Is BR as a audio format already dead?

[Mr Peabody]

I half heard a DJ talking about this today at work, I'm hoping some one might know what I'm talking about. I missed the name of the technology but he said that a CD can be heard at near Master quality and can be played on existing playback equipment. I wondered if he might have been talking about the existing discs made by JVC and others but he mentioned the technology was new and I never heard the other formats claim "near master" quality. I know this is vague and I apologize, I can't even remember the name of the discs JVC makes. I know we had a thread on these discs at some point. I wanted to throw the idea out though to see if anyone else has gotten wind of such a thing.

[bobsticks]

He may have meant DVD-Audio some layers (although not the most revealing) from which can be played with a standard DVD player. DVD-Audio is deader than the proverbial doornail.

[Mr Peabody]

I don't think it was that. What brought it up was a new album release which I also missed.

[Monkey Mouse]

This person is probably speaking about DSD recording, which is available on some high end stand along audio recorders (Korg makes some) and usually runs on flash cards, mini hard drives, or DVD discs.

[Mr Peabody]

I'm going to email the jock to see if I can find out what he was talking about.

[audio amateur]

Blu Ray is DEAD!

[Ajani]

Is Blu Ray seriously attempting to release Audio only discs? Like SACD/DVD-A? Is the market even looking for another audio disc format?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Is Blu Ray seriously attempting to release Audio only discs? Like SACD/DVD-A? Is the market even looking for another audio disc format?

Bluray isn't trying to do anything. Some independent music producers are creating audio only bluray disc that apparently some folks are VERY interested in. They are typically 24/96khz or 24/192khz Dts MA losslessm TrueHD, and PCM recording in two channel through 7.1.

I never thought anyone would be interested in these, but I was definately wrong about that. The bluray platform is perfect for high resolution recording, and apparently they are selling pretty well according to Lindberg Lyd, a independent producer out of Norway, and a frequent visitor to Bluray.com

I am going to be reviewing Divertimenti - TrondheimSolistene one of Lyd titles and Greigs Piano Concerto, Symphonic Dances in Autumn, Mozarts The Magic Flute, and Natures Color featuring the Worlds greatest Music for Bluray.com as soon as we get the review copies.

With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD slow flow of titles, a lot of folks are looking at Bluray specs and how many players are currently out there, and taking a big interest in releasing audio only titles.

Late last year I was the lead Engineer on two productions that will be released to Bluray later this year. One is the Planets, the other is Mozart's Requiem.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I half heard a DJ talking about this today at work, I'm hoping some one might know what I'm talking about. I missed the name of the technology but he said that a CD can be heard at near Master quality and can be played on existing playback equipment. I wondered if he might have been talking about the existing discs made by JVC and others but he mentioned the technology was new and I never heard the other formats claim "near master" quality. I know this is vague and I apologize, I can't even remember the name of the discs JVC makes. I know we had a thread on these discs at some point. I wanted to throw the idea out though to see if anyone else has gotten wind of such a thing.

He could be talking about DXD technology. However the redbook spec limits any CD to 16bit 44.1khz sample rate, DXD is 24/352.1khz. I do not think the CD would even be close to master quality under this scenario.

[Feanor]

Bluray isn't trying to do anything. Some independent music producers are creating audio only bluray disc that apparently some folks are VERY interested in. They are typically 24/96khz or 24/192khz Dts MA losslessm TrueHD, and PCM recording in two channel through 7.1.

I never thought anyone would be interested in these, but I was definately wrong about that. The bluray platform is perfect for high resolution recording, and apparently they are selling pretty well according to Lindberg Lyd, a independent producer out of Norway, and a frequent visitor to Bluray.com
...

With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD slow flow of titles, a lot of folks are looking at Bluray specs and how many players are currently out there, and taking a big interest in releasing audio only titles.
...


I would have thought "With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD's slow flow of titles" there would be less, not more, interest in BluRay audio-only titles.

I'm a big supporter of (the concept of) hi-rez multi-channel. If SACD is as moribund as it's made out to be, I'd like to believe there is a successor. Please, Sir. T, convince me of why BluRay might succeed where DVD-A and SACD have failed?

Let's remember that audiophiles are irretrievably hung up on vinyl. They will go to their graves clinging to their musty, crusty LPs, (and the sooner the better).

[Ajani]

Bluray isn't trying to do anything. Some independent music producers are creating audio only bluray disc that apparently some folks are VERY interested in. They are typically 24/96khz or 24/192khz Dts MA losslessm TrueHD, and PCM recording in two channel through 7.1.

I never thought anyone would be interested in these, but I was definately wrong about that. The bluray platform is perfect for high resolution recording, and apparently they are selling pretty well according to Lindberg Lyd, a independent producer out of Norway, and a frequent visitor to Bluray.com

I am going to be reviewing Divertimenti - TrondheimSolistene one of Lyd titles and Greigs Piano Concerto, Symphonic Dances in Autumn, Mozarts The Magic Flute, and Natures Color featuring the Worlds greatest Music for Bluray.com as soon as we get the review copies.

With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD slow flow of titles, a lot of folks are looking at Bluray specs and how many players are currently out there, and taking a big interest in releasing audio only titles.

Late last year I was the lead Engineer on two productions that will be released to Bluray later this year. One is the Planets, the other is Mozart's Requiem.

:idea: That is interesting.... I'll be interested to see if any of the established high-end audio brands start producing Bluray/Bluray Compatible audio players. If the format catches on (and that's a very big IF) I could imagine a company like Marantz (which is just scheduled to release their first Bluray player this summer) introducing a Bluray audio player as part of its reference audio line.

[Ajani]

I would have thought "With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD's slow flow of titles" there would be less, not more, interest in BluRay audio-only titles.

I'm a big supporter of (the concept of) hi-rez multi-channel. If SACD is as moribund as it's made out to be, I'd like to believe there is a successor. Please, Sir. T, convince me of why BluRay might succeed where DVD-A and SACD have failed?

Let's remember that audiophiles are irretrievably hung up on vinyl. They will go to their graves clinging to their musty, crusty LPs, (and the sooner the better).

LOL.... I don't see why there would be a large market for Bluray Audio either, but it would be nice if it caught on. Actually I'd prefer high resolution downloads, but Bluray Audio would be a nice start...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I would have thought "With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD's slow flow of titles" there would be less, not more, interest in BluRay audio-only titles.

I'm a big supporter of (the concept of) hi-rez multi-channel. If SACD is as moribund as it's made out to be, I'd like to believe there is a successor. Please, Sir. T, convince me of why BluRay might succeed where DVD-A and SACD have failed?

Let's remember that audiophiles are irretrievably hung up on vinyl. They will go to their graves clinging to their musty, crusty LPs, (and the sooner the better).

Not all audiophiles are stuck on vinyl. Some were ardent supporters of DVD-A and SACD. There just was not enough of them, and the material released on both of these formats didn't attract the interest of quite a few folks. Good technology, no marketing, and no great titles in numbers. That is what killed them both, along with the changing way folks listened to music.

I cannot really convince anyone of why bluray might succeed or not. Its really too early to tell if it will on that level or not. What I do know is that there are alot of independent producers interested in the bluray format, most have already produced in SACD and DVD-A, and want another format to release their high quality masters to. I know personally I have heard from Michael Tilson Thomas of the San Francisco Symphony who is interested, and Gerard Schwarz of the Seattle Symphony who has inquired about recording in DXD and releasing to the bluray format.

While SACD title release has slowed quite a bit, and Sony has backed away from supporting SACD, third party recording companies and a couple of manufacturers have continued work on SACD. DXD is the latest developement for SACD, DSD, and PCM for that matter. It allows high resolution editing without loss, and has actually more resolution than DSD itself

[ldgibson76]

School 'em, "Sir T"!:13:

We should refer to you as "The Oracle of all things Blu ray!"

Holla!

[Woochifer]

Sounds like yet another reference to JVC's K2HD (and before that XRCD and XRCD2) releases. That process is nothing more than a standard CD mastered using downsampled 192/24 transfers. Anything that's "compatible" with existing equipment is limited to whatever resolution that equipment has. This is the thread you're referring to.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=24041

I don't know why you're declaring BR dead as an audio format, when the first batch of audio-only releases has barely trickled out. Neil Young seems to think that Blu-ray's got plenty of promise as a music format because it offers up both high resolution audio and full interactive capability, something that wasn't possible with DVD-A and SACD. His archival boxed sets on Blu-ray start coming out in the fall.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=26993

[Mr Peabody]

First of all, no one declared BR audio dead. There was merely a question. BR audio could have a very hard time getting traction IF there was such a thing as a CD that sounded near master quality. I agree that this isn't likely on an existing machine. I'm waiting to receive an answer to an email I sent to see what was being talked about.

Geez, I can see my room now, all these various disc formats filling the place up. It will also be difficult to keep two systems. Or, maybe I'll just have to figure some way to bring the equipment closer together. I would be pretty interested in hearing BR audio. Some of the movie soundtracks I've heard have been really impressive.

[pixelthis]

Sounds like yet another reference to JVC's K2HD (and before that XRCD and XRCD2) releases. That process is nothing more than a standard CD mastered using downsampled 192/24 transfers. Anything that's "compatible" with existing equipment is limited to whatever resolution that equipment has. This is the thread you're referring to.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=24041

I don't know why you're declaring BR dead as an audio format, when the first batch of audio-only releases has barely trickled out. Neil Young seems to think that Blu-ray's got plenty of promise as a music format because it offers up both high resolution audio and full interactive capability, something that wasn't possible with DVD-A and SACD. His archival boxed sets on Blu-ray start coming out in the fall.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=26993



neil young WAS ALSO AN ARDERNT supporter of DVDA, the format he picked in that little "format war".
Lets hope hes not so far off with BLU :1:

[pixelthis]

Bluray isn't trying to do anything. Some independent music producers are creating audio only bluray disc that apparently some folks are VERY interested in. They are typically 24/96khz or 24/192khz Dts MA losslessm TrueHD, and PCM recording in two channel through 7.1.

I never thought anyone would be interested in these, but I was definately wrong about that. The bluray platform is perfect for high resolution recording, and apparently they are selling pretty well according to Lindberg Lyd, a independent producer out of Norway, and a frequent visitor to Bluray.com

I am going to be reviewing Divertimenti - TrondheimSolistene one of Lyd titles and Greigs Piano Concerto, Symphonic Dances in Autumn, Mozarts The Magic Flute, and Natures Color featuring the Worlds greatest Music for Bluray.com as soon as we get the review copies.

With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD slow flow of titles, a lot of folks are looking at Bluray specs and how many players are currently out there, and taking a big interest in releasing audio only titles.

Late last year I was the lead Engineer on two productions that will be released to Bluray later this year. One is the Planets, the other is Mozart's Requiem.



NO , YOU WOULDNT think any audiophile would be interested in a format with
perfect sound, dynamic range, and storage capacity, "mr expert"

[pixelthis]

First of all, no one declared BR audio dead. There was merely a question. BR audio could have a very hard time getting traction IF there was such a thing as a CD that sounded near master quality. I agree that this isn't likely on an existing machine. I'm waiting to receive an answer to an email I sent to see what was being talked about.

Geez, I can see my room now, all these various disc formats filling the place up. It will also be difficult to keep two systems. Or, maybe I'll just have to figure some way to bring the equipment closer together. I would be pretty interested in hearing BR audio. Some of the movie soundtracks I've heard have been really impressive.


I would be happy with some concert and music video discs.
THESE ARE FUN BECAUSE YOU CAN WATCH THEM OVER AND OVER.
When they start coming out on Blu then Blu will be an "essential".
STuff like the steely Dan DVD, etc:1:

[Feanor]

First of all, no one declared BR audio dead. There was merely a question. BR audio could have a very hard time getting traction IF there was such a thing as a CD that sounded near master quality. I agree that this isn't likely on an existing machine. I'm waiting to receive an answer to an email I sent to see what was being talked about.

Geez, I can see my room now, all these various disc formats filling the place up. It will also be difficult to keep two systems. Or, maybe I'll just have to figure some way to bring the equipment closer together. I would be pretty interested in hearing BR audio. Some of the movie soundtracks I've heard have been really impressive.

As I said in the 'BluRay sales down' thread, if BluRay hi-rez audio happens at all, it will be a niche market exclusively. For even this to happen, it will need to displace SACD -- SACD is not dead or even dying but it is a small niche market. (The people who declare it dead aren't classical listeners; there is a small but quite steady stream of new classical releases.)

People just aren't that interested in hi-rez audio. 95% of listeners can't hear the differences on their equipment -- or maybe it's 100% if you acknowledge that more careful mastering is the real reason for the superiority of hi-rez recordings. Most of them don't care in any case. Hi-rez video, yes, but not for movies, for sports events, (where BluRay is irrelevant anyway).

[Ajani]

As I said in the 'BluRay sales down' thread, if BluRay hi-rez audio happens at all, it will be a niche market exclusively. For even this to happen, it will need to displace SACD -- SACD is not dead or even dying but it is a small niche market. (The people who declare it dead aren't classical listeners; there is a small but quite steady stream of new classical releases.)

People just aren't that interested in hi-rez audio. 95% of listeners can't hear the differences on their equipment -- or maybe it's 100% if you acknowledge that more careful mastering is the real reason for the superiority of hi-rez recordings. Most of them don't care in any case. Hi-rez video, yes, but not for movies, for sports events, (where BluRay is irrelevant anyway).

Good points. Another major problem is that Multi-channel audio is a tough sell for many people. MC needs to appeal to:

1) The dedicated 2 channel crowd and convince them that 5 speakers and a sub in MC sounds better than 1 pair of high quality floorstanders (for the same price). That a Receiver and Bluray Player in MC sounds better than an integrated amp and cd player/turntable (for the same price).

OR

2) Existing HT owners. Keep in mind though that even some very high quality (and really expensive) HT setups aren't well suited to MC music. Some HT setups use dipole speakers, others use Surround speakers that don't really match the mains, some even have centres that don't match the mains. Finally some HT speakers work fine for movies but really sound like crap for music (prime example being the Bose systems I've heard. They do a decent job on HT but sound like utter rubish on music).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

First of all, no one declared BR audio dead. There was merely a question. BR audio could have a very hard time getting traction IF there was such a thing as a CD that sounded near master quality. I agree that this isn't likely on an existing machine. I'm waiting to receive an answer to an email I sent to see what was being talked about.

I do not think BR audio would have any problem co-existing with any CD format. The reason being with CD your resolution is at the very bottom of what is considered good audio. The step up would be BR audio which has resolution that is unacheiveable with CD, not to mention playing times, and the ability to offer music with 3 or 4 different audio codecs at different resolution to accomodate different setups.


Geez, I can see my room now, all these various disc formats filling the place up. It will also be difficult to keep two systems. Or, maybe I'll just have to figure some way to bring the equipment closer together. I would be pretty interested in hearing BR audio. Some of the movie soundtracks I've heard have been really impressive.

If you think soundtracks sound good, you should really hear 5.1 or 7.1 24/192khz audio. Soundtracks pale next to this I am afraid.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Good points. Another major problem is that Multi-channel audio is a tough sell for many people. MC needs to appeal to:

1) The dedicated 2 channel crowd and convince them that 5 speakers and a sub in MC sounds better than 1 pair of high quality floorstanders (for the same price). That a Receiver and Bluray Player in MC sounds better than an integrated amp and cd player/turntable (for the same price).

Bluray music comes in many flavors. It is not just limited to multichannel. Every release I have seen has at least one 24/192khz PCM soundtrack. So you do not have to convince anyone to change or alter their setup. Their are enough tracks to serve even older setups with some justice.

OR


2) Existing HT owners. Keep in mind though that even some very high quality (and really expensive) HT setups aren't well suited to MC music. Some HT setups use dipole speakers, others use Surround speakers that don't really match the mains, some even have centres that don't match the mains.

Dipoles are not bad for mutlichannel acoustical music such as classical or jazz. Where it becomes a problem is when mixers use "artistic" choices and move various instruments around the room. IMO even with frequency balanced, voiced and phase matched systems this is unnatural even if coherent. With acoustical classical and jazz, the hall ambience is what comes out of the rear channels, and dipoles work quite well at dispersing this around the room. If mismatched speakers become a problem, just switch to the two channel mix. I have the same concerns about mismatched speakers as you, but it appear not to be stopping many folks from buying the disc. Their sales are doing pretty well.



Finally some HT speakers work fine for movies but really sound like crap for music (prime example being the Bose systems I've heard. They do a decent job on HT but sound like utter rubish on music).

Unfortunately as bad as they sound to us, is as good as these sound to the owner. I know too many Bose owners who brag about how good their systems sound while I throw up in my mouth:blush2:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

NO , YOU WOULDNT think any audiophile would be interested in a format with
perfect sound, dynamic range, and storage capacity, "mr expert"

Echo's of jealousy and inadequacy:rolleyes: Having an inferiority complex pixie?:1:

[Feanor]

Good points. Another major problem is that Multi-channel audio is a tough sell for many people. MC needs to appeal to:

1) The dedicated 2 channel crowd and convince them that 5 speakers and a sub in MC sounds better than 1 pair of high quality floorstanders (for the same price). That a Receiver and Bluray Player in MC sounds better than an integrated amp and cd player/turntable (for the same price).

OR

2) Existing HT owners. Keep in mind though that even some very high quality (and really expensive) HT setups aren't well suited to MC music. Some HT setups use dipole speakers, others use Surround speakers that don't really match the mains, some even have centres that don't match the mains. Finally some HT speakers work fine for movies but really sound like crap for music (prime example being the Bose systems I've heard. They do a decent job on HT but sound like utter rubish on music).

On your first point, IMO, it's pretty close. That is, for the same money, a multi-channel system is will bring as much or more satisfaction as a stereo, given well-made multi-channel recordings. Unfortunately it's seemingly hard from producers and engineers to make good stereo recordings, let alone M/C.

