Blu-ray High Definition Audio Discs - first thoughts

[altruistic.lemon]

Personally I thought the Naxos disks I have excellent in Stereo, but, even if you can't accept that, the DTS is interesting. It's made me wonder about going down that route, which I never would have before.

Also, it isn't going to sell a lot more players, since it already works on any blu-Ray player. Mine's hardly new, but it works fine.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

CDs are only "lossless" if the original source is 44/16. Otherwise the source has to be downsampled to 44/16. And ANY analogue to digital conversion will introduce some "loss" due to the stepwise-linear approximations to the nonlinear sources. The greater the sampling frequency and the smaller the resolution steps (i.e. more bits) the closer the digital signal is to the nonlinear source. QED in theory the higher the sampling rate (frequency) and smaller the step sie (more bits) the better. The jagged step profile is (or isnot) smoothed out on the downstream side of your DAC by the naturalresponse of analogue electronic components, e.g. capacitors taking time to charge and dischargein response to the applied volatages. My degree is in mechanical engineering, but we spent a shedload of time doing calculus and electronics.,,,

NOW, I'm not saying all DACs do a good job of this, and of course, if the master's crap to begin with, the digitized version can't really be expected to be an improvement. Also, I'm not sure DTS won't be the flash in the pan that quadrophonic was back in the 70s, or even 3DTV lookes like becoming in this decade. However, I am confident, sound unheard, that the higher resolution digital media will be more accurate representations of the master, however good or bad.

 

[mr malarky]

If anyone wants convincing about the benefits of a high resolution audio format then track down one of REM's albums released on DVD-Audio (eg New Adventures in Hi-Fi, or Up). Each one comes with two discs, the DVD-Audio and the CD; stick both in your player one after the other and the difference in quality should be immediately apparent. Am all for BluRay audio provided (as others have said) its genuine hi-res source content.

And no, I won't be buying DSOTM yet again either...

 

[davedotco]

Al,

There are plenty of decent recordings to be found but they are not really mainstream.

The mainstream industry is obsessed with loudness wars, gimmicks, repackaging and the rest, the sound quality of the end product, may be important to people like us, but we are not a consideration to the industry in general. Why worry about quality when you can make money selling ringtones.

There are some exceptions, some lables and a few individuals, but anyone who buys mainstream contempory music knows the isues.

Ben,

For someone so technically adept, you show remarkably little knowedge about how sampling works, even trotting out the old stepped/jagged output nonsense.

Just so as we are clear, 16/44.1 khz sampling can perfectly reconstruct the original analogue waveform provided the original waveforn does not extend beyond 20 khz, no steps, no jagged edges. Read your Nyquist, Wikkipedia has a perfectly decent primer for his theorem, otherwise spend ten minutes on Google.

Mr Malarky,

Just stop and think for a moment here, selling you both the hi-res and the CD version of the disc is an excellent maketing gimmick and you are falling for it.

You should be demanding that the industry produces the best CDs possible, not buying premium priced product that they are able to sell to you because they could not be bothered to get the CD rightin the first place

 

[BigH]

I can see several potential benefits. More capacity so you could have 8 albums on one BD. Not so compressed as recent cds. Better value for money, already the Stones GRRR is as cheap as mp3.

Downsides are having to buy albums over agian. Do you have both a cdp and a BDp or just use the BDp, will the likes of Linn, Cyrus and Naim be making BDp? Is it the end for cds?

 

[emperor's new clothes]

If anyone wants convincing about the benefits of a high resolution audio format then track down one of REM's albums released on DVD-Audio (eg New Adventures in Hi-Fi, or Up). Each one comes with two discs, the DVD-Audio and the CD; stick both in your player one after the other and the difference in quality should be immediately apparent. Am all for BluRay audio provided (as others have said) its genuine hi-res source content.

And no, I won't be buying DSOTM yet again either...
+1. Recently purchased the excellent Marrantz ud7007 and dusted off my small colection of SACDs and DVD-As including DSOTM. Big difference from the hybrid CD layer. Most apparent on Brothers in Arms 20th aniversary which is night and day from the original CD. Very excited by BluRay music and waiting for GRRR to arrive from Amazon. Will report back.

 

[davedotco]

BigH

The compression issue on modern CDs has nothing to do with the capacity or any other 'limitations' of the CD format.

It is a 'value judgement' made by the music industry.

Emperor

Any differences you hear between hi-res material and standard CDs will be down to the mastering, this has been shown to be the case many times.

What does intrigue me though is the reliance on 'commodity' standard real time optical transports and error correction circuitry, in my experience this can impact on sound quality quite noticably, something that became apparent in recent times, bit perfect rips played on quality headphones really show the difference.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

ddc, what about suspending your objectivist stance and trying the new format? The Naxos disks are only £12 from memory, and they do sound good. Yes, that could be the mastering, but if people take more care in production because it is a revealing format, everybody wins.

The DTS is, you'd have to admit, an interesting development.

 

[The_Lhc]

ddc, what about suspending your objectivist stance and trying the new format? The Naxos disks are only £12 from memory, and they do sound good. Yes, that could be the mastering, but if people take more care in production because it is a revealing format, everybody wins.

You're missing the point though, if they took more care in the production and mastering of the CDs you wouldn't NEED a new format to get the benefit. And they'd be cheaper. Stereo only of course though, so if surround is your bag then of course you'll need to look elsewhere.

 

[BigH]

BigH

The compression issue on modern CDs has nothing to do with the capacity or any other 'limitations' of the CD format.

It is a 'value judgement' made by the music industry.

Emperor

Any differences you hear between hi-res material and standard CDs will be down to the mastering, this has been shown to be the case many times.

