Is BR as a audio format already dead?

[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!)

[nightflier]

...Those who have one deminsional thinking ...don't get ahead of yourself.... More of your ill educated gas...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. 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. ...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.

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.

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]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. [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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[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 Such wild outbursts, untidy, really.

__________________________________________________ _______________

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.

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]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. [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. Enhance your calm and stop blowing all of this heat. Its not necessary

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

[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.
ooooooooo, still have that nasty temper. Enhance your calm and stop blowing all of this heat....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. ...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.

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. 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....