My own HT system is much less good than my stereo and much less good than it ought to be, (e.g. fronts, center, rears aren't perfectly matched). Nevertheless on good recordings the potential of M/C is revealed.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As I said in the 'BluRay sales down' thread, if BluRay hi-rez audio happens at all, it will be a niche market exclusively. For even this to happen, it will need to displace SACD -- SACD is not dead or even dying but it is a small niche market. (The people who declare it dead aren't classical listeners; there is a small but quite steady stream of new classical releases.)

Of course it will be a niche format, but niche does not mean unsuccessful or not appealing. It does not need to displace SACD at all, it can co-exist just fine. Some folks have bluray players, but not SACD. Some folks never bought into SACD but love DVD-A.


People just aren't that interested in hi-rez audio. 95% of listeners can't hear the differences on their equipment -- or maybe it's 100% if you acknowledge that more careful mastering is the real reason for the superiority of hi-rez recordings. Most of them don't care in any case. Hi-rez video, yes, but not for movies, for sports events, (where BluRay is irrelevant anyway).

I used to think this way as well, but it appears there is more support for hi rez audio than I thought. The ability to pass it through a single cable is probably much more appealing to folks than trying to hookup 6 analog cables. With bluray music the receiver can do the bass management and delay, something that was not possible with SACD.

Careful mastering is VERY important. But if the carrier of the signal has limited resolution, then it renders careful mastering moot. Just take a well mastered CD, and transfer it to MP3. Well mastered audio's benefits become more apparent when the system can capture all of the nuance and detail within the mix. This is where higher sample and bit rates kick in. Remember Nyquist-Shannon theory only speaks to capture, not the sound quality of that capture. Any who thinks that redbook is good enough has a rude awakening when you are able to hear it side by side with audio with much higher sample and bit rates.

[Feanor]

...
The ability to pass it through a single cable is probably much more appealing to folks than trying to hookup 6 analog cables. With bluray music the receiver can do the bass management and delay, something that was not possible with SACD.
...


Using a single HDMI cable instead of six RCA will make BluRay more attactive to a lot people. The bass management factor is big too, I agree.

I'm 63 and I don't hear anything above 10-11 kHz so it's very possible that I don't hear differences that other people can detect.

[kexodusc]

Using a single HDMI cable instead of six RCA will make BluRay more attactive to a lot people. The bass management factor is big too, I agree.

I'm 63 and I don't hear anything above 10-11 kHz so it's very possible that I don't hear differences that other people can detect.
You don't look a day over 62.

I've always noticed more improvements in bass and midrange than treble when listening to SACD's or DVD-A's. Though SACD's do have a bit more "air" or "detail" or what have you that might be related to that last 10 kHz.

I think a big problem with DVD-A and SACD was that not everyone had compatible hardware. Most hardware didn't play SACD or DVD-A, and because of that, most stores didn't end up seeing much demand for titles. And then there' those consumers that had compatible hardware, but just didn't know it. Think about it - most Joe Sixpacks buy a DVD player to play DVD's, not SACD's. They'd buy an SACD player for that...duh.
If even half of DVD player owners buy a BluRay player, then market penetration for BluRay audio is probably exponentially greater than SACD and DVD-A combined. There could be some potential.

One would hope that the studios and hardware companies recognize the mistakes made in the DVD-A/SACD formats and do it better this time. I won't hold my breath, but if there's good BluRay titles out there, I'll buy'em.

[Feanor]

You don't look a day over 62.
...

I don't look all that much like Jack Nicholson either :biggrin5: (Better, of course, but then he's 71.)


...

I've always noticed more improvements in bass and midrange than treble when listening to SACD's or DVD-A's. Though SACD's do have a bit more "air" or "detail" or what have you that might be related to that last 10 kHz.
....

I hear plenty of "air" and "detail" differences, but the airy, detailed recordings are often CDs, nor are SACDs invariably great. (Contrary to what O'Shag says, air & detail don't only exist on vinyl.)




...
One would hope that the studios and hardware companies recognize the mistakes made in the DVD-A/SACD formats and do it better this time. I won't hold my breath, but if there's good BluRay titles out there, I'll buy'em.
I hope that too. There's little doubt I'll buy a BluRay player someday, but intially it'll be in my HT system for the video not the audio. If a substantial audio repertoire emerges on BluRay then I might get a player for my stereo system

[basite]

I don't know about Blu ray for audio...

yes, it'll be the 'ultimate' quality audio carrier, but on the other hand, streaming audio (and media servers and such), are starting rise too, a few years from now, I see streaming taking the lead over other mediums...
then there is the cost, most people won't give the extra money for that extra quality, for which you'll need a good system. (admit it, blu ray audio will be (if it ever comes) a more expensive medium than the cd), whereas streaming will be at a really low cost, available for everyone..

I see the CD living on for a couple years (most people take the cd as the standard music medium...), blu ray audio might be something like SACD, but I don't think it'll ever break through...


Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Ajani]

Bluray music comes in many flavors. It is not just limited to multichannel. Every release I have seen has at least one 24/192khz PCM soundtrack. So you do not have to convince anyone to change or alter their setup. Their are enough tracks to serve even older setups with some justice.

Actually I don't disagree with your point. I should have added an introductory statement such as this:

There are two main draws to BluRay Audio (much like SACD/DVD-A) : 1) Higher Resolution & 2) Multi-channel audio.

I was refering only to multi-channel audio as a selling point, for those who are not really convinced that Higher Resolution makes that much of an audible difference (crazy as that might seem, keep in mind that many people swear that 128k MP3s sound as good as redbook cd).


Unfortunately as bad as they sound to us, is as good as these sound to the owner. I know too many Bose owners who brag about how good their systems sound while I throw up in my mouth:blush2:

Sad but true :(

[nightflier]

I don't know why you're declaring BR dead as an audio format, when the first batch of audio-only releases has barely trickled out. Neil Young seems to think that Blu-ray's got plenty of promise as a music format because it offers up both high resolution audio and full interactive capability, something that wasn't possible with DVD-A and SACD. His archival boxed sets on Blu-ray start coming out in the fall.

But here's my question: what is "full interactive capability" for an audio-only format? It sounds like what you're describing is video-capability in an audio format, and we've seen that already. Will people shell out more money for BR audio-only disks (over CD, for example), if that same BR could also have had video? I picture a whole line of folks in line at Costco after x-mas returning their Neil Young box sets because it's only half what they paid for, that is, the video is missing! Another way to ask the question: why should it be different from any other BR concert video?

It always strikes me as ironic that for a hi-quality format to succeed commercially it has to appeal to a mass market that doesn't care that much about the high-quality. So there is every attempt by the marketing departments to tout the additional features of said format, when the most important feature, higher-quality, is downplayed. And all these extra features mean very little to those very people (presumably a smaller minority) who actually care about the higher quality format and who would actually pay a premium for it. I'm not saying that BR music is dead, heck I would welcome it now that I have a BR player, but I will say that those people trying to market it are stuck selling a product to the wrong consumer to prove it's marketability.

Then there is the problem with the equipment that a higher-quality audio format would benefit from. Like a few other people have said here as well, their surround sound system that has the BR/SACD/DVD-A player, is typically their lower-end system. That is, if they even have two systems. I'm one of those odd birds that had four different systems (now reduced to two), but how common is that really? No, the fact is that most consumers have mediocre surround sound systems, in actually usable living rooms, that are poorly calibrated to boot. These are hardly ideal setups for experiencing the virtues of the audio formats that BR is capable of. The people here on this board are an exception, to be sure, so let's consider all the people we know with "surround sound" systems and be honest about how good they really are. They might hear a slight difference in a higher sound format, but would they shell out more money for a better system to hear that incremental improvement? I doubt it.

Finally, the single cable argument is rather moot. Both SACD and DVD-A can also be transmitted via HDMI ver 1.2 and above. I agree that not all consumer-level receivers will handle bass management, delay, timing, etc. with the same level of detail, but at least the format is supported. Then again, how many consumers (outside of this board) actually adjust these?

I think, and this is just my guess, that BR audio-only will be more niche than Neil Young or Michael Tilson Thomas would like to admit. I do hope that this new audio medium will augment rather than replace existing formats, althout it seems that the manufacturers are not so concerned about it since I have yet to see a BR player that plays SACD (aside from the PS3).

[Mr Peabody]

Ok, finally, here's what started this, drum roll please, tah dah!

http://www.toastedrav.com/post/1849/story

Guys, I need help though, I tried to find more information on the Code Technology but do you know how many results come back for this combo of words, first off they need a name change right away. Also, I couldn't tell much from what was said, do you think the "code" is on the DVD or CD? It would almost have to be on the DVD according to what Sir T says, and, if not, why include the DVD.

Hijack alert! While I was searching I found this and had to post it, it's sort of related:

http://www.d-box.com/2008/

I think Sir T has been holding out.

Bass management on my processor is pretty much non-existent when using the MC analog. Another check in the upgrade column. Viva la PCM.

I don't mind audio only discs. Sometimes the video is actually distracting to serious listening. I'm still pissed at Neil Young for his last hi rez gift. The DVD had video alright, you sat and watch an LP spin on a turntable. You know you might be stoned if you sit and watch that :) So it might as well be audio only.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ok, finally, here's what started this, drum roll please, tah dah!

http://www.toastedrav.com/post/1849/story

Several things that trouble me. First the use of the words "virtually indistinguishable". That means nothing, much like "near CD quality" could be used for highly compressed (both in frequency and amplitude) low bit stream audio from satellite radio, cable radio, or basic DD at 384kbps. Secondly there are no details of this technology anywhere! Thirdly it will be limited by the DVD medium, as you only have 10mbps to work with, and full bitrate Dts was a space hog on DVD, especially in the presence of video.


Guys, I need help though, I tried to find more information on the Code Technology but do you know how many results come back for this combo of words, first off they need a name change right away. Also, I couldn't tell much from what was said, do you think the "code" is on the DVD or CD? It would almost have to be on the DVD according to what Sir T says, and, if not, why include the DVD.

It is on the DVD and not the CD. I have two ideas on what this is. Either it is a lossy encoding, OR, it uses a packing scheme much like Meridian Lossless Packing(the basis for DVD-A) to "pack" the data more effienciently. Its got to be one or the other(like) or I cannot see how this could be done(in the presence of video images). If the disc is audio only, you still have to either reduce or pack the audio in some way(lossless would be too large for a DVD disc unless it was a DVD-9 or DVD-18 two sided), and let's face it, packing audio is yesterday's technology. Today on bluray you can transfer the 24/96khz or 24/192khz directly to disc without any packing scheme.


Hijack alert! While I was searching I found this and had to post it, it's sort of related:

http://www.d-box.com/2008/

I think Sir T has been holding out.

Actually look back at nightliar and my discussion on bluray. I mentioned that Fox was using the D-box option on all its discs, and Disney now will use it on some of its future disc as well. Two years ago I mention that Blurays bandwidth is large big enough to include features like motion activators, light controllers(for lightning effects), and/or various code to control effects we have not heard of yet, and still get the best video and audio on the screen. That is the benefit of the Bluray format. It is a crossplatform technology that delivers high resolution video, audio, and gaming experience. So no one thing has to be a 100% success for the format as a hole to be a success.


Bass management on my processor is pretty much non-existent when using the MC analog. Another check in the upgrade column. Viva la PCM.

I don't mind audio only discs. Sometimes the video is actually distracting to serious listening. I'm still pissed at Neil Young for his last hi rez gift. The DVD had video alright, you sat and watch an LP spin on a turntable. You know you might be stoned if you sit and watch that :) So it might as well be audio only.

Some disc will be audio only, and some audio and video. The ones for audio only will have a wide variety of options to fit most audio system out there. The two I worked on will have 5.1 PCM 24/192khz, 2.0 PCM 24/192khz Dts MA lossless at 24/192khz, Dolby TrueHD at 24/192khz, Dts core at 24/96 and 24/48khz, and DD at 24/48khz(which sounded like baby poop). So every Bluray player on the market can at least pass the audio either through the analog 5.1 output, or as bitstream to a receiver. If your 5.1 analog channels do not have bass management, then you have a problem.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't know about Blu ray for audio...

yes, it'll be the 'ultimate' quality audio carrier, but on the other hand, streaming audio (and media servers and such), are starting rise too, a few years from now, I see streaming taking the lead over other mediums...

Streaming audio is really helpful in housewide system, its a convience tool. Quality is not number one. Bluray audio will have something for everyone, those will anything from a HDMI 1.1 to optical.


then there is the cost, most people won't give the extra money for that extra quality, for which you'll need a good system. (admit it, blu ray audio will be (if it ever comes) a more expensive medium than the cd), whereas streaming will be at a really low cost, available for everyone..

Once again, streaming is great for computer speakers, they hide flaws in the data. That would be a different person from a person who listens via a mid to high resolution system. Any new technology would have to have the benefits to appeal to both to corner a market.


I see the CD living on for a couple years (most people take the cd as the standard music medium...), blu ray audio might be something like SACD, but I don't think it'll ever break through...


Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Bluray audio has many advantages over SACD. It can be played over a single cable. Its music tracks cover everything from basic HDMI 1.1 through optical. So it does not require a special bluray player, any player can pass 24/192khz PCM audio via both 6 channel cables, and HDMI. PCM is the most widely used format in the music business by far. Unlike SACD, it does not require specialized equipment(except higher resolution DAC, which are widely available, and cheap).

I do not think BR audio is a mass market product, unless video comes along with it. However it does not have to be either. CD can stay, streaming can stay, but there will ALWAYS be somebody who actually cares about quality audio and video. That is the bottom line.

[Mr Peabody]

Several things that trouble me. First the use of the words "virtually indistinguishable". That means nothing, much like "near CD quality" could be used for highly compressed (both in frequency and amplitude) low bit stream audio from satellite radio, cable radio, or basic DD at 384kbps. Secondly there are no details of this technology anywhere! Thirdly it will be limited by the DVD medium, as you only have 10mbps to work with, and full bitrate Dts was a space hog on DVD, especially in the presence of video.

Good point, we have heard this before. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who came up empty handed on a search.

It is on the DVD and not the CD. I have two ideas on what this is. Either it is a lossy encoding, OR, it uses a packing scheme much like Meridian Lossless Packing(the basis for DVD-A) to "pack" the data more effienciently. Its got to be one or the other(like) or I cannot see how this could be done(in the presence of video images). If the disc is audio only, you still have to either reduce or pack the audio in some way(lossless would be too large for a DVD disc unless it was a DVD-9 or DVD-18 two sided), and let's face it, packing audio is yesterday's technology. Today on bluray you can transfer the 24/96khz or 24/192khz directly to disc without any packing scheme.

Some disc will be audio only, and some audio and video. The ones for audio only will have a wide variety of options to fit most audio system out there. The two I worked on will have 5.1 PCM 24/192khz, 2.0 PCM 24/192khz Dts MA lossless at 24/192khz, Dolby TrueHD at 24/192khz, Dts core at 24/96 and 24/48khz, and DD at 24/48khz(which sounded like baby poop). So every Bluray player on the market can at least pass the audio either through the analog 5.1 output, or as bitstream to a receiver. If your 5.1 analog channels do not have bass management, then you have a problem.

I don't see why to include Tru-HD and DTS-MA both on an audio only disc. It would seem to make more sense to just do uncompressed and the DD+ and whatever DTS's equivalent is which both would include the core. There shouldn't be a storage problem.

[Feanor]

I don't see why to include Tru-HD and DTS-MA both on an audio only disc. It would seem to make more sense to just do uncompressed and the DD+ and whatever DTS's equivalent is which both would include the core. There shouldn't be a storage problem.

Compressed lossless is no problem for sound. It is already used for SACD. But I wonder about proprietary formats, e.g. Dolby Digital or DTS. Does their use make DRM enforceable? Do they drive up cost due to royalties or whatever? Do they restrict choices?

[Woochifer]

But here's my question: what is "full interactive capability" for an audio-only format? It sounds like what you're describing is video-capability in an audio format, and we've seen that already.

Nope, this is very different from DVD-A and SACD. Recall that SACD had no visual component whatsoever, and DVD-A was limited to stills or low resolution moving images. No opportunity whatsoever for the user to engage in any sort of interactive experience. Blu-ray allows for user interactivity while the music is playing. The Neil Young set was announced at a Java conference to highlight the potential with combining high res audio output with a Java programming platform.


Will people shell out more money for BR audio-only disks (over CD, for example), if that same BR could also have had video?

Using Blu-ray as a music format does not exclude video output. Where does anybody mention "audio-only"? The Blu-ray pipeline is big enough to support both 5.1 and 7.1 192/24 audio plus video and Java applications.


I picture a whole line of folks in line at Costco after x-mas returning their Neil Young box sets because it's only half what they paid for, that is, the video is missing! Another way to ask the question: why should it be different from any other BR concert video?

I suggest you read the thread that I started on the Neil Young archival sets. It has more info on why Neil Young decided to issue his archival sets on Blu-ray, and what he intends to include in those sets (it's not audio only).

It probably won't be different from a concert video and there's no reason why it would be, except that the release will be studio material that was not recorded with video. Neil Young's effort is the first of its kind.


It always strikes me as ironic that for a hi-quality format to succeed commercially it has to appeal to a mass market that doesn't care that much about the high-quality. So there is every attempt by the marketing departments to tout the additional features of said format, when the most important feature, higher-quality, is downplayed. And all these extra features mean very little to those very people (presumably a smaller minority) who actually care about the higher quality format and who would actually pay a premium for it. I'm not saying that BR music is dead, heck I would welcome it now that I have a BR player, but I will say that those people trying to market it are stuck selling a product to the wrong consumer to prove it's marketability.

Actually, Blu-ray IS being touted as a high quality format first and foremost. The Blu-ray promotions are touting both the higher video resolution AND the uncompressed/lossless audio. The interactive features are only now beginning to come to market.

