|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
96.225.47.191
In Reply to: RE: Why is HiRes Download more expensive than physical disc ? posted by Jared on May 07, 2015 at 11:45:38
"Finally with the downloading of DSD files, we could set the price where it should have been since the beginning."
Wow, that is the biggest bullsh--t story I've heard. More like we'll set the price as high as we can get away with. Hilarious or sad? I don't know.
Follow Ups:
You want to make money with a classical recording? Good luck - the odds are against you. Add it up:
How many days of tracking, and at what cost per day, including engineers who know how to do it. (A small pool, that, and getting smaller every day.)
Small ensemble/soloist, or full orchestra/opera? The latter need huge live rooms, serious mic closets, and engineers who have done it before - all expensive. (That vintage Neumann U47 is worth $8-10k if it's working right. How many did you say you needed? The *tube* for it will set you back $750, thanks to Telefunken USA who are reproducing it; they used to go for $1,000+ **used**.)
Cost to mix with an engineer who has done orchestras before. Then cost of mastering for each delivery medium.
Then Jared's hardware/bandwidth cost for distributing via download or streaming, and let whoever provides that make some money on it as well. (This is not intended to be a charity.)
Balance this against likely sales revenue. How many copies of another Bruckner 7th will you sell? A couple thousand? Oh - by the way, what's your marketing budget; what will it cost you to get the word out and induce people to buy it?
But wait a minute. Who is paying to get it done? The orchestra? Or maybe a co-op effort of the orchestra and the label? Remember, anything involving orchestra outlays has to go past their board. Boards are responsible for raising money to support the orchestra, and they can be understandably hesitant. "You want to spend all that, and you think we'll get it back?" It can be tricky, especially if it's a union shop. (Let's leave aside whether unions are good or bad; for this question, they just "are.")
Fifty years ago, I paid $4.98 to $6.98 for an LP. I don't see $25-30 bucks for a record, in any format, as out of line today. I suspect I'm in the minority.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
This is part of the problem with classical music. It seems to me that the buyers and patrons who keep classical music afloat just want to hear the same familiar music over and over. As a result, the directors of the major orchestras tend to be extraordinarily conservative in their music selections. I used to attend the BSO a lot, but have grown tired of it because the music and the scene is just stale. I get more more enjoyment from conservatory performances of actual new music, even if it's just viewing on YouTube.
Same for the labels producing classical recordings. I don't care if someone releases the undisputed best recording of Bruckner's 7th ever, confirmed by every audiophile. It's still just another recording of Bruckner's 7th. Similarly, why would anybody bother recording Beethoven or Mahler symphonies anymore? Doesn't everybody with at least a passing interest in classical music already have a sufficient catalog of their war horses?
So if you want to sell me another version of a major work such as Bruckner's 7th or Handel's Messiah, for which most of us already have at least one recording of, and given there are numerous other recordings already available on CD for $10-12, tell me what is so special about your $25 version that it not only demands a listen but is worth two other versions?
And don't even get me started on the endless remasters of classic rock.
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Dave, I agree completely. What I was trying to say is that "another Bruckner 7th" won't sell may copies. It may be a great performance, it may be a great recording, and I may want it, but sales volume will be limited. Personally, I'd like to have every recording of good performances of everything.
As for remasters of classic rock or pop, if there is a reason to re-master them, I'm for it and I'll probably want it. A good example is the Berkowitz/Magee mono remastering of the Beatles. I think it probably comes closer to what the original team tried to achieve. There are also labels that use the term "remastered" as a bit of marketing hype to otherwise moribund old recordings a little sales boost.
Cheers,
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
Hi, Bill WayThe cost you mentioned in making the recording are also required for making a SACD Disk.
If you go to Blue Coast record, they are charging 40/50/60 dollars for a Hi Res Download.
Alan
Edits: 05/08/15 05/08/15
Thank you for a discussion on pricing and our company, Blue Coast Records. Our parent company, Blue Coast Music Group oversees distribution for other labels at http://downloadsnow.net.
To answer the question about the pricing of our downloads...
If you are on our weekly mailing list or visit us frequently, you'll see that all new releases have an 8 week intro price with a substantial discount period-as much as 50%. We have been offering a 20% rebate for anyone willing to forward a paypal receipt for more than 3 months. Some people choose not to use this rebate. Twice a year we offer a "Buy One Get One Free".
We also offer at least 3 free new music downloads each month from the catalog. There is also a half price store. You can find these at http://bluecoastmusic.com These rebates and discounts are not to hard to find if you look.
