Bluray Audio VS SACD VS DVD-Audio

[Sliced Bread]

With Bluray capable of producing excellent 24 bit audio, including 24bit PCM AND with the number of bluray players far outstripping SACD and DVD Audio, why aren't we seeing a large number of audio only blurays.

Does SACD and DVD Audio hold any audio advantage over bluray. To my knowledge they don't.

Any thoughts.

 

[hammill]

The advantage of hybrid SACD is I can play the SACD on my hifi and play the CD layer in the car. Also, lots of people do not have their bluray player connected to their hifi (strange though this may seem).

 

[topbloke55]

Content on Bluray is another issue and the fact the the current Bluray layers are not as musical a good CD / SACD / HDCD players

 

[chebby]

hammill:Also, lots of people do not have their bluray player connected to their hifi (strange though this may seem).

Not strange at all given that lots of people don't have any audio system at all except the speakers built into the TV or their car radio/CD or a portable device like an MP3 player or kitchen radio.

 

[Sliced Bread]

I agree with you regarding the CD layer, however I would suspect that while most people do not have their bluray player connected to there hifi, there will be more blurays attached to hifi's than SACD's / DVD-Audio (not as a percentage as I'm sure that 100% of SACD players are connected to hifi's, but in terms of pure number of units).

Also bluray audio requires the speakers to be laid out using a typical home cinema speaker placement, whereas SACD / DVD-Audio should be setup in a 'star' configuration, that I suspect very few people have setup in their homes.

It just seems to me that it would be more convenient for consumer (from a hardware ownership point of view as well as setup) and better for the music industry as they will reach a larger audience.

I have both Bluray from my Pioneer and SACD capability on my Denon DVD player and I would much prefer a single format.

 

[Sliced Bread]

topbloke55:
Content on Bluray is another issue and the fact the the current Bluray layers are not as musical a good CD / SACD / HDCD players

Is this fact? Does CD / SACD / HDCD produce less jitter than bluray? EDIT: Surely this is determined by the player rather than the format as bluray can store uncompressed PCM.

I have not been able to A-B my SACD and bluray due to a shortage of Bluray music and none (that I can find) where the same piece of music is on both formats. So how can we determine this to be sure. The sound of bluray is very good and from a non-A-B testing subjective point of view, I have a better sound from my bluray than I do from my CD player.

 

[hammill]

chebby:

hammill:Also, lots of people do not have their bluray player connected to their hifi (strange though this may seem).

Not strange at all given that lots of people don't have any audio system at all except the speakers built into the TV or their car radio/CD or a portable device like an MP3 player or kitchen radio.

Yes, but this is int the context of hi def audio. If you dont have an audio system, you wont be in the market for blu-ray audio/SACD /DVD-A

 

[Anonymous]

I'm also looking forward to BluRay Audio coming out. At least with the player already in the living room, publishers can be confident that enough people can spin the disc, something that's always held back SACD and DVD-A.

If you're using your player as a transport as I am, you won't care how musical your player is, as it's being decoded to analogue further down the chain. But for those with early or budget BluRay players, I think the audio is no better than DVD players with Standard Def audio. Frankly, a budget BD player doesn't show up the benefits of having HD audio. But at least you can enjoy music in multichannel, even if the resolution benefits aren't immediately apparent on cheap kit. Multichannel music is the way forward. If BluRay opens this up to more people then it's a great step forward in my view.

As people upgrade their kit they'll get more and more out of their discs. It's the format to end them all before we all move to downloads and streaming, which for hi-res material is still a decade or two away for the mass market I think.

 

[the record spot]

JohnNewman:
Also bluray audio requires the speakers to be laid out using a typical home cinema speaker placement, whereas SACD / DVD-Audio should be setup in a 'star' configuration, that I suspect very few people have setup in their homes.

That's not entirely true re: SACD John, which can quite happily play in hi-resolution stereo. Indeed, that's how the format started off ten years or so back. Multichannel SACD came a few years later. DVD-Audio's big disadvantage requires a screen display (a major pain) in order to perform most of the functions, unless you have a very good memory for each disc's menu layout!

Re: BR-audio - does the HD stream come via a decoding ability in the player, or is it better to have this done via amp which can manage not only HD, but other formats (DSD content for instance)?

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:JohnNewman:
Also bluray audio requires the speakers to be laid out using a typical home cinema speaker placement, whereas SACD / DVD-Audio should be setup in a 'star' configuration, that I suspect very few people have setup in their homes.

That's not entirely true re: SACD John, which can quite happily play in hi-resolution stereo. Indeed, that's how the format started off ten years or so back. Multichannel SACD came a few years later. DVD-Audio's big disadvantage requires a screen display (a major pain) in order to perform most of the functions, unless you have a very good memory for each disc's menu layout!