On the music side, the fact of the matter is that for listeners who don't care as much about audio quality (which you correctly point out is the majority), the market has already begun moving towards downloading. For those listeners still willing to pay for disc media, the music industry has to offer value for what consumers pay, whether that's higher audio quality or a more immersive listening experience. Right now, CDs offer up limited value compared to other options that consumers have available. Blu-ray has the potential to raise the value equation on many fronts, rather than just audio quality.


Then there is the problem with the equipment that a higher-quality audio format would benefit from. Like a few other people have said here as well, their surround sound system that has the BR/SACD/DVD-A player, is typically their lower-end system.

That doesn't apply to everyone, or even most on this board. My SACD player AND turntable are both hooked into my main system. Considering that every DVD-A and SACD has a high res two-channel audio track, what sense does it make to relegate that higher resolution playback to a "lower-end system"?


No, the fact is that most consumers have mediocre surround sound systems, in actually usable living rooms, that are poorly calibrated to boot. These are hardly ideal setups for experiencing the virtues of the audio formats that BR is capable of. The people here on this board are an exception, to be sure, so let's consider all the people we know with "surround sound" systems and be honest about how good they really are. They might hear a slight difference in a higher sound format, but would they shell out more money for a better system to hear that incremental improvement? I doubt it.

What else is new? Before surround sound, most consumers used mediocre stereo systems. This is where the interactive capability kicks in -- to lend additional market incentive. And even on the sound quality front, with DVD-A dead and SACD relegated to the classical market, Blu-ray is the only potential avenue on the horizon for mainstream album releases to be heard in 5.1 surround (unless digital downloads start going in the direction of 5.1 AAC). Even with a mediocre setup, listeners can enjoy 5.1 surround.

The difference between a mediocre surround setup and a midlevel setup is hardly "incremental." If people upgrade, they will upgrade so that everything sounds better, not just for sake of Blu-ray.


Finally, the single cable argument is rather moot. Both SACD and DVD-A can also be transmitted via HDMI ver 1.2 and above. I agree that not all consumer-level receivers will handle bass management, delay, timing, etc. with the same level of detail, but at least the format is supported. Then again, how many consumers (outside of this board) actually adjust these?

Keep in mind that most AV receivers sold since 2005 include some form of auto calibration, so those parameters ARE likely adjusted by most consumers.

The point about bass management, delay, etc. is that the video PLAYERS usually don't perform those functions nearly as well as receivers.


I think, and this is just my guess, that BR audio-only will be more niche than Neil Young or Michael Tilson Thomas would like to admit. I do hope that this new audio medium will augment rather than replace existing formats, althout it seems that the manufacturers are not so concerned about it since I have yet to see a BR player that plays SACD (aside from the PS3).

A major point in creating Blu-ray music discs is that you don't need a two-tiered class of hardware and titles like you did with DVD-A. Unlike with DVD-A, EVERY Blu-ray player can output the higher quality audio and most of them can take full advantage of the interactive capability. If anything, the broader hardware support for Blu-ray music releases makes them less niche than anything that came out on DVD-A. (SACD is a different story because the hybrid releases can be filed with other CDs)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't see why to include Tru-HD and DTS-MA both on an audio only disc. It would seem to make more sense to just do uncompressed and the DD+ and whatever DTS's equivalent is which both would include the core. There shouldn't be a storage problem.

Mr.P,
The record company I did these disc for are looking for sound quality opinions for future releases. There are some players out there that have the ability to decode Dts MA lossless internally, some that don't. There are quite a few players out there that internally decode DTHD, and some that don't. All players can play back PCM, so for compatibility with all players you include a lossless multichannel and two channel tracks. DD and Dts are for folks that can only use the optical inputs.

It is also a value thing. Some folks really like Dts MA lossless(I am a huge fan of it) and some folks like DTHD. There are both lossless, but IMO they sound slightly different. It could probably be the use of DTHD dialog normalization.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Compressed lossless is no problem for sound. It is already used for SACD. But I wonder about proprietary formats, e.g. Dolby Digital or DTS. Does their use make DRM enforceable? Do they drive up cost due to royalties or whatever? Do they restrict choices?

DD and Dts is a part of the bluray spec, so yes DRM is enforceable. It sits behind behind HDCP, BD+ and BD watermark. Royalties are built in to the pricing structure already. The use of all of the new audio codecs(and the old ones too) actually allow for more choices in how to listen to bluray music.

DSD is not a lossless compression format. It is just plain lossless.

[Feanor]

DD and Dts is a part of the bluray spec, so yes DRM is enforceable. It sits behind behind HTCP, BD+ and BD watermark. Royalties are built in to the pricing structure already. The use of all of the new audio codecs(and the old ones too) actually allow for more choices in how to listen to bluray music.

DSD is not a lossless compression format. It is just plain lossless.

I'll be watching with interest but it will be while before it will have any practical relevance to me. (I wonder if there will ever be 2-channel only BluRay players at some point, just like the 2-ch SACD players that predominate in the high-end market?)

As for SACD using lossless compression, I know that DSD has nothing to do with compression but I understand that SACD discs typically use compression -- see SACD Wikipedia item (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#DST).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'll be watching with interest but it will be while before it will have any practical relevance to me. (I wonder if there will ever be 2-channel only BluRay players at some point, just like the 2-ch SACD players that predominate in the high-end market?)

Since you can have a two channel track on disc, stereo players are unnecessary, and we will probably never see them.


As for SACD using lossless compression, I know that DSD has nothing to do with compression but I understand that SACD discs typically use compression -- see SACD Wikipedia item (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#DST).

DST(or lossless compression) is only necessary when there is a CD layer on the disc. However if the disc just has DSD in multichannel and a two channel DSD track, then DST is not necessary. The laser will just read the layers.

[drseid]

I am getting in on this one way late, I know...

In my case, I find myself agreeing that BR will probably wind up as a niche audio format. That said, I think there *is* a demand for a sustainable high resolution music format, and BR fits the bill perfectly. I am definitely looking forward to future BR high res. music releases and hope they continue.

BR may wind up relegated to similar buyer profiles as SACD (a format I like, BTW), but the difference here is there is a much larger player base to draw from. As such, BR music discs should at least have a better penetration rate than SACD due to people not having to buy a new player to handle the BR music discs.

---Dave

[audio amateur]

I don't know about Blu ray for audio...

yes, it'll be the 'ultimate' quality audio carrier, but on the other hand, streaming audio (and media servers and such), are starting rise too, a few years from now, I see streaming taking the lead over other mediums...
then there is the cost, most people won't give the extra money for that extra quality, for which you'll need a good system. (admit it, blu ray audio will be (if it ever comes) a more expensive medium than the cd), whereas streaming will be at a really low cost, available for everyone..

I see the CD living on for a couple years (most people take the cd as the standard music medium...), blu ray audio might be something like SACD, but I don't think it'll ever break through...


Keep them spinning,
Bert.
I personally see CD living on much longer than that

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am getting in on this one way late, I know...

Better late than never bruh


In my case, I find myself agreeing that BR will probably wind up as a niche audio format. That said, I think there *is* a demand for a sustainable high resolution music format, and BR fits the bill perfectly. I am definitely looking forward to future BR high res. music releases and hope they continue.

Considering the folks that would be interested in high resolution audio are a niche group, BR audio just has to appeal to them to be successful.


BR may wind up relegated to similar buyer profiles as SACD (a format I like, BTW), but the difference here is there is a much larger player base to draw from. As such, BR music discs should at least have a better penetration rate than SACD due to people not having to buy a new player to handle the BR music discs.

---Dave

I absolutely agree with this. :thumbsup:

[pixelthis]

Ok, finally, here's what started this, drum roll please, tah dah!

http://www.toastedrav.com/post/1849/story

Guys, I need help though, I tried to find more information on the Code Technology but do you know how many results come back for this combo of words, first off they need a name change right away. Also, I couldn't tell much from what was said, do you think the "code" is on the DVD or CD? It would almost have to be on the DVD according to what Sir T says, and, if not, why include the DVD.

Hijack alert! While I was searching I found this and had to post it, it's sort of related:

http://www.d-box.com/2008/

I think Sir T has been holding out.

Bass management on my processor is pretty much non-existent when using the MC analog. Another check in the upgrade column. Viva la PCM.

I don't mind audio only discs. Sometimes the video is actually distracting to serious listening. I'm still pissed at Neil Young for his last hi rez gift. The DVD had video alright, you sat and watch an LP spin on a turntable. You know you might be stoned if you sit and watch that :) So it might as well be audio only.


Why do you think hes always "holding out" when the truth is hes' probably as cluless as you are?
so MELLENCAMP is putting out an album with this "new" tech, well, what the frak
is the new tech?
It doesnt even tell ya what friggin players it plays on!!!
Sounds promising. but then again, so did SACD and DVDA :1:

[Mr Peabody]

Pix, if you had an ounce of reading comprehension you would know what the technology is. It don't explain much detail how it works but it does give you the name and the idea behind how it works. Also, here's a clue from the clueless, the album comes in CD and DVD form, with that, can you figure which player it goes in? Surely, some one of your vast technical knowledge can figure it out. That comprehension problem of yours sure causes you a lot of grief.

[pixelthis]

Pix, if you had an ounce of reading comprehension you would know what the technology is. It don't explain much detail how it works but it does give you the name and the idea behind how it works. Also, here's a clue from the clueless, the album comes in CD and DVD form, with that, can you figure which player it goes in? Surely, some one of your vast technical knowledge can figure it out. That comprehension problem of yours sure causes you a lot of grief.

So its not Blu at all?
JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP. :1:

[nightflier]

Nope, this is very different from DVD-A and SACD. Recall that SACD had no visual component whatsoever, and DVD-A was limited to stills or low resolution moving images. No opportunity whatsoever for the user to engage in any sort of interactive experience. Blu-ray allows for user interactivity while the music is playing. The Neil Young set was announced at a Java conference to highlight the potential with combining high res audio output with a Java programming platform.

So then this is just a video? High-quality with hi-res audio, but still just a video. This implies using the format with a TV screen, while common in the average consumer's living room, is not what someone who's followed SACD/DVD-A expects as a high-quality format.

Yes I know that many people here have one system, and it has surround sound as well as a TV, but I don't think this is what a true music fan would want. This is the problem with the BR format - it automatically implies video to augment the experience. Maybe for some, but there are also those who might see this as a distraction from the audio experience. I'm talking about those who listen to music in the dark, or those who have $25K turntables and $40K speakers. Would they buy another $60K of speakers, not to mention the amps to drive them to get the BR experience?

The fact remains that BR, for all it's high-quality audio and video, has nonetheless been mass-marketed to very low common denominators. It has not been marketed to the high-end audio customer, who's choices now seem to have plateau'd at SACD and DVD-A. I'm guessing these customers would think of the video as a gimmick. After all, is there even a plan to have BR be the next high-res audio format without video? Because if not, then it is a different medium altogether and cannot be compared with an audio-only format such as SACD or DVD-A. What this moves away from is a qualitative progression in audio, something I believe people are asking for.

Now I'm not suggesting that interactivity in the form of video is a bad thing. To each his own. But I am suggesting that BR audio is suffering a crisis of conscience. Is it truly a medium for the audio fan? If one looks at the content that has appeared on BR, even the concert footage, it is clear that the emphasis has been market driven, less so than quality driven. There isn't even a standard baseline for what audio formats should be included on a disk for it to be a true "BR disk". Anything capable of a 1080p picture is pretty much considered BR, even if the audio is only DD. So really, what makes a BR disk, is the video format, not the audio. Not so with SACD or DVD-A. My guess is that this is not what the audio fan wants.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So then this is just a video? High-quality with hi-res audio, but still just a video. This implies using the format with a TV screen, while common in the average consumer's living room, is not what someone who's followed SACD/DVD-A expects as a high-quality format.

Some will have video, and some will be strictly audio only. :rolleyes5:


Yes I know that many people here have one system, and it has surround sound as well as a TV, but I don't think this is what a true music fan would want. This is the problem with the BR format - it automatically implies video to augment the experience. Maybe for some, but there are also those who might see this as a distraction from the audio experience. I'm talking about those who listen to music in the dark, or those who have $25K turntables and $40K speakers. Would they buy another $60K of speakers, not to mention the amps to drive them to get the BR experience?

Jeeze Mr. I never have anything positive to say about bluray. The Bluray format has always been considered by those that look at its spec's as a multiplatform format. Why have spec's of 24/192khz on 8 channels when all that is required of video only is 24/48khz or MAYBE 24/96khz in the future? Those who have one deminsional thinking will only look at bluray as video only. Those with some imagination, and can think three deminsionally see all kinds of possibilities with 24/192khz resolution in Dts MA lossless, DTHD and PCM, and a 54mbps pipeline with no need to pack the audio in any way.


The fact remains that BR, for all it's high-quality audio and video, has nonetheless been mass-marketed to very low common denominators.

Its not mass market yet, don't get ahead of yourself. According to some its too expensive for mass market. Also there are brands that differentiate themselves from the mass market. It is not likely in the near future you will see a pioneer bluray player for the mass market. They have taken the high end with their players. Denon has also taken the high end with their players, and there is Goldmund who is also taking the high end with their bluray players(all of $20k). So their will be many price points to choose from, not just the mass market. :Yawn:


It has not been marketed to the high-end audio customer, who's choices now seem to have plateau'd at SACD and DVD-A.

More of your ill educated gas:rolleyes:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/26/goldmunds-eidos-20-bd-blu-ray-player-costs-17k/



I'm guessing these customers would think of the video as a gimmick.

How do you know what they are thinking? You are not in the same income bracket they are in. There is no possible way that you know what anyone else is thinking, only what you think. :1:


After all, is there even a plan to have BR be the next high-res audio format without video? Because if not, then it is a different medium altogether and cannot be compared with an audio-only format such as SACD or DVD-A. What this moves away from is a qualitative progression in audio, something I believe people are asking for.

It was always the plan for Bluray to offer audio only. Its called profile 3.0 which ALL current players are.

http://wiki.digital-digest.com/index.php/Blu-ray#Hardware_Profiles


Now I'm not suggesting that interactivity in the form of video is a bad thing. To each his own. But I am suggesting that BR audio is suffering a crisis of conscience. Is it truly a medium for the audio fan?

Your biases blind you to clear thinking. As I have stated earlier, there is a profile 3.0 which all bluray players meet. And I think any audiophile that looks at 8 channels at 24/192khz (which is the more resolution than the human ear can detect, and WAY more than vinyl can reproduce) can see that high resolution music is perfect for this medium. There is currently no medium out there that can do it. The only 24/192khz we have seen is two channel.


If one looks at the content that has appeared on BR, even the concert footage, it is clear that the emphasis has been market driven, less so than quality driven.

So, you have actually seen and heard David Matthews Radio City Music Hall bluray. 1080p with 24/96khz Dolby TrueHD. One of the best sounding and looking concert video's I have ever seen and heard. You have seen Legends of Jazz. It used the same high quality audio from the DVD-A, 24/96khz Dolby TrueHD on bluray. Terrific sounding. Or how about Pat Metheny's "The Way Up" in Dts MA lossless. Some of the best audio I have heard on the bluray format. Or even John Legend's "Live at the House of Blues" in Dts MA Lossless 24/96khz. All of these would make an audiophile who enjoys these genre's of music grin with pleasure. All of them masterfully mixed in high resolution audio. If you do not like video, just turn off the tube:rolleyes:



There isn't even a standard baseline for what audio formats should be included on a disk for it to be a true "BR disk"

More of your ignorance. Really, you should study up on your game before writing anything. I have told you this before. Dts MA Lossless, Dolby TrueHD, and PCM are all supported by the bluray format. These carriers of audio are all you need to provide master quality audio for bluray. All of these support 8 channels of 24/192khz PCM audio. The answer to this ignorant question is Dts, DD, DD+, Dts HD, DTHD and Dts master audio lossless are all supported by bluray. Everything from low bit lossey, to high resolution lossless.


. Anything capable of a 1080p picture is pretty much considered BR, even if the audio is only DD. So really, what makes a BR disk, is the video format, not the audio. Not so with SACD or DVD-A. My guess is that this is not what the audio fan wants.

If your guess is as good as your previous ones in our last debate, we can safely dispatch them to the trash. BR is, and has always been(from the spec's to the players) capable of higher resolution audio than we have ever seen. Even on its basic players. Bluray has all the profiles that cover everything from high resolution video, to gaming, to high resolution audio. They were built in to the format from day one. The format has much higher resolution than both SACD and DVD-A, so it takes us further than any audio format has ever. So my guess is, you just do not know what the hell you are talking about. :frown2:

I can see that you have learned nothing since the last time you encroached on this subject matter. :yesnod: I am shocked that you would even get into this conversation knowing that a knowledgeable person could tear a hole in your assumption wide enough to push the earth through. :1: (one dollar to pixie for the ghetto smiley!)

[Woochifer]

So then this is just a video? High-quality with hi-res audio, but still just a video. This implies using the format with a TV screen, while common in the average consumer's living room, is not what someone who's followed SACD/DVD-A expects as a high-quality format.

"Just video" I guess if you believe that any Java application is "just video." This the tip of the iceberg, since BD-Live is a Java programming environment and developers are only beginning to explore what the platform can do. The level of interactivity can be as basic or full-featured as the developer wants. Neil Young wanted a platform that could hold all of his audio archives, and provide an avenue by which to also include video clips, photos, production notes, and other archival material. In the past, this kind of boxed set material would have been included as a book volume or other type of insert. From the description, the archive sets that Neil Young is putting together are more extensive in their scope than just about any other boxed set released to date.

Think about it -- the first volume consists of TEN Blu-ray discs, and there are FIVE total volumes due for release. For the extensive documentation and archival treatment that went into Columbia's award-winning Miles Davis boxed CD sets (four of which I own), none of them came packaged with 500+ photos plus video footage and other interactive features.


Yes I know that many people here have one system, and it has surround sound as well as a TV, but I don't think this is what a true music fan would want.

