BigH
Well-known member
steve_1979 said:
Because they don't want to, they want to believe this new thing is the greatest thing out there for music.
Because they don't want to, they want to believe this new thing is the greatest thing out there for music.
BigH said:
It's the modern way.
Selling high quality recorded music that has been produced by hard work, good solid engineering practises and care and attention is a waste of time, far better to have a new format, a new 'magic bullet', to grab the attention of the great unwashed.
davedotco said:
I have 5 of their DVD-Audio discs and only paid about £15 for each album (though I see they are going for much more on Amazon now), and 3 of these were albums I didn't already own so didn't represent a 'repeat' purchase. For each one I have a CD to listen to in the car and a 5.1 channel mix to listen to in the lounge (which sounds fantastic, and is completely different listening experience to the CD). I'm not quite sure what it is I'm 'falling for', or where the down-side is?
I think any debate about the potential of BluRay for high quality audio has to look at the total package and not just the bigger numbers attached to the raw datastreams.
Take any CD, stick it in a CD player OR DVD player OR DVD-Audio player or SACD player OR BluRay player OR most games consoles OR most computers and press Play and *it*just*plays*.
Take a digital feed from the outputs of pretty much any of the above, and feed it to an external DAC, and the sound improves.
Neither of these things necessarily apply to a BluRay audio disc — they certainly didn't to DVD-Audio and there's no evidence that record company executives have become any more interested in ease of use or sound quality since that debacle.
On the basis of the small number of so-called "audio-only" BluRays I've tried over the last few years, the very best you can hope for is that the disc will halt on insertion till you turn the TV on and work through the (completely arbitrary) menus to select the sound format you want, while being assailed by corporate logos and background sound excerpts you don't wanna see or hear.
In most cases they simply start to play with *some* default format, probably not the one you want, and there's no way to set the player to default to a particular signal type the way an SACD player can be set to default to a layer. You have to stop playback, select the menus, select the signal, restart playback at the beginning (simply pressing play will typically restart where you stopped).
Similarly, attaching an external DAC is often futile because the digital outs are forceably downsampled to 24/48 at best for copyright reasons.
It's true that when you finally get to the playback, having switched off the TV you didn't want to switch on the first place, the sound quality of such discs, whether because of the higher resolution or superior mastering, does appear to be better than the same material on CD. But the hassle of getting to it...
In short, the combination of forced video navigation and forced use of limited quality internal DACs are likely to ruin the BD-audio experience (as it did the DVD-Audio one), and the utility of HFPA, or any other hires launch, depends on eliminating both from the outset.
I have no confidence at all that the suits responsible understand either issue.
Take any CD, stick it in a CD player OR DVD player OR DVD-Audio player or SACD player OR BluRay player OR most games consoles OR most computers and press Play and *it*just*plays*.
Take a digital feed from the outputs of pretty much any of the above, and feed it to an external DAC, and the sound improves.
Neither of these things necessarily apply to a BluRay audio disc — they certainly didn't to DVD-Audio and there's no evidence that record company executives have become any more interested in ease of use or sound quality since that debacle.
On the basis of the small number of so-called "audio-only" BluRays I've tried over the last few years, the very best you can hope for is that the disc will halt on insertion till you turn the TV on and work through the (completely arbitrary) menus to select the sound format you want, while being assailed by corporate logos and background sound excerpts you don't wanna see or hear.
In most cases they simply start to play with *some* default format, probably not the one you want, and there's no way to set the player to default to a particular signal type the way an SACD player can be set to default to a layer. You have to stop playback, select the menus, select the signal, restart playback at the beginning (simply pressing play will typically restart where you stopped).
Similarly, attaching an external DAC is often futile because the digital outs are forceably downsampled to 24/48 at best for copyright reasons.
It's true that when you finally get to the playback, having switched off the TV you didn't want to switch on the first place, the sound quality of such discs, whether because of the higher resolution or superior mastering, does appear to be better than the same material on CD. But the hassle of getting to it...
In short, the combination of forced video navigation and forced use of limited quality internal DACs are likely to ruin the BD-audio experience (as it did the DVD-Audio one), and the utility of HFPA, or any other hires launch, depends on eliminating both from the outset.
I have no confidence at all that the suits responsible understand either issue.
mr malarky said:
Apologies, I have zero interest in movies or surround sound music and occasionally forget that other enthusiasts see things differently.
For 2 channel use I can see no reason to by both the DVD and the CD, unless of course the industry is deliberately compromising the SQ of CDs so that at some point down the line they can sell you a 'better' bversion of the music you have already bought and paid for.
bigboss said:
Spot on! Beginning to look at DTS options now - there's something in this, certainly in terms of level of realism.
