Is BR as a audio format already dead?

[Mr Peabody]

I half heard a DJ talking about this today at work, I'm hoping some one might know what I'm talking about. I missed the name of the technology but he said that a CD can be heard at near Master quality and can be played on existing playback equipment. I wondered if he might have been talking about the existing discs made by JVC and others but he mentioned the technology was new and I never heard the other formats claim "near master" quality. I know this is vague and I apologize, I can't even remember the name of the discs JVC makes. I know we had a thread on these discs at some point. I wanted to throw the idea out though to see if anyone else has gotten wind of such a thing.

[bobsticks]

He may have meant DVD-Audio some layers (although not the most revealing) from which can be played with a standard DVD player. DVD-Audio is deader than the proverbial doornail.

[Mr Peabody]

I don't think it was that. What brought it up was a new album release which I also missed.

[Monkey Mouse]

This person is probably speaking about DSD recording, which is available on some high end stand along audio recorders (Korg makes some) and usually runs on flash cards, mini hard drives, or DVD discs.

[Mr Peabody]

I'm going to email the jock to see if I can find out what he was talking about.

[audio amateur]

Blu Ray is DEAD!

[Ajani]

Is Blu Ray seriously attempting to release Audio only discs? Like SACD/DVD-A? Is the market even looking for another audio disc format?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Is Blu Ray seriously attempting to release Audio only discs? Like SACD/DVD-A? Is the market even looking for another audio disc format?

Bluray isn't trying to do anything. Some independent music producers are creating audio only bluray disc that apparently some folks are VERY interested in. They are typically 24/96khz or 24/192khz Dts MA losslessm TrueHD, and PCM recording in two channel through 7.1.

I never thought anyone would be interested in these, but I was definately wrong about that. The bluray platform is perfect for high resolution recording, and apparently they are selling pretty well according to Lindberg Lyd, a independent producer out of Norway, and a frequent visitor to Bluray.com

I am going to be reviewing Divertimenti - TrondheimSolistene one of Lyd titles and Greigs Piano Concerto, Symphonic Dances in Autumn, Mozarts The Magic Flute, and Natures Color featuring the Worlds greatest Music for Bluray.com as soon as we get the review copies.

With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD slow flow of titles, a lot of folks are looking at Bluray specs and how many players are currently out there, and taking a big interest in releasing audio only titles.

Late last year I was the lead Engineer on two productions that will be released to Bluray later this year. One is the Planets, the other is Mozart's Requiem.

[Feanor]

Bluray isn't trying to do anything. Some independent music producers are creating audio only bluray disc that apparently some folks are VERY interested in. They are typically 24/96khz or 24/192khz Dts MA losslessm TrueHD, and PCM recording in two channel through 7.1.

I never thought anyone would be interested in these, but I was definately wrong about that. The bluray platform is perfect for high resolution recording, and apparently they are selling pretty well according to Lindberg Lyd, a independent producer out of Norway, and a frequent visitor to Bluray.com
...

With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD slow flow of titles, a lot of folks are looking at Bluray specs and how many players are currently out there, and taking a big interest in releasing audio only titles.
...

I would have thought "With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD's slow flow of titles" there would be less, not more, interest in BluRay audio-only titles.

I'm a big supporter of (the concept of) hi-rez multi-channel. If SACD is as moribund as it's made out to be, I'd like to believe there is a successor. Please, Sir. T, convince me of why BluRay might succeed where DVD-A and SACD have failed?

Let's remember that audiophiles are irretrievably hung up on vinyl. They will go to their graves clinging to their musty, crusty LPs, (and the sooner the better).

[Ajani]

I would have thought "With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD's slow flow of titles" there would be less, not more, interest in BluRay audio-only titles.

I'm a big supporter of (the concept of) hi-rez multi-channel. If SACD is as moribund as it's made out to be, I'd like to believe there is a successor. Please, Sir. T, convince me of why BluRay might succeed where DVD-A and SACD have failed?

Let's remember that audiophiles are irretrievably hung up on vinyl. They will go to their graves clinging to their musty, crusty LPs, (and the sooner the better).