Are you implying that I'm less than a "true" music fan, or that the price of admission for someone to be considered a "true" music fan is having a dedicated two-channel system? That's kind of a silly meme, considering that some of the most fanatical music fans I know use crappy compact systems and could care less about sound quality. Yet, it does nothing to diminish their dedication and knowledge of the music itself. Are they any less of a "true" music fan because they spend their time and music budget attending live shows regularly and purchasing music rather than worrying about their playback setup?


This is the problem with the BR format - it automatically implies video to augment the experience. Maybe for some, but there are also those who might see this as a distraction from the audio experience.

If it's a distraction, you're always welcome to turn the TV off, or not plug the Blu-ray player into a TV. Recall that DVD-A discs would fire up and auto play -- no TV needed. Doesn't matter what you view as the "implication" of Blu-ray. If high resolution audio is important to someone, and the albums they want in high res are available on Blu-ray, what logical reason would they have not to want to listen to something using a Blu-ray player if no other high res alternatives are available for that title?


I'm talking about those who listen to music in the dark, or those who have $25K turntables and $40K speakers. Would they buy another $60K of speakers, not to mention the amps to drive them to get the BR experience?

No, they would simply plug a Blu-ray player into their system and enjoy the music if the titles they want are available in the format. Doubtful that the "BR experience" would be limited to 5.1 and 7.1, given that the format spec allows for 384/24 two-channel resolution. How's this any different than someone who added a SACD and/or DVD-A player to a two-channel setup?


The fact remains that BR, for all it's high-quality audio and video, has nonetheless been mass-marketed to very low common denominators.

Totally disagree with that view. DVD right now is the mass market, low common denominator format. It's not the low common denominator market that pays at least $400 for a video player or $30 for a Blu-ray release.


It has not been marketed to the high-end audio customer, who's choices now seem to have plateau'd at SACD and DVD-A. I'm guessing these customers would think of the video as a gimmick. After all, is there even a plan to have BR be the next high-res audio format without video? Because if not, then it is a different medium altogether and cannot be compared with an audio-only format such as SACD or DVD-A. What this moves away from is a qualitative progression in audio, something I believe people are asking for.

Why are you all hung up on the video/gimmick angle? DVD-A always had a video component attached to it, yet no one ever doubted that it was a high quality music medium. You couldn't do much with the video stream, but it came along with every DVD-A release. If someone wants to release a Blu-ray disc without any interactive features and go with just a plain autoplay menu setup, they're welcome to do so.

It's silly to think of Blu-ray as a step down from DVD-A, given that Blu-ray's audio resolution is higher and unlike DVD-A or SACD can output digitally to an external DAC/processor. Are you saying that DVD-A was palatable to "high end audio customers" only because it was a two-tiered market that separated the DVD-A owners from the commoners who "only" owned standard DVD-V players? Despite Blu-ray's higher audio resolution and greater digital output flexibility, should Blu-ray be inherently less acceptable to "high end audio customers" because that high res audio can play thru "regular" Blu-ray players and on "regular" Blu-ray disc media? :shocked:


Now I'm not suggesting that interactivity in the form of video is a bad thing. To each his own. But I am suggesting that BR audio is suffering a crisis of conscience. Is it truly a medium for the audio fan?

Conscience?! This is disc format we're talking about! If a record company or artist thinks they can make money and/or produce a higher quality release by putting out Blu-ray music discs, then they will do so. Neil Young clearly thinks that the Blu-ray medium is ideal for his ambitious archiving project. Whether Blu-ray music discs have something for the "audio fan" (is this distinct from "music fan"?) depends entirely on the releases, and thus far, the format is much too new to assess whether the availability of titles will go beyond the sporadic releases from well-known high res proponents like Neil Young and the audiophile-oriented music labels.

Remember that DVD-A didn't even come out until 2001, when the DVD format was already four years old. Blu-ray has been on the market less than two years.


If one looks at the content that has appeared on BR, even the concert footage, it is clear that the emphasis has been market driven, less so than quality driven.

I don't see where quality and market are mutually exclusive concepts. With the movie releases, Blu-ray has been totally driven by higher resolution with both video and audio (i.e., higher quality), and thus far, the market has shown a steady increase in disc sales as the hardware base has grown. Whether the content demonstrates quality is subjective. Given that Blu-ray music releases are already getting prepped for market in the classical genre, it appears that Blu-ray might eventually get positioned as a successor to the niche that SACD currently has with classical labels. If a market exists for what Blu-ray has to offer more mainstream music releases, then we'll know soon enough, IF the record companies choose to take advantage of it and start releasing titles in Blu-ray.

Keep in mind that the DVD always had a high res two-channel audio capability built in. But, the major record companies stayed away from releasing 96/24 PCM titles due to its lack of copy protection. The DVD-A and SACD fiascos could largely be blamed on the record companies' insistence on locking down those formats with analog-only output.

On my system, as much as I enjoy my SACD player, it's also very much a missed opportunity. The player's lack of decent bass management means that I cannot take full advantage of my setup, which includes a subwoofer equalized to the room acoustics.


There isn't even a standard baseline for what audio formats should be included on a disk for it to be a true "BR disk". Anything capable of a 1080p picture is pretty much considered BR, even if the audio is only DD.

There are standard mandatory formats that include uncompressed PCM. Even on movie releases, VERY few Blu-ray titles have come out with DD only, and nearly all of the newer releases include either a PCM or lossless format. As far as "standard baselines" go, do you actually know what was it for DVD-A? The resolution on DVD-A releases was all over the map -- from 44.1/16 all the way up to 192/24, with most releases using 48/24 resolution. In other words, there was no "standard" baseline resolution, primarily because there was no "standard" resolution used with the original recordings. Do you really think that a Blu-ray music release would use DD only, when the vast majority of movie releases already use uncompressed PCM and/or lossless tracks?


So really, what makes a BR disk, is the video format, not the audio. Not so with SACD or DVD-A. My guess is that this is not what the audio fan wants.

Again, you're getting all worked up over the video aspect without acknowledging that Blu-ray's larger pipeline surpasses the resolution on either SACD or DVD-A. I thought that audio fans wanted high resolution and better audio quality -- are you saying that they only care about these things if the playback medium excludes video? The Blu-ray format incorporates mandatory codecs for BOTH video AND audio. The video MUST use either a MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC, or VC-1 codec, while the audio MUST include either DD, DTS, or PCM with optional provisions for Dolby THD or DTS-MA. Makes no sense to claim that Blu-ray is solely a video format given that it contains standard provisions and bandwidth for 192/24 multichannel AND 384/24 two-channel.

[Feanor]

I'm not going to address the implication that somehow interactivity denegrates the audiophile potential of BluRay. As for video with audiophile sound, personally I'd love lots of opera on BluRay (when my ship comes in and I get an HDTV and a player).

But I'd wager plenty that 85% of consumers will remain blissfully unaware of BR's audiophile capabilities as they are of SACD and DVD-A as media. Nor will people be woed into the audiophile realm by the accompanying video: they won't hear the difference and of the few that will, most won't care. (Wooch himself mentioned the music lovers with nothing better than compact systems.) Audiophile are an eccentric breed. BR audio will always be a niche market for this small minority, at best.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I remind everyone that perhaps a majority of hardcore audiophiles are vinylphiles, (for largely irrational reason). BR won't sound like vinyl so these nutbags won't redirect their allegiance or budget to BR. The technical virtues of BR are almost as irrelevant to audiophiles as the the general population.

[kexodusc]

But I'd wager plenty that 85% of consumers will remain blissfully unaware of BR's audiophile capabilities as they are of SACD and DVD-A as media. Nor will people be woed into the audiophile realm by the accompanying video: they won't hear the difference and of the few that will, most won't care. (Wooch himself mentioned the music lovers with nothing better than compact systems.) Audiophile are an eccentric breed. BR audio will always be a niche market for this small minority, at best.
85% huh? I bet it's 83%. :)

I think 85% is far too low. You're missing part of the equation.
So far people are seeing BluRay audio's potential market reduced to the blending of a few other markets:
Sure DVD-A/SACD hi-rez lovers will flock to BluRay audio discs, and sure the audiophile market will be aware of it. And yes, a small number of casual music loving consumers who buy BluRay for video purposes will be exposed and converted to BluRay audio. But that's not going to win mainstream acceptance though is it?

The biggest reason why BluRay audio will succeed is because it is ALSO replacing the "Music DVD" format in far superior way, and can offer things the standard music DVD couldn't.
There's thousands of concerts and performances available on standard DVD in Dolby and DTS. These are purchases by music fans who have crappy 2 channel systems or average HTIB/home theater systems, don't know a thing about HDMI spec 1.^e log n , and bought millions and millions of those Music DVD's. In fact, I would bet that 1 month of Music DVD's probably outsold 2 years worth of SACD/DVD-A titles, just judging by most stores inventory!!!

I would wager that even if BluRay ignores the failures of SACD/DVD-A, and screws up elsewhere along the way, it'll still tap into the music market and exponentially exceed the sales totals of SACD and DVD-A, especially in the mainstream.



At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I remind everyone that perhaps a majority of hardcore audiophiles are vinylphiles, (for largely irrational reason). BR won't sound like vinyl so these nutbags won't redirect their allegiance or budget to BR. The technical virtues of BR are almost as irrelevant to audiophiles as the the general population.
There's always going to be that, though I suspect soon enough that irrational exuberance will begin dying and vanishing from the face of this planet at a far greater rate then it replenishes itself.

[Chas Underhay]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I remind everyone that perhaps a majority of hardcore audiophiles are vinylphiles, (for largely irrational reason). BR won't sound like vinyl so these nutbags won't redirect their allegiance or budget to BR. The technical virtues of BR are almost as irrelevant to audiophiles as the the general population.

I'll give you some rational reasons Feanor that would certianly apply to anybody above the age of about 35:

1. When CD came out in the mid 1980s both the players and the discs were quite expensive.

2. Many people, myself included, who already had a half way decent record player weren't particularly impressed with the sound of many of the early CDs and reasoned "why should I pay for an expensive piece of hardware when the software for it costs 50% more and doesn't sound as good". Granted the people using crap record players (most of the public) were, however, inpressed with the sound.

3. Most people got rid of their LPs and it became very easy for the people who still wanted to play them (audiophiles? vinylphiles? or just music lovers) to amass a sizable music library dirt cheap. I was able to aquire all of the LPs I wanted but couldn't afford when I was a kid; Bob Dylan, Cream etc, etc.

4. There are still a lot of second hand record shops out there. I can buy for example, near mint classical boxed sets for £2 to £3 a time so don't have to be sure I'm going to like it before I buy it, I can take the risk.

5. Eveything was recorded onto LP from the 1950s up to the end 1980s and I can't think of an awful lot of music since then (except for some new classical recordings) that I wouldn't be very happy to live without.

6. There is still a mass of music, musicians, composers and writers that I've never knowingly heard that is on LP so I can keep rumaging in the second hand record shops untill my hearts content.

7. My record playing system is of good quality and give or take a few changes of worn out cartridges; will last me the rest of my life.

8. I have a CD player and I have CDs which now sound fine (I'm not going to get into the analogue vs digital debate)

9. I'm not prepared to chase new technology because as I have stated on here before; I have no confidence in its future. I'm sure it's capable of superb results but even I was supprised at how quickly SACD dwindled (I know it's not dead but it ain't exactly thriving either is it?)

[Feanor]

I'll give you some rational reasons Feanor that would certianly apply to anybody above the age of about 35:

1. When CD came out in the mid 1980s both the players and the discs were quite expensive.

2. Many people, myself included, who already had a half way decent record player weren't particularly impressed with the sound of many of the early CDs and reasoned "why should I pay for an expensive piece of hardware when the software for it costs 50% more and doesn't sound as good". Granted the people using crap record players (most of the public) were, however, inpressed with the sound.

3. Most people got rid of their LPs and it became very easy for the people who still wanted to play them (audiophiles? vinylphiles? or just music lovers) to amass a sizable music library dirt cheap. I was able to aquire all of the LPs I wanted but couldn't afford when I was a kid; Bob Dylan, Cream etc, etc.

4. There are still a lot of second hand record shops out there. I can buy for example, near mint classical boxed sets for £2 to £3 a time so don't have to be sure I'm going to like it before I buy it, I can take the risk.

5. Eveything was recorded onto LP from the 1950s up to the end 1980s and I can't think of an awful lot of music since then (except for some new classical recordings) that I wouldn't be very happy to live without.

6. There is still a mass of music, musicians, composers and writers that I've never knowingly heard that is on LP so I can keep rumaging in the second hand record shops untill my hearts content.

7. My record playing system is of good quality and give or take a few changes of worn out cartridges; will last me the rest of my life.

8. I have a CD player and I have CDs which now sound fine (I'm not going to get into the analogue vs digital debate)

9. I'm not prepared to chase new technology because as I have stated on here before; I have no confidence in its future. I'm sure it's capable of superb results but even I was supprised at how quickly SACD dwindled (I know it's not dead but it ain't exactly thriving either is it?)

Thank you for your reasoned defence of the vinyl adherence. First let me say that I'm far along in the over 35 category myself and my hi-fi interest predates the digital era by a dozen years or more.

Personally I followed the talk about CDs from its inception, a couple of years before the actual product became available. And true enough, intial prices where high: as I recall the original Sony was $1500, (relatively much more their standard BluRay player today). Consequently it was another couple of years before I finally got a player, a Yamaha, (model CD2 as I recall), for $500.

Like others, I was a tad disappointed by the sound -- to be sure that Yamaha was a very bright, sharp sounding device. But more than most people perhaps, I hated handling an care of LPs and I hated the fussing with tone arm and cartridge setup. (I had a Grace 707 tonearm, a very well regarded component. It was adjustable every which way but Sunday, but was accordingly a huge pain to set up and align. Also, I managed to smash an expensive (by my scale) Sonus Blue stylus the second time I used it.) For this reason I bought CDs in preference to LPs whenever they were available.

My case is different from most old-timers in that there was an interval from the late '80s and throughout the '90s when my hi-fi and music interest was surpressed on account of various personal distractions. For that reason, maybe, I avoided the great, anti-digital reaction in which so many audiophiles partook. When my interest revived in the early '00s, CDPs had improved and CDs themselves where of more consistedly of good quality.

But your passing mention of classical music is significant in my case. I'm primarily a classical listener and new classical recording on LP is virtually non-existent. I never was interested in the garage sale search for cheap used LPs. I suppose it was because my dislike of tedious rituals of handling that medium that I as never enticed to do it.

All of this leaves me today bemused by the supposed revival of interest in clumsy and antequated LP medium. Why when there are so much better media available today, not the least CD itself, not to mention the hi-rez, multichannel media?

[Chas Underhay]

Hi Fenor

I understand what you are saying about handling and care of LPs but CDs aren't quite as immune to damage as some people think, get a radial scratch and the thing becomes totally unplayable. I've drummed it into my wife that Both LPs and CDs are to be treated with equal care then relaced into the cover after playing.

Agree with you on tone arm and cartridge set up as well. That's how, along with the possession of about 2000 LPs I was able to justify to her indoors a few years ago the purchase of an SME IV - I can install and set up a cartridge in about two minutes.

A few years ago my wife went to the local dump to get rid of some household rubbish and there were classical LPs there stacked up like the Manhattan sky line, all mint and all quality recordings like Decca and Deutche Gramaphone qand a good mixture of stuff from Purcell to Walton and mostly boxed sets and she got them all for £15.00,about the price of 1 CD. I'm not sure exactly how many were there, we never counted them but we measured them instead - there was nearly 2 yards of records there and supprising very little duplication of records we already had.

I still buy classical from collectors record shops but not all seem to carry them.

I'm not sure whether it's a revival of interest or the original one that has never gone away. If I was starting out from scratch now I would have to weigh up whether the cheap supply of second hand LPs would justify the expense of a decent record player because I'm the first to admit that it can't be done on the cheap.

I don't know about Canada but it seems like every Sunday magazine in the UK has adverts for cheap record players with slogans like "buy one of these and enjoy the wonderful sound of your old vinyl records"--- more like buy one of these and realise why you got rid of your old one and bought a CD player!

All the best

Chas

[Ajani]

From this thread, it seems clear (to me anyway) that BluRay has quite a bit of potential. However some of the points mentioned earlier are valid.

Will the fact that BluRay players have video as well as audio be a dealbreaker to audiophiles?

Not for all, but for many - probably. A DVD Player/Universal player can play CDs/SACDs, but how many audiophiles actually use one as their reference source? How many still go out and buy an expensive CD player or a 2 channel SACD player.

Simple example: Marantz produces both universal players and 2 channel SACD players. For around the same price you can get either the DV7001 (universal Player - Multichannel SACD) or the SA8001 (2 channel SACD/CD Player). Which one do you see constantly being recommended and raved about on this website?

Look at the line of products produced by a typical audio manufacturer. How many stereo receivers do you normally see in their lineup and at what price point? Now how many Integrated amps do you see? How many amp/preamp combos? You'll probably see one Stereo receiver as their cheapest entry level product and then a line of integrateds.

Why? Possibly because, the more features you put in a product the more it seems to violate that old audiophile belief that less is more. That you want simpler circuits and minimal items in the signal path. Tuners, Video, tone controls and even multichannel are often just seen as added expense that mess with the straight wire + gain approach to audio.

So I suspect that many audiophiles will question whether the fact that BluRay audio has higher resolution than CD/Vinyl/Whatever they're currently using, will outweigh the fact that it has loads of extra features that are not audio quality related.

Now as I stated earlier in this thread, if BR Audio catches on, we might see some of the highend audio companies jump in with 2 channel or even MC audio only players.

The BR format has loads of potential, if they market it right and no major changes occur in consumer audio/video listening/watching/spending patterns.

[Chas Underhay]

From this thread, it seems clear (to me anyway) that BluRay has quite a bit of potential. However some of the points mentioned earlier are valid.

Will the fact that BluRay players have video as well as audio be a dealbreaker to audiophiles?

