! If we can't hit those targets, we won't do it." If you set unrealistic goals, of course you're destined for failure.

I hope Mr. Dutton is seeing some profits from his ventures. To do what you love AND reap some rewards isn't work.... that's a dream come true. But it's my understanding his overhead is low that he doesn't need to set unrealistic goals to see some profit.

It's like when I fix up a car and sell it. Sure, I'd love to make $1000 (or more) on a sale. But sometimes, especially in today's market, you've got to accept that not taking a loss is still a win.




Er, I .... uh..... back to the topic at hand - absolutely I'd buy an HD 4.0 download on a few conditions:

#1 BEST Quality possible.
#2 Sourced from as close to first gen tapes as possible. No 8-track dupes.
#3 Affordability. I'm not sure what a stereo download goes for but anything more than $29.99 and I'm out. Some of the Audio-Fidelity titles were a stretch for me.
#4 Able to burn to a disc for play in car, other home stereo, etc. If I have to use some cobbled-together Sony proprietary program to play their files, nah.... not gonna bother.

So, yeah, a few caveats but generally speaking.... sure. Let's try it!

 

[Bob Romano]

Now, more than ever, I buy downloads. I would most certainly buy MORE downloads if they were 4.0 or 5.1. Especially if they were the classic 70's titles (Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Spinners) I would think it would be a cheaper alternative to mastering discs and doing all of the work to create a package. I listen to way more music on files than I do physical discs. And it's usually rips I have made of my discs or stereo files. You offer me surround files of albums and I would be apt to buy them all - even ones I cared less about just to have them. Especially if they were hi-rez. I use Foobar2000 with my computer setup and it plays all files (even multichannel) flawlessly. Bring em on.

 

[ubertrout]

Well, not much happening here unless you consider the DSD download world which is 99.9% classical, of which 80% of that is ambient rears.
I just can't imagine why Rhino or HDTracks or ProStudioMasters hasn't at least tried to offer some of the DVD-A and SACD 5.1 titles as downloads. What could it cost them really? Just server space. But how many titles do these guys offer that rarely sell a download a month? I bet there are quite a few. Face it, they have a lot of obscure stuff available. Yet a download of Fleetwood Mac in 24/96 5.1 would probably sell a lot more than some of those odd stereo titles.

Such a missed opportunity.

Not just DSD, but just classical. eClassical is all classical (obviously), but it's my favorite download site by a mile and the only one I regularly download from. New releases from BIS are almost always cheaper than physical SACDs there, and the fact that it's PCM (BIS records in PCM) means that I'm actually getting master quality without any conversion. It should be a model for pop, but so far it's limited to classical.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

It's clear by a 10 to 1 margin, that we would buy downloads. In the internet age, big things start from humble beginnings. Look at what Apple achieved with iPods and MP3's. Point being, we don't know, what we don't know, until we try something new. Money is money, in anyone's book. We start from where we are now, not from where we would like to be. So, hell yes, bring on the Surround downloads. It's already being done for stereo and mono.

Besides, let's also get Master Tapes of all types digitized before anything happens to the tapes.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I believe much of it comes down to perception and what the current market is for music. The big boys don't know how much demand there would be; and they'll never know unless someone takes the bull by the horns and just gives it a chance. It certainly wouldn't hurt if it was marketed intelligently. How many people have home entertainment systems with 5.1 and an internet connection via IOT; they could then sample some and possibly get hooked. It would probably take a mix of both new and old music. Then all that luscious old Quad material can come to life again.

 

[HomerJAU]

I’m pretty sure the Dolby Atmos Universal agreement will lead to multichannel downloads (where we get to own/keep the song file). If delivered by a streaming service (on demand while listening and the song film remains on a server in the cloud) I won’t be happy at all:

1. If this music format fails in a few years (like Quad LPs and Tapes, DVDA, SACD, Pure Audio BDA...) the server will be switched off, all our lovely Atmos music will be lost (unlike your Quad media, DVDAs and other disc etc)

2. It’s likely due to licensing Universal USA will not stream to Europe, Australia and other countries.

3. A true HD 24 bit Atmos song is going to need good bandwidth (5000kbps). It’s not mp3 at 128kbps or 256. This may mean we’ll get 16bit lossy Atmos songs. Many Audiophiles will puke on that.

4. What app or equipment will be needed to stream Atmos? How does my BD player login to a new internet service and play my Atmos songs? I probably play on my media player...

I’m praying for Downloads.

 

[atrocity]

I would imagine the record companies are cut of the same cloth. "We'd love to release this record in Quad or 5.1, but we want to see a return of 100 million dollars and we expect to sell 999,004 units! If we can't hit those targets, we won't do it." If you set unrealistic goals, of course you're destined for failure.

I've probably (over?)used this analogy before, but this is like going out for a walk, seeing a $20 bill on the ground and not picking it up because, screw it, it's not $100.

I know I'm not being entirely fair here since a ground-up reissue like we're talking about would probably involve l*wy*rs, the artist (or estate), someone to find the tape, someone else to transfer/digitize it and probably multiple other steps I don't have the imagination to think of at the moment. But really, if they can sell multiple runs of the Chicago Quadio box, couldn't they easily come out ahead charging full price for the quad files of another popular act/album when they didn't have to press discs, print art, put it all in a petroleum case, etc.?

