COLLECT WATCH TRACK RATE REVIEW APP
Manage your own movie collection and always keep it with you with our Apps. Price track movies and get price drop notifications instantly. Become a member to take full advantage of all site features.
GET STARTED

Best Blu-ray Deals

Best Blu-ray Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | Price drops  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Japan
Battle Royale (Blu-ray)
$12.99
Leviathan (Blu-ray)
$15.89
Inside Llewyn Davis (Blu-ray)
$9.99
Source Code (Blu-ray)
$4.99
Gangs of New York (Blu-ray)
$4.99
Last Vegas (Blu-ray)
$9.99
Last Action Hero (Blu-ray)
$5.19
Freezing: Anime Classics Season 1 (Blu-ray)
$22.99
Pacific Rim (Blu-ray)
$9.99
Batman: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$189.99
Ghostbusters 1 & 2 Double Pack (Blu-ray)
$19.96
Oldboy (Blu-ray)
$9.99
Nymphomaniac: Volumes I and II (Blu-ray)
$17.99
World War Z 3D (Blu-ray)
$12.18
The Legend of Billie Jean (Blu-ray)
$5.19
Mr. Peabody & Sherman (Blu-ray)
$22.99
Jaws (Blu-ray)
$7.99
Water Life: Planet Water (Blu-ray)
$9.95
Kick-Ass (Blu-ray)
$4.99

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Audio > Music / Audiophiles > Blu-ray Music and High Quality Music

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-06-2007, 03:38 AM   #21
frenchglen frenchglen is offline
Active Member
 
frenchglen's Avatar
 
Nov 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galley View Post
It's the same as the folks who bought HD DVDs thinking they would get Hi-Def on their standard DVD players. Poor choice for a name.
Excatly. Name is everything, it's something sometimes underestimated. Marketing can make or break formats like these. And since high-res music doesn't have quite the level of consumer interest as HD video, we can't leave anything unchecked.

Must have: great consumer-friendly name, full industry support, good manufacturing costs and able to be authored on a desktop computer not too expensively [after all, I make my own discs myself].

A Blu-CD format has all that. SACD and DVD-Audio and HD-DUD all fail in at least one area there
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 03:39 AM   #22
crackinhedz crackinhedz is offline
Super Moderator
 
crackinhedz's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
Orlando,FLA Relocated To: Lynchburg,VA
10
8
19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchglen View Post
Then add extra Dolby/DTS/PCM stereo tracks for compatibility with lower-end systems, video extras (esp. yummy HD video extras), galleries, etc. and you definitely need 25-50GB.

....now see, youre going from a "CD" to a bluray "video" disc, not what this topic was about, but you can start a new thread!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 03:40 AM   #23
jdc115 jdc115 is offline
Special Member
 
jdc115's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
Singapore
7
87
Default

I started another thread to ask a question about SACD. As far as I can tell, only the PS3 supports the format, not even Sony's stand alone player seems to support it.

I haven't purchased a Blu-ray player yet but plan to this year if I can find one that will support SACD. The PS3 only has 2 analog outputs from what I understand and my processor does not have HDMI input. So the PS3 would seem to limit me to 2 channel SACD (not a big deal) as well as not being able to utilize DD TrueHD.

Unless CD's will be phased out and replaced by a new format, I think any new audio format will just have a small following among audiophiles. The rest seem content to have MP3s.

I am just hoping to have a single Blu-ray player that supports SACD so I do not have to keep 2 players connected.

jon
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 03:41 AM   #24
crackinhedz crackinhedz is offline
Super Moderator
 
crackinhedz's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
Orlando,FLA Relocated To: Lynchburg,VA
10
8
19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc115 View Post
I started another thread to ask a question about SACD. As far as I can tell, only the PS3 supports the format, not even Sony's stand alone player seems to support it.

I haven't purchased a Blu-ray player yet but plan to this year if I can find one that will support SACD. The PS3 only has 2 analog outputs from what I understand and my processor does not have HDMI input. So the PS3 would seem to limit me to 2 channel SACD (not a big deal) as well as not being able to utilize DD TrueHD.

Unless CD's will be phased out and replaced by a new format, I think any new audio format will just have a small following among audiophiles. The rest seem content to have MP3s.