I'm afraid the stereoluddites are goin to be left behind.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
bigboss said:
The point I was trying to make was that in a normal concert situation there isn't really any "surround" effect, as the orchestra is all in front of you. I'm dubious of the idea that a surround format will add any spaciousness to the front channels.
steve_1979
Well-known member
I think the extra features on the Blu-rays look good. Having video and pictures to go with the the music would be nice. I'm not really bothered about having 5.1 sound but it's nice to have the option.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
altruistic.lemon said:
What, you mean like DVD-Audio left us all behind? This has been tried before (probably with many of the same recordings I shouldn't wonder), the public isn't interested.
BigH
Well-known member
altruistic.lemon said:
I don't have room for 5 speakers anyway. Just read a post on Steve Hoffman forum about 5.1 and it seems that most people prefer their music (pop/rock) in stereo anyway. There are a few good multichannel recordings like Pink Floyd's WYWH but many are flawed. Think I will save the cost of 3 speakers and carry on in stereo.
Overdose
Well-known member
bigboss said:
Not at all. The benefits of recreating a more realistic live environment are obvious, it's what has been done for a long time though, particularly in movies. The whole idea of surround sound is to recreate the illusion of actually being in a particular place, in this case a music hall or theatre.
The image shows musicians being recorded in a circle though and far from creating a higher level of realism, this type of recording would sound artificial, as you don't ever hear a live performance with musicians surrounding you.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Overdose said:
Artificial is the perfect world, this doesn't reflect any sort of real life situation. Pointless.
BigH said:
You may have hit a nail on the head there, in so far as people's perspective's on this will in large part be influenced what set-up they already have.
If someone is primarily 'music' driven and has invested heavily in a two channel purist hi-fi set-up, then the costs of expanding that out to 5.1 are not going to be justified by the promise of (yet another) 5.1 music format that at best will probably offer a small selection of titles and be properly supported by only a handful of artists/labels.
On the other hand, if someone already has a 5.1 set-up (by virtue of being a home cinema enthusiast or having previously taken a 'leap of faith' with SACD/DVD-Audio) and already owns a 'Universal' bluray player, then there'll naturally be an interest in the prospect of a new 5.1 format that's compatible with their existing equipment and can only add to whatever selection of legacy 5.1 titles they already own.
Overdose
Well-known member
Surround sound would only have a benefit for music in the case of live performances and for the playback of additional ambience, either present in the venue or produced and mixed in the studio.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
mr malarky said:
Why "universal blu-ray player"? I thought the whole point of this was that it would work on any blu-ray player?
BigH
Well-known member
The_Lhc said:
True, was referring to those of us with universal players and a legacy of 5.1 titles in previous formats as being the most likely receptive audience for the new format (as we're already engaged with the principal of 5.1 music), but as you say BluRay-Audio will work on any BluRay player.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
mr malarky said:
Ok, cool. You illustrate the problem though, those "already engaged" isn't a very big audience, comparitively, that's why I don't see this succeeding.
BigH
Well-known member
The_Lhc said:
Also as said earlier many prefer stereo anyway. I think 5.1 is a bad feature it will hold back this format, as fewer releases will be issued, who is going to spend at that time doing 5.1 for old music? So is this going be widespread or just similar to SACD which is very limited.
If you look in terms of the global market, you'll see in the US there is a big move to home theatre, so the format could well succeed because of that alone.
However, it's worth remembering stereo is an illusion anyway, so listening in 5.1 as equally valid. There'll always be people who listen to stereo alone, as there are people who listen only to mono, but the market does move on.
If the format does fail, it will be nothing to do with most of the arguments here, but because people are moving away from physical media. Downloads will rule, if they don't already.
However, it's worth remembering stereo is an illusion anyway, so listening in 5.1 as equally valid. There'll always be people who listen to stereo alone, as there are people who listen only to mono, but the market does move on.
If the format does fail, it will be nothing to do with most of the arguments here, but because people are moving away from physical media. Downloads will rule, if they don't already.
steve_1979 said:
eeeeeekzaktly!
good master + mp3 = good sound on a portable
good master + cd = good sound on anything
good master + hirez = good, but overkill
bad master + any of the above = waste of music
Overdose said:
In fact it sounds anything but artificial, with a superb sense of involvement and beautiful clarity.
The_Lhc said:
Apart, of course, from the real-life situation in which the recording was made.
Alec
Well-known member
Overdose
Well-known member
altruistic.lemon said:
AL, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the premise of Blu-Ray audio, but buy into the tech on its real merits as opposed to imagined ones.
Edit: The key to good sound reproduction, is in the recording and not the format. There are no current formats that have such glaring issues so as to be noticeably audibly deficient.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram