New Blu-Ray format music

[Sef]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24441979

Do you think this will gain any higher traction than previous efforts (DVD-Audio or SACD)? There was plenty of skepticism on this forum in the past, which surprised me based on the number of advocates of, say, ripping in lossless formats as opposed to mp3, or resistance to streaming services, based on the quality reduction. Is Blu-Ray a game changer for anyone? Is there anything in particular that you would like to hear in high definition?

[Parsifal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24441979

Do you think this will gain any higher traction than previous efforts (DVD-Audio or SACD)? There was plenty of skepticism on this forum in the past, which surprised me based on the number of advocates of, say, ripping in lossless formats as opposed to mp3, or resistance to streaming services, based on the quality reduction. Is Blu-Ray a game changer for anyone? Is there anything in particular that you would like to hear in high definition?

I don't know if it will be a game-changer but at least many people already have bluray players and can get the discs and play them with existing hardware.  I don't think the higher resolution is significant, but it is nice to have the option of multi-channel playback.

[Sef]

My initial thought though was that if most people are like me then their Blu-Ray player is hooked up to a home theater system, which is rarely the best system for getting the best out of the sound. Good for movie effects for sure, but ..... or am I wrong?

[SonicMan46]

My initial thought though was that if most people are like me then their Blu-Ray player is hooked up to a home theater system, which is rarely the best system for getting the best out of the sound. Good for movie effects for sure, but ..... or am I wrong?

Well, just to get into this thread - physical optical media, regardless of their quality, has a questionable future IMO (speaking as an owner of thousands of theses audio & video discs, but I'm old!) - now that future may be in 5-10 years or even later, plus I see these plastic discs having a large 'niche' interest (like LPs now).  DVD-Audio is a loss cause and SACD (which I own & can play on my Blu-ray player) is so dependent on a great audio output option that many will never appreciate the quality offered (e.g. I have plenty of SACDs but only 2-channel stereo - will I upgrade my audio system to appreciate these recordings? Probably not?).

SO, bottom line is that these 'super' audio formats are certainly fantastic but are completely dependent on owning an audio system to reproduce those more realistic recordings - most personal users will likely never obtain the hardware needed to appreciate these offerings - I probably will not go beyond my 2-channel stereo setup (would if I was 20 years younger!), just enjoy as is - WELL, just my 2 cents & will look forward to other thoughts & opinions - of course, this is trying to predict the future - Dave

[Todd]

Do you think this will gain any higher traction than previous efforts (DVD-Audio or SACD)?

No. 

[Sef]

No.

Explain?

[Todd]

Explain?

Almost no one cares about high quality sound, and the promised improvements are not what they are advertised to be. 

[Sef]

Almost no one cares about high quality sound, and the promised improvements are not what they are advertised to be.

1. I'd have thought that members of this forum would care more than most
2. Why are they not as advertised?

My own take is that Blu-Ray players maybe  cheap but with my $500 Yamaha receiver and $500 speakers I could never tell the difference between a CD and a SACD. Those elements would need to get a lot cheaper before something like this would get a footing, unless it was the same price, or became the standard.

[Todd]

1. I'd have thought that members of this forum would care more than most
2. Why are they not as advertised?

I answered your first question, which asked if it will be more successful than SACD and DVD-A.  It will not.  What classical music fans on this site like is irrelevant to the overall market. 

Hi-res formats are not as advertised because they do not deliver the goods.  I have two universal players, including a well regarded Oppo, and I've done A/B comparisons between CD on my main CD player and second CD player, and SACD of the same recordings on the Oppo, in two systems, and the differences, if any, were so small as to be irrelevant.  And in more than a few cases the CD playback was better.  And yes, my stereos can reveal the differences.  I've also done some mega-buck SACD playback to mega-buck CD playback comparisons at a hi-fi shop, with the same results.  For people who like surround, SACD and Blu-Ray may be the way to go.  I don't like surround.  And yes, I've heard it done right with good gear.  Surround is not a very big music market, either.  That will not change anytime soon, if ever.

Most people don't really care about sound quality, and it's still quite common to find people who don't even know what SACD is, nor do they want to know.   

[Sef]

I answered your first question, which asked if it will be more successful than SACD and DVD-A.  It will not.  What classical music fans on this site like is irrelevant to the overall market. 

Hi-res formats are not as advertised because they do not deliver the goods.  I have two universal players, including a well regarded Oppo, and I've done A/B comparisons between CD on my main CD player and second CD player, and SACD of the same recordings on the Oppo, in two systems, and the differences, if any, were so small as to be irrelevant.  And in more than a few cases the CD playback was better.  And yes, my stereos can reveal the differences.  I've also done some mega-buck SACD playback to mega-buck CD playback comparisons at a hi-fi shop, with the same results.  For people who like surround, SACD and Blu-Ray may be the way to go.  I don't like surround.  And yes, I've heard it done right with good gear.  Surround is not a very big music market, either.  That will not change anytime soon, if ever.

Most people don't really care about sound quality, and it's still quite common to find people who don't even know what SACD is, nor do they want to know.

I appreciate your thoughts. I was fascinated not by the description of surround sound (and I'm not a huge fan either) but by the claims that the sounds were richer etc (from the article). I must admit that it sounds intriguing, but I've always been disappointed in the past. So I suppose that my question would be whether I am likely to be disappointed again. My brain says yes, but I would love to be wrong.

