OK, remember commercial DTS CDs? Well...........

[JonUrban]

Why can't they make more?

These guys got the surround market re-established (Thank you Tad and Brad Miller and all), which begat DVD-A and SACD. Fine, great, good job.

Well, most of the SACD and DVD-A production has dwindled, but that is no reason for DTS (or another company) to go back and license titles for release on DTS disc, DVD-A or SACD, just like the original DTS discs.

How about it, folks. We really don't care what label puts the stuff out, just put it out.

How many surround mixes, new and old, are sitting in the vaults, prepared and never released? GET THEM OUT. If Warner, Sony, BMG, etc don't want to bother, let someone else.

Why not???

 

[timbre4]

I'm with you! It really looked like major label DVD-A & SACD was going to trample DTS within the niche they had established. But that threat sisn't really materialize like we all hoped.

DTS switched gears to offer *some* DVD-A versions of previous titles, but mostly they re-packaged DTS CDs as "5.1 Music Discs" w/o CD markings, confused everybody (mostly retailers) who called them DVD-A. Then they just stood around.....

So far the ballyhooed DTS/EMI deal has netted a grand total of 3 releases, okay 5, if the two David Bowie titles actually ship in about two weeks. This has been a slow mover that should have netted us some fine releases by now.

This has been a confusing week; first, Superdiscs from Monster (Cable) are announced (saw a display rack in CompUSA that was filled only with 3 Doors Down DVD-V), then Sony decides it IS going to issue some MC SACD discs afterall. These should be taken as positives, even if half-arsed so far.

So how bout it DTS? You're good at press leases, when can we buy more actual multi-channel music products?

 

[Kazaam]

I would love it if some independent company were able to release some popular albums in 5.1 surround sound. I'd prefer DVD-Audio or SACD over DTS tracks on CDs or DVDs, though. (Not that I don't like DTS, because I do. But I like hi-rez...)

As an interesting side note about DTS... I was just visiting their website and noticed they were selling tee shirts. One of them said "Stereo Sucks... Surround Rocks!". I was like darn right! At least the surround rocks part, anyway.

Powerful words, but I'd be even more impressed with a slew of new releases. That would be sweet!

 

[MIDIQ]

I agree, i have a good amount of DTS CD's, and most are great. Quite a few are from the 70's Quad mixes, which is great by me. I certainly would buy more if they would just release more.

 

[Kazaam]

These guys got the surround market re-established (Thank you Tad and Brad Miller and all), which begat DVD-A and SACD. Fine, great, good job.

A quick question if I may? Who is Tad?

I'm already somewhat familiar with the contributions Brad Miller made with Mobile Fidelity International and surround music, but the name Tad isn't ringing a bell.

 

[JonUrban]

A quick question if I may? Who is Tad?

Tad, (aka quadtrade), along with Ken Newman, is one of the original founders of QuadraphonicQuad - which was started (and still exists) as a Yahoo! group.

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/QQAbout.htm

He also worked with Brad Miller to start the HDS "Mobile Fidelity International" DTS Surround label.

 

[Kazaam]

Thanks, Jon.

 

[steelydave]

From what I gather from the discussions on the steve hoffman board, the majors won't even discuss licensing out their 5.1 or quad masters to a 3rd party. This is just speculation on my part, but I have a feeling they were peeved when after the initial wave of DVD-A's came out that the company that now owns the rights to all the DTS and HDS titles repackaged them all in DVD-A style super jewel cases. For titles like the Police's Greatest Hits and the Marvin Gaye collection where there was both a DTS version and a Hirez version, this could be very confusing to the consumer and cost sales to the major label if the DTS version was purchased instead. So from a label point of view, there's no point in licensing out titles now, where they might be lucky to sell a few thousand copies at best, then they're ripped and converted to DTS, uploaded to a peer to peer file sharing network. Then two years down the line, when there's BluRay-audio or HD-DVD-Audio or whatever the next format is, sales are impacted because of the availability of illcit copies of the title in digital format. I was a day-1 adopter of DVD-Audio - I bought Brain Salad Surgery at 9am the day it came out - so it pains me to say that this is the case, but the nature of the commercial world today, especially in media is that the economics of scale rule, so licensing a few titles a year to a third party is really almost not worth their time.

Dave.

 

[ChristopherLees]

Some time ago I thought Tad mentioned in another thread, that sony put up their prices to the dts people to make it cost prohibitive to do any more titles.
Especially since sony were about to launch sacd .
Of course now with sony doing almost nothing in sacd,it be a good time to try again.

 

[neil wilkes]

Hear Hear.
DTS made some great releases, and the sound from them is certainly infinitely superior to Dolby Digital, for all that it's a perceptual encoding system itself.

If anyone can find the thread referring to a Sony "Dirty Trick" in this department I would love to see it.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Well, I've seen a number of classical DTS titles come out recently. If this is any indication, it would seem that DTS CDs can be added to other formats like SACD and DVD-A (excluding DualDisc... at least for now) that have essentially been relegated to virtual sole service of the classical music market.

Good news if your music of choice is classical! But for me...

 

[Q-Eight]

I'm wondering if it's all about the politics. Quad never really caught on in the 70's so #1, do many of the quad masters exist and #2, do said company's want to admit to it?

Next, the licensing and fees and general BS..... copyright laws being what they are

Record labels want money for the leasing(?) of the master tape, artists probably want their peice of the pie and whoever else had credits on the given album.... then look at sales. If sales are projected to be dismal and they can't recoup intial costs plus a healthy profit, why bother? It's all about the bottom line.

