SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry for the dumb question. It would certainly be a sort of a "nuclear option" that would not be very popular.

That wasn't a dumb question at all. The reality is, BD+ can be used as a nuclear option, but I doubt the BDA would even consider using it.

So the fault lies with disc itself requiring a player based workaround? While I'm all about the quality of the format, such never occurred in the DVD world.

rw

It did happen with DVD VERY early in the game. My Toshiba player could not do the layer change without stuttering and freezing. It happen on two different Toshiba players. Eventually I just went with another model.

Keep in mind, authoring a DVD is a cakewalk compared to Bluray. You have BD live, multiple soundtracks and languages, commentary, in movie modes, 3D and everything else but the kitchen sink thrown in, that is a lot of data to combine, align, and get on the disc. Stamping errors can also crop up from time to time.

[basite]

First off all, let me start with 2 small points:

I read several times now, that you are by no means interested in discussing "low res audio" (I assume that for you, everything less than Blu Ray audio falls under this category...). Well, from your interests point of view, and career, I can somewhat understand that. But I also think that you should "realize", that most of the music in the world is low res content... AND growing, one CANNOT simply rule out the importance of an ipod, and variatons in this world.

Secondly,
As much as we appreciate, or like to discuss, or like to argue about your extensive knowledge about blu ray as a complete format, including movies: this thread is about audio. blu ray AUDIO discs, in your posts, specifically. Which is also another reason why I think the portable blu ray player is a utterly pointless machine as a media/music player...

We have DVR's here, but since I don't use one, I cannot speak to ease of use, but it is probably a very simple process.

I can assure you it is, and a media center is not hard at all when set up.

There is no way anyone will ever see uncompressed video, the file are too large to store(a single movie is over 10 terabytes), and it requires a HUGE pipeline for distribution, something that no country on this planet has(not even South Korea).

Sorry, I stand corrected, but please allow me to rephrase: "store high resolution content, as high resolution as Blu ray"


I have never heard of a person unable to use a disc player of any kind, even my grandparents know how to use a DVD/Bluray player, and their DVR. When the see my media server based system, their eyes roll back, their skin gets white as a sheet, and they look light headed. LOL.

maybe not the ease of putting the disc in (well, I am sure there are some people on this world...). but as soon as there is a menu (even though it's still pressing enter). And when things go wrong (don't think blu ray without any failures, every format has had it's problems, blu ray too). Then we "geeks" come in to help, just as much as you might help your grandparents to set up a media center, and "learn" them how to use it (even though it's not hard at all...)

Here is the problem with this. It is far easier to crack software on a drive or disc, than it is to crack copy protection protocol between two components. This is why BD+ and BD watermark use communications between two components, as opposed to CSS copy protection which is on the disc itself.


Where there is money, there is a way. And at this moment, money is at blu ray. If someone really wants, they can protect software on a drive just as well as "with the 2 components"


Oh come on! I used it all of the time, it is not heavy(you don't even feel the weight), and it really is not that big. Besides, there is a backup battery you can buy with it that extends its operation to 5 hours, just long enough to fly from LA to Orlando. Laptops are too big!

I spot a very important sentence there: 'I used it all of the time", well, but you're an audio/recording/sound engineer of some kind, and obviously very interested in high resolution content. My cousin is a master university student, and you can obviously see that too, computer gadgets all over the place, even kinda talks the same way...
I'm a film school student, and I also live that way. Most other people, however, simply do not.

Bert, portable is portable. The definition does not mean "it fits in your pocket". Portable means it is easily moved from one place to the next, and that describes a "portable" Bluray player. An Ipod may be cheaper, but it can only play low rez music, and low rez video. Let's not mention that it is really too small for video viewing.

Once again, the battery extender you can buy it lightweight, and extends the operation of the player another 2.5-3.5 hours.


maybe in your circles, but the general masses? no way. it's not "heavy", but it weighs 2.4lbs, WITHOUT extra battery, and WITHOUT all the discs you need, because, honestly, how far are you going to get with one album?

and you, sirT, are hiding behind the dictionary meaning of "portable", in which case you are correct. But, then again, you are also wrong. Look at it like this: A bicycle is "mobile" too, which means you can get to point A to B, but face it, you're not going to drive 70 miles to work with it every morning, and back home every evening. You are using something more convenient for that.

same with this: it's portable, meaning you can take it from point A to B, but only if you are going by plane (which have screens in the headrest), or in cars (which also have screens in the headrests). You can't go jogging with it (popular use with other MUSIC players), you can't even go out on the street without carrying a bag with you. you can't use it when on a bicycle... YOU CANNOT put it in your pocket, so you are stuck to a bag.

what's the use of that? honestly. Face it. might very well be that it can play high res content (I don't even care it can play movies, and neither does this topic, but that would only get to you if you properly read the title, which clearly states that it is about AUDIO...) I can get an Ipod for about 1/3th of the money I pay for the "portable" blu ray player, it will last longer, hold countless albums, weighs less than half than the blu ray thing, and actually IS "portable", I can literally take it everywhere, as it fits in my pockets.