[Todd]

but I would love to be wrong.

I absolutely agree with this.  I would love some hi-res format that really does deliver the goods to catch fire, sell tons, and revive the recording industry.  But it won't happen.  Hey, maybe Pono will . . .

[Parsifal]

I appreciate your thoughts. I was fascinated not by the description of surround sound (and I'm not a huge fan either) but by the claims that the sounds were richer etc (from the article). I must admit that it sounds intriguing, but I've always been disappointed in the past. So I suppose that my question would be whether I am likely to be disappointed again. My brain says yes, but I would love to be wrong.

The CD format already exceeds capability of human hearing, at least mine.  I have a good 2 channel SACD player and I have some superb sounding SACD discs, but the CD layer of those same SACDs generally sound equally good to me.   Duplicating an electrical signal is not a complex task.  Transducing acoustical waves to an electrical signal and especially the inverse process, transducing an electrical signal to acoustical waves is a very complex process.  I suspect future improvement in audio will come from better microphones and better speakers or headphones.

I also have a DVD player with SACD and find surround sound to be a useful enhancement if it is done well (often it is not) so I welcome the use of the bluray format to provide surround sound recordings.  I doubt it will become a dominant format, but since the playback equipment and disc production facilities are already readily in use it can be economically viable even if adoption is not widespread.

[Daverz]

I'll pay a few bucks extra for hi-rez downloads (e.g. 24/96) when they are available.  I think I can hear a subtle improvement, but I haven't tested myself on that.

[DavidW]

I don't care about multichannel audio (I prefer stereo) but at least it's audibly different which is more than I can say for upping the frequency and bits.

I do like watching operas on blu-ray however, it is a much better experience than watching them on dvd.

Classical music is the one genre where niche formats can survive, I'm sure blu-ray audio will be relatively healthy in the context of cm even if it commercially flops.

[Madiel]

The reasons they might have a chance are (1) no fights amongst the industry and (2) utilising an existing technology.

However, the reason I think they won't get far is that the existing technology they're using is copy-protected.  People might cope with that with their blu-ray movies (I don't know, I don't have one of the things and I'm perfectly happy with my DVD player, thanks), but people see music as a portable product.  It's been a portable product since the Sony Walkman, for goodness' sake.

The article does refer to them providing people with a 'lesser' copy for those purposes, but I expect the vast majority of people will just look at that and say "then why am I bothering with the 'high-quality' version?".  If people can pay less and just get the existing kinds of audio available, and make use of it in the way they already do, then I think very few people are going to be attracted to spending more money to get a super-duper copy of the same music that is tied to their blu-ray.

[Parsifal]

The reasons they might have a chance are (1) no fights amongst the industry and (2) utilising an existing technology.

However, the reason I think they won't get far is that the existing technology they're using is copy-protected.  People might cope with that with their blu-ray movies (I don't know, I don't have one of the things and I'm perfectly happy with my DVD player, thanks), but people see music as a portable product.  It's been a portable product since the Sony Walkman, for goodness' sake.

Oh, that's the key point.  If you can't rip it (or a two channel version of it) it's dead.  I would only get it if it somehow came bundled with a redbook version, like a hybrid SACD. 

[DavidW]

People might cope with that with their blu-ray movies (I don't know, I don't have one of the things and I'm perfectly happy with my DVD player, thanks), but people see music as a portable product.  It's been a portable product since the Sony Walkman, for goodness' sake.

Blu-rays usually include digital copies, a code to get it through ultraviolet, itunes or by direct download that on all three versions are playable on phones, tablets and computers.  If Blu-ray music does the same and offers a code for either amazon or apple they would be set.  A step in the right direction is Amazon's new service that gives you an mp3 version when you buy the cd from them.

[bigshot]

The only advantage blu-ray audio can have is multichannel sound. High bitrate sound in a normal home listening environment is indistinguishable from normal CD quality sound. The two differences in high bitrate sound are frequency response extended beyond the range of human hearing and beyond the range of most music too; and a dynamic range so broad that in order to hear all the way down to the noise floor, your volume would have to be turned up so high you would incur permanent hearing damage. Pointless for human ears.

However, multichannel sound is a significant improvement over 2 channel, just as 2 channel was over mono. But most people with home theater setups haven't necessarily designed their systems with music listening in mind. I did and I'm very happy I did, but it was a LOT of work to get right and I don't know if the average Joe would be willing to go to the efforts I have. Depending on people like me to support an entire format would be a pretty dicey proposition.

[bigshot]

duplicate post

[Todd]

A step in the right direction is Amazon's new service that gives you an mp3 version when you buy the cd from them.

Except it has big flaws.  A couple months ago, I downloaded the Amazon music app and found out that I had around 90 CDs worth of free downloads from CDs I purchased over the years, at least from Amazon USA.  I downloaded them all for fun.  When perusing the contents, I noticed quite a few discs, probably around 25-30%, where I have only a few tracks rather than all of the tracks from the disc.  For some discs, I have only one track.  Amazon France and Amazon UK titles that advertised AutoRip did not download.  The service is a dud as far as I'm concerned.