We find that those that complain about the pricing are those that don't want to buy our music. How do we know? We've offered BOGOFs on many forums where this same discussion comes up (here in fact last year) and not one person asked for the free download. That's fine. No problem. If you don't like the music, I understand. But find another excuse than pricing. If you have a hardship, please write to us.. we will work with you if you enjoy our music.
During the last 15 years, music has been commoditized for the purpose of selling gear and electronic gadgets. Companies like Apple and Walmart can afford to lose money on music in order to get you to walk in the door or buy a new iPhone every 2 years.
The musicians, skilled engineers and great recording studios have taken the brunt of this commoditization. Consumers are willing to pay for gadgets and gear while not willing to pay for music creation. It's vicious cycle downward that leads to the end of great musicianship and production.
Quality products come with a price. No one forces someone to choose a $50 bottle of wine at dinner or pay $50,000 for a car or $5 for a latte at Starbucks. Some people pay $3 for a bottle of water.
Shouldn't music have that same right? To not be commoditized as valueless?
When recordings are selling in the thousands, a company can afford to take a lower margin and recoup costs of a recording. However, these days, unless you're a pop or hiphop recording, you can expect a "good" selling recording to be in the low-mid hundreds. HUNDREDS, not thousands. HUNDREDS. Let me repeat... 100 units is a good selling title.
We do better than most when it comes to selling indie label titles. How do I know? The indies tell me what they've sold elsewhere.
A recording/mix/mastering for a small group might cost $10,000 to $150,000. An orchestral recording as with the SF Symphony could cost over $300,000. A pop recording more than $500,000. Nowadays, many musicians are recording in their bedrooms and lack good equipment or skills for engineering. Those are fine, but many are not suitable for playing on a $10000 or more listening system. You might as well get $100 computer speakers for those recordings and listen on YouTube. (By the way, most of our recordings can be heard at no charge on YouTube).
If you do the math for sale vs production costs, you'll notice that most recordings lose money. Labels and distributors count on one hit every year or two to get by.
Replication for SACDs has an upfront cost 2-5x higher than CDs and requires substantial upfront investment. Sell through could take years and require storage costs. Good vinyl has even more upfront costs and more difficult to store. Our Blue Coast Records SACDs cost $40 unless on sale. We don't believe one price fits all.
While high resolution downloads have a lower barrier to getting projects to consumer, the costs are more over time. Every website created for sales has ongoing maintenance to support every new computer operating system, cloud storage fees, viruses and security issues. Customer service is labor intensive and we pride ourselves in ours.
I believe great music and sound recordings will cease to exist without higher prices. MP3 was nearly the demise of great recording studios... streaming audio is the final blow. Recording art and musicianship is being relegated to a hobby. We are trying to stop that spiral down.
Here's what I predict. Many won't like it. Don't shoot the messenger. :) You may not see it happening right away or recognize what's going on.
Twenty years ago, no one would think of paying for TV. Now, we see the unbundling of HBO. HBO has created shows that a small niche of people are willing to pay more for in order to get better programming. ESPN is controlling sports for the sports enthusiast. Trying to watch the world series last year was a nightmare unless you're willing to pay.
Gone are the days of millions of focused consumers buying popular products. Coming are the days of higher prices for specialized niche products. Products of higher quality (however you define that) add value to the consumer willing to pay the price for their passion.
A company or artform survives where enough consumers are willing to pay "X" to keep an entity in business. Whether wine, beer, cars, sports, tv or music there will be a disparity between the lower and higher priced products.
It's going to be an interesting next decade.
If anyone wants to discuss further, write to us directly at support@bluecoastmusic.com
Best to everyone,
Cooke Marenco
Founder Blue Coast Music Group
That was inspired and brilliant.
Vbr,
Sam
Thank you. :)
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Records
http://bluecoastrecords.com
In no world should a hi-rez download be more than a physical disc, with all that the physical disc contains, and all that the download does not.
There isn't a viable argument, in any world, where a download is more expensive. The one point that you brought up that deals with the OP at all is a point in FAVOR of SACDs being more expensive.
""We find that those that complain about the pricing are those that don't want to buy our music.""
To be clear, the OP, (& I agree), are not complaining about PRICING, we are complaining about relative, comparative value between 2 types of media.
