New companion format to Blu-ray

[Patrick Arcee]

Patrick Arcee, AFs

Just after we thought the high-definition format war had come to a close, a new player has appeared on the scene. The Laserdisc, long assumed to have gone down with the VHS ship, is now poised to make a stunning comeback.

For roughly twenty years the Laserdisc existed as the aficionado’s alternative to VHS. Laserdisc offered superior colour accuracy, resolution, and alternate audio tracks, eventually even supporting 5.1 DTS. The format also pioneered the inclusion of director’s commentary, chapter skipping, and other features that DVD often takes the credit for. Sadly, the lack of recordable discs and the limitation of 60 minutes of video per side left Laserdisc sales in the VHS’s shadow. Now, after a decade in exile, the new laserdisc was revealed in an exclusive preview demonstration I was lucky enough to be invited to.

The new Laserdisc will use a standard Blu-Ray laser, but Laserdiscs are twelve inches in diameter, which gives nearly ten times the area of a standard-sized Blu-ray, allowing for over 200 GB per side. The developers at the unveiling this morning were glowing with pride as they explained the inspiration for the new Laserdisc:

“We decided this time to not see ourselves as the struggling underdog. Formats that offer convenience at the cost of quality consistently win-over the mainstream, and that’s understandable. But alongside the race to build a smaller Ipod we are also seeing DVDs released in mammoth-sized collector’s-edition boxes for movies that people feel should be celebrated and showcased.”

Rather than shamefully hiding more data layers in a single disc, Laserdisc will proudly stick with its traditional one layer per side. The range of available recording qualities will allow for anywhere from one hour to (more rarely) ten minutes per side. An eight-sided edition of your favourite movie with four sides worth of extras will look properly impressive on your shelf, not to mention in your hands as your friends watch you load it into your multi-disc player. Fortunately the players combine a healthy read buffer with a jukebox-style mechanism for flipping discs, so layer and disc change interruptions will be a thing of the past. The developers have been working with an undisclosed projection producer, so we should soon be seeing affordable eight megapixel projectors to take advantage of the format’s full potential at faster spin rates. We may have to wait a few months for highest-quality releases though, as the presenter made a passing reference to a staff injury involving the 10x speed discs, the thirty-eight inch disc circumference, and the sound barrier.

Nevertheless the single-speed releases already offer stunning performance, and the true strength of the format is actually in its expandability. First, developers have opted not to use specific sound formats that might become obsolete (Dolby EX 6.1 comes to mind). Instead, each sound is tagged on the recording as coming from a certain point in 3D space, and the player calculates in real time which speakers to use, much like computer games have done for some time now. The demonstration room was set up with a dome of 16 speakers (up to 256 are supported), and we could actually hear a missile leaving the ground, arc over our heads, and explode behind us. To keep this from becoming a nightmare to hook up, the players support wireless Digital FM transmission to each speaker. To simplify set-up even further, the wireless receiver attached to each speaker communicates the speaker’s physical location to the player via infrared.

The fine-tuning of so many speakers is kept manageable by a microphone on the remote control that listens to the quality and capability of each speaker. The hands-free speaker diagnostic mode tries hundreds of EQ and volume adjustments to make speakers compliment each other as best as possible. It also weighs speaker location against speaker quality, so you can trust the player to send the musical score to your quality speakers, but (for example) can stick some old 1970s speakers under the couch to if you want to feel the train wheels rattling beneath you.

Anyone who has suffered DRM-related headaches will be relieved to know it will not apply to the new Laserdisc format. As their presenter phrased it “Various media can be adequately stored digitally. However, a trombone is not digital, nor are the hues of a sunset. Photography enthusiasts still like to use film, many audiophiles still prefer vinyl records, and no art lover would replace a priceless oil painting with a ‘perfect’ digital copy. We are proud to announce that Laserdisc will carry on its legacy with a breathtaking new class of analog audio and video.”