Re: BR-audio - does the HD stream come via a decoding ability in the player, or is it better to have this done via amp which can manage not only HD, but other formats (DSD content for instance)?

If I recall correctly, the digital stream from a BluRay player is a combined video / audio stream and so even if there is no picture the video data will still be there, albeit a stream of zeros. The clock data to syncronise and time the stream is based on a video not audio clock. So I think it's safe to assume that BD-A will behave just the same way as any other BD but with either a blank screen, static image or whatever else they choose to use the screen for, if they do, but the audio won't be any different to that you'd get when watching a BluRay movie.

 

[Sliced Bread]

the record spot:JohnNewman:
Also bluray audio requires the speakers to be laid out using a typical home cinema speaker placement, whereas SACD / DVD-Audio should be setup in a 'star' configuration, that I suspect very few people have setup in their homes.

That's not entirely true re: SACD John, which can quite happily play in hi-resolution stereo. Indeed, that's how the format started off ten years or so back. Multichannel SACD came a few years later. DVD-Audio's big disadvantage requires a screen display (a major pain) in order to perform most of the functions, unless you have a very good memory for each disc's menu layout!

Re: BR-audio - does the HD stream come via a decoding ability in the player, or is it better to have this done via amp which can manage not only HD, but other formats (DSD content for instance)?

This is true, however I was referring to multichannel music. In terms of stereo, this can apply to both SACD and Bluray, which can also be enjoyed in stereo.

 

[the record spot]

Will Harris:
Multichannel music is the way forward.

Must admit, I never see this POV, or understand it. Why would it be the way forward? When we go to a concert do we sit on the stage? If we go to a classical performance is the orchestra placed around us?

I can see the appeal from a marketing perspective in plugging m/c and can understand why people tap into it, but thankfully, the work done on a certain mono boxset released in the last couple of days shows what even one channel is capable of when it's done well.

M/c is one way forward, hopefully not the be-all and end-all however.

EDIT: Apologies Will, I realise I've cherrypicked and perhaps quoted out of context, but this one jumped out at me!

 

[the record spot]

Will Harris:

If I recall correctly, the digital stream from a BluRay player is a combined video / audio stream and so even if there is no picture the video data will still be there, albeit a stream of zeros. The clock data to syncronise and time the stream is based on a video not audio clock. So I think it's safe to assume that BD-A will behave just the same way as any other BD but with either a blank screen, static image or whatever else they choose to use the screen for, if they do, but the audio won't be any different to that you'd get when watching a BluRay movie.

Okay, thanks. So if you have a BR player, with HD compatibility, which decodes onboard, does this mean one could connect to a stereo amp and receive HD-audio output (and does HD audio come in stereo form too)?

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:Will Harris:

If I recall correctly, the digital stream from a BluRay player is a combined video / audio stream and so even if there is no picture the video data will still be there, albeit a stream of zeros. The clock data to syncronise and time the stream is based on a video not audio clock. So I think it's safe to assume that BD-A will behave just the same way as any other BD but with either a blank screen, static image or whatever else they choose to use the screen for, if they do, but the audio won't be any different to that you'd get when watching a BluRay movie.

Okay, thanks. So if you have a BR player, with HD compatibility, which decodes onboard, does this mean one could connect to a stereo amp and receive HD-audio output (and does HD audio come in stereo form too)?

If you mean decoding to analogue onboard, then yes, this is taking the full HD audio and converting it to analogue. How well it does this will be dependant on the quality of the decoding, DACs and all the electronics that go to create the analogue signal. Quite honestly, it will on be HD if the player is capable of resolving enough detail and finese through it's analogue outputs for you to tell it apart from a normal cd or DVD. It's in this regard that you get more when you pay more, on the analogue front. If you're using the player as a transport and doing your decoding, DAC conversion etc in a processor / receiver then you're less interested in the player's analogue capability, just the quality of it's transport.

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot:Will Harris:
Multichannel music is the way forward.

Must admit, I never see this POV, or understand it. Why would it be the way forward? When we go to a concert do we sit on the stage? If we go to a classical performance is the orchestra placed around us?

I can see the appeal from a marketing perspective in plugging m/c and can understand why people tap into it, but thankfully, the work done on a certain mono boxset released in the last couple of days shows what even one channel is capable of when it's done well.

M/c is one way forward, hopefully not the be-all and end-all however.

EDIT: Apologies Will, I realise I've cherrypicked and perhaps quoted out of context, but this one jumped out at me!