I have ZERO issue paying $40 for a Peter Gabriel or Dead Can Dance SACD. It brings to me WAY MORE than $28 value in difference in cost between the redbook & SACD version. IF, (and that's a big if), Peter Gabriel DSD files would be available for download, - it would be MUCH LOWER value than the SACD: and would need to be closer to the same cost of the redbook CD version, before it would have the same level of value.
""I believe great music and sound recordings will cease to exist without higher prices. MP3 was nearly the demise of great recording studios... streaming audio is the final blow. Recording art and musicianship is being relegated to a hobby.""
That is so true: and there's so much evidence to support that. But again, we're not talking about higher prices, but the price of downloads being too high compared to SACDs. But your audience, and your consumers are those who are NECESSARILY going to be comparing DSD downloads to SACDs. And they are NOT going to pay MORE for less. The mass market has no idea what SACDs OR hi-rez downloads are. So your audience is ONLY people who, (at least at this time), are going to be familiar with the value of SACDs, & whether or not their price is of more value than redbook CDs.
Compounding the problem is HDTracks: whose deceit has dramatically harmed hi-rez downloads, investment in the equipment, & created extreme distrust with consumers.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Value is subjective. If one pays a higher price for product A when he could have purchased product B for less, the transaction is strong evidence that the purchaser placed more value on product A.
It may not be "viable", but I've bought a number of downloads at prices higher than the SACD price. There are a few good reasons for this behavior:
1. I get the music now, not after driving miles to a record store
2. I don't pay postage or gas
3. I get the recording without DRM
4. I don't have, nor will I ever buy, an SACD player or an SACD disk (because of DRM).
5. I lack conveniently accessible storage space to hold physical media.
6. I hate the damn shrink wrapping
7. I detest the tiny artwork that comes with CDs and SACDs.
Others have different preferences. That's why people buy and sell.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
as well as hardware user..........
You also have the ability to quickly analyze the quality & resolution, (inclusive of compression levels), any downloaded file.
1. There are no more record stores, much less stores that sell SACDs.
One purchases most all SACDs on line.
2. With a $40 title, postage isn't super crazy, - especially if you buy a few.
3. For many, this is not an issue because there's likely only 1 or two places that you can play either the file or the disc. And, - that's what Hybrid SACDs are for.
4. Hybrid
5. There are not that many SACDs available.
6. Ahhh birthdays & Christmas :-)
7. Tiny artwork is better than none, or a link that you can't get to while playing music: cause using the Internet causes lower SQ.
8. For folks who don't have file analyzing software, TRUST has been violated and prejudiced toward hi-rez downloads.
I am being facetious, but I understand and respect your position. And, - I also know that some people like you are getting just as good SQ out of their digital file playback transport as they are from a spinning disc.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
All else being equal, I'd rather buy a physical CD and rip it than download the same thing. Only because I like liner notes.
I can't say the same for SACDs. SACD transports are not as common as they used to be, and most of them haven't been particularly reliable. I look at my SACD collection today and wonder how much longer am I going to get to play these? I really should grab a vintage PS3 while I still can.
""All else being equal, I'd rather buy a physical CD and rip it than download the same thing. Only because I like liner notes.""
I feel the same: plus, - I don't trust ANY download unless I can verify it with reasonable testing. Since I am "getting out" of computer as transport to play my 2500 or so AIFF albums, I also do not want to invest in testing software.
I have about 50 SACDs & about 10 DVD-A/Dual discs. About 30 of those I really enjoy, play regularly, and will stop the computer & put in the SACD or DVD-A as the quality is enough to where I would enjoy it more.
That being said, I really enjoy my redbook disc quality on the Universal player. IMO, - I am lucky in that my player is a premier redbook player with SACD/DVD-A sounding pretty awesome, - but still as an afterthought. I have heard too many SACD players whose redbook sucks. At no time does computer playback equal the same quality as redbook discs, - but it's not too far off, and I haven't invested a ton of time or money in a dead or dying computer playback noisebox transport.
To people who have hundreds of SACDs and/or DVD-As, - I can see where they'd want a very good SACD spinner. This is especially true as legitimate DSD downloads are looking like a low value product, that will never take hold, and will die on the vine. Any redbook CD has tons more value than any hi-rez download, - IMO.
Any format success has to have a decent amount of Pop/Rock titles.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
To answer the question about the pricing of our downloads...
If you are on our weekly mailing list or visit us frequently, you'll see that all new releases have an 8 week intro price with a substantial discount period-as much as 50%. We have been offering a 20% rebate for anyone willing to forward a paypal receipt for more than 3 months. Some people choose not to use this rebate. Twice a year we offer a "Buy One Get One Free".