Not for all, but for many - probably. A DVD Player/Universal player can play CDs/SACDs, but how many audiophiles actually use one as their reference source? How many still go out and buy an expensive CD player or a 2 channel SACD player.

Simple example: Marantz produces both universal players and 2 channel SACD players. For around the same price you can get either the DV7001 (universal Player - Multichannel SACD) or the SA8001 (2 channel SACD/CD Player). Which one do you see constantly being recommended and raved about on this website?

Look at the line of products produced by a typical audio manufacturer. How many stereo receivers do you normally see in their lineup and at what price point? Now how many Integrated amps do you see? How many amp/preamp combos? You'll probably see one Stereo receiver as their cheapest entry level product and then a line of integrateds.

Why? Possibly because, the more features you put in a product the more it seems to violate that old audiophile belief that less is more. That you want simpler circuits and minimal items in the signal path. Tuners, Video, tone controls and even multichannel are often just seen as added expense that mess with the straight wire + gain approach to audio.

So I suspect that many audiophiles will question whether the fact that BluRay audio has higher resolution than CD/Vinyl/Whatever they're currently using, will outweigh the fact that it has loads of extra features that are not audio quality related.

Now as I stated earlier in this thread, if BR Audio catches on, we might see some of the highend audio companies jump in with 2 channel or even MC audio only players.

The BR format has loads of potential, if they market it right and no major changes occur in consumer audio/video listening/watching/spending patterns.

I think it is history repeating its self again Ajani, Im sure BluRay has great potential but so did SACD and DVDA.

Also wouldn't mind betting that in six months there will be high end audio BR players; probably more audio BR players than software titles.

[Feanor]

...

Agree with you on tone arm and cartridge set up as well. That's how, along with the possession of about 2000 LPs I was able to justify to her indoors a few years ago the purchase of an SME IV - I can install and set up a cartridge in about two minutes.

A few years ago my wife went to the local dump to get rid of some household rubbish and there were classical LPs there stacked up like the Manhattan sky line, all mint and all quality recordings like Decca and Deutche Gramaphone qand a good mixture of stuff from Purcell to Walton and mostly boxed sets and she got them all for £15.00,about the price of 1 CD. I'm not sure exactly how many were there, we never counted them but we measured them instead - there was nearly 2 yards of records there and supprising very little duplication of records we already had.

I still buy classical from collectors record shops but not all seem to carry them.

I'm not sure whether it's a revival of interest or the original one that has never gone away. If I was starting out from scratch now I would have to weigh up whether the cheap supply of second hand LPs would justify the expense of a decent record player because I'm the first to admit that it can't be done on the cheap.
...

All the best

Chas

I conceed that your personal case is a good one for staying with vinyl:

As mentioned earlier, you already had most of the music you want on LP
You have 2000+ LPs
You can, or could at one time, find music you want on cheap, used LP.Reflecting on my own case, I wasn't bound to vinyl in the same way. First, I never had more than 300-400 LPs. Secondly I have had much luck finding used LP -- granted, during the heyday of people replacing vinyl with CD, I wasn't really interested. Nowadays, the bargains are rarer: one-off collectors' items are now more expensive than CDs with similar content. And while whole collections are still sometimes to be found at bargain prices, e.g. on eBay, those price don't looks so great once I factor shipping costs and the fact that many records in such collections are of no interest to me.

Finally, as I mention already, when my hi-fi interest revised five or six years ago, my focus was almost exclusively on classical and in particular, contemporary classical where there is essentially not selection at all on vinyl.

[shokhead]

First of all, no one declared BR audio dead. There was merely a question. BR audio could have a very hard time getting traction IF there was such a thing as a CD that sounded near master quality. I agree that this isn't likely on an existing machine. I'm waiting to receive an answer to an email I sent to see what was being talked about.

Geez, I can see my room now, all these various disc formats filling the place up. It will also be difficult to keep two systems. Or, maybe I'll just have to figure some way to bring the equipment closer together. I would be pretty interested in hearing BR audio. Some of the movie soundtracks I've heard have been really impressive.

The problem with DVD-A, SACD and with BR will be the lack of people with HT setups. Most are just listening with the TV speakers of a stereo setup. They are more about the Video then the Audio, imo.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not going to address the implication that somehow interactivity denegrates the audiophile potential of BluRay. As for video with audiophile sound, personally I'd love lots of opera on BluRay (when my ship comes in and I get an HDTV and a player).

Hurry up Feanor!


But I'd wager plenty that 85% of consumers will remain blissfully unaware of BR's audiophile capabilities as they are of SACD and DVD-A as media. Nor will people be woed into the audiophile realm by the accompanying video: they won't hear the difference and of the few that will, most won't care. (Wooch himself mentioned the music lovers with nothing better than compact systems.) Audiophile are an eccentric breed. BR audio will always be a niche market for this small minority, at best.

Why does everyone continue to think that the mass market has to accept something for it to be a success. High resolution audio is not a mass market product. It belongs to a select few. If it is a sucess amoung them, then the product itself is a sucess. There has alway been just a few people out there who actually sit and listen to music on a fairly decent system(it does not have to be expensive). This has never been a mass market practice. Audiophiles will hear about bluray's high resolution music, there isn't much else out there. Highresolutionreview, and SACD.net have already began annoucing titles for bluray, so anyone interested in high resolution music there are sources to hear about it. The market for high resolution music has always been niche, and it has always been small.


At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I remind everyone that perhaps a majority of hardcore audiophiles are vinylphiles, (for largely irrational reason). BR won't sound like vinyl so these nutbags won't redirect their allegiance or budget to BR. The technical virtues of BR are almost as irrelevant to audiophiles as the the general population.

There are some audiophiles that are vinyl collectors, and some that are into high end digital. There is not just one type of audiophile. A hardcore audiophile can go either way. I consider myself a audiophile but I hate the sound of vinyl records(too much listening to high resolution 2-3" magnetic tape), but I do like the sound of high bit rate and sample rate PCM, DXD, and SACD. You can reach one type of audiophile without touching the other. Not all are going to reject high rez PCM. People who have invested heavily in vinyl will probably never replace a single record with a PCM based disc, these are not the audiophile you are looking for. Some audiophiles were born AFTER vinyl died. Not all audiophiles are 60 years old with failing hearing.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think it is history repeating its self again Ajani, Im sure BluRay has great potential but so did SACD and DVDA.

Also wouldn't mind betting that in six months there will be high end audio BR players; probably more audio BR players than software titles.

I do not think it is repeating itself if you look closer than just the surface. SACD and DVD-A was difficult to integrate with the equipment most folks had. They both required 6 analog cables to transfer the audio to the amps. There was no way alignment tools such as bass management and speaker delay to be utilized through this hookup, and players had very limited bass management capabilities. Difficult integration means that most folks will not go through the trouble. With bluray one single cable carries all of the audio and video(HDMI). There is no specialized format needed for playback, PCM is supported by ALL current and future players. All bass management and alignment tools are supportable through the HDMI connection, so integration is much easier.

We already have high end bluray players on the market. Pioneer, Denon, and Goldmund(all $20k worth) are already here. Software titles are starting to trickle out.

I want to advance a point to everyone. This is just the very early stages of releases of high rez music and music video on the bluray format. However, an early look at how well sales are of these titles shows that there is an interest in high rez music on the format. From what I have learned through emails with one independent music producer, his titles are doing very well worldwide. The video titles with music are also doing fairly well, but not exceptional. As the boutique record companies continue to explore bluray, you will see the value and strength of the formats spec's which IMO are perfect for high rez music with or without video. As a audio engineer I am salivating over what I can do with the format.

[Smokey]

All of this leaves me today bemused by the supposed revival of interest in clumsy and antequated LP medium. Why when there are so much better media available today, not the least CD itself, not to mention the hi-rez, multichannel media?

What revival. You don't see vinyl on your local store shelves now, do you?

Vinyl is pretty much dead except few that still clinch to the past. Why would anybody want a medium that is subject to be worn (anytime you play it, it wear down a bit), have low dynamics, crackling and pop, higher S/N ratio, limited frequency response, etc.... is beyond me.

I have LP and remaster CD version of Sinatra (Capitol years), and on spots where Sinatar is about to sing a new line, one can hear him breathing in briefly. But on the same spot on LP, all one hear is crackling noise and pops. Long live vinyl :D

[Ajani]

What revival. You don't see vinyl on your local store shelves now, do you?

Vinyl is pretty much dead except few that still clinch to the past. Why would anybody want a medium that is subject to be worn (anytime you play it, it wear down a bit), have low dynamics, crackling and pop, higher S/N ratio, limited frequency response, etc.... is beyond me.

I have LP and remaster CD version of Sinatra (Capitol years), and on spots where Sinatar is about to sing a new line, one can hear him breathing in briefly. But on the same spot on LP, all one hear is crackling noise and pops. Long live vinyl :D

I don't think there is really a revival either. LP has regained some popularity with manufacturers. Many Integrated amps are now being sold with Phono input and some manufacturers are going as far as to start producing turntables.

All this is an attempt to capitalize on the fact that many (usually) older audiophiles and/or music lovers still have massive vinyl collections and nothing to play them on. But since virtually no new albums are being released on LP, there is no chance of an actual revival.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

From this thread, it seems clear (to me anyway) that BluRay has quite a bit of potential. However some of the points mentioned earlier are valid.

Will the fact that BluRay players have video as well as audio be a dealbreaker to audiophiles?

This point is an unknown. There is a reality; you could start the music and turn off the display device. I do not know if video stopped anyone from buying a high end DVD-audio player.


Not for all, but for many - probably. A DVD Player/Universal player can play CDs/SACDs, but how many audiophiles actually use one as their reference source? How many still go out and buy an expensive CD player or a 2 channel SACD player.

Don't have to worry about this anymore. It is hard as hell to find a standalone CD player, and SACD is no longer the only high rez audio format left. If Goldmund has released a high end bluray player, apparently there has to be some interest in the high end for bluray music and video.


Simple example: Marantz produces both universal players and 2 channel SACD players. For around the same price you can get either the DV7001 (universal Player - Multichannel SACD) or the SA8001 (2 channel SACD/CD Player). Which one do you see constantly being recommended and raved about on this website?

That is the past. And with the passing of time, things change.



Look at the line of products produced by a typical audio manufacturer. How many stereo receivers do you normally see in their lineup and at what price point? Now how many Integrated amps do you see? How many amp/preamp combos? You'll probably see one Stereo receiver as their cheapest entry level product and then a line of integrateds.

Why? Possibly because, the more features you put in a product the more it seems to violate that old audiophile belief that less is more. That you want simpler circuits and minimal items in the signal path. Tuners, Video, tone controls and even multichannel are often just seen as added expense that mess with the straight wire + gain approach to audio.

So I suspect that many audiophiles will question whether the fact that BluRay audio has higher resolution than CD/Vinyl/Whatever they're currently using, will outweigh the fact that it has loads of extra features that are not audio quality related.

I have to disagree with you here. Audiophiles(as opposed to record collectors) are interested in resolution. Vinyl no matter how well mastered cannot, and does not have the equivalent of 24/192khz resolution. CD not matter how well mastered does not have 24/192khz resolution. DVD-A does have 24/192khz resolution, but it is limited to two channels, not eight, and was barely used if at all. SACD does not have the resolution of 24/192khz. DVD-A and SACD have basically the same resolution 24/96khz, so the bluray format has the POSSIBLITY of twice that resolution. The only thing you need video for in audio only releases is to see the audio codec choices. Once you start the music, you can turn off the screen.


Now as I stated earlier in this thread, if BR Audio catches on, we might see some of the highend audio companies jump in with 2 channel or even MC audio only players.

Not going to happen. There is no need to release a two channel or MC audio only player, this is an old school way of thinking. The disc themselves have all the necessary formats from two channel PCM to 7.1 Dts MA lossless, so there is no need to create a player that cannot do it all.


The BR format has loads of potential, if they market it right and no major changes occur in consumer audio/video listening/watching/spending patterns.

Here is the rub

[Ajani]

This point is an unknown. There is a reality; you could start the music and turn off the display device. I do not know if video stopped anyone from buying a high end DVD-audio player.

Ummm... ok...


Don't have to worry about this anymore. It is hard as hell to find a standalone CD player, and SACD is no longer the only high rez audio format left. If Goldmund has released a high end bluray player, apparently there has to be some interest in the high end for bluray music and video.

Obviously you are not looking very hard. Even Bestbuy still sells standalone CD players.


That is the past. And with the passing of time, things change.

No, it's the present. Those are all current models. In fact Arcam is about to release a new 2 channel SACD player in their FMJ line, so there is still quite a bit of time before it becomes the past.


I have to disagree with you here. Audiophiles(as opposed to record collectors) are interested in resolution. Vinyl no matter how well mastered cannot, and does not have the equivalent of 24/192khz resolution. CD not matter how well mastered does not have 24/192khz resolution. DVD-A does have 24/192khz resolution, but it is limited to two channels, not eight, and was barely used if at all. SACD does not have the resolution of 24/192khz. DVD-A and SACD have basically the same resolution 24/96khz, so the bluray format has the POSSIBLITY of twice that resolution. The only thing you need video for in audio only releases is to see the audio codec choices. Once you start the music, you can turn off the screen.

Audiophiles are interested in higher resolution, but that isn't all that they value. Clean, simple signal paths etc... will always have great appeal.


Not going to happen. There is no need to release a two channel or MC audio only player, this is an old school way of thinking. The disc themselves have all the necessary formats from two channel PCM to 7.1 Dts MA lossless, so there is no need to create a player that cannot do it all.

It may or may not happen. Time will tell. There was never a need to release 2 channel only SACD players, but it certainly didn't prevent manufacturers from doing so.


Here is the rub

Yep, there it is.

[Mr Peabody]

If there wasn't new interest from music listeners in vinyl the companies wouldn't be making new products to capitalize. Vinyl has been out since the 80's why would companies wait until now to try to introduce new product? The reason, new interest from younger enthusiasts. There is also as many new releases on vinyl as SACD, visit Musicdirect.com some time. They are mostly 180 to 200 gram audiophile pressings that have a pretty hefty price but it's there. I personally stick to record sales and the other used venues mentioned.

[Woochifer]

What revival. You don't see vinyl on your local store shelves now, do you?

Actually, all of my local music stores carry vinyl. And there are stores in my old neighborhood in SF that carried almost all vinyl. Not all of us buy our music at Wal-Mart y'know! :biggrin5:


Vinyl is pretty much dead except few that still clinch to the past.

Quite the contrary. Vinyl has emerged into a rather profitable niche. Its days as a mass market format are long gone. But, all of the major labels now either issue or license catalog titles on LP, and charge very high prices. (I saw the 200g reissue of Dark Side of the Moon selling for around $40, and most other releases now go for at least $25) Vinyl releases are now limited editions, and pressed by specialty houses like RTI who produce very high quality pressings.


Why would anybody want a medium that is subject to be worn (anytime you play it, it wear down a bit), have low dynamics, crackling and pop, higher S/N ratio, limited frequency response, etc.... is beyond me.

Fact of the matter is that some titles simply sound better on vinyl. For older albums, the entire production might have been optimized with the vinyl medium in mind, and unless a lot of corrective work is done during the mastering process, those titles will sound horrendous in any digital format.

Also, there are plenty of albums out there that never made the transition to digital, and specific genres (such as dance music) where certain song versions are only available on vinyl. Then there are people like me who maintain a turntable because I never felt any need to repurchase my music collection! :14:

[Mr Peabody]

Wooch brings up a good point, some albums originally released on LP for whatever reason just did not transfer to CD well, even today. Myself if it's a 70's album back will generally try to find a vinyl copy. I too had a sizeable LP collection by the time CD hit and did not replace that many titles with CD versions. At one point I was at a crossroads whether to stay with vinyl, the LP collection I already had, titles not available on CD and the discovery I had not really heard vinyl to it's potential, tilted in favor of buying a "real" turntable and keeping with the hobby.

[Mr Peabody]

PS, the entire Metallica catalog was recently released on vinyl at about $20.00 a pop.

[Smokey]

Actually, all of my local music stores carry vinyl. And there are stores in my old neighborhood in SF that carried almost all vinyl. Not all of us buy our music at Wal-Mart y'know! :biggrin5:

Not in my neck of wood. I live near a university, and there used to be music store cross it with row and rows of LPs. But it closed down about 10 years ago and I haven’t seen an LP in any of local music stores in long time. The only place they sell LPs is in used music shop and owner told me they hardly sell any LPs and inventory almost has shrunken to nothing (may he send them to stores in SF :D).


Vinyl has emerged into a rather profitable niche. Its days as a mass market format are long gone. But, all of the major labels now either issue or license catalog titles on LP, and charge very high prices. (I saw the 200g reissue of Dark Side of the Moon selling for around $40, and most other releases now go for at least $25)

I doubt the collectors who buy these LP ever play them on their TT. They probably keep them sealed and brag about them to friends. Since I switched over to CDs in late 80s, I have bought few LPs in stores and have not open them. They are worth more to me sealed than with finger prints and scratches due to playing.

[Woochifer]

Not in my neck of wood. I live near a university, and there used to be music store cross it with row and rows of LPs. But it closed down about 10 years ago and I haven’t seen an LP in any of local music stores in long time. The only place they sell LPs is in used music shop and owner told me they hardly sell any LPs and inventory almost has shrunken to nothing (may he send them to stores in SF :D).

I would add though that the market is highly dependent on the genres that are in demand. For example, if you're into dance music, a lot of tracks are much easier to find on vinyl than CD. A large city with a strong club scene will support vinyl sections in local music stores. And that doesn't even include the audiophile and indie rock crowds. It depends on the peculiarities of the region.

Just because you live in a university town doesn't mean that good record stores are a given anymore. Years before they went out of business, Tower Records first began closing most of their stores located adjacent to universities (e.g., Westwood Village, Berkeley, and Austin). The preponderance of illegal downloading and students moving over to online purchasing meant that sales declines occurred much faster at those college town stores than other locations.