LOL.... I don't see why there would be a large market for Bluray Audio either, but it would be nice if it caught on. Actually I'd prefer high resolution downloads, but Bluray Audio would be a nice start...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I would have thought "With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD's slow flow of titles" there would be less, not more, interest in BluRay audio-only titles.

I'm a big supporter of (the concept of) hi-rez multi-channel. If SACD is as moribund as it's made out to be, I'd like to believe there is a successor. Please, Sir. T, convince me of why BluRay might succeed where DVD-A and SACD have failed?

Let's remember that audiophiles are irretrievably hung up on vinyl. They will go to their graves clinging to their musty, crusty LPs, (and the sooner the better).

Not all audiophiles are stuck on vinyl. Some were ardent supporters of DVD-A and SACD. There just was not enough of them, and the material released on both of these formats didn't attract the interest of quite a few folks. Good technology, no marketing, and no great titles in numbers. That is what killed them both, along with the changing way folks listened to music.

I cannot really convince anyone of why bluray might succeed or not. Its really too early to tell if it will on that level or not. What I do know is that there are alot of independent producers interested in the bluray format, most have already produced in SACD and DVD-A, and want another format to release their high quality masters to. I know personally I have heard from Michael Tilson Thomas of the San Francisco Symphony who is interested, and Gerard Schwarz of the Seattle Symphony who has inquired about recording in DXD and releasing to the bluray format.

While SACD title release has slowed quite a bit, and Sony has backed away from supporting SACD, third party recording companies and a couple of manufacturers have continued work on SACD. DXD is the latest developement for SACD, DSD, and PCM for that matter. It allows high resolution editing without loss, and has actually more resolution than DSD itself

[ldgibson76]

School 'em, "Sir T"!

We should refer to you as "The Oracle of all things Blu ray!"

Holla!

[Ajani]

Bluray isn't trying to do anything. Some independent music producers are creating audio only bluray disc that apparently some folks are VERY interested in. They are typically 24/96khz or 24/192khz Dts MA losslessm TrueHD, and PCM recording in two channel through 7.1.

I never thought anyone would be interested in these, but I was definately wrong about that. The bluray platform is perfect for high resolution recording, and apparently they are selling pretty well according to Lindberg Lyd, a independent producer out of Norway, and a frequent visitor to Bluray.com

I am going to be reviewing Divertimenti - TrondheimSolistene one of Lyd titles and Greigs Piano Concerto, Symphonic Dances in Autumn, Mozarts The Magic Flute, and Natures Color featuring the Worlds greatest Music for Bluray.com as soon as we get the review copies.

With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD slow flow of titles, a lot of folks are looking at Bluray specs and how many players are currently out there, and taking a big interest in releasing audio only titles.

Late last year I was the lead Engineer on two productions that will be released to Bluray later this year. One is the Planets, the other is Mozart's Requiem.

That is interesting.... I'll be interested to see if any of the established high-end audio brands start producing Bluray/Bluray Compatible audio players. If the format catches on (and that's a very big IF) I could imagine a company like Marantz (which is just scheduled to release their first Bluray player this summer) introducing a Bluray audio player as part of its reference audio line.

[pixelthis]

Bluray isn't trying to do anything. Some independent music producers are creating audio only bluray disc that apparently some folks are VERY interested in. They are typically 24/96khz or 24/192khz Dts MA losslessm TrueHD, and PCM recording in two channel through 7.1.

I never thought anyone would be interested in these, but I was definately wrong about that. The bluray platform is perfect for high resolution recording, and apparently they are selling pretty well according to Lindberg Lyd, a independent producer out of Norway, and a frequent visitor to Bluray.com

I am going to be reviewing Divertimenti - TrondheimSolistene one of Lyd titles and Greigs Piano Concerto, Symphonic Dances in Autumn, Mozarts The Magic Flute, and Natures Color featuring the Worlds greatest Music for Bluray.com as soon as we get the review copies.

With DVD-A pretty much dead, and SACD slow flow of titles, a lot of folks are looking at Bluray specs and how many players are currently out there, and taking a big interest in releasing audio only titles.

Late last year I was the lead Engineer on two productions that will be released to Bluray later this year. One is the Planets, the other is Mozart's Requiem.