We also offer at least 3 free new music downloads each month from the catalog. There is also a half price store. You can find these at http://bluecoastmusic.com These rebates and discounts are not to hard to find if you look.
We find that those that complain about the pricing are those that don't want to buy our music. How do we know? We've offered BOGOFs on many forums where this same discussion comes up (here in fact last year) and not one person asked for the free download. That's fine. No problem. If you don't like the music, I understand. But find another excuse than pricing. If you have a hardship, please write to us.. we will work with you if you enjoy our music.
I can't speak for everyone, but I find these sales tactics to be a real turn-off and it's one of the main reasons why I've mostly stopped buying from HD Tracks and haven't purchased anything from you yet. I'm not buying a car, just some music, and I don't have much patience for this stuff.
I don't want to be on anyone's mailing list. I don't want to get promotional emails every other day to advise me of what titles are discounted that week. I don't want to be offered discount "passes" to try to get me to buy something right now. And I don't want to have to scour sites for deals, or have to click through a bunch of "special offers" to get at the catalog. All of these sales tactics are annoying and a big turn-off and all they accomplish is making me second guess a purchasing decision because there might be a better deal tomorrow.
While high resolution downloads have a lower barrier to getting projects to consumer, the costs are more over time. Every website created for sales has ongoing maintenance to support every new computer operating system, cloud storage fees, viruses and security issues. Customer service is labor intensive and we pride ourselves in ours.
It makes no practical sense for a small business like yours to be developing and maintaining your own e-commerce site. And I think you would reach a wider audience if your records were available on a bigger audiophile site like HD Tracks, or a more mainstream site like Amazon.
Gone are the days of millions of focused consumers buying popular products. Coming are the days of higher prices for specialized niche products. Products of higher quality (however you define that) add value to the consumer willing to pay the price for their passion.
A company or artform survives where enough consumers are willing to pay "X" to keep an entity in business. Whether wine, beer, cars, sports, tv or music there will be a disparity between the lower and higher priced products.
I am happy to pay more for a high quality product. But I'm not willing to pay more just for a higher resolution delivery format. That is just one small factor in the recording quality. One of the other reasons why I've nearly stopped buying hi-res downloads is that the quality is all over the place.
Hi Dave, thank you for responding.
If you're happy with iTunes and Spoltify, that's fine. I'm a believer that the original recording methods have more to do with overall sound quality than the format. On that we agree. Which is also why we offer 44.1 files at comparable pricing to iTunes downloads. We let the customer decide which format to enjoy.
We're not trying to convince anyone to move to a high resolution listening format, but we are trying to satisfy our buying customers. Currently, our best selling format is DSD128. While you may not agree, this is what is sustaining our business. It's growing. If people wouldn't be buying we wouldn't be selling and we wouldn't be in business.
About HDtracks... when we first decided to sell downloads in 2008, we approached them and never got a return response. Because the demand was high for our music in high rez, we figured out a way to sell downloads ourselves. That was one of our smarter moves to sustaining a music label business.
Next to consider is that HDtracks does not offer DSD downloads for sale and does not distribute worldwide. 80% of our market is outside of the USA. Pricing flexibility is also not offered at HDtracks or most of the download sites. Without it, we can't offer sales, rebates, free goods without their approval first. All these things have contributed to having a sustainable and growing business.
We may not have the visibility and promotional money that HDtracks has, but we don't have the associated expenses and licensing fees/territory restrictions major labels impose.
I'm happy to report that all of our labels have reported much higher sales with us than any other distribution outlet.
Our business model is working for us, maybe not for you. We're ok with that. We're not looking to convert you to buying our music. That's up to you. There are plenty of music sites out there for you to enjoy.
Enjoy your listening!
Cookie Marenco
Blue Coast Music Group
http://bluecoastmusic.com
Cookie, I think I will take you up on the free song offer. Thanks! I like how your site sells individual songs.
---------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Thanks for the explanation re: HD Tracks.
I was an early adopter of SACD and to a lesser extent DVD-A. I was also an early consumer of hi-res downloads and so far I've spent a couple grand on downloads. Like I said, I am happy to pay more for a better product. A lot of that money has gone to HD Tracks. I'll admit that my waning support is mostly due to the experiences I've had with them.
