Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
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!)