Some appealing (undisclosed) improvements are in the works, but early adopters need not fear about their single speed players becoming obsolete. Manufacturer’s rebates will be offered to those wanting to upgrade their players, including owners of original laserdisc and videodisc players. Yes, the CED videodisc was a completely unrelated technology, but the developers all agreed that they “just felt bad for people who bought them.”

Finally we have a format that will not quickly hit a performance ceiling, and instead is only limited by how much we lovingly fine tune and explore its potential.

Patrick Arcee

April 1st, 2008
individualist279@yahoo.co.uk

[JSE]

Weeeeeeaaaaaaaaak! :hand:

[Ajani]

That was funny....

[filecat13]

Wow! I'm so glad I hung onto my hundreds of laserdiscs and my five--or is it six?--players. I hope the new player is backward-compatible and offers the ability to upconvert SLD to HDLD-like resolutions.

Plus I can merge all my JBL Performance Series-based systems into one super sytem without buying another speaker: 14 PT800s, 2 PC600s, 4 PS1400s, and 3 HTPS400s. I've got two Fosgate Audionics FAA1000.5 amps (10 total channels) and a JBL Performance AVA7 amp (7 channels) and all the speaker wire, so all I need is the new pre/pro and BR LD player, and I'm good to go. :4: :5:

I think you "forgot" to put the link to all the info in your post, so once you put that up, I'll contact the manufacturer and get on the pre-sale list. :thumbsup:

[JohnMichael]

Patrick Arcee, AFs

Just after we thought the high-definition format war had come to a close, a new player has appeared on the scene. The Laserdisc, long assumed to have gone down with the VHS ship, is now poised to make a stunning comeback.

For roughly twenty years the Laserdisc existed as the aficionado’s alternative to VHS. Laserdisc offered superior colour accuracy, resolution, and alternate audio tracks, eventually even supporting 5.1 DTS. The format also pioneered the inclusion of director’s commentary, chapter skipping, and other features that DVD often takes the credit for. Sadly, the lack of recordable discs and the limitation of 60 minutes of video per side left Laserdisc sales in the VHS’s shadow. Now, after a decade in exile, the new laserdisc was revealed in an exclusive preview demonstration I was lucky enough to be invited to.

The new Laserdisc will use a standard Blu-Ray laser, but Laserdiscs are twelve inches in diameter, which gives nearly ten times the area of a standard-sized Blu-ray, allowing for over 200 GB per side. The developers at the unveiling this morning were glowing with pride as they explained the inspiration for the new Laserdisc:

“We decided this time to not see ourselves as the struggling underdog. Formats that offer convenience at the cost of quality consistently win-over the mainstream, and that’s understandable. But alongside the race to build a smaller Ipod we are also seeing DVDs released in mammoth-sized collector’s-edition boxes for movies that people feel should be celebrated and showcased.”

Rather than shamefully hiding more data layers in a single disc, Laserdisc will proudly stick with its traditional one layer per side. The range of available recording qualities will allow for anywhere from one hour to (more rarely) ten minutes per side. An eight-sided edition of your favourite movie with four sides worth of extras will look properly impressive on your shelf, not to mention in your hands as your friends watch you load it into your multi-disc player. Fortunately the players combine a healthy read buffer with a jukebox-style mechanism for flipping discs, so layer and disc change interruptions will be a thing of the past. The developers have been working with an undisclosed projection producer, so we should soon be seeing affordable eight megapixel projectors to take advantage of the format’s full potential at faster spin rates. We may have to wait a few months for highest-quality releases though, as the presenter made a passing reference to a staff injury involving the 10x speed discs, the thirty-eight inch disc circumference, and the sound barrier.