Aside from the sales tactics, my biggest gripe is wildly varying quality. There have been upsampled 44.1k recordings, hi-res remasters of classic recordings which have been compressed like modern pop recordings, and other related ills. I started to feel like I was playing the lottery, hoping for that elusive gem. I've had more success finding quality by seeking out old (non-remastered) CD pressings and certain imports than hi-res downloads.
I won't buy anything from HD Tracks anymore unless someone else has already dissected the release and I can find an FFT and DR stats and some listening comparisons to other releases. No more of this buyer beware we just post whatever the label gives us and don't forget your 20% discount pass is going to expire if you don't buy today. And I just don't have the time & patience to do that research except for titles that are practically a must-buy for me.
One thing that would help sell me on the product is providing the provenance of the release. This is where you have an advantage. I have a few of your CDs (but no downloads) and I know a bit about how you produce music, so I have more confidence. With HD Tracks, they get their content from the labels and don't seem to ask any questions; it's quantity over quality.
I realize that people like you and Jared are trying to maintain high standards in an industry where it seems like production quality has been on an extended downturn and consumers don't want to pay for music anymore. It can't be easy. But $40-50 is a lot to ask, and I will only pay that much if it's great music and demo quality sound.
""I won't buy anything from HD Tracks anymore unless someone else has already dissected the release and I can find an FFT and DR stats and some listening comparisons to other releases. No more of this buyer beware we just post whatever the label gives us and don't forget your 20% discount pass is going to expire if you don't buy today. And I just don't have the time & patience to do that research except for titles that are practically a must-buy for me.""
Incredibly well said, and excellent argument against this horrible, and deceitful company.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I don't worry about the price of downloads per se, as much as what it is I am buying. When music was and is cheap you can buy something on a whim, enjoy it and put it away. I look at my CD collection and look at all the discs that don't get played very often any more. THAT does bother me.
Now my download choices are BlueCoast, Linn, eclassical, and my buys from SoundKeeper Recordings. I now preview more and consider is the music good enough and performed well enough for me to want to listen to it repeatedly? It is not any more about is the recording good enough to make me really enjoy my time listening? From these folks the recording quality is the highest there is, period. I don't worry that something was copied up to 2496 or more for marketing purposes. That boxed was checked long ago.
Some recordings do not tax my systems as my gear is often better than the the recording and/or the material, but with the companies mentioned above, I know my gear is the weakest link, but still makes those performances as live and real as they can be within my gear budget. I am amazed on a daily basis at what I hear from these recordings through my lowly Steinberg $150 UR-22 24/192 usb interface and my AKG 701's. I just consider all that music I have bought to be an incredible value and look to buy more as my budget permits. And today with this Steinberg unit one does not have to spend crazy money to enjoy it...it is not just a rich man's game anymore. You could be sitting on a park bench with a laptop and this UR-22 and have the best there is. Who could not want that?
I still buy some vinyl from time to time, but from now on downloads will get more of my music money. Seems like a better value to me. And if they are 2496 I can burn them to DVD-Rs myself and enjoy them on all my DVD players, and not just my computer.
Jim Tavegia
Now my download choices are BlueCoast, Linn, eclassical, and my buys from SoundKeeper Recordings. I now preview more and consider is the music good enough and performed well enough for me to want to listen to it repeatedly? It is not any more about is the recording good enough to make me really enjoy my time listening? From these folks the recording quality is the highest there is, period. I don't worry that something was copied up to 2496 or more for marketing purposes. That boxed was checked long ago.
How do you make a decision when to spend the extra money for a higher resolution format?
Blue Coast typically charges $15-20 for a 44.1k download. I assume it's 16-bit, but they don't say. Whereas they charge $30-40 for 96k PCM, and $40 for 192k PCM. I assume these are 24-bit, but again they don't say. And they want $40-50 for DSD64 and $50 for DSD128.
I read the arguments from Jared and Cookie explaining why most recordings lose money and why they need to charge more to survive because of their comparably smaller sales volume. I get that. And I think Channel Classics' prices have always been pretty fair. What I don't get and can't get on board with is the big disparity in Blue Coast pricing based solely on download format. If you have to resort to introductory pricing and BOGOF and similar sales tactics to move that hi-res product, it could be an indication that the prices are out of line with what the market will bear.
Much of their PCM 2496 material is $20 which I think is very fair. The fact that their music can be previewed is a big plus as is eclassical. I think $20 is more than fair considering much of their material is starts as DSD. The eclassical pricing is less than that for most of my buys there.