And I know, you're looking at this, and the first thing that goes through your mind is "but it's low res", well, read the comment above this big big quote)


Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but here in California they are popular as hell. I have one built in my hybrid SUV

well, "in my neck of the woods", they don't. And still, how many of them are high res screens with blu ray players connected to them? AND, how many of the owners and watchers of those built in screens & players actually care that the content is high res?


You won't get HD video in this case, you will just get a 480i signal from that output.

Yeah, again, read the comment above the big big quote here, this topic is about AUDIO. if you want to start a topic about advantages of Blu Ray, I'd be happy to read about it in the home theater section...
and I didn't say there would be quality loss, there will be, just as there will be quality loss with pretty much everything you re-record from a already finished product. As you said, "an uncompressed movie is over 10 terabytes..." and all, compressed on a 50gb blu ray disc, and then re recorded, well, of course there will be quality loss. Especially for average Joe. (well, with your high resolution audio recorder, it might as well just end up sounding the same...)


Been there done that! I even did a blind listening test with my kids(who by the way have excellent ears). They could not tell the vinyl from the digital copy of it. That is the power of 24/192khz audio.

And that is still only an opinion, and I don't know any details about both the playback device (turntable & analog setup), recording device, and actual music & recording played. (important part coming up: ) "IN my opinion", on all the systems & recordings I've heard (maybe while not even nearly as you have heard, but still, a more than respectable number for a guy my age, in price categories of all kinds (and I really do mean: all price categories))

Great discussion by the way!

Thank you!

Regards,
Bert.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have no idea really, but one thought comes to mind regarding Apple and Google "working out deals".

They are too big!!!

That really is not the issue at all, these guys don't make movies, or record audio. The problem that Hollywood has with Google and Apple(and Microsoft for that matter) is that they don't value or respect the product. They value their hardware only, and the movies and television shows are treated as after thoughts. The community also thinks that these companies are arrogant as hell. Look at what Google did with Google TV. They released it without even speaking to the content providers, thinking they can just steal the content without signing even a single deal.

These are 2 companies with the potential (capital) to overtake or wipe out the very companies which they seek these deals with. That has to be a scary proposition for those who actually hold the keys to the doors.

Why would they overtake and wipe out the mouth that feeds them? Google and Apple don't make movies, don't produce recordings, and really don't want to get into those areas anyway. What they want is something for nothing, and thats the problem that Hollywood has with these two companies(and Microsoft as well). It does not benefit Hollywood one bit to limit the amount of distribution outlets they have, it benefits them to have more(with DVD going the away it is) which is why Netflix deals are so easily reached.

The studio's make their money making movies and selling discs, just like Apple and Google make their money selling hardware and ads. Apple does not want to harm their hardware sales, so they secure content to prevent that. Google uses youtube to sell ads, and they wanted to get into distributing television content(to sell more ads by the way), but they forgot to talk to the content providers, and are now being locked out because of it.

None of these companies want to get into film and television distribution just for the sake of getting into the business, or because they love film. They want to get into it just to sell more hardware and ads, and the content is just the vehicle that does that. That is why Hollywood prefers to deal with Netflix. They just stream movies and don't push products. They have worked hard to make the movies look as good as they can within the constraints of the infrastructure. They cooperate with the film industry, and that is why Hollywood does not mind working with them. Even Walmart is more respected in the Hollywood community more than those three tech giants. At least with Vudu, they have worked to put the best presentation of the films they stream out there. Hollywood respects that, not some company using their content as a loss leader.

I will also add that bands nowadays have changed their view on the product of music. I don't think any group expects to make money on a release unless you're a super star. It's more about gaining exposure and fans so that when you pull into town, the venue is full and you can sell merch, etc.

Touring is far more lucrative than recording. However you need a recording project to promote on the tour, so recording is a necessary evil. But you are right, they know they are not going to make any money off recordings.

The reality of being an average band today is that you are constantly on the road in order to pay the bills. Plain and simple. This is however a good thing for music lovers because it means the group of your choice will be tighter than a drum.

Bingo! And it is great for audio engineers like myself who occasionally get out on the road with a group just for a change of scenery.

