Why don’t more artists record in Q Sound?

No answer to the question, and not familiar with that one, but Pink Floyd were doing interesting things with what was called ‘holophonics’ on The Final Cut, and there was a discussion on another thread in the past year or so about the effect in Roger Waters’ Amused to Death which uncannily places the old soldier recounting his tale sitting right next to you, which I believe is Q-sound.

it would probably add to some recoredings, of some music, but maybe not everything - but I don’t know enough about it, either from the technological point of view or whether ther is any negative trade-off to have a firm view. That said, Amused to Death is one of the best quality recordings I’ve heard.

The sad real world answer is that we audiofixates are a microscopic corner of the market and it would have little or no additive commercial value for the artist/label. The same reason that most mainstream new music doesn’t even bother to make sure it sounds good in normal Stereo. How punchy it sounds on a cheap Radio or in MP3 on Apple earbuds is all that really counts commercially. sadly...

Two good answers and having read them and thought, I agree.

Sad but true. 

I suspect that as Q-Sound was basically a positional three-dimensional (3D) sound processing algorithm, it was largely overtaken by multi-speaker 5.1 Surround sound.

Link: Who's Using QSound Audio Technology 

Q sound has been around for almost 30 years now, I work in the recording industry and I recall it been tested on an album we were working on back in the late 80’s, the band which will remain nameless dident go for it in the end but I remember the kit as been quite sizeable, I think it worked on some sort of computerised selective phasing principle which gave the effect of a very wide spacial sound

Drikus posted:

Link: Who's Using QSound Audio Technology 

The last album listed here was released in 2002...