I am not much into re-buying material I already own even if it is remastered, especially when those prices are usually $30 to $40 a pop. My last buy that way was a MFSL SACD of Billy Joel that did not really sound much better than my original lp. Different and with black backgrounds, yes, but not worth the $30 to me. Live and learn.
Reviews can help, but my systems are not up to the same standards of the reviewers so we will not hear the same thing. Someone with a $1k cart, a $2K phono stage and speakers over $10k will hear more than I do.
Now that I am older I am finding more interest in classical music, smaller acoustic ensemble work with vocalists, and more jazz titles. And as I work to created more complete boxed sets of the great composers, many of those can be had on CD for nearly a $1 a disc, a great buy and still very enjoyable. That is what I use Amazon for mostly. I am also not adverse to buying used CDs on occasion.
With a little work one can find affordable high rez files that are the music you really like, and often I am finding there are many artists who are new to me that I can really enjoy, and many of those are on the BlueCoast Records roster of artists. Quiles and Cloud will be my next buy as they are and excellent duo.
Jim Tavegia
There is no music being sold that cannot be previewed....
Given the current state of this dying economy, - I would hazard that very people are buying anything unheard...
With the horrible new Apple paradigm, - it is set up for the consumer to buy, (and playback) from a small database of individual (favorite) songs: 1 or two songs per artist. It is centered around low quality, so that the consumer can play back that song anywhere, on 1 of 5 to 10 devices.
""With a little work one can find affordable high rez files that are the music you really like""
That is simply not true... As a matter of fact, I think that there are so few hi-rez files to download, that even classical fans would have a hard time finding music with good to great performances available. I think that you need to research further. Even huge, huge, stars like GoldFrapp, Groove Armada, Peter Gabriel, Sting, REM, Rolling Stones, who've already had hi-rez discs made, don't have the Hi-rez download files available...
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I suppose you are right in that you might find it hard to find highrez hip-hop, but the rest is out there if you look. I have no problem finding great highrez material that I LIKE that is affordable for me. And I don't do HD tracks.
And if not downloads, there are still many affordable SACDs off of Amazon if that floats your boat. I have 4 SACD players. I am still filling out my RCA RedSeal SACD collection on occasion. I buy them when the mood hits me, but now with my 24192 usb interface, downloads will rule for me.
Jim Tavegia
of anything....
With that few recordings, - the likelihood of missing someone's favorite, or even likeable stuff is pretty darn high.
From Ornette Coleman to Faudel to the Beatles, - there is no hi-rez.
If your music is represented, that's awesome, I'm happy for you, but that doesn't mean that there is lot of hi-rez out there, and it doesn't mean that there's any kind of variety.
By saying that there's "music for everyone" you're necessarily comparing hi-rez to other formats that actually DO have a wide representation.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
If someone's music is not represented, whose fault is that in 2015? The Artist? The Label? Someone doesn't feel it is worth being reissued, which today is kind of sad as I would bet there are more reissues than new releases. Look how long it took Sony to do Kind Of Blue in SACD, the number one selling jazz album of all time. Those who have a cool thousand or more a month to spend on music may run of stuff to buy. Most of us don't have that luxury.
Jim Tavegia
exactly as you are stating. Ultimately,- it is likely the economy & the massive loss of wealth that is being taken from everyone by the 1%The lack of leisure time, plus the ubiquity of portable players/phones, means that lower quality music goes everywhere. Less and less people can listen for its own sake, in a static home environment. If people don't have the time, or can't experience the superior quality of hi-rez files/discs, - and most of the files that other consumers are buying are .mp3, - then they are not going to pay more for better: especially if they can't make direct comparisons.
It is what it is: and what hi-rez is is not worth it to most everyone. So the big labels who are already suffering from lack of physical discs, can't/don't/won't invest in a higher resolution files that very few will buy.
The big "disc-selling" artists are all making .mp3s at lower quality than redbook. Streaming services are streaming in .mp3 or worse.
Cookie is absolutely right: when she says that people who don't buy their files don't like the the music of their artists. I would rather buy redbook files/discs of the music that I like, than buy hi-quality recordings. I've been down that road before with Chesky, wasting money on expensive discs made by artists who are 3rd rate IMO.
With hi-rez downloads and discs under 10,000 albums: there's a whole world of people who are not going to get music that they like. Classical, Jazz, and a few prog-rock discs from the 60s-70s + some current unoriginal bands who copy 70s bands: (yes there are a few original new artists, Goldfrapp, Groove Armada, PG, etc, [just a smattering]), will not make hi-rez downloads "popular," successful. (The kind of jazz & classical offered by Chesky, Blue Coast), are not popular compared to "the Voice" style pop crooners, Arabic Dance, pop-rock, roots rock, etc.