I am just hoping to have a single Blu-ray player that supports SACD so I do not have to keep 2 players connected.

jon

...or you can upgrade your reciever?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 03:53 AM   #25
THE STUD THE STUD is offline
Active Member
 
Mar 2007
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
192 kHz is overkill...maybe, 96/24 and even thats pushing it.
what r u talkin about, there is no such thing as overkill. some of us guys get pretty picky with our music, maybe not u, but i sure as hell do.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 03:56 AM   #26
frenchglen frenchglen is offline
Active Member
 
frenchglen's Avatar
 
Nov 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE STUD View Post
i made a thread about sacd about 4 months ago or something, called
SACD is dead.
That's the only thing to say about SACd. it's barely even accessible beyond the internet. the 2 best buys in my valley of 500,000 people doesn't carry a single SACD anymore. i went to B&N and they said "what's sacd?" sacd is dead and i want a new format of HD audio stand alone. DVD-Audio is great, but it lacks the space to put a comprehensive collection in the highest quality possible, as well as more than 5.1.
I agree with you completely. While SACD is much bigger than DVD-Audio, both failed and I don't think SACD playback in PS3 will save the format. Sony just want to maximize/increase sales as much as they can in that market.

Quote:
I just don't know if there's a big enough market for it. People don't care about what they hear near as much as they care about what they can see, except for a few of us(me included). everybody can see the difference btw dvd and blu ray, but not between cd and sacd. thats why i think sacd failed.... and a lack of any good titles.
That's what I'm worried about too.

It's kind of a catch 22, people aren't as interested in surround sound systems because good sound equipment [that CAN show the difference between SACD and CD] is so expensive, and it's expensive because there's not enough consumer interest. But I'm optimistic. With HD video finally coming in, people will look to upgrade the audio too. I hope. I think prices will drop gradually because of this trend. Why else would the movie studios release high-res/lossless audio tracks if they thought noone could afford decent speakers? Not just for us early-adopters...oh no they don't care about screwing us with this format war.. not that we have to worry though

Quote:
i own the LOTR expanded scores which features a dvd-audio of the scores, it's awesome to listen to, but due to lack of room it's only 48/24, not 96/24 or whatever. and it's only 5.1
thats my ideas on this
Exactly.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 03:57 AM   #27
crackinhedz crackinhedz is offline
Super Moderator
 
crackinhedz's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
Orlando,FLA Relocated To: Lynchburg,VA
10
8
19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE STUD View Post
what r u talkin about, there is no such thing as overkill. some of us guys get pretty picky with our music, maybe not u, but i sure as hell do.

...have a read...

192KHz sample rate for audio
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 04:00 AM   #28
THE STUD THE STUD is offline
Active Member
 
Mar 2007
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchglen View Post
I agree with you completely. While SACD is much bigger than DVD-Audio, both failed and I don't think SACD playback in PS3 will save the format. Sony just want to maximize/increase sales as much as they can in that market.


That's what I'm worried about too.

It's kind of a catch 22, people aren't as interested in surround sound systems because good sound equipment [that CAN show the difference between SACD and CD] is so expensive, and it's expensive because there's not enough consumer interest. But I'm optimistic. With HD video finally coming in, people will look to upgrade the audio too. I hope. I think prices will drop gradually because of this trend. Why else would the movie studios release high-res/lossless audio tracks if they thought noone could afford decent speakers? Not just for us early-adopters...oh no they don't care about screwing us with this format war.. not that we have to worry though


Exactly.
let's hope people do start caring more, for my benefit
LOTR exp. score in 7.1pcm196/24 or 7.1DTS HD MASTER AUDIO
calm down me.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 04:04 AM   #29
jdc115 jdc115 is offline
Special Member
 
jdc115's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
Singapore
7
87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
...or you can upgrade your reciever?
Still seems that the choices are very slim for processors that support TrueHD as well? But it seems somewhere their will always be a compromise and maybe using 2 players will have to be it for now if I want to still play SACDs.

thanks
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 04:05 AM   #30
frenchglen frenchglen is offline
Active Member
 
frenchglen's Avatar
 
Nov 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE STUD View Post
let's hope people do start caring more, for my benefit
LOTR exp. score in 7.1pcm196/24 or 7.1DTS HD MASTER AUDIO
calm down me.....
I'll second that. Can't wait for the day [if it ever arrives]
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 04:12 AM   #31
crackinhedz crackinhedz is offline
Super Moderator
 
crackinhedz's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
Orlando,FLA Relocated To: Lynchburg,VA
10
8
19
Default

you guys seem to be under the impression that more kHz = better sounding audio...which is quite the contrary.