NO , YOU WOULDNT think any audiophile would be interested in a format with
perfect sound, dynamic range, and storage capacity, "mr expert"

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

NO , YOU WOULDNT think any audiophile would be interested in a format with
perfect sound, dynamic range, and storage capacity, "mr expert"

Echo's of jealousy and inadequacy Having an inferiority complex pixie?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I half heard a DJ talking about this today at work, I'm hoping some one might know what I'm talking about. I missed the name of the technology but he said that a CD can be heard at near Master quality and can be played on existing playback equipment. I wondered if he might have been talking about the existing discs made by JVC and others but he mentioned the technology was new and I never heard the other formats claim "near master" quality. I know this is vague and I apologize, I can't even remember the name of the discs JVC makes. I know we had a thread on these discs at some point. I wanted to throw the idea out though to see if anyone else has gotten wind of such a thing.

He could be talking about DXD technology. However the redbook spec limits any CD to 16bit 44.1khz sample rate, DXD is 24/352.1khz. I do not think the CD would even be close to master quality under this scenario.

[Woochifer]

Sounds like yet another reference to JVC's K2HD (and before that XRCD and XRCD2) releases. That process is nothing more than a standard CD mastered using downsampled 192/24 transfers. Anything that's "compatible" with existing equipment is limited to whatever resolution that equipment has. This is the thread you're referring to.

SACD and DVD-A dead, but K2HD is HERE!!!?!!?!?

I don't know why you're declaring BR dead as an audio format, when the first batch of audio-only releases has barely trickled out. Neil Young seems to think that Blu-ray's got plenty of promise as a music format because it offers up both high resolution audio and full interactive capability, something that wasn't possible with DVD-A and SACD. His archival boxed sets on Blu-ray start coming out in the fall.

Neil Young to Release Music Archive on Blu-ray

[pixelthis]

Sounds like yet another reference to JVC's K2HD (and before that XRCD and XRCD2) releases. That process is nothing more than a standard CD mastered using downsampled 192/24 transfers. Anything that's "compatible" with existing equipment is limited to whatever resolution that equipment has. This is the thread you're referring to.

SACD and DVD-A dead, but K2HD is HERE!!!?!!?!?

I don't know why you're declaring BR dead as an audio format, when the first batch of audio-only releases has barely trickled out. Neil Young seems to think that Blu-ray's got plenty of promise as a music format because it offers up both high resolution audio and full interactive capability, something that wasn't possible with DVD-A and SACD. His archival boxed sets on Blu-ray start coming out in the fall.

Neil Young to Release Music Archive on Blu-ray

neil young WAS ALSO AN ARDERNT supporter of DVDA, the format he picked in that little "format war".
Lets hope hes not so far off with BLU

[nightflier]

I don't know why you're declaring BR dead as an audio format, when the first batch of audio-only releases has barely trickled out. Neil Young seems to think that Blu-ray's got plenty of promise as a music format because it offers up both high resolution audio and full interactive capability, something that wasn't possible with DVD-A and SACD. His archival boxed sets on Blu-ray start coming out in the fall.

But here's my question: what is "full interactive capability" for an audio-only format? It sounds like what you're describing is video-capability in an audio format, and we've seen that already. Will people shell out more money for BR audio-only disks (over CD, for example), if that same BR could also have had video? I picture a whole line of folks in line at Costco after x-mas returning their Neil Young box sets because it's only half what they paid for, that is, the video is missing! Another way to ask the question: why should it be different from any other BR concert video?

It always strikes me as ironic that for a hi-quality format to succeed commercially it has to appeal to a mass market that doesn't care that much about the high-quality. So there is every attempt by the marketing departments to tout the additional features of said format, when the most important feature, higher-quality, is downplayed. And all these extra features mean very little to those very people (presumably a smaller minority) who actually care about the higher quality format and who would actually pay a premium for it. I'm not saying that BR music is dead, heck I would welcome it now that I have a BR player, but I will say that those people trying to market it are stuck selling a product to the wrong consumer to prove it's marketability.