 

[bmoura]

Well, not much happening here unless you consider the DSD download world which is 99.9% classical, of which 80% of that is ambient rears.
I just can't imagine why Rhino or HDTracks or ProStudioMasters hasn't at least tried to offer some of the DVD-A and SACD 5.1 titles as downloads. What could it cost them really? Just server space. But how many titles do these guys offer that rarely sell a download a month? I bet there are quite a few. Face it, they have a lot of obscure stuff available. Yet a download of Fleetwood Mac in 24/96 5.1 would probably sell a lot more than some of those odd stereo titles.

Such a missed opportunity.

Some comments:

1. The DSD Download world also includes Jazz Multichannel downloads along with some entries in the vocal, acoustic, pop and other genres as well. I see 42 Multichannel Jazz releases at NativeDSD, including a new Jazz Multichannel DSD album released today. So that isn't quite "99.9% Classical"

2. 80% is ambient rears? That's not been my experience with recent classical music releases. While some producers and engineers favor that approach, others are using more creative and immersive mixing with their albums in Multichannel.

3. What would 5.1 downloads cost? Well, it is 6 channels of audio that takes up 3 times the storage space of a Stereo download. Along with the expense of creating a separate download with metadata, album art, QC check of multiple channels, etc. And that is for a file that will generate 10% of the sales of the Stereo version of the album. It's a big hill to climb financially.

The good news is that, despite the challenges more multichannel albums are released every week.
Very encouraging indeed.

 

[minimumtumbleweed]

I've been wanting this for ages honestly. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to get a digital version of a 5.1 album in this day and age. If anything, it reduces distribution cost and makes it more readily available to consumers. It's at most 5GB an album, which is peanuts these days for a server. For me, the biggest issue is I don't have an easy way of even playing Blu-Rays. I currently have to disassemble my PC, connect a Blu-Ray drive to a SATA connection, rip any new Blu-Ray I get, and then reassemble it all. And the end result is the same, my music is all digital in the end.

 

[Audiowannabee]

No as i dont currently do computer music and prefer physical disc

 

[KevinD9052]

I would vote yes if I can learn how to D/L and playback these (FLAC?) files as multichannel. I've tried in the past and failed. Except for a Roku connection to PLEX my audio system is not connected to my PC. My multichannel is via my Oppo player or the Surround Master. I've scanned the pages here on the subject but I just don't get it.

 

[Bob Romano]

I would vote yes if I can learn how to D/L and playback these (FLAC?) files as multichannel. I've tried in the past and failed. Except for a Roku connection to PLEX my audio system is not connected to my PC. My multichannel is via my Oppo player or the Surround Master. I've scanned the pages here on the subject but I just don't get it.

If you can download to a portable drive you can plug that into your Oppo and play them back from there over your home system. Actually pretty simple.

 

[KevinD9052]

Thanks Bob. That's easy! Will try it out. My vote is yes.

 

[mandrix]

I already responded but my tone was a little heavier than I intended.
Again, I'm a physical media person mostly, but I do have an HTPC that I sometimes use to bitstream music to my HT receiver. Also a 5.0 system at my main pc.
Fact is, if I can get some full album I want, it's not that big a deal to author a DVDA. Even sweeter if Artwork for a jewel case is included like in a PDF as Kal stated earlier.
So I'll throw out all the caveats -I mean, many of us are getting up there in years after all- and just bring on the mch downloads and let's do it before I return to stardust.

 

[drphibes]

I would definitely buy surround downloads, be it quad, 5.1 or Atmos/DTS X. I have a small home with two kids, most of the storage space is already being used.

 

[Albert Dagger]

Assuming that one is interested in the 5.1 mixes only, I’d say that the 40th AE King Crimson releases and the Alan Parsons Project Blu rays are real value for money. And it’s not only a matter of price. I don’t want to purchase large boxes which are full of material I won’t listen to.

The Beatles and the Pink Floyd surround releases are the worst by a far margin for surround enthusiasts. It all you care about is the 5.1, then you need to get the big box anyway, sometimes including vinyls (such as in the case of The Division Bell).

Having said all that, yes I would purchase digital downloads of surround mixes. Most of the times I already know the music and I own a physical copy of the album on CD. And at the end of the day, I’m going to rip the DVD-audios or blu rays anyway for convenience. Digital download would facilitate me a lot.

Alan Parsons Project, the Beatles, Eagles are examples of artists that don’t interest me beyond the studio albums. I wouldn’t buy a big box for a surround mix and would love to get digital downloads, or at least a stand-alone blu Ray.

 

[Dillydipper]

I don't really have anything to share in this thread - particularly if it was started on behalf of somebody who works at Rhino, a company that's been sitting on a box of Quadio Doobie Brothers albums they've teased over a year ago.

Want me to share? Two way street. You already know what you're holding back from us, and I see no need to play the "applause-before-the-encore" game just to puff up some industry exec as to how hard he can make us sit up and beg.

 

[JonUrban]

I don't really have anything to share in this thread - particularly if it was started on behalf of somebody who works at Rhino, a company that's been sitting on a box of Quadio Doobie Brothers albums they've teased over a year ago.

Want me to share? Two way street. You already know what you're holding back from us, and I see no need to play the "applause-before-the-encore" game just to puff up some industry exec as to how hard he can make us sit up and beg.

When I said "I have to say that I created this thread for ForagingRhino" I did not mean that he (or anyone else) asked me to create this thread, I meant that I created this thread to show him and the other industry people who read the forum (and there are quite a few, many who never post) that there is indeed a market for 5.1 downloads. These people think that if these were offered from services like HDTracks that there would be little or no sales of those 5.1 files. I created this thread and poll to show them that they would be wrong.

That's all. Maybe I should have worded it better, but that's what I meant.