Is BR as a audio format already dead?

[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 (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

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.

[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.

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

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.

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

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/26/g...yer-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.

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...dware_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

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.

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. (one dollar to pixie for the ghetto smiley!)