Thread: Why do DSD downloads cost are so high??

Posts: 177
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18 next

Post by tailspn March 4, 2013 (11 of 177)
audioholik said:

Tailspn mentioned 2L as an example of a company delivering "DSD content" but they have never recored anything in DSD.

2L uses Pyramix as their recording engine. It's mearly a definition at the Project setup of the session the format and sampling rate used to record. 2L experimented with DSD in the beginning, and then decided to select DXD. It's those early DSD samples they had on their site for years I refer to.

Post by audioholik March 4, 2013 (12 of 177)
tailspn said:

2L uses Pyramix as their recording engine. It's mearly a definition at the Project setup of the session the format and sampling rate used to record. 2L experimented with DSD in the beginning, and then decided to select DXD. It's those early DSD samples they had on their site for years I refer to.

As of today *all 2L recordings* are PCM, although they are also sold as "DSD content" on their website

Post by audioholik March 4, 2013 (13 of 177)
.

Post by tailspn March 4, 2013 (14 of 177)
audioholik said:

As of today *all 2L recordings* are PCM, although they are also sold as "DSD content" on their website

Yes.

Post by Lindberg March 4, 2013 (15 of 177)
audioholik said:

I know, they upsample their recordings to 2.8224MHz and 5.6448MHz DSD, but I'm not willing to pay even 1 cent more for upsampled "DSD content".

Thanks for the heads up on the Five/Four store.

You're totally wrong in your assumption, audioholik. Originating as original DXD recordings we're actually downsampling to DSD! :-)

Post by audioholik March 4, 2013 (16 of 177)
Lindberg said:

You're totally wrong in your assumption, audioholik. Originating as original DXD recordings we're actually downsampling to DSD! :-)

It's not an assumption, it's a fact - you're upsampling PCM (352,8kHz) to DSD (2.8224MHz/5.6448MHz).

A mere upsampling of PCM files to DSD doesn't make the PCM files "DSD content".

Post by audioholik March 4, 2013 (17 of 177)
tailspn said:

The prices on those sites range from a low of Channel Classics $30 US, to above $50 US.

Opus3 has recently started offering 5.6MHz DSD samplers at $12.99 a pop. I hope that the official/full albums sold in their dsd store won't be much more expensive.

Post by tailspn March 4, 2013 (18 of 177)
audioholik said:

Opus3 has recently started offering 5.6MHz DSD samplers at $12.99 a pop. I hope that the official/full albums sold in their dsd store won't be much more expensive.

And the channel DSD sampler is free :)

Post by lennyw March 4, 2013 (19 of 177)
tailspn said:

It might surprise you to learn that the net income for DSD downloads is actually less than the PCM downloads on the Channel Classics site. It's a volume thing, which I'm sure as a "cynical former music industry worker" you can understand. Eighteen months ago there were just two DAC's available that could play DSD files, and only 2L with two freebie samples of DSD content. Today there are more than twenty DSD capable DAC's, and about seven sites selling DSD content. The prices on those sites range from a low of Channel Classics $30 US, to above $50 US.

You're correct that DSD download prices will come down, as the volume builds. But don't hold your breath for small independent labels to operate at a loss so potential customers won't suffer a little sticker shock.

I'm still unable to understand how a label will sell downloads at a loss, when there is no physical inventory (save for the bandwidth requirements, which shouldn't really be a factor). IF the recording was made in DSD then the file exists, so there is nothing to do. If it was made in PCM then why would I be interested in having it in DSD (Foobar now has a setting to output PCM as DSD if I were so inclined).
I really can't see any justification for charging such high prices, except that the rec co.s know that those that can afford a DSD DAC (at least until the TEAC one came out) need to spend above $1000 to get one, and would also be very keen to get some stuff to play on it and be prepared to pay whatever necessary. It's this desire that the rec co.s are taking advantage of, not the desire to "not make a loss".
A novel idea would be to have three levels of charging: MP3; 16/44.1 and Hi-Res (be it 24/192 or 24/96 and, where applicable, DSD), where the Hi-Res is a bit above the 16/44.1. The concept of two types of studio master is risable, and DSD at 50% above that...
(PS Hyperion and BIS at least do something approximating this)

Post by zeus March 4, 2013 (20 of 177)
tailspn said:

About the best record keeping is here at sa-cd.net where SACD's natively recorded were so marked..., until Stephen killed it.

The whole thing was a joke.

Without naming names, there are discs with "Original DSD Recording" (those exact words) on the back that aren't. Let alone those labels that implied that their recordings were DSD. On three occasions I was told by the labels themselves that "ALL our recordings are DSD" then found evidence that (at least) some aren't. Another label told me that such and such was a DSD recording, then subsequently put on their web site that it was 24/96. There are also instances of DSD recordings being converted for mixing. Let alone the vast bulk of issues where there's no record at all of the recording type (a wise move as far as I'm concerned).

Having heard outstanding analogue and 24/44.1 recordings on my current system frankly I no longer care. The preoccupation with only one part of the chain does a disservice to the skills of the recording/production team ... and also collectors who might otherwise miss out on fine recordings simply because they don't carry the right appellation (whether you can trust this or not).

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18 next

Closed