Is BR as a audio format already dead?

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Feanor]

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

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

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

[kexodusc]

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

85% huh? I bet it's 83%.

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

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

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

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

There's always going to be that, though I suspect soon enough that irrational exuberance will begin dying and vanishing from the face of this planet at a far greater rate then it replenishes itself.

[Chas Underhay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Feanor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chas Underhay]

Hi Fenor

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best

Chas

[Ajani]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chas Underhay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Feanor]

...

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

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

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

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

All the best

Chas

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

• As mentioned earlier, you already had most of the music you want on LP
• You have 2000+ LPs
• You can, or could at one time, find music you want on cheap, used LP.

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

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

[shokhead]

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

Hurry up Feanor!

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

[Smokey]

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

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

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

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

[Ajani]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the rub

[Ajani]

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

Ummm... ok...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the rub

Yep, there it is.

[Mr Peabody]

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Peabody]

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

[Mr Peabody]

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

[Smokey]

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

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

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

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

Do you currently own a turntable?

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

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

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

[Chas Underhay]

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

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

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

Greetings Sir Terrence

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

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

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

[Chas Underhay]

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

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

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

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

[Chas Underhay]

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

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

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

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

All the best and good listening

Chas