Quite alright mate. Personally, I've found the multichannel music discs I've got to be a far better listening experience than the 2ch mixes. U2 on DVD with all the sounds of the crowd around you, Dire Straights on SACD with instruments all round. Queen Live in Montreal on BluRay, all just fantastically atmospheric and a far more real experience than in 2 channel.

That's my experience of it. Every disc is mastered and mixed differently, some I like the effect of, and some I like less, but the ability to place atmosphere all around, position instruments and effects wherever they work best, turns it into a 3D experience and that in my view makes multichannel audio the way forward. I really think it turns the listening experience into a living experience.

It's not like you're sat up on the stage, unless they mix it that way, which they usually don't. I agree with you, that that wouldn't be stricktly natural, though perhaps with Classical you can expect to get closer to the orchestra than with pop or rock, live.

 

[Sliced Bread]

Will Harris:the record spot:Will Harris:

If I recall correctly, the digital stream from a BluRay player is a combined video / audio stream and so even if there is no picture the video data will still be there, albeit a stream of zeros. The clock data to syncronise and time the stream is based on a video not audio clock. So I think it's safe to assume that BD-A will behave just the same way as any other BD but with either a blank screen, static image or whatever else they choose to use the screen for, if they do, but the audio won't be any different to that you'd get when watching a BluRay movie.

Okay, thanks. So if you have a BR player, with HD compatibility, which decodes onboard, does this mean one could connect to a stereo amp and receive HD-audio output (and does HD audio come in stereo form too)?

If you mean decoding to analogue onboard, then yes, this is taking the full HD audio and converting it to analogue. How well it does this will be dependant on the quality of the decoding, DACs and all the electronics that go to create the analogue signal. Quite honestly, it will on be HD if the player is capable of resolving enough detail and finese through it's analogue outputs for you to tell it apart from a normal cd or DVD. It's in this regard that you get more when you pay more, on the analogue front. If you're using the player as a transport and doing your decoding, DAC conversion etc in a processor / receiver then you're less interested in the player's analogue capability, just the quality of it's transport.

Exactly...so why are we not seeing many audio discs. It could be brilliant!!!
The sound is superb, the market penetration is there. What's stopping it.
Ho hum

As for the quality of the players, many sacd players are just DVD players, with some specialist players out there with quality DAC's. If more music was available then more music orientated bluray players will make it onto the market for the stereo users

.

 

[Sliced Bread]

Will Harris:the record spot:Will Harris:
Multichannel music is the way forward.

Must admit, I never see this POV, or understand it. Why would it be the way forward? When we go to a concert do we sit on the stage? If we go to a classical performance is the orchestra placed around us?

I can see the appeal from a marketing perspective in plugging m/c and can understand why people tap into it, but thankfully, the work done on a certain mono boxset released in the last couple of days shows what even one channel is capable of when it's done well.

M/c is one way forward, hopefully not the be-all and end-all however.

EDIT: Apologies Will, I realise I've cherrypicked and perhaps quoted out of context, but this one jumped out at me!

Quite alright mate. Personally, I've found the multichannel music discs I've got to be a far better listening experience than the 2ch mixes. U2 on DVD with all the sounds of the crowd around you, Dire Straights on SACD with instruments all round. Queen Live in Montreal on BluRay, all just fantastically atmospheric and a far more real experience than in 2 channel.

That's my experience of it. Every disc is mastered and mixed differently, some I like the effect of, and some I like less, but the ability to place atmosphere all around, position instruments and effects wherever they work best, turns it into a 3D experience and that in my view makes multichannel audio the way forward. I really think it turns the listening experience into a living experience.

It's not like you're sat up on the stage, unless they mix it that way, which they usually don't. I agree with you, that that wouldn't be stricktly natural, though perhaps with Classical you can expect to get closer to the orchestra than with pop or rock, live.
My experience of multichannel music is greater ambience, better sound stage (mix dependant) and improved separation between instruments.

 

[hammill]