Cheers,
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 05/19/15 05/19/15 05/19/15
Everything you say is correct, but you left out one important fact. Hi-rez and DSD in particular are the closest thing to the master tape you are ever going to get. "Master tape quality" is a much overused term, but it applies to DSD, and that changes everything. I just got The Stones, Let it Bleed. It sounds amazingly good.
You know, there are people on this forum who spend big money on RTR tape machines, and if they have a collection of thirty tapes they think they are doing very well. I would much rather pay $30 for a DSD file as opposed to $350 for a 15 ips tape.
I think the numbers are even worse than you suggest. On Acoustic Sounds I count 500 DSD files, and 1800 PCM 96/24 files. I think there are 30 DSD files I want, and I'm sure I could find 70 pcm files. The record collector in me says that 100 albums is a legitimate collection.
Hopefully the selection of downloads will continue to grow. PONO music just came online. I think it's just the beginning of this format. It will have to build up more momentum to become relevant, but it may.
---------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
I really enjoy about 30 of my 50 SACDs, and I always play them when I want to hear those artists: as opposed to listening to them on the computer or the redbook discs: where I also have them. I only have one or two SACDs where the SACD version is muddier, & sounds worse than the redbook.
I really don't like the way the term "master" and "mastering" is used. Traditionally, the term "mastering" comes from taking the "final mix" or "master" tapes to the production facility, and applying EQ (and sadly compression) during the process of cutting a lacquer for vinyl duplication. From there, a few metal discs are used as masters base duplication points, depending on the run of pressings.
My point is that we rarely know how the original, final mixes sound. Even the artists, and producers, forget. By the time that a recording got played on the radio, (in the past), it was likely the 4th or 5th generation of what happened on mix down day, and way over a year after that day. I remember getting a "test" cassette of the master of our recording as a "double check" from KDisk. It was so horrible, I started booking a plane ticket to NYC to come and oversee the process. Luckily, though, our producer/engineer called me from KDisk later that night, he took care of it.
Some lucky people do get to buy a safety copy of the final mixes; every now and then. Now, we have "clean-up" people, who are middle-men who sit at a computer, re-interpret the music, and build the digital file, either in hi-rez or not: and add their own "take" on the final mixes. IMO, these can vary widely from the original mix. The Rolling Stones ABKCO SACDs don't sound like the original vinyl, and they sound different again from the redbook CDs.
The SHM-SACD of Steely Dan Aja has a way different tonal character than the vinyl, and a way different tonal character to the Universal Gaucho SACD.
It was revelatory to me, whenever, my guitars sounded much different in the rough mixes than when I played them in the enclosed room, different again during the final mixes, different again on the CD, & different again on the AIFF files... (yet played back on the same playback system). Which one is right?
I sure hope that you're right, and I agree that the Pono thing is pretty cool. I am happy to make an investment in DSD/Hi-Rez file playback above what I have now, IF there will be NEW original material & a reasonable selection: instead of just doing another version of Steely Dan, Patricia Barber, etc, stuff that's already been released in other formats.
I guess that I shouldn't be arguing too vociferously as this spiraling cycle of lack of hi-rez feeds upon itself towards doom. As listening habits & wealth of people change/decline: the demand for hi-rez material goes down. People need their money for other stuff. This also hurts album sales for ALL discs and even .mp3 downloads. So people just want to spend &.99 on one song. So the "labels" don't take chances on original material, and promote artists who sound the same as everyone else, and don't cost them anything in expenses. This is all geared to hoping/investing for 1 hit, that comes from American Idol, or the Voice.
This kills SACDs even more, too much investment in art, packaging, discs, etc. and the hi-rez file needs to be created anyway. I do have a problem with companies who buy the rights to duplicate the already built hi-rez files that were used to manufacture SACDs, then jack up the price to purchase a copy of that same file, yet don't offer the other components of the SACD package. At what point will this "kill" the market. Right now, I am betting that few people interested in Hi-Rez file downloads also HAVE EXPERIENCE with SACDs. So, that file better sound as good as the SACD, and it better be cheaper...
The thing that might be a saviour to this death spiral, are things like the PS Audio Directstream DAC, and APL's DSD DAC. DACs that automagically jack up all material to DSD on the fly.