Then there is the problem with the equipment that a higher-quality audio format would benefit from. Like a few other people have said here as well, their surround sound system that has the BR/SACD/DVD-A player, is typically their lower-end system. That is, if they even have two systems. I'm one of those odd birds that had four different systems (now reduced to two), but how common is that really? No, the fact is that most consumers have mediocre surround sound systems, in actually usable living rooms, that are poorly calibrated to boot. These are hardly ideal setups for experiencing the virtues of the audio formats that BR is capable of. The people here on this board are an exception, to be sure, so let's consider all the people we know with "surround sound" systems and be honest about how good they really are. They might hear a slight difference in a higher sound format, but would they shell out more money for a better system to hear that incremental improvement? I doubt it.

Finally, the single cable argument is rather moot. Both SACD and DVD-A can also be transmitted via HDMI ver 1.2 and above. I agree that not all consumer-level receivers will handle bass management, delay, timing, etc. with the same level of detail, but at least the format is supported. Then again, how many consumers (outside of this board) actually adjust these?

I think, and this is just my guess, that BR audio-only will be more niche than Neil Young or Michael Tilson Thomas would like to admit. I do hope that this new audio medium will augment rather than replace existing formats, althout it seems that the manufacturers are not so concerned about it since I have yet to see a BR player that plays SACD (aside from the PS3).

[Woochifer]

But here's my question: what is "full interactive capability" for an audio-only format? It sounds like what you're describing is video-capability in an audio format, and we've seen that already.

Nope, this is very different from DVD-A and SACD. Recall that SACD had no visual component whatsoever, and DVD-A was limited to stills or low resolution moving images. No opportunity whatsoever for the user to engage in any sort of interactive experience. Blu-ray allows for user interactivity while the music is playing. The Neil Young set was announced at a Java conference to highlight the potential with combining high res audio output with a Java programming platform.

Will people shell out more money for BR audio-only disks (over CD, for example), if that same BR could also have had video?

Using Blu-ray as a music format does not exclude video output. Where does anybody mention "audio-only"? The Blu-ray pipeline is big enough to support both 5.1 and 7.1 192/24 audio plus video and Java applications.

I picture a whole line of folks in line at Costco after x-mas returning their Neil Young box sets because it's only half what they paid for, that is, the video is missing! Another way to ask the question: why should it be different from any other BR concert video?

I suggest you read the thread that I started on the Neil Young archival sets. It has more info on why Neil Young decided to issue his archival sets on Blu-ray, and what he intends to include in those sets (it's not audio only).

It probably won't be different from a concert video and there's no reason why it would be, except that the release will be studio material that was not recorded with video. Neil Young's effort is the first of its kind.

It always strikes me as ironic that for a hi-quality format to succeed commercially it has to appeal to a mass market that doesn't care that much about the high-quality. So there is every attempt by the marketing departments to tout the additional features of said format, when the most important feature, higher-quality, is downplayed. And all these extra features mean very little to those very people (presumably a smaller minority) who actually care about the higher quality format and who would actually pay a premium for it. I'm not saying that BR music is dead, heck I would welcome it now that I have a BR player, but I will say that those people trying to market it are stuck selling a product to the wrong consumer to prove it's marketability.

Actually, Blu-ray IS being touted as a high quality format first and foremost. The Blu-ray promotions are touting both the higher video resolution AND the uncompressed/lossless audio. The interactive features are only now beginning to come to market.

On the music side, the fact of the matter is that for listeners who don't care as much about audio quality (which you correctly point out is the majority), the market has already begun moving towards downloading. For those listeners still willing to pay for disc media, the music industry has to offer value for what consumers pay, whether that's higher audio quality or a more immersive listening experience. Right now, CDs offer up limited value compared to other options that consumers have available. Blu-ray has the potential to raise the value equation on many fronts, rather than just audio quality.

Then there is the problem with the equipment that a higher-quality audio format would benefit from. Like a few other people have said here as well, their surround sound system that has the BR/SACD/DVD-A player, is typically their lower-end system.

That doesn't apply to everyone, or even most on this board. My SACD player AND turntable are both hooked into my main system. Considering that every DVD-A and SACD has a high res two-channel audio track, what sense does it make to relegate that higher resolution playback to a "lower-end system"?