I think half the problem is that the general populous has no idea really what Multichannel is! The few friends that I've introduced to Quad think it is really pretty cool.... but hardly worth investing in. Most people want "LOUD" music. Quality??? *shrug* Multichannel?? Bah!

If it wasn't all about the allmighty greenback, I'm sure there'd be a TON of multichannel stuff out there. There's Lots out there that could be released. Most studios have recorded in 16 track since the early 70's or so, right?? Heck, that's almost 40 years of ANY GENRE thinkable.

Ugh, now I'm just depressed thinking about that.

 

[TopTip]

Multichannel is impractical to listen to, for most people. The wonder is in fact how stereo caught on, since very few people actually benefit from it the way it was meant to be listened to -- sweet spot, speaker toe-in, etc. In many homes I come across one speaker under the sofa the other in the kitchen.

If there are more multichannel classical releases, that would be because classical listeners actually sit and listen in one spot for longer periods (I do) and that makes multichannel worthwhile.

The real question is why there are NO binaural recordings on offer? With the iPod and other portable players, that would be a match made in heaven.

 

[Eggplant]

Why can't they make more?

Ever since ever since, the willingness of record labels to release their quad mixes and multitracks can be summed up in a word: zero.

Why?

I've heard several reasons:

1) Bitter memories. Quad was a commercial disaster that ended many a record label career. Those that survived wanted to forget it completely.

2) Upcoming multichannel formats. This argument made a lot more sense before the recent flop of SACD and DVD-A.

3) Not Invented Here. Certain labels have simply never been very cooperative with master tapes of any kind. In a private conversation years back, a legendary engineer from Rhino singled out Columbia as a notorious offender that refused to even lend out its two-tracks. As for getting original multitracks for new 5.1 mixes, good luck. Even though I would think this should be easier in the digital era, at least as far as risk is concerned, due to safety copies. (Curious how many Japanese imports in the 70's and 80's were remixes. How come they were trusted?)

According to Patricia Miller, Brad's widow, the only thing that works is finding an artist that cares about multichannel -- and using his influence to pressure the label. That's why Sting and Steely Dan have so many 5.1 releases -- the artists want them.

I don't know how Brad and Tad were successful getting early DTS/HDS releases out. I know that a little bit of money helped, as did picking releases that were no longer in high demand (according to Patricia, top artists like Streisand and Simon were out of the question, as always).

If anyone out there has a plan to get some of the vault stuff released and needs investors, I'm willing to listen.

 

[Bob Squires Jr]

Quad never really caught on in the 70's

Mainly because of confusion and bad marketing.
CD-4, QS, SQ, EV, UHJ etc.
Do I see a similarity here?????????
SACD, DVD-A, DualDisc, DTS, AC3....
Hmmmmmm????

Yet again we are bombarded with a multitude of formats, most incompatible
requiring you buy tons of new equipment that could be obsolete at the wave
of some high powered company's hand on a second's notice AND
with different formats being tried out every week or so it seems.
Bad mixes, adding a .1 and center channel to an original quad mix.
All too scary!

You'd have thought BETA vs VHS would have taught us something.
(It did actually, that the worst format is usually the survivor! )

 

[Bob Squires Jr]

Certain labels have simply never been very cooperative with master tapes of any kind.

Always afraid are they of losing out on a thin dime of their money.

Kind of puts you in mind of the Napster thing....

Take an obscure song by a long forgotten artist.
It hasn't been available for 30 years, can't get it anywhere.
No release, company won't put it out. No one has made one red cent on it
in decades.

BUT!

Find a copy of it, digitize it and post it on a share program or newsgroup
and you have just become the biggest thieving scum sucking pirate this
century has ever seen!
You should be fined and jailed, prohibited from ever listening to music again.
You have just robbed this poor dear company of an eons worth of royalties
and almost drove them to bankruptcy!

(don't you just love my rants! )

And you want them to lend you a master tape??

I could only pray to the audio gods that, say... maybe six of our best here
on this site, could be granted access to the quad masters, agree on one
format and release those old quad mixes in true quad the way
they were meant to be heard at the time of their mixing,
remaining true to the preservation of the original tapes.
The record labels would make some good money, I think.
Leaving the work up to the true enthusiasts rather than some suit in an
office would benefit many.

Alas, I probably have a better chance of seeing Christ partying with Santa
Claus.

 

[Felix E. Martinez]

2) Upcoming multichannel formats. This argument made a lot more sense before the recent flop of SACD and DVD-A.

And now, everyone seems to be sitting on their hands to see what pans out of this whole HD-DVD/Blu-ray thing. And maybe it's me, but I don't think this will be a quick tale of survival of the fittest.

 

[JonUrban]

Now is the time for DTS to go after the surround music market and KICK SOME ASS!!

What are they waiting for?

There are more home theaters with 5.1 systems now than ever before

There are more cars with DTS surround sound systems in them now than ever before

There are more folks looking for stuff to play in these systems then ever before

There are more people are spending BIG BUCKS for what's left out there in the market place than ever before.

DTS are the "surround sound folks". Make some product. Move some product. Spread the joy! They started all of this mess in the first place!

What is the problem????????

 

[bmoura]

Well, I've seen a number of classical DTS titles come out recently. If this is any indication, it would seem that DTS CDs can be added to other formats like SACD and DVD-A (excluding DualDisc... at least for now) that have essentially been relegated to virtual sole service of the classical music market.

Good news if your music of choice is classical! But for me...

That is happening at Telarc. They just released The Big Picture which used to be available only on Stereo CD and 5.1 DTS Music Disc as a 5.1 Surround Sound SACD.

See the story on High Fidelity Review at http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=18367198 for more details.

 

[dmt]

dts rules!