What about pre-recorded Music Discs???

[drtweak]

All I hear about Blu-ray is talk about movies. Will there be any Blu-ray music-only discs? If so, what companies may be releasing them and will it contain both stereo and multi-channel options? What will the resolution be? I'm hoping that with all this storage capacity they can improve over CD's 44.1kHz sampling rate big time!

I can't find anything on the Blu-ray site about music or music standards... What's up with that?

The only thing I've heard is that the Blu-ray players should be able to play the old redbook CDs as well as DVDs and SACDs. That's nice, but what about some new high-res audio standards to match the hi-def video capability? Will Blu-Ray be the first commercial digital disc system that will finally surpass the performance of my trusty old vinyl-spinner???

TIA for any help!

Frank

[Zinn]

5.1 in 24/192 and 7.1 in 24/96 (bit/kHz) Also profile 3 is Audio only, so somthing must be in the works.

From: wikipedia.org

Profiles

The BD-ROM specification defines four profiles of Blu-ray players. All video-based profiles are required to have a full implementation of BD-J.

1.0

This is the basic profile that all current Blu-ray players (as of April 2007) are based on. Players based on this profile are only required to have 64 KB of application data area storage, which is typically used for bookmarks and other preference storage.[citation needed] Most players have more than the minimum required 64KB.[citation needed] After October 31, 2007 this profile will be superseded by profile 1.1 as the new minimum profile.

1.1 (mandatory November 2007)

What is typically referred to as "Profile 1.1" (but is more formally known as "Final Standard Profile") adds a secondary video decoder (typically used for picture in picture), secondary audio (typically used for interactive audio and commentary) and capability of supporting a minimum of 256MB of local storage (for storing audio/video and title updates). Compliance with this profile will be mandatory for player models introduced to the market after October 31, 2007[1], but existing products will be unaffected. No players compliant with this profile have been announced or released.

Some profile 1.0 players may be upgradeable via firmware update to profile 1.1 if they have the appropriate hardware, but no manufacturer has announced any such upgrade. When software authored with interactive features dependent on Profile 1.1 hardware capabilities are played on profile 1.0 players some features may not be available or may offer limited capability. Profile 1.0 players will still be able to play the main feature of the disc, however.

2.0 (BD-Live)

Profile 2, also known as BD-Live, adds network connectivity to the list of mandatory functions and increases mandatory local storage capability to 1 GB. No players have been announced as compatible with this profile. However it has been speculated that the PS3 could be upgradeable to this profile.

3 (audio only)

Profile 3 is meant for an audio-only player and does not require video decoding or BD-J.

[frenchglen]

Yeah, sounds good, with BD you could fit on multiple soundtracks for backwards compatibility with old sound systems [and have no worries about cutting down bitrates of the high-res soundtrack for audiophiles]

Because DVD-Audio didn't take off I hope they'll market this one properly. I think consumers will eventually adopt it, once blu-ray movies take off in mainstream people will finally have a taste of hi-res. Then they will want to have that same "sound experience" in music. Well, I would anyway

Or maybe it's too late and the iPod has dumbed people down and all they care about is that shiny HDTV. People think CD is the best quality you can go.

Crusade for Sound!

[drtweak]

Gents,

Many thanks for the replies. It sounds like no formal standards for music have been set at this time, but that Sony has provided for it and is thinking about it.

There's a lot of music from movie soundtracks that's already mixed in hi-res multi-channel, so it would be great if those tracks were available on music-only Blu-ray discs. Even a higher res stereo format would be welcome -- and long overdue!

frenchglen, You're 100 percent right -- typical consumers have been way dumbed-down by the iPod and MP3 and actually think that those formats sound pretty good. CD-quality is considered the "gold-standard," but it was inadequate 25 years ago when they adopted the 44.1kHz standard and in light of the advancing technology over that timespan it is woefully inadequate and outdated. It's like trying to use a table spoon to dig a large hole for a pool when you have a backhoe available.

All my analog sources (turntable, reel-to-reel tape, and FM radio) have much higher quality sound than CD on my hi-res audio system (and even on a cheap retro system I threw together using a '70's solid-state Onkyo receiver and 35 year-old JBL speakers). CD, by comparison (my CD player is highly acclaimed and costs $2500 USD), sounds flat, anylitical, and less involving, while the analog sound is lush, sweet, and engaging -- definitely a more intimate and fulfilling musical experience.

We already have the technology in place to allow for a superior musical presentation from digital on Blu-ray. It is my fervent hope that the recording industry actually steps up and sets a new framework of audio playback standards that can take advantage of what this great format is capable of offering. I'm sure that would help bolster sagging music sales, and it sure would be great to hear digital music in a hi-res format.

Heck, Sony already owns an extensive catalog of music titles, so all they'd have to do is set the new parameters and then start reissuing titles on hi-res Blu-ray. Right now, Sony seems to be waiting for other recording companies to step in and do this while the recording industry is waiting on Sony to make the first move... Sony needs to get off its corporate butt and get the ball rolling!!!

Cheers to All !!!!

[Zinn]

Hopefully they make hybrid disc with a 25GB BD side and a regular CD side on all discs.

[drtweak]

Zinn,

NO NO NO, my man, that would be a serious marketing blunder! If they made a Blu-ray hybrid disc with a regular redbook CD soundtrack, owners of regular CD players would be content with that and wouldn't purchase a Blu-ray player (because they've been brainwashed with "perfect sound forever" for so long). But I'm telling you that "CD-quality" is NOT good enough and it's far from perfect! Hi-res Blu-ray would be sooooo much better!

If anything, there should be a hi-res 7.1 and 5.1 multichannel layer and then another layer for hi-res 2-channel stereo sound (because many older recordings were mastered that way and could be remastered to Blu-ray standards). This would allow hi-res headphone and 2-channel stereo playback for folks who don't have multi-channel surround sound.

My feeling is that the Superior picture and sound quality the Blu-ray offers for movie reproduction will get folks intrigued enough to buy Blu-ray players. Then, having the added bonus of being able to purchase hi-res music-only discs would be the icing on the cake...

Frank A.

[drtweak]

Guys,

I just wanted to add to my earlier post that allowing Blu-ray players to read and play the older formats: CD, SACD, and DVD, etc., would be great and makes perfect sense. After all, who wants to have a bunch of different disc players hooked up just to play older discs. Having a universal Blu-ray player would be terrific.

But Sony shouldn't offer people incentive not to buy Blu-ray by encoding a regular redbook CD layer into Blu-ray discs. I'm not certain if that would even be possible.

[drtweak]

Gents,

Let me come clean, lay it on the line, and spell it out for the good folks at Sony, developers of Blu-ray technology.

I am an audiophile first and a videophile second, so my first priority is hearing great sound. I have a large music collection comprised of vinyl, tapes, and CDs. Many times, I would much rather listen to my music than sit there and watch a movie for 2+ hours.

I have two, high-performance 2-channel audio systems that support mutiple media formats and one home theater system with 5.1 Dolby/DTS surround sound. I'm using an older Hitachi 1080i rear projection TV in conjunction with Comcast's Hi-def tier and my Sony DVD player gets quite a good picture via its component video outputs using the progressive scan feature.
So I am mostly complacent and generally satisfied when it comes to my picture quality.

What would inspire me to buy new stuff and support Blu-ray? In a nutshell, it would be the implementation of a viable hi-res music format, with the major recording companies producing the software and titles. (Sorry Sony, CD sound is only "perfect" if you don't have anything better to compare it to.)

What would happen is that I would get sucked into the Blu-ray player purchase through the allure of the hi-res MUSIC offerings. Then I would realize I need a newer TV with higher-res capability and an HDMI digital interface. I would also need to update my home theater receiver for the same reason. All this would spark me to start buying new music and movie titles in the Blu-ray format for the ultimate audio/video experience.

But without that hi-res music platform I'm content to remain complacent and buy used CDs and records at thrift shops and garage sales... My foot won't be coming through that door to purchase the new Blu-ray or Hi-def stuff because I view my current picture resolution as "quite good;" and without the availability of hi-res music discs there is no incentive for me to purchase new gear until my present gear malfunctions. And there is a whole community of audiophiles and music lovers out there who think just like I do...

What about people who have low resolution TVs or those who are buying the increasingly popular 720P sets? What is their incentive to purchase Blu-ray?... Maybe if they knew it would offer a new high-resolution music format as a side bonus it would give them that added push needed to make that purchase decision.

Frank A.

[Josh]

There are two types of audiophiles: Those who like analog and those who like digital. The first distinction you have to make, is which category you fall under. If you an analog type of person, go purchase as many LPs and reel-to-reels as you can because digital is never going to sound like analog.

For digital, its probably not going to get much better than DVD-A and SACD even if it does come on Blu-ray. IIRC, both formats use the 24-bit masters at high frequencies, so you should be transparent to the master. I know for a fact that DVD-A uses MLP (lossless) to encode the audio, which is what TrueHD is based upon.

The best you can get is probably 96Hz/24-bit PCM, which would still fit on a DVD. If Blu-ray becomes the standard format, it may be worth studios releasing their music on Blu-ray in the same format they do now with SACDs and DVD-As, but I doubt the sound quality is going to get any better.

What iPod has done is make music ultra-portable. And in this ultra-portable environment, you only need stereo, and at lower frequencies. Until there is a mass need for high quality audio (as HDTV is generating a need for HD movies on a consumer wide level), you just aren't going to see it.

[Filterlab]

Thing is that the iPod has put paid to a lot of potential high quality audio, due to its 'funkiness'.

I'll go on record saying that high quality audio has been around for many many years, and in either analogue or digital form, high quality is still high quality.

Just because Blu-ray offers large data transfer rates this will still not compensate for a half deaf, convenience driven, compression happy audio engineer. Unfortunately most music is mastered by these fools these days.

However, if one is to listen to something by Supertramp, Dire Straits, Alan Parsons Project or something of that ilk, they may be surprised in that it sounds cleaner and crisper than something of the modern day.