Nevertheless the single-speed releases already offer stunning performance, and the true strength of the format is actually in its expandability. First, developers have opted not to use specific sound formats that might become obsolete (Dolby EX 6.1 comes to mind). Instead, each sound is tagged on the recording as coming from a certain point in 3D space, and the player calculates in real time which speakers to use, much like computer games have done for some time now. The demonstration room was set up with a dome of 16 speakers (up to 256 are supported), and we could actually hear a missile leaving the ground, arc over our heads, and explode behind us. To keep this from becoming a nightmare to hook up, the players support wireless Digital FM transmission to each speaker. To simplify set-up even further, the wireless receiver attached to each speaker communicates the speaker’s physical location to the player via infrared.

The fine-tuning of so many speakers is kept manageable by a microphone on the remote control that listens to the quality and capability of each speaker. The hands-free speaker diagnostic mode tries hundreds of EQ and volume adjustments to make speakers compliment each other as best as possible. It also weighs speaker location against speaker quality, so you can trust the player to send the musical score to your quality speakers, but (for example) can stick some old 1970s speakers under the couch to if you want to feel the train wheels rattling beneath you.

Anyone who has suffered DRM-related headaches will be relieved to know it will not apply to the new Laserdisc format. As their presenter phrased it “Various media can be adequately stored digitally. However, a trombone is not digital, nor are the hues of a sunset. Photography enthusiasts still like to use film, many audiophiles still prefer vinyl records, and no art lover would replace a priceless oil painting with a ‘perfect’ digital copy. We are proud to announce that Laserdisc will carry on its legacy with a breathtaking new class of analog audio and video.”

Some appealing (undisclosed) improvements are in the works, but early adopters need not fear about their single speed players becoming obsolete. Manufacturer’s rebates will be offered to those wanting to upgrade their players, including owners of original laserdisc and videodisc players. Yes, the CED videodisc was a completely unrelated technology, but the developers all agreed that they “just felt bad for people who bought them.”

Finally we have a format that will not quickly hit a performance ceiling, and instead is only limited by how much we lovingly fine tune and explore its potential.

Patrick Arcee

April 1st, 2008
individualist279@yahoo.co.uk

April Fool's Day

[Patrick Arcee]

Well, It's my bedtime so I just wanted to thank people for the positive feedback.

I originally wrote a far tackier design for the Laserdisc 2.0 ,
but ended up making more of a goofy homage as I just couldn't bear to make a straight-out mockery of Laserdiscs.
I could make a long list of technical reasons why they earned my undying admiration, but I'm glad to see there are lots of people out there who already understand.

Happy April Fools Day!

[Feanor]

Well, It's my bedtime so I just wanted to thank people for the positive feedback.

I originally wrote a far tackier design for the Laserdisc 2.0 ,
but ended up making more of a goofy homage as I just couldn't bear to make a straight-out mockery of Laserdiscs.
I could make a long list of technical reasons why they earned my undying admiration, but I'm glad to see there are lots of people out there who already understand.

Happy April Fools Day!

The Laserdisc apparently still appeals to some as an analog sound mendium. A gentleman by the name of George Mann is trying to develop it as such; I gather he has done some development but is a long way from the market as yet. Here are a couple of references ...

http://www.analoglovers.com/id6.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/46/461135.htmlGeorge isn't completely crazy though, he's a big Accuphase fanboy.

[filecat13]

Darn it! This is a joke? :incazzato: I already started the paperwork for a second on my home.:ihih:

[Patrick Arcee]

Feanor: George Mann was Great, thanks!

Filecat13: While I was sadly kidding about Laserdisc 2.0 specifically, I get the impression you share my desire to take advantage of more speakers. I honestly hope that with legal downloads becoming more common and less tied to mainstream standards, people will start to play with audio channel possibilities more than they do now. For example, I have a firmware hack that can make two digital cameras sync with each other in various ways, why not I-pods (or whatever device) to be in sync, each handling a few speakers? I can honestly see someone like Beck releasing an album in stereo, 5.1, and just for fun a 10.1 setup for anyone who wants it. I think actually people would need to have an agreed upon pseudo-standard for 10 speakers,(my Laserdisc 2.0 idea of rendering the 3d position of all sound sources in real time is far fetched, darnit.) I'm not saying it would ever become hugely popular, but it sure would be fun to play with.