The days of releasing albums and not touring are long over. Perhaps dance music types don't need to, but there's not enough ecstacy in the world to keep me listening to that vapid crap.

One of the biggest trends I am seeing is that bands are doing their own recording projects(outside the studio realm), releasing to Itunes, and then going on the road thereby keeping most of the money, keeping their copyrights, side stepping the record companies and their bull, and still generating a buzz for the recording project. The record companies have pissed on their artists so much, the artists are beginning to take things into their own hands.

[Ajani]

That really is not the issue at all, these guys don't make movies, or record audio. The problem that Hollywood has with Google and Apple(and Microsoft for that matter) is that they don't value or respect the product. They value their hardware only, and the movies and television shows are treated as after thoughts. The community also thinks that these companies are arrogant as hell. Look at what Google did with Google TV. They released it without even speaking to the content providers, thinking they can just steal the content without signing even a single deal.



Why would they overtake and wipe out the mouth that feeds them? Google and Apple don't make movies, don't produce recordings, and really don't want to get into those areas anyway. What they want is something for nothing, and thats the problem that Hollywood has with these two companies(and Microsoft as well). It does not benefit Hollywood one bit to limit the amount of distribution outlets they have, it benefits them to have more(with DVD going the away it is) which is why Netflix deals are so easily reached.

The studio's make their money making movies and selling discs, just like Apple and Google make their money selling hardware and ads. Apple does not want to harm their hardware sales, so they secure content to prevent that. Google uses youtube to sell ads, and they wanted to get into distributing television content(to sell more ads by the way), but they forgot to talk to the content providers, and are now being locked out because of it.

None of these companies want to get into film and television distribution just for the sake of getting into the business, or because they love film. They want to get into it just to sell more hardware and ads, and the content is just the vehicle that does that. That is why Hollywood prefers to deal with Netflix. They just stream movies and don't push products. They have worked hard to make the movies look as good as they can within the constraints of the infrastructure. They cooperate with the film industry, and that is why Hollywood does not mind working with them. Even Walmart is more respected in the Hollywood community more than those three tech giants. At least with Vudu, they have worked to put the best presentation of the films they stream out there. Hollywood respects that, not some company using their content as a loss leader.

Valid points, though I would ask whether network executives respect their own TV content? Given how quick they are to change time-slots and toss shows with critical acclaim and loyal fan followings, it's really hard to take them seriously...

Touring is far more lucrative than recording. However you need a recording project to promote on the tour, so recording is a necessary evil. But you are right, they know they are not going to make any money off recordings.



Bingo! And it is great for audio engineers like myself who occasionally get out on the road with a group just for a change of scenery.



One of the biggest trends I am seeing is that bands are doing their own recording projects(outside the studio realm), releasing to Itunes, and then going on the road thereby keeping most of the money, keeping their copyrights, side stepping the record companies and their bull, and still generating a buzz for the recording project. The record companies have pissed on their artists so much, the artists are beginning to take things into their own hands.

Here we do agree... Recording companies have been irritating artists for so long, that some would rather give away their music for free on myspace or facebook and then tour, than sign a deal with a label...

I always remember in the early 90's when TLC had the number 1 album in the country with multi-platinum sales and had to file for bankruptcy... From what I remember, the label was getting all the real money and making the group pay the majority of touring and promotion expenses etc..

The only thing that can be somewhat said in defense of the labels is that the real talent behind a hit is not the artist, but the producers and songwriters... Finding a pretty face who can hold a note is easy: just hang around a few high school and church choirs. Finding a producer who can create a number 1 hit is a real challenge...

Of course that defense is not valid against artists who write and produce their own material...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

First off all, let me start with 2 small points:

I read several times now, that you are by no means interested in discussing "low res audio" (I assume that for you, everything less than Blu Ray audio falls under this category...). Well, from your interests point of view, and career, I can somewhat understand that. But I also think that you should "realize", that most of the music in the world is low res content... AND growing, one CANNOT simply rule out the importance of an ipod, and variatons in this world.

I hate to tell you this, but those MP3 files come from a high resolution file. So while the music ENDS UP being low rez, it does not start that way.

Secondly,
As much as we appreciate, or like to discuss, or like to argue about your extensive knowledge about blu ray as a complete format, including movies: this thread is about audio. blu ray AUDIO discs, in your posts, specifically. Which is also another reason why I think the portable blu ray player is a utterly pointless machine as a media/music player...
Regards,
Bert.

So are you saying that portable bluray player cannot play bluray audio disc? Nonsense, that is my portable BR player primary use when I travel. It can even play concert video's without the video if I so choose. Just because it is not something you can put on your pocket, does not mean it has no usefulness. That is short sighted thinking.