No, the fact is that most consumers have mediocre surround sound systems, in actually usable living rooms, that are poorly calibrated to boot. These are hardly ideal setups for experiencing the virtues of the audio formats that BR is capable of. The people here on this board are an exception, to be sure, so let's consider all the people we know with "surround sound" systems and be honest about how good they really are. They might hear a slight difference in a higher sound format, but would they shell out more money for a better system to hear that incremental improvement? I doubt it.

What else is new? Before surround sound, most consumers used mediocre stereo systems. This is where the interactive capability kicks in -- to lend additional market incentive. And even on the sound quality front, with DVD-A dead and SACD relegated to the classical market, Blu-ray is the only potential avenue on the horizon for mainstream album releases to be heard in 5.1 surround (unless digital downloads start going in the direction of 5.1 AAC). Even with a mediocre setup, listeners can enjoy 5.1 surround.

The difference between a mediocre surround setup and a midlevel setup is hardly "incremental." If people upgrade, they will upgrade so that everything sounds better, not just for sake of Blu-ray.

Finally, the single cable argument is rather moot. Both SACD and DVD-A can also be transmitted via HDMI ver 1.2 and above. I agree that not all consumer-level receivers will handle bass management, delay, timing, etc. with the same level of detail, but at least the format is supported. Then again, how many consumers (outside of this board) actually adjust these?

Keep in mind that most AV receivers sold since 2005 include some form of auto calibration, so those parameters ARE likely adjusted by most consumers.

The point about bass management, delay, etc. is that the video PLAYERS usually don't perform those functions nearly as well as receivers.

I think, and this is just my guess, that BR audio-only will be more niche than Neil Young or Michael Tilson Thomas would like to admit. I do hope that this new audio medium will augment rather than replace existing formats, althout it seems that the manufacturers are not so concerned about it since I have yet to see a BR player that plays SACD (aside from the PS3).

A major point in creating Blu-ray music discs is that you don't need a two-tiered class of hardware and titles like you did with DVD-A. Unlike with DVD-A, EVERY Blu-ray player can output the higher quality audio and most of them can take full advantage of the interactive capability. If anything, the broader hardware support for Blu-ray music releases makes them less niche than anything that came out on DVD-A. (SACD is a different story because the hybrid releases can be filed with other CDs)

[nightflier]

Nope, this is very different from DVD-A and SACD. Recall that SACD had no visual component whatsoever, and DVD-A was limited to stills or low resolution moving images. No opportunity whatsoever for the user to engage in any sort of interactive experience. Blu-ray allows for user interactivity while the music is playing. The Neil Young set was announced at a Java conference to highlight the potential with combining high res audio output with a Java programming platform.

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

Yes I know that many people here have one system, and it has surround sound as well as a TV, but I don't think this is what a true music fan would want. This is the problem with the BR format - it automatically implies video to augment the experience. Maybe for some, but there are also those who might see this as a distraction from the audio experience. I'm talking about those who listen to music in the dark, or those who have $25K turntables and $40K speakers. Would they buy another $60K of speakers, not to mention the amps to drive them to get the BR experience?

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

Now I'm not suggesting that interactivity in the form of video is a bad thing. To each his own. But I am suggesting that BR audio is suffering a crisis of conscience. Is it truly a medium for the audio fan? If one looks at the content that has appeared on BR, even the concert footage, it is clear that the emphasis has been market driven, less so than quality driven. There isn't even a standard baseline for what audio formats should be included on a disk for it to be a true "BR disk". Anything capable of a 1080p picture is pretty much considered BR, even if the audio is only DD. So really, what makes a BR disk, is the video format, not the audio. Not so with SACD or DVD-A. My guess is that this is not what the audio fan wants.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

Some will have video, and some will be strictly audio only.

Yes I know that many people here have one system, and it has surround sound as well as a TV, but I don't think this is what a true music fan would want. This is the problem with the BR format - it automatically implies video to augment the experience. Maybe for some, but there are also those who might see this as a distraction from the audio experience. I'm talking about those who listen to music in the dark, or those who have $25K turntables and $40K speakers. Would they buy another $60K of speakers, not to mention the amps to drive them to get the BR experience?