I doubt the collectors who buy these LP ever play them on their TT. They probably keep them sealed and brag about them to friends. Since I switched over to CDs in late 80s, I have bought few LPs in stores and have not open them. They are worth more to me sealed than with finger prints and scratches due to playing.

Do you currently own a turntable?

I actually don't know anybody who regularly uses a turntable, and buys vinyl just to let it sit on their mantle. Audiophiles who've invested thousands of dollars in their vinyl rigs (and presumably took the time to properly calibrate the tonearm/cartridge setup), don't lay out that kind of scratch just to admire their LPs for their collector's value. They want to PLAY those LPs, especially if they are the newer 180g and 200g pressings.

And I doubt that someone who has spent time and money tweaking with their turntable will resist the temptation to play that 200g copy of Dark Side of the Moon -- especially if they've already owned multiple versions of that album and keep hearing about how this newest pressing is the best sounding version yet.

People who collect LP for trade value don't always have a turntable, but people who value their LPs for their playback quality will usually take the time to take care of their LPs and setup their rigs to minimize wear and tear. I know that most of my LPs don't have any finger prints or surface dust on them.

[Chas Underhay]

I do not think it is repeating itself if you look closer than just the surface. SACD and DVD-A was difficult to integrate with the equipment most folks had. They both required 6 analog cables to transfer the audio to the amps. There was no way alignment tools such as bass management and speaker delay to be utilized through this hookup, and players had very limited bass management capabilities. Difficult integration means that most folks will not go through the trouble. With bluray one single cable carries all of the audio and video(HDMI). There is no specialized format needed for playback, PCM is supported by ALL current and future players. All bass management and alignment tools are supportable through the HDMI connection, so integration is much easier.

We already have high end bluray players on the market. Pioneer, Denon, and Goldmund(all $20k worth) are already here. Software titles are starting to trickle out.

I want to advance a point to everyone. This is just the very early stages of releases of high rez music and music video on the bluray format. However, an early look at how well sales are of these titles shows that there is an interest in high rez music on the format. From what I have learned through emails with one independent music producer, his titles are doing very well worldwide. The video titles with music are also doing fairly well, but not exceptional. As the boutique record companies continue to explore bluray, you will see the value and strength of the formats spec's which IMO are perfect for high rez music with or without video. As a audio engineer I am salivating over what I can do with the format.

Greetings Sir Terrence

I think it's pretty close to history repeating its self because if you recall, we had the very same discussion two or three years ago about SACD. You will recall then that I didn't question SACDs technical capability just its commercial viability.

We all know that even CD sales are now being undermined by downloads and as computers etc become faster higher quality downloads will be more readilly available. Unless a new format offers the publlic something that was previously unavailable, i.e. even more convenience than a CD (such as MP3 players) then they won't go for it and if the general public aren't buying it in bulk, I can't see the music industry supporting it. If BR succeeds I think it will be as a music video format but even then will it be able to offer the general public enough advantage over DVD?

I don't know about the US but in Europe radio is in a similar state. There is still FM which is under threat of being switched off, there's highly questionable DAB (digital) and it seem that in the UK we went for the wrong system and there's also internet radio. Well, I for one ain't about to go out and buy a new tuner either now or in the forseeable future.

[Chas Underhay]

I actually don't know anybody who regularly uses a turntable, and buys vinyl just to let it sit on their mantle. Audiophiles who've invested thousands of dollars in their vinyl rigs (and presumably took the time to properly calibrate the tonearm/cartridge setup), don't lay out that kind of scratch just to admire their LPs for their collector's value. They want to PLAY those LPs, especially if they are the newer 180g and 200g pressings.

And I doubt that someone who has spent time and money tweaking with their turntable will resist the temptation to play that 200g copy of Dark Side of the Moon -- especially if they've already owned multiple versions of that album and keep hearing about how this newest pressing is the best sounding version yet.

People who collect LP for trade value don't always have a turntable, but people who value their LPs for their playback quality will usually take the time to take care of their LPs and setup their rigs to minimize wear and tear. I know that most of my LPs don't have any finger prints or surface dust on them.

Totally agree; "collectors" are totally different animals. My missus has got hundreds of books but she definately isn't a book collector - she just likes reading.

[Chas Underhay]

I conceed that your personal case is a good one for staying with vinyl:

Finally, as I mention already, when my hi-fi interest revised five or six years ago, my focus was almost exclusively on classical and in particular, contemporary classical where there is essentially not selection at all on vinyl.

Hi Feanor, you obviously respect my personal circumstances and choices as I respect yours.

The trouble with this "HI FI stuff " is that for some people it can become like a religoen; "mine is the only true path etc etc". Well, if somebody chooses one path because it suits their circumstances, they should respect others who choose a different one because at the end of the day, the goal is exactly the same; to listen to and enjoy good music!

All the best and good listening

Chas

[Mr Peabody]

mp3, convenient? I didn't find it so. It's more convenient to buy a disc and drop in my player. I don't want to search the internet to find a song, download it and then move it to a tolerable playback medium or Rip, Burn and move, just to hear what I already own in an inferior form. I think the attraction to mp3 was, free music, adding your favorite songs without buying an entire album, this would especially appeal to genres like Pop and Country were you rarely find an entire album worth listening to. Look at the host of Rap artists who do one or maybe 2 albums to never be heard of again. Mp3 is the modern 45 rpm. Mp3's aren't as free as they once were but now you can't stop the tidal wave.

BTW, good point on respecting other's choice of listening medium, and equipment choices as far as that goes.

[Chas Underhay]

mp3, convenient? I didn't find it so. It's more convenient to buy a disc and drop in my player. I don't want to search the internet to find a song, download it and then move it to a tolerable playback medium or Rip, Burn and move, just to hear what I already own in an inferior form. I think the attraction to mp3 was, free music, adding your favorite songs without buying an entire album, this would especially appeal to genres like Pop and Country were you rarely find an entire album worth listening to. Look at the host of Rap artists who do one or maybe 2 albums to never be heard of again. Mp3 is the modern 45 rpm. Mp3's aren't as free as they once were but now you can't stop the tidal wave.

BTW, good point on respecting other's choice of listening medium, and equipment choices as far as that goes.

To be honest, I've never bothered to download music and like you I'd rather just play a disc (black or silver). I don't currently own a MP3 type player and never wanted one but now that things like car radios are starting to have an MP3 player socket fitted I can see an advantage in not having to lug CDs around with you, just record what you want onto MP3; especially if you have more than one car or a boat. I'm certianly not advocating MP3 as a format, just wondering out loud if it could be of any use to me.

[bobsticks]

To be honest, I've never bothered to download music and like you I'd rather just play a disc (black or silver). I don't currently own a MP3 type player and never wanted one but now that things like car radios are starting to have an MP3 player socket fitted I can see an advantage in not having to lug CDs around with you, just record what you want onto MP3; especially if you have more than one car or a boat. I'm certianly not advocating MP3 as a format, just wondering out loud if it could be of any use to me.

Like the two of you, I don't own an MP3 player and have never really considered it but you have a good point. I think that putting those inputs in car stereos was a brilliant marketing move. One of my boys just bought a Dodge Magnum with all the accoutrements. He snapped up a Zune and loaded it up with MP4s(?) or some other non-lossy codec and is a driving musical library. For an inherently inaccurate system like a car stereo it seems like a pretty convenient alternative.

[Feanor]

mp3, convenient? I didn't find it so. It's more convenient to buy a disc and drop in my player. I don't want to search the internet to find a song, download it and then move it to a tolerable playback medium or Rip, Burn and move, just to hear what I already own in an inferior form. I think the attraction to mp3 was, free music, adding your favorite songs without buying an entire album, this would especially appeal to genres like Pop and Country were you rarely find an entire album worth listening to. Look at the host of Rap artists who do one or maybe 2 albums to never be heard of again. Mp3 is the modern 45 rpm. Mp3's aren't as free as they once were but now you can't stop the tidal wave.

...

I have ripped my entire CD collection to computer files, (Apple Lossless format), and I listen to those 90% of the time vs. CDs or SACDs. I've downloaded very, very little, (and what I've downloaded, I paid for). In my case there is absolutely no question of starting with MP3 files, then deciding I'd like to play on my main system -- it's the other way around.

So given a large collection on computer files, I find it nice to be able to copy a few of these files to my iPod to listen to while I'm commuting to work, walking or on public transit. It would be nice too if I could plug my iPod into my car stereo but my Taurus wagon isn't equipped for it.

[Ajani]

mp3, convenient? I didn't find it so. It's more convenient to buy a disc and drop in my player. I don't want to search the internet to find a song, download it and then move it to a tolerable playback medium or Rip, Burn and move, just to hear what I already own in an inferior form.

It maybe less convenient for you, but for most people who actually use MP3/4/lossless encoding, I suspect the opposite is true.

Put it this way:

If you want to get a new album, you make a trip down to the nearest CD shop, browse through the isles to find it, purchase it, go home and play it.

If i want to buy an album (or just a song for that matter - greater purchase flexibility), I simply double click on itunes, type the name of the song/album/artist in the search feature. And click on the arrow beside the song/album to download it. Then press play.

I don't even have to leave my chair to get a new album + the store is open 24/7.

Also, if you want to play multiple CDs/LPs, you need to get up and change albums 1 by 1. If I want to listen to my entire music collection, I can access it with a remote (apple remote) - Once again no leaving the chair.



I think the attraction to mp3 was, free music, adding your favorite songs without buying an entire album, this would especially appeal to genres like Pop and Country were you rarely find an entire album worth listening to. Look at the host of Rap artists who do one or maybe 2 albums to never be heard of again. Mp3 is the modern 45 rpm. Mp3's aren't as free as they once were but now you can't stop the tidal wave.

A major part of the initial appeal of MP3 was that it was free, but it's convenience and price (being able to buy 1 track instead of a whole album for 1 track) have kept it going.



BTW, good point on respecting other's choice of listening medium, and equipment choices as far as that goes.

That was an excellent point. Use whichever medium and equipment brings you satisfaction.

[Mr Peabody]

Actually most of my CD buying is sit at the computer, click on some samples, find something that sounds good and put it in my shopping cart. The only draw back is waiting for delivery.

As most formats mp3 has grown and evolved. Good point about Lossless, this maintains sound quality. I guess it depends on what type of software is in your computer and burner, if you take that step. Mp3's portability and usefulness in certain applications can't be denied either.

I have a Shuffle style player that I use on public transportation so I'm not advocating a ban or anything. Just in loading songs from my collection onto it didn't give me a feeling of convenience at all. It probably also depends on your comfort level too dealing with the ritual. You know i go through the whole ritual of playing an LP but that doesn't seem so bad though it's really not convenient but it's what I'm used to and have always done. Where others now start out with computers and may not even know what a turntable is.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Greetings Sir Terrence

I think it's pretty close to history repeating its self because if you recall, we had the very same discussion two or three years ago about SACD. You will recall then that I didn't question SACDs technical capability just its commercial viability.

The commercial viability was never in question to me. I wondered if the record companies were going to support it. They didn't, and left it up to the independents who could not offer the variety of music to give it more appeal even to those who would adopt the technology. If you loved classical and jazz, the SACD was for you. If you love pop, R&B and other genre's, you are out of luck.


We all know that even CD sales are now being undermined by downloads and as computers etc become faster higher quality downloads will be more readilly available. Unless a new format offers the publlic something that was previously unavailable, i.e. even more convenience than a CD (such as MP3 players) then they won't go for it and if the general public aren't buying it in bulk, I can't see the music industry supporting it. If BR succeeds I think it will be as a music video format but even then will it be able to offer the general public enough advantage over DVD?

I think you are looking at the wrong market. The market that BR music would appeal to would not be listening to MP3 as a main form of listening. Downloaded music would not appeal to them either. The quality of the recording and playback are a big deal to said listener. The market BR music would appeal to would be those that still listen to SACD and DVD-A as a main listening format. BR music is not a general public format, it is a niche format designed for those who still sit down and listen to music, that would NOT be the general public. BR music should not be looked at as a mass market product, and any assumption based on mass market acceptance does not apply.


I don't know about the US but in Europe radio is in a similar state. There is still FM which is under threat of being switched off, there's highly questionable DAB (digital) and it seem that in the UK we went for the wrong system and there's also internet radio. Well, I for one ain't about to go out and buy a new tuner either now or in the forseeable future.

No satellite radio?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have ripped my entire CD collection to computer files, (Apple Lossless format), and I listen to those 90% of the time vs. CDs or SACDs. I've downloaded very, very little, (and what I've downloaded, I paid for). In my case there is absolutely no question of starting with MP3 files, then deciding I'd like to play on my main system -- it's the other way around.

So given a large collection on computer files, I find it nice to be able to copy a few of these files to my iPod to listen to while I'm commuting to work, walking or on public transit. It would be nice too if I could plug my iPod into my car stereo but my Taurus wagon isn't equipped for it.

I have done basically what you have done, EXCEPT I will not copy any of my high quality classical music that I know is well recorded. I have copied all of my gospel, jazz, and R&B to my computer so I can load them to my IPOD. I used my IPOD for running and when I go to the gym, but I do not listen to classical music when I am running or working out. I save that music for my sit down listening where I can most enjoy it.

[Ajani]

I think you are looking at the wrong market. The market that BR music would appeal to would not be listening to MP3 as a main form of listening. Downloaded music would not appeal to them either. The quality of the recording and playback are a big deal to said listener. The market BR music would appeal to would be those that still listen to SACD and DVD-A as a main listening format. BR music is not a general public format, it is a niche format designed for those who still sit down and listen to music, that would NOT be the general public. BR music should not be looked at as a mass market product, and any assumption based on mass market acceptance does not apply.

Good point. BR is more likely to take over SACD/DVD-A market share and remain a niche market product (probably with better sales than SACD/DVD-A if it is advertised correctly).

Though one thing to keep in mind is that there is quite a bit of attention being paid to the quality of downloadable music now. Even iTunes has a a lossless store and some of the highend audio companies, that are now jumping on the music server market, are pushing for high quality downloads as well. I believe Naim is a prime example (If I'm not mistaken, they've launched a lossless download site of their own, in addition to launching their ultra-expensive music server).

Computer based audio systems are finally getting some real attention and (some) respect, as a viable means of listening to music from members of the audiophile community.

[Ajani]

Actually most of my CD buying is sit at the computer, click on some samples, find something that sounds good and put it in my shopping cart. The only draw back is waiting for delivery.

LOL.... sometimes I forget that you can order anything online, not just downloadable items.


As most formats mp3 has grown and evolved. Good point about Lossless, this maintains sound quality. I guess it depends on what type of software is in your computer and burner, if you take that step. Mp3's portability and usefulness in certain applications can't be denied either.

I have a Shuffle style player that I use on public transportation so I'm not advocating a ban or anything. Just in loading songs from my collection onto it didn't give me a feeling of convenience at all. It probably also depends on your comfort level too dealing with the ritual. You know i go through the whole ritual of playing an LP but that doesn't seem so bad though it's really not convenient but it's what I'm used to and have always done. Where others now start out with computers and may not even know what a turntable is.

That reminds of an article that was on the Stereophile website a few months ago. It was about a new highend music server (from either Arcam or Naim). Anyway, the Stereophile writter was in a crowd of people at that manufacturer's booth, and one member of the crowd (who seem to have been impressed with the sound of the server) asked the presenter: what kind of persons is the Server being marketed to? The Presenter's response was: People who are too lazy to get up and change a record.

[Feanor]

...
That reminds of an article that was on the Stereophile website a few months ago. It was about a new highend music server (from either Arcam or Naim). Anyway, the Stereophile writter was in a crowd of people at that manufacturer's booth, and one member of the crowd (who seem to have been impressed with the sound of the server) asked the presenter: what kind of persons is the Server being marketed to? The Presenter's response was: People who are too lazy to get up and change a record.

Call me lazy: I prefer sitting on my butt and clicking together a playlist.

But don't call me stupid: you can a lot more flexibility at a much lower price by using a computer rather than one of those proprietary music servers.

[ldgibson76]

LOL.... sometimes I forget that you can order anything online, not just downloadable items.



That reminds of an article that was on the Stereophile website a few months ago. It was about a new highend music server (from either Arcam or Naim). Anyway, the Stereophile writter was in a crowd of people at that manufacturer's booth, and one member of the crowd (who seem to have been impressed with the sound of the server) asked the presenter: what kind of persons is the Server being marketed to? The Presenter's response was: People who are too lazy to get up and change a record.

That would virtually account for everyone!:yesnod:

[bobsticks]

Call me lazy: I prefer sitting on my butt and clicking together a playlist.

But don't call me stupid: you can a lot more flexibility at a much lower price by using a computer rather than one of those proprietary music servers.

Hey, it's not just lazy people but neat freaks as well. As I approach the 3k mark on CDs (plus sacds, dvds, BR,HD-DVD) I'm realizing what alot of space a proper library involves. I wouldn't mind having everything on hard drive and the originals in storage.

I agree that most of the boutique music servers are dramatically overpriced but there's ways around that. I have a few buddies that are in the computer industry (one just turned down a job with EA). Over beverages a couple have even gone so far to bet that if given the correct specs they could design and implement a fully functioning unit for half of what the big boys charge. I'm thinking a terrabyte of storage with a cooled processor running digital out to an audiophile-grade DAC could solve alot of housekeeping problems.

[Ajani]

That would virtually account for everyone!:yesnod:

Especially me. I strongly suspect that our desire to avoid leaving the couch is why remotes were invented. I love remotes.

[Ajani]

Call me lazy: I prefer sitting on my butt and clicking together a playlist.

But don't call me stupid: you can a lot more flexibility at a much lower price by using a computer rather than one of those proprietary music servers.

Agreed... The only music server I'd consider is something (relatively) cheap like an appletv. The add an external DAC and you've got good sound. Otherwise an old computer would do the trick just fine. $4000 to $8000 Music Servers from Arcam and Naim really don't appeal to me. and even the $1.5K ones from Cambridge and Olive(?) seem seriously overpriced.