What does intrigue me though is the reliance on 'commodity' standard real time optical transports and error correction circuitry, in my experience this can impact on sound quality quite noticably, something that became apparent in recent times, bit perfect rips played on quality headphones really show the difference.

I did not say it did, sorry if I gave that impression, its just seems that 95% of the cds relaesed in the last 10 years have been over compressed, hopefully BD will not be the same. I agree about the res.

 

[BigH]

ddc, what about suspending your objectivist stance and trying the new format? The Naxos disks are only £12 from memory, and they do sound good. Yes, that could be the mastering, but if people take more care in production because it is a revealing format, everybody wins.

The DTS is, you'd have to admit, an interesting development.

But are they are better than the Naxos cds which I presume have the same mastering?

 

[altruistic.lemon]

ddc, what about suspending your objectivist stance and trying the new format? The Naxos disks are only £12 from memory, and they do sound good. Yes, that could be the mastering, but if people take more care in production because it is a revealing format, everybody wins.

You're missing the point though, if they took more care in the production and mastering of the CDs you wouldn't NEED a new format to get the benefit. And they'd be cheaper. Stereo only of course though, so if surround is your bag then of course you'll need to look elsewhere.

No point missing going on! You get a lot more with the new format - what about DTS? That could be the next big step forward in home audio.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

ddc, what about suspending your objectivist stance and trying the new format? The Naxos disks are only £12 from memory, and they do sound good. Yes, that could be the mastering, but if people take more care in production because it is a revealing format, everybody wins.

The DTS is, you'd have to admit, an interesting development.

But are they are better than the Naxos cds which I presume have the same mastering?

Buy and try, buy and try. Also remember you also get DTS with these.

 

[BigH]

If anyone wants convincing about the benefits of a high resolution audio format then track down one of REM's albums released on DVD-Audio (eg New Adventures in Hi-Fi, or Up). Each one comes with two discs, the DVD-Audio and the CD; stick both in your player one after the other and the difference in quality should be immediately apparent. Am all for BluRay audio provided (as others have said) its genuine hi-res source content.

And no, I won't be buying DSOTM yet again either...
+1. Recently purchased the excellent Marrantz ud7007 and dusted off my small colection of SACDs and DVD-As including DSOTM. Big difference from the hybrid CD layer. Most apparent on Brothers in Arms 20th aniversary which is night and day from the original CD. Very excited by BluRay music and waiting for GRRR to arrive from Amazon. Will report back.

Just be aware that on some hybrid SACDs the cd layer is NOT the same (mix/mastering) as the SACD layer.

 

[BigH]

ddc, what about suspending your objectivist stance and trying the new format? The Naxos disks are only £12 from memory, and they do sound good. Yes, that could be the mastering, but if people take more care in production because it is a revealing format, everybody wins.

The DTS is, you'd have to admit, an interesting development.

But are they are better than the Naxos cds which I presume have the same mastering?

Buy and try, buy and try. Also remember you also get DTS with these.

No BDT. What use is DTS with stereo set up? Not that into classical anyway.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

No BDT. What use is DTS with stereo set up? Not that into classical anyway.

It isn't, but it could turn the audio path away from stereo, if there is real benefit, making it a thing of the path.

 

[BigH]

No BDT. What use is DTS with stereo set up? Not that into classical anyway.

It isn't, but it could turn the audio path away from stereo, if there is real benefit, making it a thing of the path.

Thats debatable, I know of people who have moved back to stereo because of problems, some of the mixes are not very good. Some stuff does not sound right. I think for classical it would work, not so sure about some other genres though.

 

[The_Lhc]

Thats debatable, I know of people who have moved back to stereo because of problems, some of the mixes are not very good. Some stuff does not sound right. I think for classical it would work, not so sure about some other genres though.

I don't see why it would work for classical, you don't get to sit in the middle of the orchestra do you? At most all you'd get is reflected sound behind you, which would be a pretty subtle surround effect and hardly seems worth the effort.

DTS is no big deal, particularly if you subscribe to the idea the 24-bit audio brings no audible benefit over properly mastered 16-bit audio.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I don't see why it would work for classical, you don't get to sit in the middle of the orchestra do you?

Read more here

 

[bigboss]

:clap:

 

[The_Lhc]

I don't see why it would work for classical, you don't get to sit in the middle of the orchestra do you?

Read more here

I don't see an audience sitting there?

 

[Andrew Everard]

I don't see an audience sitting there?

It's relatively unusual to have an audience at a recording session, for obvious reasons, although of course some labels do record live performances, LSO Live being an example.

 

[Overdose]

I don't see why it would work for classical, you don't get to sit in the middle of the orchestra do you?

Read more here

I don't see an audience sitting there?

Similarly, I've never seen an orchestra arranged around a concert hall and the audience, also as you say, the surround sound capability would only add an extra level of realism to the ambience of the venue and not give any better resolution.

 

[steve_1979]

...if they took more care in the production and mastering of the CDs you wouldn't NEED a new format to get the benefit. And they'd be cheaper. Stereo only of course though, so if surround is your bag then of course you'll need to look elsewhere.

You have summed up the situation perfectly there LHC.

I'm not sure why people can't understand that provided they used same mastered version of the recording a CD will sound identical to a high resolution Blu-ray (stereo only though).

 

[bigboss]

Similarly, I've never seen an orchestra arranged around a concert hall and the audience, also as you say, the surround sound capability would only add an extra level of realism to the ambience of the venue and not give any better resolution.

So you don't think the extra level of realism will be of any benefit? I think surround sound HD format will sound pretty amazing, with better audio separation and spatial experience.