...dont get me wrong, 48/24 uncompressed is absolutely amazing...but the human ear can only discern so much...there is a reason why movie studios sample at these frequencies.

again, read...

192KHz sample rate for audio

"My white paper "Sampling Theory" is at www.lavryengineering.com
under "suport". I posted it a few weeks ago, and have since been involved in conversations on the proaudio NG, comp.dsp, mastering web board. I am pleased with the response. A number of highly respected engineers know the push to 192KH is about manufacturers making money, not about scientific and engineering issues.

The few that argue on behalf of 192KHz talk about "things we do not know" and about listening tests. Such listening tests, taking a device designed to do 192 and switching in a final X2 decimation to 96KHz is NOT VALID, because it tests the last stage decimator and nothing else. The real test should be based on the comparing a 192KHz device against a 96KHz device. By the time you do 192KHz, way too far from what is optimal for audio, the damage is already done.

I am not saying that all distortions are bad. There are those that like tube distortions and more. I am saying that whatever you hear is NOT outside the audio hearing range, thus can be contained within 20KHz or so, certainly within 44-48KHz (88-96KHz sampling). Moreover, in audio, the lowest bandwidth device is the bottleneck (week link in the chain). Lets see:
1. Mics? Who is using 96KHz mics? Most Mics drop at about 20KHz...
2. Speakers? Who is using 96KHz mics? Most Mics drop at about 20KHz...
3. How much energy do musical instrument put out above 40KHz?
4. Ear - my dog does not hear 48KHz

So all of a sudden we are presented with that gizmo- 192KHz?

It is true that there is a lot we can not explain. I have been catering to the ear for many years, and do not know all the answers. But that does not mean that everything is fuzzy. There are some things we know, and know well. We know that sampling must exceed twice the bandwidth of interest. Not by much, just a tiny bit.

Only in audio there is such a disconnect between content bandwidth and sampling. No one else (medical, instrumentation, telecom, video) goes nuts with faster sampling because it yields no positives, only negatives:
1. Less accuracy (there is always a tradeoff between speed and accuracy)
2. More data (storage, data transfer...)
3. More processing required (often traded with lower quality processing)

Again, for those that like a certain distortion associated with 192KH sampling, it is all contained under 20KHz or so. One should not take a whole industry into having to lower transparency, twice the storage requirement and so on. Why not instead, manufacture that distortion (if you like it) with a 96KH device? (96KHz is already an overkill, 60KHz would have been an optimal rate, taking care of ALL the issues including filters, pre ringing and there is nothing else to worry about!).

My paper may be of interest to some, while other "ear types" may find it "too much". I kept the math to a minimum, so it is about graphs, plots and text. I put some energy to explaining what Nyquist finding is all about (he was a major contributor to modern technology).
Common sense may be misleading folks to think that "the more the better". What is true for say pixels and video or computer screen, is not true for sampling limited bandwidth signal. Making an analogy here is wrong! You need 2 points to draw a straight line. No need for more. You need 3 point for a circle. Well, the bandwidth restriction ends up with: you need only to exceed twice the highest frequency you deal with, thus 88.2KHz accommodates 44.1KH of audio.

I have heard numerous folks that understand math, engineering and science talk about the 192KHz being all about selling new gear to make money. In fact, there are some well respected engineers making such statements on the PRO Audio NG right now. I talked to a lot of folks that admitted privately that they are afraid, uncomfortable, consider it unwise... to raise objections to their employer. I see a strong correlation between the who promotes 192 and who sells such gear. I get ZERO scientific arguments suggesting that my comments are not on solid grounds. I get some folks that want to promote 192 to IGNORE all the science and engineering and math. All I hear is "maybe it is something we do not understand", and “golden folks hear this” (a 192KHz design, against a 192KHz design plus a less than perfect decimator to 96KHz, which is how you listen to a final stage decimator). Folks, if that is what you like, lets do a real good X2 up-sampler than use the imperfect X2 down sampler (decimator), and there is your 192KHz sound. This is the ONLY VARIABLE in most of the listening test. Many folks reported that they like the sound of that X2 last stage decimator. They were confused into thinking it is a test comparing 192KHz to 96KHz.

I am sad to see audio going in the wrong direction. I am not going to be a part of it, though it does impact my economics. The upside: I can look at myself in the morning. I did not sell out.