[Ajani]

Feanor: George Mann was Great, thanks!

Filecat13: While I was sadly kidding about Laserdisc 2.0 specifically, I get the impression you share my desire to take advantage of more speakers. I honestly hope that with legal downloads becoming more common and less tied to mainstream standards, people will start to play with audio channel possibilities more than they do now. For example, I have a firmware hack that can make two digital cameras sync with each other in various ways, why not I-pods (or whatever device) to be in sync, each handling a few speakers? I can honestly see someone like Beck releasing an album in stereo, 5.1, and just for fun a 10.1 setup for anyone who wants it. I think actually people would need to have an agreed upon pseudo-standard for 10 speakers,(my Laserdisc 2.0 idea of rendering the 3d position of all sound sources in real time is far fetched, darnit.) I'm not saying it would ever become hugely popular, but it sure would be fun to play with.

10.1 would be fun to play with, but would never become very popular due to cost and total lack of WAF.....

[pixelthis]

The Laserdisc apparently still appeals to some as an analog sound mendium. A gentleman by the name of George Mann is trying to develop it as such; I gather he has done some development but is a long way from the market as yet. Here are a couple of references ...

http://www.analoglovers.com/id6.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/46/461135.htmlGeorge isn't completely crazy though, he's a big Accuphase fanboy.


Interesting.
Pioneer was supposed to be coming out with a reel to reel sometime but havent heard anything lately.
SEEMS like an analog format would be a cinch.
But you have to remember that there are a lot of reasons (most subconcious) that a lot
of vinyl philes stick to records, sound q aint one of em:1:

[filecat13]

I get the impression you share my desire to take advantage of more speakers. .

I carried on a correspondence with Roger Dressler of Dolby Labs a few years back. It was wide-ranging, such as comparing what instruments we played in band in high school to the idea of spatially relative sound through nine- and thirteen-channel sound. The idea may not be as far-fetched as you think.

I actually bought all those JBLs in part to be ready with a complete array of matching units if Dolby or Jim Fosgate ever got around to making a viable system.

http://pcworld.about.com/news/Jan202006id124378.htm

[Luvin Da Blues]

But you have to remember that there are a lot of reasons (most subconcious) that a lot
of vinyl philes stick to records, sound q aint one of em:1:

But the width and depth of the soundstage and imaging is something that any CDs I have heard (not including SACDs) can't come close to. Just my 3 pesos.

I wouldn't say the SQ is any less for vinyl, the high and low end may not extend quite as far but as far as SQ I think that there is little difference. Have you ever heard vinyl on a decent TT?

[Patrick Arcee]

I couldn't agree more about sound stage. I've appreciated the 5.1 album mixes that I've heard, but I'd have to say that 5.1 sounds came from different directions in the room, but only certain vinyl albums have actually felt like the sound source (singer, trumpet) was *in* the room.

Others have made far better technical descriptions of what's going on, but I feel I only deserve to speak in vague terms, since no matter how much reading and tweaking I do, many of the best "ooh wow" sound moments have been by accident, on vinyl, and much to my embarrassment sometimes on cheaper/older/dirtier equipment than my own.

[pixelthis]

But the width and depth of the soundstage and imaging is something that any CDs I have heard (not including SACDs) can't come close to. Just my 3 pesos.