Will Harris:the record spot:Will Harris: Multichannel music is the way forward. Must admit, I never see this POV, or understand it. Why would it be the way forward? When we go to a concert do we sit on the stage? If we go to a classical performance is the orchestra placed around us? I can see the appeal from a marketing perspective in plugging m/c and can understand why people tap into it, but thankfully, the work done on a certain mono boxset released in the last couple of days shows what even one channel is capable of when it's done well. M/c is one way forward, hopefully not the be-all and end-all however. EDIT: Apologies Will, I realise I've cherrypicked and perhaps quoted out of context, but this one jumped out at me! Quite alright mate. Personally, I've found the multichannel music discs I've got to be a far better listening experience than the 2ch mixes. U2 on DVD with all the sounds of the crowd around you, Dire Straights on SACD with instruments all round. Queen Live in Montreal on BluRay, all just fantastically atmospheric and a far more real experience than in 2 channel. That's my experience of it. Every disc is mastered and mixed differently, some I like the effect of, and some I like less, but the ability to place atmosphere all around, position instruments and effects wherever they work best, turns it into a 3D experience and that in my view makes multichannel audio the way forward. I really think it turns the listening experience into a living experience. It's not like you're sat up on the stage, unless they mix it that way, which they usually don't. I agree with you, that that wouldn't be stricktly natural, though perhaps with Classical you can expect to get closer to the orchestra than with pop or rock, live.Like Will, I find multi channel SACD to be a much more pleasurable listening experience. The 1970-1975 Genesis SACD set sounds far better than the CDs (original or 1994 remasters) and does not suffer from the compression many complain of in the stereo mix. Multi channel SACD is also much better from multiple listening positions. The Brothers in Arms SACD is what I use to convince doubters that spending money on a multi channel system is worthwhile (and it usually works).

 

[pete321]

Why would you need a 25gb or 50gb blu-ray for just audio when SACD and DVD-Audio have more than enough space. Obviously if it's a live concert or music video, then blu-ray audio makes sense, but for pure audio, surely it'd just be a lot of wasted disc space?

 

[hammill]

pete321:Why would you need a 25gb or 50gb blu-ray for just audio when SACD and DVD-Audio have more than enough space. Obviously if it's a live concert or music video, then blu-ray audio makes sense, but for pure audio, surely it'd just be a lot of wasted disc space?Maybe so, but the argument is that very soon many people will have blu-ray players and very few have SACD players. So if you want to sell a high quality audio product you will sell more if you release it on Blu-ray.

 

[pete321]

JohnNewman:My experience of multichannel music is greater ambience, better sound stage (mix dependant) and improved separation between instruments.

Going back to the days of my Pioneer 757 (I think) DVD/DVD-A/SACD player I'd collected quite a few SACD and DVD-A discs, I think of those there were more stereo mixes than 5.1 that I preferred. Most songs or the way they've been remixed just don't sound right in 5.1 whereas others blow you away. I guess it's not really an issue because there's enough space to include high quality stereo and 5.1 mixes.

 

[Clare Newsome]

From the consumer research that i've seen - backed up by sales figures - the issue with multichannel mixes is that people like to enjoy vision with their sound; concert DVDs/Blu-rays are selling incredibly well, as people seek to relive the live experience with more than just their ears, from an audience perspective.

 

[pete321]

Clare Newsome:

From the consumer research that i've seen - backed up by sales figures - the issue with multichannel mixes is that people like to enjoy vision with their sound; concert DVDs/Blu-rays are selling incredibly well, as people seek to relive the live experience with more than just their ears, from an audience perspective.

For live performances I'd go along with that, but for studio recordings I'd say having some form of video/visual aspect would detract from hearing the extra detail you get from a true high fidelity recording.

Still, the majority of the public think that 192kbps is CD quality, if that wasn't the case we probably wouldn't have this thread now because they'd have been more mainstream SACD/DVD-A releases. The fact is unfortuantely, most people aren't as fussy as us lot when it comes to music quality, my friend thinks her CD's sound good through her TV speakers (and it's a c**p TV)!

 

[manicm]

I still think it's dead in the water.

I mean there are some sterling multi-channel SACD and DVD-A releases, but how many artists, producers and lables are gonna bother with releasing new or old multichannel releases?

A big fat 0, cos for starters it's gonna cost and frankly will the artist care? 'Fraid not.

Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon is a glaring case in point - it now seems obvious the current SACD version was a testing the waters, and not too many have dipped yet. I mean The Wall would be a howling candidate for multichannel.

Another interesting point is some posters on Linn's forums - some recent posts there suggest that, for all of Linn's DS hoo ha, the DS beats CD but not SACD.

Then again that's why Linn charges twice as much for a CD than other labels - cos they care, and quite frankly other labels don't.

It's up to the public to give multi-channel a push - and currently they're not bothered.

I think Clare summed it up perfectly.

 

[Anonymous]

pete321:Clare Newsome:

From the consumer research that i've seen - backed up by sales figures - the issue with multichannel mixes is that people like to enjoy vision with their sound; concert DVDs/Blu-rays are selling incredibly well, as people seek to relive the live experience with more than just their ears, from an audience perspective.

For live performances I'd go along with that, but for studio recordings I'd say having some form of video/visual aspect would detract from hearing the extra detail you get from a true high fidelity recording.

I would like to add that I (and there should be somebody else) like very much to create my own visualizations, for me that is important and nice part of listening process. That is one of main differences between movie (videoclip) and music. I can listening the same cd a hundred times and not get bored. How often you can do the same with movies?