[Woochifer]

To be honest, I've never bothered to download music and like you I'd rather just play a disc (black or silver). I don't currently own a MP3 type player and never wanted one but now that things like car radios are starting to have an MP3 player socket fitted I can see an advantage in not having to lug CDs around with you, just record what you want onto MP3; especially if you have more than one car or a boat. I'm certianly not advocating MP3 as a format, just wondering out loud if it could be of any use to me.


Like the two of you, I don't own an MP3 player and have never really considered it but you have a good point. I think that putting those inputs in car stereos was a brilliant marketing move. One of my boys just bought a Dodge Magnum with all the accoutrements. He snapped up a Zune and loaded it up with MP4s(?) or some other non-lossy codec and is a driving musical library. For an inherently inaccurate system like a car stereo it seems like a pretty convenient alternative.

Believe me, the utility of using an iPod dock with a car stereo is quite liberating. Ever since I started driving, I'd always lugged stacks of cassettes and then CDs with me in the car. With an 8GB iPod in my pocket, I can now carry upwards of 700+ songs encoded at 192k along with every picture ever taken of my baby daughter with me at all times. Yes, there's a sound quality trade-off compared to using the in-dash CD changer, but I'll gladly take that for sake of having a much larger cross-section of my music collection with me. It's not like a car interior's a good acoustical environment to begin with.

Car makers now installing mini jacks and/or iPod docks with their OEM units is nothing more than a simple response to where the market is going. The iPod ALONE generates 4X more revenue than the entire home audio component industry COMBINED.


I have a Shuffle style player that I use on public transportation so I'm not advocating a ban or anything. Just in loading songs from my collection onto it didn't give me a feeling of convenience at all. It probably also depends on your comfort level too dealing with the ritual. You know i go through the whole ritual of playing an LP but that doesn't seem so bad though it's really not convenient but it's what I'm used to and have always done. Where others now start out with computers and may not even know what a turntable is.

Well, it also depends on the application you're using to load the music. The simplicity of iTunes is one reason why the iPod dominates media player sales. All I have to do is edit the iPod's playlist using iTunes, and it automatically syncs the music files when I plug in the iPod.

[Chas Underhay]

The commercial viability was never in question to me. I wondered if the record companies were going to support it. They didn't, and left it up to the independents who could not offer the variety of music to give it more appeal even to those who would adopt the technology. If you loved classical and jazz, the SACD was for you. If you love pop, R&B and other genre's, you are out of luck.



I think you are looking at the wrong market. The market that BR music would appeal to would not be listening to MP3 as a main form of listening. Downloaded music would not appeal to them either. The quality of the recording and playback are a big deal to said listener. The market BR music would appeal to would be those that still listen to SACD and DVD-A as a main listening format. BR music is not a general public format, it is a niche format designed for those who still sit down and listen to music, that would NOT be the general public. BR music should not be looked at as a mass market product, and any assumption based on mass market acceptance does not apply.



No satellite radio?

Greetings Sir Terrance, I don't think looking at the wrong market, I'm just considering the market overall. When the 78 appeared there was no other option, when the LP appeared it gave people something five times the music capacity on the same 12" disk and could be played with a cheap flip over stylus on the same equipment. It was a very attractive propersition and an easy transition. Soon the 78 was phased out and the LP (and singles) became the only available format. The cassette also became popular I guess mainly due to portability and the fact you could record your LPs onto it and play them in your car. The CD offered the general public a far more compact package with more convenience than the LP and sounded a lot better when played on run of the mill equipment. CD truly came of age when it became recordable and portable. All of these formats were commercially sucessful and if your kit will play records and / or CDs there is a massive library of music available to you.

A few years ago SACD and DVDA came in and may well have been the next best thing since sliced bread. People went out and bought players but were in most cases hampered by the lack of available recordings especially on DVDA. These people still had to buy much of their music on CD. Now, I woud have thought that if BR was aimed at the people who now use SACD or DVDA as their main format; many of those, may well on past experience, feel "once bitten, twice shy" and stick with what they have already got.

I for one will be keeping my money in my pocket apart from the small dribble that ends up in collectors record shops.

The only way that I can see BR audio succeeding is if BR becomes the main video format, BR video players still play DVDs properly and if BR video players are available with high enough audio capabilities. I would consider it then!

Yeah, we've got satellite and cable radio but they only seem to be a mixture of the FM and DAB stations. Generally a good FM broadcast recieved through a decent tuner still sounds the best-----untill they switch the signals off!

All the best

Chas

[Chas Underhay]

Believe me, the utility of using an iPod dock with a car stereo is quite liberating. Ever since I started driving, I'd always lugged stacks of cassettes and then CDs with me in the car. With an 8GB iPod in my pocket, I can now carry upwards of 700+ songs encoded at 192k along with every picture ever taken of my baby daughter with me at all times. Yes, there's a sound quality trade-off compared to using the in-dash CD changer, but I'll gladly take that for sake of having a much larger cross-section of my music collection with me. It's not like a car interior's a good acoustical environment to begin with.

Car makers now installing mini jacks and/or iPod docks with their OEM units is nothing more than a simple response to where the market is going. The iPod ALONE generates 4X more revenue than the entire home audio component industry COMBINED.



Well, it also depends on the application you're using to load the music. The simplicity of iTunes is one reason why the iPod dominates media player sales. All I have to do is edit the iPod's playlist using iTunes, and it automatically syncs the music files when I plug in the iPod.

This sounds interesting Woochifer, my present car is quite old and just has a radio / CD player but recently I was looking for a car radio / CD player for my boat and saw them with the mini jack for an iPod / MP3 player. Now, I know absolutely nothing about these devices and previously had no interest what so ever but now I can see a use so I'll be doing some research.

As a complete novice on the subject; do you know how I could record LPs onto such a device as most of my library is on vinyl? I do have a CD recorder with a digital output.

Cheers

Chas

PS I totally agree with your point on a cars acoustical environment - if you had the background noise level of a Rolls Royce in your listening room it would quickly drive you mad!

[shokhead]

I Dynamated some of my car{doors, trunk, trunk lid}. Makes a difference.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Good point. BR is more likely to take over SACD/DVD-A market share and remain a niche market product (probably with better sales than SACD/DVD-A if it is advertised correctly).

I agree with this


Though one thing to keep in mind is that there is quite a bit of attention being paid to the quality of downloadable music now. Even iTunes has a a lossless store and some of the highend audio companies, that are now jumping on the music server market, are pushing for high quality downloads as well. I believe Naim is a prime example (If I'm not mistaken, they've launched a lossless download site of their own, in addition to launching their ultra-expensive music server).

I recently read a huge survey about downloading versus disc buying that was real eye opening. The majority of downloaders are 25 y/o and under. That is even more the case at Apple and Xboxlive. They do not care about music quality(much like with movies), they care about portability and convience as that was the top two things that drew them to downloading. Most of the folks that buy disc are 35 y/o and up. They want the disc in their hands, do not believe the quality is there, do not like using the computer except at work, and do not trust their music as files. Its amazing how this mimick's another survey conducted by the movie industry.




Computer based audio systems are finally getting some real attention and (some) respect, as a viable means of listening to music from members of the audiophile community.

If what you say is true, that why would folks be questioning whether they would adopt bluray as a music source? Seems to me they are much more familar with the disc than a desk top for their music needs.

[nightflier]

...Those who have one deminsional thinking ...don't get ahead of yourself.... :Yawn: More of your ill educated gas:rolleyes:...You are not in the same income bracket they are in. There is no possible way that you know what anyone else is thinking, only what you think. :1: Your biases blind you to clear thinking.... More of your ignorance. Really, you should study up on your game before writing anything....The answer to this ignorant question is... If your guess is as good as your previous ones in our last debate, we can safely dispatch them to the trash.... So my guess is, you just do not know what the hell you are talking about. :frown2: ...I can see that you have learned nothing since the last time you encroached on this subject matter. :yesnod: I am shocked that you would even get into this conversation knowing that a knowledgeable person could tear a hole in your assumption wide enough to push the earth through. :1:

Lil't you are a pompous jack-a$$. The comments quoted above all came from one single post! I didn't come on here to address you, I came here to talk about the subject, so get over yourself, this isn't even your thread. Obviously you need to once again show how obnoxious you can be. In reference to our previous debates, this was exactly how those started: you couldn't help yourself from insulting me and just about everyone else. You started it then too. This is why I called you then and will continue to call you "lil't" - because you are so small and insecure that you have to aggrandize yourself and insult everyone around you.

Now get over yourself and let's see if you can behave like an adult for once.

__________________________________________________ _______________


The Bluray format has always been considered by those that look at its spec's as a multiplatform format. Why have spec's of 24/192khz on 8 channels when all that is required of video only is 24/48khz or MAYBE 24/96khz in the future?

Maybe it was considered as such, but it has not been marketed as an audio-only format (which is what you mean by multiplatform, I presume). Yes, there may be a couple audio-only disks out there, but let's be honest - this is not what is being marketed, to anyone.


Its not mass market yet, don't get ahead of yourself. According to some its too expensive for mass market. Also there are brands that differentiate themselves from the mass market. It is not likely in the near future you will see a pioneer bluray player for the mass market. They have taken the high end with their players. Denon has also taken the high end with their players, and there is Goldmund who is also taking the high end with their bluray players(all of $20k). So their will be many price points to choose from, not just the mass market. :Yawn:[QUOTE]

It's the only hi-res player in town. With HD-DVD gone, it has no competition. SACD/DVD-A player sales probably pale in comparison. Yes it's still competing with standard and upconverting DVD players, but we're talking about audio. Heck, I'm sure it even outsells CD players.

Pioneer has been trying to re-invent itself into a high-end company, although I still think they have a ways to go before people forget the mass-market stuff they used to dump out there. Denon isn't going to produce just one player. I'm not certain about this, but I believe that when DVD came out they started with one player and then branched out from there. Yes, the competition at $400-600 is greater, but so are the sales figures. Goldmund? Please. They sell what, 4 players a year - yeah, they're a factor in this debate.

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]How do you know what they are thinking? You are not in the same income bracket they are in. There is no possible way that you know what anyone else is thinking, only what you think. :1:

You don't know what income bracket I'm in. Maybe I'm frugal with what I spend on audio gear but I spend more on other things; you don't know. So stop with that.


It was always the plan for Bluray to offer audio only. Its called profile 3.0 which ALL current players are.

I wasn't talking about the players, I was talking about the software. Scant selection if you ask me.


...any audiophile that looks at 8 channels at 24/192khz (which is the more resolution than the human ear can detect, and WAY more than vinyl can reproduce) can see that high resolution music is perfect for this medium. There is currently no medium out there that can do it. The only 24/192khz we have seen is two channel.

Which brings me back to my point. If there is no content out there and no one can hear it anyhow, why is it so compelling? Well it's not. The only thing that is compelling to the masses is the video. They can see that it's better from demos in the store, comparisons in their own home, etc. More often than not, though, because of all kinds of factors we've already covered, they cannot hear the difference.


So, you have actually seen and heard David Matthews Radio City Music Hall bluray. 1080p with 24/96khz Dolby TrueHD. One of the best sounding and looking concert video's I have ever seen and heard. You have seen Legends of Jazz. It used the same high quality audio from the DVD-A, 24/96khz Dolby TrueHD on bluray. Terrific sounding. Or how about Pat Metheny's "The Way Up" in Dts MA lossless. Some of the best audio I have heard on the bluray format. Or even John Legend's "Live at the House of Blues" in Dts MA Lossless 24/96khz. All of these would make an audiophile who enjoys these genre's of music grin with pleasure. All of them masterfully mixed in high resolution audio.

I didn't say there wasn't any well mastered concert video out there. What I said is that there's plenty of bad concert video too.


If you do not like video, just turn off the tube:rolleyes:

But then why should consumers pay for the video? Here's a thought, how about releasing BR audio-only disks at the same price point as SACDs? But you and I both know that ain't going to happen. The studios want to sell these at the same price as video disks.


More of your ignorance. Really, you should study up on your game before writing anything. I have told you this before. Dts MA Lossless, Dolby TrueHD, and PCM are all supported by the bluray format. These carriers of audio are all you need to provide master quality audio for bluray. All of these support 8 channels of 24/192khz PCM audio. The answer to this ignorant question is Dts, DD, DD+, Dts HD, DTHD and Dts master audio lossless are all supported by bluray. Everything from low bit lossey, to high resolution lossless.

You should learn to read the question. I didn't say there weren't any standards, I said there were no minimum standards. Nor can there ever be because too many old movies and concert footage isn't of high-enough quality. As BR tries to re-sell all these old titles (since people have already shelled out their cash for the DVD), they will have to release more titles with lower-quality audio and find other selling points. I suppose someone will come up with a matrixed surround audio track, but we all know what people thought of technicolor, particularly those people likely to buy the old movies in the first place. As I'm sure you know full well from your deep knowledge of the movie-sound industry, it isn't easy to add sound where there was none. Oh wait, I know how to get people to pay for the BR re-release: add more video content! ...and we're back to my original point.


If your guess is as good as your previous ones in our last debate, we can safely dispatch them to the trash. BR is, and has always been(from the spec's to the players) capable of higher resolution audio than we have ever seen. Even on its basic players. Bluray has all the profiles that cover everything from high resolution video, to gaming, to high resolution audio. They were built in to the format from day one. The format has much higher resolution than both SACD and DVD-A, so it takes us further than any audio format has ever. So my guess is, you just do not know what the hell you are talking about. :frown2:

I can see that you have learned nothing since the last time you encroached on this subject matter. I am shocked that you would even get into this conversation knowing that a knowledgeable person could tear a hole in your assumption wide enough to push the earth through.

The insults don't augment your point, lil't, in case you thought they did.

I never said the BR wasn't capable. Nor did I say it wasn't designed from the ground up to support high-res audio. What I'm saying is that this isn't marketed. Every single ad I've seen and heard about BR has touted the video capabilities. When the audio is mentioned, usually later on in the clip, they cover it as it relates to the video. The audio fan (I'm talking about audio-gear fan) isn't interested in the video. Now that doesn't mean they won't have a BR player in their home. What that means is that when it comes to enjoying memories of every instrument in that orchestra from that concert that they attended, they will return to their 2-channel 24/96 or lower version, close their eyes, and be carried away by it. For that fan, video is a distraction. They might even, gasp, put a record on the TT....

Nice job with the emoticons, lil't.

[Woochifer]

This sounds interesting Woochifer, my present car is quite old and just has a radio / CD player but recently I was looking for a car radio / CD player for my boat and saw them with the mini jack for an iPod / MP3 player. Now, I know absolutely nothing about these devices and previously had no interest what so ever but now I can see a use so I'll be doing some research.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about the iPod, it now casts by far the biggest shadow in the audio industry. All you need to do is look at how many products supporting the iPod are now available. At Best Buy, you'll now find more tabletop radios and boomboxes with iPod docks built in than without. And several receiver brands now also offer iPod docks as optional accessories.

Once you get used to the idea of carrying your music collection with you (the 160 GB iPod Classic can actually hold the equivalent of about 1,400 CDs encoded at 192k resolution), it's hard to go back to hauling CDs around, and loading up a six-disc changer or limiting your play to one disc at a time. The iPod (and MP3 players in general) have revolutionized music because it's a wholesale change in mindset. Even the transition from cassette Walkmans to portable CD player was not as huge, because you were still carrying physical media with you and limited to whatever you could carry with you.


As a complete novice on the subject; do you know how I could record LPs onto such a device as most of my library is on vinyl? I do have a CD recorder with a digital output.

Ah! Here's the rub -- one huge reason why MP3s have spread so quickly is the ease by which a CD can be turned into a digital music file. Loading up an iPod with your favorite CDs is ridiculously easy --

1) Load the CD into your computer
2) After the song list and album artwork automatically pop up on iTunes, click the "IMPORT CD" button
3) Wait 5 minutes while the computer creates MP3 (or AAC or whatever audio format you want to use) files of every song and embeds the data tags (w/ song, album, artist info)
4) Copy the CD's song list onto your iPod playlist
5) Plug the iPod into your computer
6) Wait about 30 seconds for the iPod to sync with the playlist and download the files
7) Unplug the iPod and go

With vinyl, it's a considerably slower process because like all analog formats, any format conversion has to be done in real time. Converting an LP into a digital file is no more cumbersome than the old days of cassette recording, but it's still far less convenient than a CD, which can be converted into MP3 files in about 5 minutes.

In order to create MP3 from an LP, you'll need to first record the audio, whether onto a CD recorder or plugged directly into a computer sound card. Then, when the files are created, you'll need to individually type in the data tags/labels for each track, since that's the only way that a MP3 player can organize the music by song title, artist, and/or album.

With iTunes (and most other digital jukebox programs), the data tag information is automatically called up from Gracenote when the CD is inserted. While the CD is getting converted into MP3, the song titles and other info are automatically written into the music files. That's a level of speed and convenience that you can't match when recording from an analog source.

Audio Technica though recently started selling a USB turntable, which plugs directly into a computer specifically for creating digital files.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Lil't you are a pompous jack-a$$. The comments quoted above all came from one single post! I didn't come on here to address you, I came here to talk about the subject, so get over yourself, this isn't even your thread. Obviously you need to once again show how obnoxious you can be. In reference to our previous debates, this was exactly how those started: you couldn't help yourself from insulting me and just about everyone else. You started it then too. This is why I called you then and will continue to call you "lil't" - because you are so small and insecure that you have to aggrandize yourself and insult everyone around you.

Now get over yourself and let's see if you can behave like an adult for once.

You were wrong on every one of your assertions. Nothing turned out like you said. Basically you have shown how NOT to be a graceful loser:nono: Such wild outbursts, untidy, really.:yesnod:

__________________________________________________ _______________




Maybe it was considered as such, but it has not been marketed as an audio-only format (which is what you mean by multiplatform, I presume). Yes, there may be a couple audio-only disks out there, but let's be honest - this is not what is being marketed, to anyone.