Sorry, I stand corrected, but please allow me to rephrase: "store high resolution content, as high resolution as Blu ray"

You are completely wrong on this. 1080i is the highest resolution cable uses, not 1080p with the necessary data rate to reduce the compression. The 1080i video from any cable or satellite system is heavily compressed, and if they apply the 1080p label, the compression would go even higher.

maybe not the ease of putting the disc in (well, I am sure there are some people on this world...). but as soon as there is a menu (even though it's still pressing enter). And when things go wrong (don't think blu ray without any failures, every format has had it's problems, blu ray too). Then we "geeks" come in to help, just as much as you might help your grandparents to set up a media center, and "learn" them how to use it (even though it's not hard at all...)

There is a lot of things to do before you get to the menu of a media center. If your movie collection is disc based(which my grandparents is) then you have to rip the DVD to a computer hard drive, and then transfer that to either a portable hard drive, or a server based system. My grandparents(and most everyone else's) are not going to go through that trouble. Bluray has far fewer failures than a portable or computer based hard drive. I have never had a single Bluray player fail, but I have had two hard drive failures. I never had any of my DVD players fail, and neither has my grandparents and other relatives. When you get older, simplicity rules, not complexity - especially when they are not "geeks".

Where there is money, there is a way. And at this moment, money is at blu ray. If someone really wants, they can protect software on a drive just as well as "with the 2 components"

Oh really. CSS got cracked, ACSS got cracked(we haven't even discussed microvision). All of these are non dynamic software based copy protection systems. The studios realized a long time ago that software based copy protection is far easier to crack than the two component system. The evidence is in the fact that ACSS of Bluray was cracked, but BD+ and BD watermark still have not been.

I spot a very important sentence there: 'I used it all of the time", well, but you're an audio/recording/sound engineer of some kind, and obviously very interested in high resolution content. My cousin is a master university student, and you can obviously see that too, computer gadgets all over the place, even kinda talks the same way...
I'm a film school student, and I also live that way. Most other people, however, simply do not.

Do you really think I am the only person to use a portable Bluray player? I would think not, go to Bluray.com. Anyone that has used a portable DVD or CD player can use a portable Bluray player. What I do for a living has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Can you really advance the argument that only recording engineers use it? They wouldn't sell a lot of them if that was the case, and why put the R&D into the players if you are only going to market them(or sell them) to audio guys. You don't need to be a geek to learn to put a disc in a player, press play, and sit back and watch a movie. My parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles have all used portable Bluray players. There is nothing difficult about using them.

maybe in your circles, but the general masses? no way. it's not "heavy", but it weighs 2.4lbs, WITHOUT extra battery, and WITHOUT all the discs you need, because, honestly, how far are you going to get with one album?

Give me a break Bert. The general masses are buying portable Bluray players, not just audio engineers and gadget geeks. My portable CD player is the same weight as my portable Bluray player. The extra battery weighs an additional one pound. Do you really mean the folks are so weak that they cannot carry 4-5 Bluray titles, a portable player, and a small battery? That is just plain silly.

and you, sirT, are hiding behind the dictionary meaning of "portable", in which case you are correct. But, then again, you are also wrong. Look at it like this: A bicycle is "mobile" too, which means you can get to point A to B, but face it, you're not going to drive 70 miles to work with it every morning, and back home every evening. You are using something more convenient for that.

And you Bert are trying to redefine the word portable. Portable is portable. The dictionary does not make a size declaration. We are not talking mobile, that is a completely different word. What is convenient for you, is probably not for me. I like to listen to high resolution music wherever I go, and can thanks to a portable Bluray player I can. Low resolution audio has its place, as do ipods(I am not going to take my portable Bluray player on a run), but the very idea of saying that something that in total weighs less than 5 pounds is inconvenientt is completely ridiculous.

same with this: it's portable, meaning you can take it from point A to B, but only if you are going by plane (which have screens in the headrest), or in cars (which also have screens in the headrests). You can't go jogging with it (popular use with other MUSIC players), you can't even go out on the street without carrying a bag with you. you can't use it when on a bicycle... YOU CANNOT put it in your pocket, so you are stuck to a bag.

Who gives a damn if you cannot put it in your pocket? I can't put my car in my pocket either! I already address the jogging issue, and since I carry a backpack everywhere I go, you just stick the portable Bluray player in there. I can walk with it, I can ride with it, and I often do. So this angle you are trying does not fly. Is your generation so weak that they cannot carry a small bag that weighs about five pounds?(which includes the player, backup battery, and a few disc).