I few preemptive comments:
1. Nyquist is immuned to real life imperfections. All the noise, be it analog or quantization or any linearity causing distortions follows Nyquist. It is solid and does not need verification for every (or any) piece of gear.
2. Again, I do not tell folks what they hear and what they do not. The argument is not about what is good or bad. It is about signals distortions and what not. The standard for “people with ears” is to go for a listening test. My points are valid independently of listening test, because I stay away from tests and good vs bad.
It is possible to figure some things with math. I stop where math and science and real world engineering do, and it still lets me tell a story full of facts.

BR
Dan Lavry
Lavry Engineering
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 04:18 AM   #32
THE STUD THE STUD is offline
Active Member
 
Mar 2007
1
Default

well atleast i want a comprehensive disc in 96/24, and in 7.1, sacd and dvd-a can't do that
nor can they fit extras like song info, album art, outtakes, alternate versions, etc.
i want a new music experience besides visually deficient sound
or simply sound with a single background(dvd-a) and no extras
THEY SIMPLY LACK PROPER ROOM
end of discussion
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 04:25 AM   #33
frenchglen frenchglen is offline
Active Member
 
frenchglen's Avatar
 
Nov 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
you guys seem to be under the impression that more kHz = better sounding audio...which is quite the contrary.

...dont get me wrong, 48/24 uncompressed is absolutely amazing...but the human ear can only discern so much...there is a reason why movie studios sample at these frequencies.

again, read...
Um ok first of all 24-bit 96KHz sounds better than 24-bit 48KHz. I do agree that the bit size is more important than the sample rate, but as post #12 said, 24/192 is more faithful to analog sound. It's obvious. Putting differences between DSD and PCM aside, do you challenge SACD's resolution specs?

Regarding 192KHz being a meaningless sales point: there are many small independent companies who use 192KHz and their consumer audience is a discerning group of audiophiles who know all about it. They produce this 192KHz stuff because they believe in it. They don't make a mint out of it so it's pretty obvious why they do it.


-- fg --
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 04:28 AM   #34
crackinhedz crackinhedz is offline
Super Moderator
 
crackinhedz's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
Orlando,FLA Relocated To: Lynchburg,VA
10
8
19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchglen View Post
Um ok first of all 24-bit 96KHz sounds better than 24-bit 48KHz. I do agree that the bit size is more important than the sample rate, but as post #12 said, 24/192 is more faithful to analog sound. It's obvious. Putting differences between DSD and PCM aside, do you challenge SACD's resolution specs?

Regarding 192KHz being a meaningless sales point: there are many small independent companies who use 192KHz and their consumer audience is a discerning group of audiophiles who know all about it. They produce this 192KHz stuff because they believe in it. They don't make a mint out of it so it's pretty obvious why they do it.


-- fg --

....riiight.

Recording Engineer & Producer... where we discuss the nuts and bolts of making records better, not just louder and cheaper. Assembled here you will find some of the brightest minds from the creative and scientific world of audio.

....please try to sell your point. Feel free to debate it.


"Recording Engineer & Producer"....I think these people know a little something about the audio industry...look at the credentials ....noobs they are not!

...but thanks for your oppinion...backed up by nothing.

Last edited by crackinhedz; 08-06-2007 at 04:38 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 06:32 AM   #35
BluSmoke BluSmoke is offline
Active Member
 
Oct 2006
Default



Clearly the future of optical music format. 16.5gb is more than enough for music. People will gravitate towards the smaller disc size. Marketing it is the key.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 06:43 AM   #36
frenchglen frenchglen is offline
Active Member
 
frenchglen's Avatar
 
Nov 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
....riiight.

Recording Engineer & Producer... where we discuss the nuts and bolts of making records better, not just louder and cheaper. Assembled here you will find some of the brightest minds from the creative and scientific world of audio.

....please try to sell your point. Feel free to debate it.


"Recording Engineer & Producer"....I think these people know a little something about the audio industry...look at the credentials ....noobs they are not!

...but thanks for your oppinion...backed up by nothing.
Here we go, arguing about 192 vs 96. I don't have a point, I just don't believe in your point. There's no way I'm ever going to believe that 192KHz is not better than 96KHz. If you believe there is no difference between the two, there's something wrong.

Anyway I could slap another person's long personal post from another forum but I don't tend to do that (the whole world if high end audio is very subjective isn't it) and the point of this thread was another issue. Thanks for your opinion anyway.

Besides 192KHz is not exactly a selling point. Most receivers that have 96KHz also have 192KHz. Um, it's just kind of standard. And the only reason they didn't include 192KHz surround on DVD-Audio, was because it went over the maximum bitrate that DVD could handle (9.6Mbps).

Aaaaaaaaanywaaaaaaay......
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 11:41 AM   #37
HDJK HDJK is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
HDJK's Avatar
 
Oct 2006
Switzerland
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE STUD View Post
...
i own the LOTR expanded scores which features a dvd-audio of the scores, it's awesome to listen to, but due to lack of room it's only 48/24, not 96/24 or whatever. and it's only 5.1
thats my ideas on this
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE STUD View Post
let's hope people do start caring more, for my benefit
LOTR exp. score in 7.1pcm196/24 or 7.1DTS HD MASTER AUDIO
calm down me.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchglen View Post
I'll second that. Can't wait for the day [if it ever arrives]
I hate to rain on anybodys parade, but it is a fact, that all soundtracks are recorded in PCM, most likely not exceeding 48kHz sampling rate. There may be a push towards 96kHz, but I doubt we will see a 192kHz soundtrack master for a 5.1 OST anytime soon. So really, there is absolutely no gain in going 192/24 for the LOTR scores.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 11:46 AM   #38
Chris Gerhard Chris Gerhard is offline
Banned
 
Feb 2007
Default

As far as which one was more successful, DVD-A or SACD, I would say SACD since I have more SACD's than DVD-A's and about 5,000 SACD titles have been released and less than half that number of DVD-A's were released. There are still maybe 25-30 new SACD releases each month, mostly classical with a few jazz and a rare popular music release. If the standard to judge is profits to the companies involved, both were a failure and I mean big-time failures. DVD-A with fewer releases probably lost less money for the participants.

Music on Blu-ray is promising, but not any time soon. As long as both HD DVD and Blu-ray exist, I don't believe we will see much music released on either format.

Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 01:22 PM   #39
dobyblue dobyblue is offline
Super Moderator
 
dobyblue's Avatar
 
Jul 2006
Gilead
31
485
7
Default

Blu-ray doesn't support 7.1 24/192 for any codec, so you'll never see that.
Bit depth is far more important than sampling rate for PCM. Professional studios nowadays have the ability to record up to 32/384.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDJK View Post
I hate to rain on anybodys parade, but it is a fact, that all soundtracks are recorded in PCM, most likely not exceeding 48kHz sampling rate. There may be a push towards 96kHz, but I doubt we will see a 192kHz soundtrack master for a 5.1 OST anytime soon. So really, there is absolutely no gain in going 192/24 for the LOTR scores.
There are 6 soundtracks that were not recorded to PCM at all, but rather are straight DSD recordings.
http://sa-cd.net/dsd

A lot of the music is recorded at 24/96 for scores, but because pretty much everything else is recorded at 24/48 (dialogue, gaffing, etc.) you're not likely to ever hear the original 24/96 recording unless it's releases on DVD-A.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 01:42 PM   #40
THE STUD THE STUD is offline
Active Member
 
Mar 2007
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
Blu-ray doesn't support 7.1 24/192 for any codec, so you'll never see that.
Bit depth is far more important than sampling rate for PCM. Professional studios nowadays have the ability to record up to 32/384.


There are 6 soundtracks that were not recorded to PCM at all, but rather are straight DSD recordings.
http://sa-cd.net/dsd

A lot of the music is recorded at 24/96 for scores, but because pretty much everything else is recorded at 24/48 (dialogue, gaffing, etc.) you're not likely to ever hear the original 24/96 recording unless it's releases on DVD-A.
actually lotr is on dvd-audio but it lacks the room to put it in 24/96, which is my whole point, it's only on 24/48 and lacks any extras which a true collector wants such as outtakes, alternate songs, song info, etc
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Audio > Music / Audiophiles > Blu-ray Music and High Quality Music

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
Blu-ray audio vs. SACD Blu-ray Music and High Quality Music DiverSpear 63 12-22-2008 11:28 AM
Music Blu-ray + Hybrid SACD Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology Big Daddy 2 08-15-2008 05:11 PM
The secret's out ... SACD on Blu-ray! PS3 moviefan 61 01-27-2008 03:29 AM
SACD: MFSL readies The Pixies "Doolittle" for SACD release Receivers dobyblue 28 01-04-2008 07:22 PM
Blu-ray and SACD Blu-ray Players and Recorders ccscho 29 09-23-2006 02:41 PM


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:03 AM.