Cheers,
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I wonder if there are more audiophiles now than in the '70s? Certainly you can't get around the baby-boom numbers, but there is a significant number these days. Going to shows and reading mags seems to indicate we support a rather diverse and expensive market.All this to say; what if DSD became what 7.5 ips tape was to the '70s audiophile? It wasn't that common to the general market, but it was well supported. Even Columbia House sold them mail order.
If converting RB to DSD does turn out to sound better, and the word gets out? Look out. In a relative way of course. :) It's amazing how many people don't even listen to CDs anymore. However, the download nature of hi-rez plays exactly into that.
As an artist I'm sure you have had a much better understanding of the recording process. For an end user like me, it better sound something like the record, unless the record really sucked. It gets weirder. Does Jimmy Page have the right at this point to do whatever he wants to Zeppelin III, and still call it Zeppelin III? Let it Bleed is so old it's almost a historical document. That must have been a well preserved tape they used for the hi-rez version.
There's a greedy record company for ya. If they sell the hi-rez remastered version of the Zep albums, then why not include a hi-rez flat-transfer from the safety copy? That's what makes me want to slap those bastards. BTW, safety copy is the best term. It's what I meant when I said master copy.
As for the rest, don't get me started on the sad state of the world.
The record companies have been on the lookout for the megahit since Frampton comes alive. Oh, the next jagged little pill. It's out there somewhere. It's interesting to me that small labels have made a come-back.
I so wanted to throw a bunch of crazy talk to Cookie Morenco. You know like how do indie labels get there CDs or music to market, and why doesn't she carry more of them. I suppose Subpop would be the biggest of these. If I was her I would also contact Sun Records. :)
Later,
------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Edits: 05/22/15
Yes, there are tons of SACDs. However, I do wish I snagged more of the major label SACD and DVD-A releases when I could (e.g. Sony, Universal, Warner stuff), because many of them are long out of print and not available for download.
Hi Cookie,
The comment about 40/50/60 dollars was a reply to 'Bill Way' that today's download can be of that magnitude in cost.
It is no mean saying it does not worth that or anyone who thinks that is expensive will not buy it. I regret if I cause anyone hard feelings here.
If you check my moniker, you will notice that I am also one of your download customer a few times. And I congratulate you for bringing along high quality recordings to the public.
But to my original comment. I still think the cost of selling SACD disk is more than HiRes Download. And yet, I find download is selling for more than that the physical disk.
One way to ensure the success of HiRes Download is to make it more attractive. And cost is certainly one of them.
Great to hear from you here, I'm a supporter.
Best, Jim D, SF Ballet orch
Thank you, Jim!
I appreciate your response. :)
Cookie
Aim their sales towards audiophiles not music lovers
Andiophiles are always prepared to pay stupid prices for second rate music
I am often confused.
My point was that $25-$35 didn't seem unreasonable, regardless of the delivery medium. No, I had not seen $60 downloads. Looking through the Blue Cloud list, I see lots of $15 and $20 albums, and some more expensive. I don't automatically categorize the more expensive ones as rip-offs; more likely they were projects they wanted to do even though sales were likely to be very small.
I salute them for doing it. At least *someone* in the performance/production chain is getting paid, and I hope the artist is getting a good chunk of it. If it's not a good value for you, then move on; we each pick our poison.
Cheers,
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
Tell me does the artist get more money on a DSD download versus a MP3 download??
I don't know of any DSD sites that let artists upload their music for streaming. If you know of any, take a look at them and let us know.
Streaming royalties at sites like Spotify and Pandora run between $0.006 and $0.0084 per stream. This week, an appeals court upheld a lower court's decision against ASCAP, which had sued Pandora for higher reimbursement rates. There is a pretty good breakdown of the royalty payments at the link.
My big concern, with apologies to the OP for hijacking the original thread, is that the current streaming royalty system isn't sustainable. Songwriters and performers cannot make a living from their recordings. Instead, they have to make recordings and get them on to the streaming sites as a way to market live concerts. (It used to be the opposite: performers used to do concerts to promote recordings.) Given that gigs at local clubs can't pay much of anything, artists have to become big enough to do arenas before they can make money from their work.
A corollary to this is the often heard belief that "music should be free." A significant chunk of the music-listening population are used to either free music, or music so cheap as to be virtually free. It's a nice thought, until you take the artists into account. This has to change, and there are signs of progress. David Byrne joining the board of SoundExchange, which administers Pandora's royalties, is a step in the right direction.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: