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

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

Post by zeus March 4, 2013 (21 of 177)
lennyw said:

24/96 17, ("Studio Master")
24/192 20, ("Studio Master HD" -- surely only one of them can be the Studio master ?!)

"Studio Master" is a marketing term. About all you can conclude from it is that the file is delivered at 24-bit resolution (even if the original recording was different).

Post by Lindberg March 4, 2013 (22 of 177)
audioholik said:

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".

Check your math, audioholik! 352.8kHz at 24 bit is 8.4672 MHz of data, providing a sonic bandwidth and a time response superior to 5.6448MHz DSD. Here's an article explaining the relationship between DXD and DSD: http://www.lindberg.no/english/collection/004.pdf

Post by audioholik March 4, 2013 (23 of 177)
Lindberg said:

Check your math, audioholik! 352.8kHz at 24 bit is 8.4672 MHz of data

There's no such thing as 8.4672MHz of data. And clearly the difference between DSD and PCM is not a bandwidth contest. 352kHz PCM files upsampled to 2.8224MHz and 5.6448MHz are not "DSD content" by any stretch of imagination.

>a time response superior to 5.6448MHz DSD

The graph in the paper shows that DSD (2.8MHz) has a superior time response to DXD, so how can DSD operating at double speed have an inferior time response to DXD? Doesn't make sense at all.

Post by tailspn March 4, 2013 (24 of 177)
zeus said:

The whole thing was a joke.

Well, then the answer to Ralph's question is there is no accurate database of "native" DSD recordings.

Post by rammiepie March 4, 2013 (25 of 177)
tailspn said:

Well, then the answer to Ralph's question is there is no accurate database of "native" DSD recordings.

Telarc was one of the very few labels who correctly labeled their SACDs "PURE DSD...." But as Zeus stated, it only matters what the final results were whether DSD, DXD or PCM (the latter two falling into the PCM designation).

Labels did lie (or "fudge" the truth) about the origins of their master recordings and it was an impossible task for anyone to decode the true origins until some of the label's CEO's came forward stating that they were PCM in nature.

Of course 16/44.1 masters for SACD are an entirely differently animal altogether because that IS deception in advertising....at least Bissie's foray into a few limited 16/44.1 SACDs was clearly noted on the case (and they didn't sound all that bad to be totally honest) and were priced accordingly (over 4 hours of pcm content on a single SACD).

Post by tailspn March 4, 2013 (26 of 177)
lennyw said:

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.

Who said anything about selling downloads at a loss? If you're talking about DSD downloads though, it's barely break-even at current volumes. What you're unaware of is the start-up and and maintenance/customer support overhead costs of operating a download site. The start-up costs easily exceed $100,000 US, and yearly support costs better than $80,000 US with data center server charges and customer support. This before artist royalties and mechanicals. All this would be chump change if the volume were 200-300 downloads a day. It's more like 10 to 20 world wide. Do the math.

Unfortunitly it's incorrect that there's nothing to do when selling a DSD file. The original edit master is a continuous single file intended for authoring a SACD that must be re-edited into separate files, one for each track. Figure several hours of prep per title, plus uploading or sneaker net prep, and courier to the off-limits data center, plus fees to have their people load it to the server. What are you paid an hour Lenny?

Post by armenian March 4, 2013 (27 of 177)
And speaking of downloads, on AudioAsylum I read that Channel Classics hopes to get out of physical disc business entirely in about a year, oh well, I guess I will learn to do without CC.

Vahe

Post by tailspn March 4, 2013 (28 of 177)
armenian said:

And speaking of downloads, on AudioAsylum I read that Channel Classics hopes to get out of physical disc business entirely in about a year...

That quote is a bit out of context, taken from Jared's remarks at an informal get-together of Channel Classics customers. As has been reported before, less than 15% of SACD purchasers use any content on the disk other than the CD layer. The additional production costs of an SACD cannot be recovered with labels trapped in a CD pricing structure with hybrid SACDs.

Channel Classics will always produce a physical media. Their artists depend on it. The hi-rez and DSD content can also be delivered through other media, including downloads. The market is still evolving, and in another year or two, there hopefully will be a clear path for delivering to all customers the content they want to purchase at price points that make sense to all concerned.

Post by bissie March 4, 2013 (29 of 177)
To lennyw (post 19): approximating? We're right on it, except for one thing: we don't charge extra for 16FLAC as compared to mp3, so we're actually better better than you said.

To zeus (post 21): No. Studio Master is just that. That is what we deliver to the pressing plant to make the SACD. Studio Master is the highest quality version we have, whatever that is.

To tailspn (post 28), who said: "That quote is a bit out of context, taken from Jared's remarks at an informal get-together of Channel Classics customers. As has been reported before, less than 15% of SACD purchasers use any content on the disk other than the CD layer. The additional production costs of an SACD cannot be recovered with labels trapped in a CD pricing structure with hybrid SACDs."

That is SOOOO true, however, I cannot see how that can be changed, as long as we want to give the customer a choice to have the best quality in physical form. Double inventory is infinitely worse.

To tailspn (post 26): very perspicatious. You are right on the dot here. Even eclassical.com, with its hugely increased turnover, is far from being profitable, if one counts all the costs and time consumption to run it - but we're getting there. The principles we work under (new to that market) seem to have come across very well indeed.

Robert

Post by zeus March 4, 2013 (30 of 177)
bissie said:

To zeus (post 21): No. Studio Master is just that. That is what we deliver to the pressing plant to make the SACD. Studio Master is the highest quality version we have, whatever that is.

Look around to see how the term is used. Jared didn't record his downloads at 24/96 or 24/192. Nor, strictly speaking, are they 24-bit anyway. Also, in case it seems like I'm picking on just Jared, I note that it STILL says "Orig. sample rate: 88200Hz" for DSD originated recordings on a certain site and the explanation given in the fine print isn't acceptable (you can't say I didn't bring this to your notice).

To your credit, BIS is one of the few labels one can rely on 100% here!

I'm not sure how best to resolve all this but if the burgeoning download industry is going to offer tiered pricing it better clean up its act now.

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

Closed