Would you purchase new Quadio releases as lossless downloads?

[Juggsnelson]

I don't do downloads so a no for me!

 

[sjcorne]

Is it possible to release Atmos mixes via downloads and have it play back as intended? (I genuinely don't know.)

Yes, the lossless TrueHD/Atmos audio can be embedded into a .MKV or .M4A file and then played back into an Atmos-equipped AVR via HDMI pass-through. It's basically the Blu-Ray experience sans the disc, to the point where you can even add menus and HD video. I think we have close to 100 Atmos titles in TrueHD/MKV format up for sale on IAA at the moment.

 

[kfbkfb]

I began buying DRM free MP3s from Amazon over 10 years ago (took ~1/2 hour to get 1 song via dial-up).

I would pay a little extra to download a DRM free version of a made for streaming immersive/surround sound mix.

DD 5.1 Atmos downmix or DTS 5.1 core version is fine for me - possibly even a Dolby Surround encoded downmix of the DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1 for people like me with kinda primitive surround sound decoding options.


edit:
Maybe offering a DRM free Dolby Surround encoded high data rate MP3 downmix (Atmos -> DD 5.1 -> DS) would be way to offer just a taste of the immersive mix without giving away the whole thing.

I have my Sony Blu-ray/MCH SACD player set to create a DS encoded downmix of the MCH DSD content - my (original) Dolby Pro-Logic decoder does a good job of routing sounds to L, R and S without obvious logic action artifacts.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

On the flipside, it feels like we're often reading about disc failures or authoring errors on this board (disc rot on the PF immersion releases & Tull's Aqualung, dialnorm encoding errors on the Zappa Waka/Wazoo set, stereo folded-down to mono on two albums in the Chicago Quadio set, lossy 5.1 and a missing track on the new Elton John Madman Blu-Ray, etc). If these titles were available in digital download form, updated files could be supplied to users quickly and free-of-charge rather than the label having to repress discs and mail them out.

Yeah, but like, why don't they author it properly the first time? It's not THAT hard.

With disc rot, it seems to only be discs from certain factories...

 

[Bill B]

I would never say never but I will always opt for the physical, unless the price difference was so different that you'd have to be an idiot to pay that much more for physical. That is assuming all things being equal. From a perception POV, the download would have to be cheaper by at least 20%, otherwise I'd just as soon take the physical disc. I know it's cheaper for the distributor and I want some of those savings passed on to me.

I will point out that I can sell my used physical product and get something back from it. I would think trying to "re-sell" a data file crosses a line that differs from used physical product (but I know nothing about the specifics of such laws).

 

[ar surround]

On the flipside, it feels like we're often reading about disc failures or authoring errors on this board (disc rot on the PF immersion releases & Tull's Aqualung, dialnorm encoding errors on the Zappa Waka/Wazoo set, stereo folded-down to mono on two albums in the Chicago Quadio set, lossy 5.1 and a missing track on the new Elton John Madman Blu-Ray, etc). If these titles were available in digital download form, updated files could be supplied to users quickly and free-of-charge rather than the label having to repress discs and mail them out.

You know, Jonathan, I'm ripping the 5.1 of a blu-ray to my hard drive as I write this. First with MKV and then DVD AudioExtractor. Always some sort of PITA pops up in processing the first disc in the batch because I've forgotten something. So yeah, maybe a straight PCM hi-res download would save me time and angst.

And as always, thanks for your help over the years saving my sorry butt:

 

[mandrix]

I never rip my discs, far more effort than it is worth.

I understand that many feel that way, Owen.
But I rip to .iso format. Takes about the same amount of time as it does to play the disc. Then I have a "perfect" copy of the disc, should the disc succumb to "rot" or some sort of failure. Has saved me a few times when discs have become unreadable.

Note I do NOT rip to flac, tag files, etc. I may skip around an album, but I'm mostly an album at once listener like many of us old guys.
I just prefer to load the .iso file in VLC or PowerDVD and listen as if it were a disc in the Oppo.

 

[mandrix]

Also I can stream .iso files to my Oppo over my network, just to be clear, if I choose to do so. Not so much these days, except some DVDA discs when I want to see the menu's and authoring tricks.

 

[mandrix]

Yeah, but like, why don't they author it properly the first time? It's not THAT hard.

With disc rot, it seems to only be discs from certain factories...

I used to keep up on which factories produced the better discs, especially DVD DL and BD DL. These days I've totally lost track. Since on occasion I do burn discs and even print the disc label with my Canon printer, I've just settled for PlexDisc white inkjet printable, they seem just as good as Verbatim these days, who used to set the industry standard (IMO), not so much anymore and waaaaaay overpriced. Same with Panasonic.

EDIT: I do have some Ritek 25GB that seem fairly decent, but many brands are rebranded Ritek anywho.

 

[MrSmithers]

All 4 of these new Quadio’s are totally not in my normal listening bracket, but I’m somehow more excited for these 4 than I was for the last batch. I auditioned a little bit of Sundown having only known the title track, and while the stereo mix is what it is, sonics wise, I’m sure the quad will be beautiful.