Jeeze Mr. I never have anything positive to say about bluray. The Bluray format has always been considered by those that look at its spec's as a multiplatform format. Why have spec's of 24/192khz on 8 channels when all that is required of video only is 24/48khz or MAYBE 24/96khz in the future? Those who have one deminsional thinking will only look at bluray as video only. Those with some imagination, and can think three deminsionally see all kinds of possibilities with 24/192khz resolution in Dts MA lossless, DTHD and PCM, and a 54mbps pipeline with no need to pack the audio in any way.

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

Its not mass market yet, don't get ahead of yourself. According to some its too expensive for mass market. Also there are brands that differentiate themselves from the mass market. It is not likely in the near future you will see a pioneer bluray player for the mass market. They have taken the high end with their players. Denon has also taken the high end with their players, and there is Goldmund who is also taking the high end with their bluray players(all of $20k). So their will be many price points to choose from, not just the mass market.

It has not been marketed to the high-end audio customer, who's choices now seem to have plateau'd at SACD and DVD-A.

More of your ill educated gas

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/26/g...yer-costs-17k/

I'm guessing these customers would think of the video as a gimmick.

How do you know what they are thinking? You are not in the same income bracket they are in. There is no possible way that you know what anyone else is thinking, only what you think.

After all, is there even a plan to have BR be the next high-res audio format without video? Because if not, then it is a different medium altogether and cannot be compared with an audio-only format such as SACD or DVD-A. What this moves away from is a qualitative progression in audio, something I believe people are asking for.

It was always the plan for Bluray to offer audio only. Its called profile 3.0 which ALL current players are.

http://wiki.digital-digest.com/index...dware_Profiles

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

Your biases blind you to clear thinking. As I have stated earlier, there is a profile 3.0 which all bluray players meet. And I think any audiophile that looks at 8 channels at 24/192khz (which is the more resolution than the human ear can detect, and WAY more than vinyl can reproduce) can see that high resolution music is perfect for this medium. There is currently no medium out there that can do it. The only 24/192khz we have seen is two channel.

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

So, you have actually seen and heard David Matthews Radio City Music Hall bluray. 1080p with 24/96khz Dolby TrueHD. One of the best sounding and looking concert video's I have ever seen and heard. You have seen Legends of Jazz. It used the same high quality audio from the DVD-A, 24/96khz Dolby TrueHD on bluray. Terrific sounding. Or how about Pat Metheny's "The Way Up" in Dts MA lossless. Some of the best audio I have heard on the bluray format. Or even John Legend's "Live at the House of Blues" in Dts MA Lossless 24/96khz. All of these would make an audiophile who enjoys these genre's of music grin with pleasure. All of them masterfully mixed in high resolution audio. If you do not like video, just turn off the tube

There isn't even a standard baseline for what audio formats should be included on a disk for it to be a true "BR disk"

More of your ignorance. Really, you should study up on your game before writing anything. I have told you this before. Dts MA Lossless, Dolby TrueHD, and PCM are all supported by the bluray format. These carriers of audio are all you need to provide master quality audio for bluray. All of these support 8 channels of 24/192khz PCM audio. The answer to this ignorant question is Dts, DD, DD+, Dts HD, DTHD and Dts master audio lossless are all supported by bluray. Everything from low bit lossey, to high resolution lossless.

. Anything capable of a 1080p picture is pretty much considered BR, even if the audio is only DD. So really, what makes a BR disk, is the video format, not the audio. Not so with SACD or DVD-A. My guess is that this is not what the audio fan wants.

If your guess is as good as your previous ones in our last debate, we can safely dispatch them to the trash. BR is, and has always been(from the spec's to the players) capable of higher resolution audio than we have ever seen. Even on its basic players. Bluray has all the profiles that cover everything from high resolution video, to gaming, to high resolution audio. They were built in to the format from day one. The format has much higher resolution than both SACD and DVD-A, so it takes us further than any audio format has ever. So my guess is, you just do not know what the hell you are talking about.

I can see that you have learned nothing since the last time you encroached on this subject matter. I am shocked that you would even get into this conversation knowing that a knowledgeable person could tear a hole in your assumption wide enough to push the earth through. (one dollar to pixie for the ghetto smiley!)

[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.

[Mr Peabody]

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.