I can get an Ipod for about 1/3th of the money I pay for the "portable" blu ray player, it will last longer, hold countless albums, weighs less than half than the blu ray thing, and actually IS "portable", I can literally take it everywhere, as it fits in my pockets.

Portable is not defined by what you can put in your pocket. Give that up right now. I don't listen to countless albums, I listen to them one at a time. Even with my ipod, I never get to more than two albums going from one place to the next, that is another red herring. When I travel, I take 2-3 disc, and I never get through all of them. You do not know the life of a portable Bluray player, nobody does. I have two Ipods that have quit working after a few years of use - my portable CD and DVD players have lasted longer. You are overselling your point, especially since you don't own a portable Bluray player. How can you make all of these statements without actually owning one?

well, "in my neck of the woods", they don't. And still, how many of them are high res screens with blu ray players connected to them? AND, how many of the owners and watchers of those built in screens & players actually care that the content is high res?

So because "in your neck of the woods" they don't, that invalidates it? I think not. The purpose is not to necessarily view the movies on high definition screens, the purpose is that you don't have to carry multiple formats of disc when you are traveling in your car.

Yeah, again, read the comment above the big big quote here, this topic is about AUDIO.

Then your probably should not have said this
if I get a blu ray player, connect the analog line out, to the analog line in on my PC, and I press "record" on the pc, or on something else, a CDR recorder, for example, or basically, everything that records, IT WILL RECORD,

If you know anything about a bluray player, you cannot just connect "A" line from the player to the pc. If you use the stereo connectors to the PC you get 16/44.1khz audio. What's the point of that when the CD already carries that. The bottom line is you cannot just transfer 5.1 high resolution audio without HDMI, and HDMI will not allow copying the audio from disc to PC.

And that is still only an opinion, and I don't know any details about both the playback device (turntable & analog setup), recording device, and actual music & recording played. (important part coming up: ) "IN my opinion", on all the systems & recordings I've heard (maybe while not even nearly as you have heard, but still, a more than respectable number for a guy my age, in price categories of all kinds (and I really do mean: all price categories))

It is a tested opinion, as opposed to somebody just making comments about something they don't own. Knowing the DETAILS about something means nothing in this case, any turntable will work from the high end, to low budget USB turntables. My recorder has every connection imaginable, so you could just take the analog outputs from the turntable, and plug it directly into the recorder. It digitizes the signal at any resolution from redbook to 24/192khz.

[E-Stat]

I don't listen to countless albums, I listen to them one at a time. Even with my ipod, I never get to more than two albums going from one place to the next, that is another red herring. When I travel, I take 2-3 disc, and I never get through all of them.

I think you'll find that others have different listening habits. As an early CD-Diskman adopter from years ago, I was always annoyed at the limited variety afforded in a portable environment. As for me, I never listen to album content straight through using my iPhone. Instead, I use shuffle or create playlists. Why limit yourself? I agree, however, that the movie domain is quite different. That's why folks buy portable BR players. Schlepping a couple of disks that you know you'll watch all the way through makes sense. Having said that, I'm not sure the added resolution on a small screen is worth the trouble. Most frequent device I see used for watching movies on an airplane? Smartphones. You're carrying them anyway and they do a lot more than just play a movie.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think you'll find that others have different listening habits. As an early CD-Diskman adopter from years ago, I was always annoyed at the limited variety afforded in a portable environment. As for me, I never listen to album content straight through using my iPhone. Instead, I use shuffle or create playlists. Why limit yourself? I agree, however, that the movie domain is quite different. That's why folks buy portable BR players. Schlepping a couple of disks that you know you'll watch all the way through makes sense. Having said that, I'm not sure the added resolution on a small screen is worth the trouble. Most frequent device I see used for watching movies on an airplane? Smartphones. You're carrying them anyway and they do a lot more than just play a movie.

rw

The reason I carry my portable BR player is not only for movies, but to support the over 150+ high resolution music titles I have in my collection. Unlike my portable CD player, the BR player is so lightweight, I don't really notice it is there. I do listen to albums all the way through, I don't shuffle my music very often.

There is no way in hell I could watch a movie on a smartphone. The screen is too small which leads to eye strain within an hour. It really does not matter to me that the added resolution of BR is lost on the smaller screen, that is not a big deal for me. The big deal for me is I am not 100% Bluray(no DVD here anymore), and having a portable BR player means I never have to pull out a DVD again to watch movies while travelling. 3/4 of my entire DVD collection is now on a server, and the discs are in my media library. I have not touched a DVD disc in years, and do not plan to either.