Still early in the game isn't it? There is more than just a couple of disc out there(keep up will ya). How bluray is being marketed is kind of open. Sure movies and games are the biggest draw, but the new music releases are proving that music only application are just another way of using a bluray disc. The spec was always there.


Its not mass market yet, don't get ahead of yourself. According to some its too expensive for mass market. Also there are brands that differentiate themselves from the mass market. It is not likely in the near future you will see a pioneer bluray player for the mass market. They have taken the high end with their players. Denon has also taken the high end with their players, and there is Goldmund who is also taking the high end with their bluray players(all of $20k). So their will be many price points to choose from, not just the mass market. :Yawn:[QUOTE]

[quote]It's the only hi-res player in town. With HD-DVD gone, it has no competition. SACD/DVD-A player sales probably pale in comparison. Yes it's still competing with standard and upconverting DVD players, but we're talking about audio. Heck, I'm sure it even outsells CD players.

You are right on all accounts


Pioneer has been trying to re-invent itself into a high-end company, although I still think they have a ways to go before people forget the mass-market stuff they used to dump out there. Denon isn't going to produce just one player. I'm not certain about this, but I believe that when DVD came out they started with one player and then branched out from there. Yes, the competition at $400-600 is greater, but so are the sales figures. Goldmund? Please. They sell what, 4 players a year - yeah, they're a factor in this debate.

I think Pioneer has come far from this outdated perspective. Denon has two players on the market. And Goldumund, they do not have to sell more than four players a years. The margins they make on that player eleviates the need to sell any more than that.




You don't know what income bracket I'm in. Maybe I'm frugal with what I spend on audio gear but I spend more on other things; you don't know. So stop with that.

ooooooooo, still have that nasty temper.:mad5: Enhance your calm and stop blowing all of this heat. Its not necessary:frown2:




I wasn't talking about the players, I was talking about the software. Scant selection if you ask me.

Time brings about a change. You know like bluray beating HD DVD. 3 disc today, 50 tomorrow, time is not stagnant. :rolleyes5:




Which brings me back to my point. If there is no content out there and no one can hear it anyhow, why is it so compelling? Well it's not. The only thing that is compelling to the masses is the video. They can see that it's better from demos in the store, comparisons in their own home, etc. More often than not, though, because of all kinds of factors we've already covered, they cannot hear the difference.

Things change. What is not compelling today, could be tomorrow. Time brings about changes, it is not stagnant.:rolleyes5: Besides, there is content out there, enough to sample what the format can produce.




I didn't say there wasn't any well mastered concert video out there. What I said is that there's plenty of bad concert video too.

Pretty open ended statement. Plenty of well mastered concert video as well. Most of what has been released on bluray has been pretty well mastered. It has to be when you are trying to demo something in the market.:yesnod:




But then why should consumers pay for the video? Here's a thought, how about releasing BR audio-only disks at the same price point as SACDs? But you and I both know that ain't going to happen. The studios want to sell these at the same price as video disks.

They are selling between $15-20. As volume increases, the price will drop as well. Get it through your thick head, the some disc WILL NOT HAVE VIDEO, can you read that? So there is no need for a monitor once the music is started.




You should learn to read the question. I didn't say there weren't any standards, I said there were no minimum standards. Nor can there ever be because too many old movies and concert footage isn't of high-enough quality. As BR tries to re-sell all these old titles (since people have already shelled out their cash for the DVD), they will have to release more titles with lower-quality audio and find other selling points.

What the hell are you talking about? Haven't you ever heard of restoration, remastering, or reauthoring? Come on uneducated one, you surely can do betta than this. :rolleyes5:


I suppose someone will come up with a matrixed surround audio track, but we all know what people thought of technicolor, particularly those people likely to buy the old movies in the first place. As I'm sure you know full well from your deep knowledge of the movie-sound industry, it isn't easy to add sound where there was none. Oh wait, I know how to get people to pay for the BR re-release: add more video content! ...and we're back to my original point.

You need to stay far away from this subject. If they are going to repurpose or restore a mono soundtrack, they just go back to the original elements and re-stitch them together in a 5.1 soundfield. Chace technologies does this, and so does Mi Casa Studios. Even adding color to a black and white movie can easily be done these days. Look at the Bluray 20 million miles to Earth as a prime example of that.




The insults don't augment your point, lil't, in case you thought they did.

Look in the mirror and say this a thousand times


I never said the BR wasn't capable. Nor did I say it wasn't designed from the ground up to support high-res audio. What I'm saying is that this isn't marketed. Every single ad I've seen and heard about BR has touted the video capabilities. When the audio is mentioned, usually later on in the clip, they cover it as it relates to the video. The audio fan (I'm talking about audio-gear fan) isn't interested in the video. Now that doesn't mean they won't have a BR player in their home. What that means is that when it comes to enjoying memories of every instrument in that orchestra from that concert that they attended, they will return to their 2-channel 24/96 or lower version, close their eyes, and be carried away by it. For that fan, video is a distraction. They might even, gasp, put a record on the TT....

Nice job with the emoticons, lil't.

It may not be marketed today, but tomorrow is a different story. You have to stop looking at things a frame at a time. Your thinking is too small, your time structure a little off, the same problem you had with the last debate we had. All the rest of the bull is just what it is, bull. You do not know how folks are going to take to bluray music, and you do not know what the listening habit of folks will be. There is alot of interest in surround music by audiophiles that just happen to like video as well. You seem to be forgetting these folks in your rush to come to some negative judgement.

[mbbuchanan]

I wish a high res standard would emerge soon. If it is blu-ray ,then so be it. I just know that an SACD done right is the closest I have ever heard a digital source come to having true analogue qualities ( the Dark Side of the Moon SACD comes to mind) multi-channel doesn't really interest me to much at all, I just want true hi resolution stereo. With that being said I have no clue about Blu-Ray's future, I just hope it is not dead because that seems to me to be the best future we have for true high res digital.

[ldgibson76]

What is that mouth watering aroma, with the under-lining stench?!!!!

Smells like "Filet Mignon"! But there's this stench that keeps raring it's head!!!....

Smells like a trash can top! I swear this aroma is familiar!:confused:

Ah Ha! I know what it is!:idea:.....It's "Sir T" and his patented delivery technique!

I'm sure some of you are familiar with the analogy. "Sir T's" knowledge, is without question extensive when it comes to the topic of hi-rez audio/video application: The Filet Mignon and the fixin's!:arf: How he delivers it: On a Trash can top! :shocked:
In the prophetic words of "Rodney King", "Can't we all just get along?!":rolleyes:

Guys, the bottom line is that Blu ray, love it or hate it, is the future! Until some other earth shattering technology is introduced, it's were the money is! With the backing of 300+ companies, there's really not a choice in the matter. Right now, it has the most accommodating platform (disc) available, this side of an actual hard drive. That's undeniable. And if it's not blu ray, then the next platform will most likely evolve from the BD technology. So let's call it even and refrain from the name calling! (Although there are times when it's entertaining). That means you too "Nightflier!" I know you didn't start it this time, but you damn sure participated.:nono:
Every point mentioned in this thread has validity. It's just depends on what glass you're looking thru. Or better yet, how you will benefit from it!

Regards.

[Mr Peabody]

One thing I learned on the playground is not to step in the middle of two combatants in hopes of breaking up a fight, you will undoubtedly come out of the midst with a couple lumps of your own.

[ldgibson76]

One thing I learned on the playground is not to step in the middle of two combatants in hopes of breaking up a fight, you will undoubtedly come out of the midst with a couple lumps of your own.

True, Peabody. I could be putting myself in harms way. But, you needn't be concerned about that..... I can handle it. But, do you think the name calling is prudent or even necessary? I understand the wise crack here and there, but sometimes it goes a little too far. That's all I'm trying to say!

[bobsticks]

I wish a high res standard would emerge soon. If it is blu-ray ,then so be it. I just know that an SACD done right is the closest I have ever heard a digital source come to having true analogue qualities ( the Dark Side of the Moon SACD comes to mind) multi-channel doesn't really interest me to much at all, I just want true hi resolution stereo. With that being said I have no clue about Blu-Ray's future, I just hope it is not dead because that seems to me to be the best future we have for true high res digital.

Well said.

[Chas Underhay]

Ah! Here's the rub -- one huge reason why MP3s have spread so quickly is the ease by which a CD can be turned into a digital music file. Loading up an iPod with your favorite CDs is ridiculously easy --

1) Load the CD into your computer
2) After the song list and album artwork automatically pop up on iTunes, click the "IMPORT CD" button
3) Wait 5 minutes while the computer creates MP3 (or AAC or whatever audio format you want to use) files of every song and embeds the data tags (w/ song, album, artist info)
4) Copy the CD's song list onto your iPod playlist
5) Plug the iPod into your computer
6) Wait about 30 seconds for the iPod to sync with the playlist and download the files
7) Unplug the iPod and go

With vinyl, it's a considerably slower process because like all analog formats, any format conversion has to be done in real time. Converting an LP into a digital file is no more cumbersome than the old days of cassette recording, but it's still far less convenient than a CD, which can be converted into MP3 files in about 5 minutes.

In order to create MP3 from an LP, you'll need to first record the audio, whether onto a CD recorder or plugged directly into a computer sound card. Then, when the files are created, you'll need to individually type in the data tags/labels for each track, since that's the only way that a MP3 player can organize the music by song title, artist, and/or album.

With iTunes (and most other digital jukebox programs), the data tag information is automatically called up from Gracenote when the CD is inserted. While the CD is getting converted into MP3, the song titles and other info are automatically written into the music files. That's a level of speed and convenience that you can't match when recording from an analog source.

Audio Technica though recently started selling a USB turntable, which plugs directly into a computer specifically for creating digital files.

Thanks for this information Woochifer!

My record player is of reasonable quality (Ortofon Kontrapunct B etc) and recording onto CD is easy enough and I know that I can index between tracks. Do you think that route would be better than connecting the output from my phono stage to my computer? I don't think the sound card in my computer is anything special. If so, is there any disadvantage in using CDRWs so that I can re-use them?

Cheers

Chas

[Groundbeef]

Thanks for this information Woochifer!

My record player is of reasonable quality (Ortofon Kontrapunct B etc) and recording onto CD is easy enough and I know that I can index between tracks. Do you think that route would be better than connecting the output from my phono stage to my computer? I don't think the sound card in my computer is anything special. If so, is there any disadvantage in using CDRWs so that I can re-use them?

Cheers

Chas

I'm no botnist, but I have this little voice in the back of my head saying "don't plug your Phono right into your computer". I think that there has to be some sort of intermediary or there will be sound issues.

Anyone with more knowledge out there that can substanciate that thought?

[filecat13]

Here's what I used. It's simple, effective, and has what you need to get the job done. You can plug your turntable right into the unit, or you can run it through your preamp. It works on Macs and on Windows XP.

http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/imic

The Final Vinyl software is idiot-proof and allows EQ and other controls if you're so inclined.

[Mr Peabody]

Does it only have the mini jack? Do you use a RCA to mini adaptor?

[Chas Underhay]

Thanks for that information gents and thanks for that link Filecat; that gives me some good food for thought.

I can easily knock up a phono to mini jack lead and that would probably have quite a few other uses these days.

Cheers and all the best

Chas

[nightflier]

You were wrong on every one of your assertions. Nothing turned out like you said.

That why they were assertions. Unlike you, I didn't say that things would definitely turn out one way or the other, I only presented alternative outcomes to your definite statements. Would you have had the decency to admit that you were wrong, had my assertions come true? Judging from your dogged absolutism, I doubt it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


...keep up will ya...don't get ahead of yourself.:Yawn:
ooooooooo, still have that nasty temper.:mad5: Enhance your calm and stop blowing all of this heat.:frown2::rolleyes5:...Pretty open ended statement. ...Get it through your thick head...What the hell are you talking about? ...Come on uneducated one, you surely can do betta than this. :rolleyes5:...You need to stay far away from this subject....Look in the mirror and say this a thousand times...You have to stop looking at things a frame at a time. Your thinking is too small, your time structure a little off...All the rest of the bull is just what it is, bull. You do not know how folks...and you do not know what...You seem to be forgetting...your rush to come to some negative judgement.:rolleyes5:

I guess you just can't stop insulting and denegrating, can you? These are all from your last post. Can't you just say something useful without being such a pill? Did I insult you in my initial post? Did I even mention you? No. I don't care about you, but I do care about the topic. Stop being such a weenie, a little tiny tweezer one, at that.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is more than just a couple of disc out there(keep up will ya). How bluray is being marketed is kind of open. Sure movies and games are the biggest draw, but the new music releases are proving that music only application are just another way of using a bluray disc. The spec was always there.

I'm sorry, I'll rephrase: "all half-a-dozen of them...". Big woop, that's not significant, and certainly not something that is a marketable medium. For all practical purposes, videois the only draw to BR.


It is not likely in the near future you will see a pioneer bluray player for the mass market. They have taken the high end with their players. Denon has also taken the high end with their players, and there is Goldmund who is also taking the high end with their bluray players(all of $20k). So their will be many price points to choose from, not just the mass market. ...I think Pioneer has come far from this outdated perspective. Denon has two players on the market. And Goldumund, they do not have to sell more than four players a years. The margins they make on that player eleviates the need to sell any more than that.


Pioneer used to make $50 DVD players loaded with features. While they have changed of late, their track record in the last decade hardly reassures. My guess is that they'll eventually release a $50 BR player and charge $100 for it, just because it says Pioneer on the bezel. Denon is way too smart to stay just high-end. They already have a $900-ish player and they would be the loosers if they didn't develop a $700 and $400 player as well. By the way, how are those $2K BR players selling for them? They need to sell a whole lot more than Goldmund to make that ship float. Speaking of Goldmund, what does that $20K player offer that the $2K Denon doesn't? Braggin rights? High-end DVD players are like SUV sales - bloated prices and bloated boxes for tiny weenie-complexes. Are you going to be buying one of these, lil't?


Things change. What is not compelling today, could be tomorrow. Time brings about changes, it is not stagnant.:rolleyes5: Besides, there is content out there, enough to sample what the format can produce.

Well, it's not compelling today, and we really don't know what will happen in the future. Funny, for someone who's always harping about constraining the discussion to just what we know, you sure are eager to speculate on the uncertain future. Fact is, audio-only BR isn't here in any meaningful way - a few disks don't make it so - it could just as easily flounder.


Pretty open ended statement. Plenty of well mastered concert video as well. Most of what has been released on bluray has been pretty well mastered. It has to be when you are trying to demo something in the market.

Open ended? I would say that "Times change" is about as open ended as you can be - a real risk taker, now aren't we? Plenty of badly mastered content is out there too, not to mention all the fluf that has only been repackaged as BR with very little remastering. But let's call this one a draw and move on.


They are selling between $15-20. As volume increases, the price will drop as well. Get it through your thick head, the some disc WILL NOT HAVE VIDEO, can you read that? So there is no need for a monitor once the music is started.

$15-20? What disks are you looking at? And let's remember that the price will only drop if the product takes off, and we haven't seen that happen yet. Right now, with the economy where it is, I'm going to guess the price will actually increase. Care to make an absolute statement that the price will drop, too? And there's no need to YELL and get your panties in a bunch, either. You know full well that the system you're talking about the typical consumer playing this disk on is their HT with TV system. The system I'm talking about does not have a TV - it's an audio-only system, just like the systems that music enthusiasts have their SACD players in today. If that system requires setup menus and other video queues to get the disk started, then that consumer will forgo the medium altogether. I don't know too many people who are willing to add a TV to their audio-only system just to play a disk.


What the hell are you talking about? Haven't you ever heard of restoration, remastering, or reauthoring? ...You need to stay far away from this subject. If they are going to repurpose or restore a mono soundtrack, they just go back to the original elements and re-stitch them together in a 5.1 soundfield. Chace technologies does this, and so does Mi Casa Studios. Even adding color to a black and white movie can easily be done these days. Look at the Bluray 20 million miles to Earth as a prime example of that.


Well if you think that Cassablanca or The Birds look better in technicolor and matrixed DTS-MA audio, more power to you. You can buy that BR disk, if you want, I just don't see that being the big seller you think it will be. Likewise with concert video - Led Zep & the Doors in simmulated surround sound? That will be a tough pill to swallow, too.


It may not be marketed today, but tomorrow is a different story. You have to stop looking at things a frame at a time. Your thinking is too small, your time structure a little off, the same problem you had with the last debate we had. All the rest of the bull is just what it is, bull.

Funny, how you claim to know the future again. Please lil't, do enlighten us more about the future. And here I thought others could weigh in with their point of view here. I thought this was a free and open forum. I guess you can tell us all what it is that we need to know about the world at large. Geeeez.


You do not know how folks are going to take to bluray music, and you do not know what the listening habit of folks will be.

Oh, I'm sorry, you must be the only one who knows what "the listening habit of folks will be". Why don't you educate us, oh anointed one?


There is alot of interest in surround music by audiophiles that just happen to like video as well. You seem to be forgetting these folks in your rush to come to some negative judgement.

Not at all forgetting them, I'm talking about them. But I'll also suggest that many of them have separate systems for audio and video. And let's re-iterate this for everyone: "interest" does not equal sales. Right now, that interest is just a curiosity. It is not a visible and measurable paradigm shift (I know how you're a stickler for numbers).

I almost get the feeling that you hope your insistence on it's viability will magically make it come true. Or maybe you hope that your posts here will have an impact on this industry. You sure think highly of yourself; you must be over-compensating for something....

[Mr Peabody]

If Goldmund makes enough money on 4 players to stay in business for a year it makes the purchaser look pretty foolish and they must not be getting much for their money.

I wouldn't put Denon too high on a pedestal their 3800 has issues with the 24 fps and they all have to go back for a fix. Seems 24 fps isn't actually 24 fps,it's more like 23.96 and apparently that fraction of a difference is visible.