I wouldn't say the SQ is any less for vinyl, the high and low end may not extend quite as far but as far as SQ I think that there is little difference. Have you ever heard vinyl on a decent TT?

thorens, dual, pioneer, technics (both direct drive and belt, both of which I still have and both of which work)
BIC, BANG& OLSON, radio shack, my aunts portable when I WAS SIX,
YOU NAME IT
A turntable from 30 years ago isnt going to be much different from the best today,
theres only so many ways to make one.
I remember an interview in stereophile, the person interviewed was a studio
engineer and record producer, was involved in some of the most important albums
of the last half of the 20th century, and the reporter doing the interveiw
was , being a stereophile reporter, a real vinlyphile.
So of course he asked this expert , in his opinion, which was better, CD or vinyl,
to which he replied "why CD of course".
He then went on to explain about the dynamic range of a CD(double that of a record)
and the extended frequency response, not to mention what a CD lacks
Mainly rice crispies (snap, crackle,pop), earthquakes (rumble), and wow and flutter.
This expert then went on to say that digital music was one of the biggest advances
in recording history ever

Now you may imagine that a vinly record is in some way superior to a CD, I think its so cute the way you vinlyphiles try to justify your nurosies, you're almost as bad as your companion cult, the cult of the SET tube.
But while my old turntable proudly sits in a place of honor in my system, and I enjoy my record collection (whats left anyway) There is NO way a turntable/vinyl combo is even close to digital music, at least the lossless kind.
And CD itself is rapidly becoming passe, I have my entire collection on HD, and havent listened to a CD in quite awhile, the lossless sound from my computer, through the right equipment, rivals some of the most expensive CD players made:1:

[Luvin Da Blues]

And the debate continues.

[Patrick Arcee]

I'm too full of good supper to get too deep into a vinyl vs. CD debate, but I'll share something I did that cost me some pride, but has saved me a lot of effort/excitability. I did a series of blind tests on myself to see what I could honestly hear the difference between. Here are a few of the results:

I could tell between:

Vinyl vs. 44/16: 80% of the time

Vinyl vs. 48/24: 60% of the time
(only 10% above random chance, would need to do more tests)

Quality Analog
vs Digital cables: 40% of the time
(yes, I did worse than random chance.
This hurt, but now I'm freed from hyperventilating when I run out of digital inputs.)

[pixelthis]

I'm too full of good supper to get too deep into a vinyl vs. CD debate, but I'll share something I did that cost me some pride, but has saved me a lot of effort/excitability. I did a series of blind tests on myself to see what I could honestly hear the difference between. Here are a few of the results:

I could tell between:

Vinyl vs. 44/16: 80% of the time

Vinyl vs. 48/24: 60% of the time
(only 10% above random chance, would need to do more tests)

Quality Analog
vs Digital cables: 40% of the time
(yes, I did worse than random chance.
This hurt, but now I'm freed from hyperventilating when I run out of digital inputs.)


like my maiden aunt used to say, "I wouldn't have told that"
The difference between a vinyl record and a CD is obvious,
I have always been able to tell,
and when friends say a MP3 is "as good as a CD" they get rather pissed when I can not only tell the difference but the difference between 128 and 250 mp3's ( a little bit harder to do)
Now , you might be able to take a five thousand dollar platter and a ultra expensive
moving magnet (or coil) and using a LP pressed with proper dynamic range, (which few
have) and get "close", but surface noise will always betray the analog source:1:

[Patrick Arcee]

Oops, my carelessness in not being specific:

I was starting with vinyl sources and digitizing them at various bit-rates/depths. It wasn't my aim to do an end-all test of CD vs vinyl (my soundblaster isn't exactly studio-grade), but it was still a helpful test for my practical purposes of finding out at what point I can hear digitization issues.
.
Based on the results, I decided that
a) I could hear 16 vs. 24 bit depth far more than 24 vs vinyl and far more than rate differences (at 24 bit) between 48k/96k/vinyl
so...
I could be happy with most of my vinyl dithered down to 24/48, but left my favorites up at 24/96. (yes, to be honest, I saved the 24/96 recordings on DVDRs for the bigger hard drive I'll have someday, but I TRIED to be reserved...)

Again, other ears with other equipment may find very different results, but my point is just that testing my own limitations saves me from the burning envy I have for that guy with the 256bit/512Thz sound card I can't afford.