@ForagingRhino since the market for these unreleased quads I would think is pretty niche, have you guys considered the purchase of lossless downloads of the quad master and skipping the Blu-ray manufacturing process entirely?

Maybe by some divine miracle, the remaining Eagle with all the power will sanction the first two records to be candidates for the newly mixed quad program. How awesome would that be?

Absolutely! Great idea...

 

[MrSmithers]

Wow, I'm kind of baffled at the negativity here towards the idea of downloads. You get to own them, they sound just as good as Blu-Rays, there's no extra charge for shipping or having to wait for the disc to arrive, and the labels get to save on authoring/manufacturing. What's the downside?

Exactly this! I rip everything I buy on disc anyway to my NAS. And play directly from the rip. It's actually more of an enjoyable experience for me to listen from that. Why bother with the hassle of printing to a physical release - with all the work it requires, when it contains exactly the same information... Perhaps at least offer both options?

 

[Tres Discrete]

SECONDED!!!

Me Three!!!

 

[Old Quad Guy]

If Quad downloads were offered For Sale by the Artist or record label, then yes, if that’s the only way to get a release. This could work good enough for something obscure.

But, for major releases from top acts, I don’t see this happening by a major label. For one thing, too many do not want DL and need discs for playback. Also, physical objects offer a visceral reaction to them, so that one is buying something you can touch and feel.

Personally, sometimes I do enjoy playing files on the computer or BR player. But not everyone does, so we need discs to generate better sales - if we’re going to keep the train rolling.

 

[HomerJAU]

I would buy quad downloads. That would be more affordable and no expensive shipping to Australia. Also no long wait, instant delivery. (Seriously, what has the download speed via dial up got to do with internet speeds in 2023?)

I am another that only listens to files, so much more convenient to get the files direct than go through ripping and converting. (But ripping and converting is still more convenient than managing a huge disc library. Files = near instant playback of anything without leaving my couch ).

 

[Methuselah’s Grandpa]

100% for downloads. It’s literally the exact same audio.

The reality is there is much more time & money invested in authoring, manufacturing, distributing physical products and there’s no real need to. This is why physical media is dying with no realistic chance of a recovery. There’s an entire generation of people now who have never and will never buy music as a physical product.

In my opinion, if you prefer your multichannel music as lossless instead of highly-compressed lossy streaming, …then you should also be 100% for lossless downloads too. There’s ENTIRELY too much multichannel music ONLY available as lossy streaming & if more people were asking for lossless downloads instead of optical media, …perhaps we’d already have more lossless options available to us or at least we could in the near future.

 

[mandrix]

I enjoy good blu ray authoring. But we don't always get it. Some just make me wonder if they know what they are doing? Of course, some are very well done.

I don't know how to author a BD. So I have no idea of how difficult it is. Some of the software I've looked at seems hard to learn. At this stage, I just have no interest in putting the time in if it's as hard as it seems. But then I thought authoring DVD's was sort of a PITA. I have not authored any in probably a decade.
I learned, did a dozen or so, then quit. Mostly to make so called hybrid DVDA, or as some say DVDA-V.

I still keep my hand in with fairly simple DVDA, i.e. I use discWelder and not Sonic as I don't want to keep an XP time machine like really great DVDA authors such as Neil Wilkes. (I assume he still does, don't know for sure).

Even what few DVDA you see these days are fairly simple, not authored with a full blown program like Sonic. But give us lossless, a few pics to look at, we're pretty happy overall.

 

[furui_suterioo]

I would think they could make a few extra sales in addition to the actual discs by offering lossless downloads just slightly under the price of the full discs, also no manufacturing cost. I would buy a lossless download. But don't get rid of physical media.

 

[peloton]

I'll keep this short and simple, but I have no interest in downloads whatsoever...be they mono, stereo, MCH, or the new holographic (where it appears and sounds like the artist(s) are playing right in front of you via virtual reality and MCH surround sound...there's even a dedicated audience audio channel where you clearly hear people coughing, cheering, obnoxiously shouting song requests, etc.) Okay, I'm of course joking about the holographic downloads. Guess that wasn't really so short and simple though!

 

[mandrix]

Yeah. I think offering the optical media first, then later offer the downloads as some artists/labels do would be a good thing.

 

[kvsawilson]

I would be buying downloads if they were offered. My reason is that I ran out of space to store all these discs years ago and my collection is a mess at this point. I rip everything and haven't played an actual disc in years. Did I mention that my collection is a mess? Harder and harder to find what I want because it's become unmanageable for me. All I want is to hear the music. And I can always easily find it in my collection of digital files. They're all in one place! I no longer feel the need to hold something in my hand to look at while I listen and I can't read the writing on a cd sized case anyway. That being said, I love the Jethro Tull releases and read through Ian's and the bands comments on every one so maybe ignore what I just typed?
But these quadio's , with just the original album cover, I think I could be happy with a download. But I would prefer a download to streaming because I want to own it and not worry that when I go to play something I'm ready to hear, it's only to find out it was pulled from the service without them asking me if I minded. Also, I still don't think streaming sounds quite as good as this point. I also think owning the download supports the artist better than giving Apple more money.