Why? Simply because they are / were self produced musicians - the best of both worlds. Does it make any difference what Mbps transfer rate the media runs at? Course not, in fact any of these type of artists will sound amazing on redbook, but only because the original recordings are first class.

Yes, my Esocteric player has SACD capability, but I own none. Why have I not bought any? Because redbook is excellent quality as it is and the machine is engineered properly. Will the PS3 ever replace it? HAHAHAHA! Don't be ludicrous!

[drtweak]

Well Then,

I guess the public has spoken and once again has proven that they can't hear and really don't care about sound quality. How truly sad !

I totally disagree that well-recorded music sounds just as good on CD as it does on vinyl or tape, but hey, if your system is not too resolving and you are not very cognizant or familiar with high quality sound (and I don't mean something that is simply expensive and provides a lot of harsh-sounding details) then I guess there's no need for me to push for something that only a minority of those who can actually hear would appreciate.

So I guess I won't be buying into this Blu-ray garbage. I'll stick with my vinyl and tapes and save my CD's for company and non-critical background listening.

Have fun with your playstations and multi-colored iPods.

Cheers!

[frenchglen]

Don't be discouraged.


The earlier posts (1-8) got me thinking.

From a marketing point of view, maybe DVD-Audio/SACD came out too early [as much as that sounds like betraying the advancement of audio!] because really, when DVD came out and replaced VHS it was the equivalent of CD replacing cassestte tape 20 years earlier.

But now that we have "high definition" video, it's truly time that audio also goes HD. Now that people are increasingly aware of the term "high definition", an audio format can be marketed that way, and reinforced by the actual experiencing of it through BD movies in an increasing number of home theatres.

So maybe back in 2000, the benefits of DVD-A/SACD didn't click for the average consumer who didn't realise how good audio could be, cause DVD was busy catching up to CD [well kind-of, I don't like the lossy formats it uses].

But I think one problem still, is that speaker systems [especially decent ones] are just too expensive, they need to come down in price like HD monitors do. Hopefully they will with blu-ray, I really hope it becomes more mainstream, then a CD replacement format [which can be seen as NOT an alternative format to iPod, but for home listening like it has for so many years] will finally take off.

So as much as I love DVD-A now, I *hope* it will be forgotten and precede an even better format that becomes mainstream, like Laserdisc was with DVD.

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by drtweak

Sorry Sony, CD sound is only "perfect" if you don't have anything better to compare it to.

well-said!

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by Josh

There are two types of audiophiles: Those who like analog and those who like digital. The first distinction you have to make, is which category you fall under. If you an analog type of person, go purchase as many LPs and reel-to-reels as you can because digital is never going to sound like analog.

For digital, its probably not going to get much better than DVD-A and SACD even if it does come on Blu-ray. IIRC, both formats use the 24-bit masters at high frequencies, so you should be transparent to the master. I know for a fact that DVD-A uses MLP (lossless) to encode the audio, which is what TrueHD is based upon.

The best you can get is probably 96Hz/24-bit PCM, which would still fit on a DVD. If Blu-ray becomes the standard format, it may be worth studios releasing their music on Blu-ray in the same format they do now with SACDs and DVD-As, but I doubt the sound quality is going to get any better.

What iPod has done is make music ultra-portable. And in this ultra-portable environment, you only need stereo, and at lower frequencies. Until there is a mass need for high quality audio (as HDTV is generating a need for HD movies on a consumer wide level), you just aren't going to see it.

Josh, I think there's a third type of audiophile, the one who understands that analog is the "ultimate" sound, but it's too impractical and unreliable over time to be worth it. However, until everything does come out on HD audio, yes I believe analog is the way to go. So I would prefer to listen to Dark Side of the Moon in DVD-A then LP. 192KHz/24-bit has got to be pretty close. + if it's well-engineered and mastered with great equipment, it's so close to the analog waveform, and won't degrade in quality like an analog source will.

Also, blu-ray can be "higher quality" than DVD-Audio, because of this:

The Lord of the Rings DVD-A Soundtracks [discussed in the thread https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=7520] have multiple versions on the same disc [Dolby Digital Stereo, Dolby Digital Stereo Surround, Advanced Resolution Stereo, Advanced Resolution Surround]. The two advances resolution tracks are only 24-bit 48KHz.

Because the whole score is 3 hours long, they obviously couldn't fit a 96KHz track on there. I bet they did record it in 96KHz [c'mon, they'd have had to, it's LOTR], but because of space restraints, they couldn't fit the highest quality on. So for this reason, practically, blu-ray can be "higher quality". Besides, DVD-A doesn't allow for 192KHz surround in 5.1 [or higher], which is possible with BD's storage capacity. That way the old quad recordings can be captured in it's intended surround sound at 192KHz.

As for a "mass need for high quality audio", well with blu-ray movies the masses will have access to high quality audio, the tech companies and movies studios have made it a part of the package. I really do think that HD audio could grow rapidly with the adoption of blu-ray, and give birth to a new music format.


Cheers

frenchglen

[thunderhawk]

If quality speakers come down in price like HD panels did... Then I'd be happy to fully enjoy 96 KHz audio. Only if...

Mainstream folks just don't have the bang to spend up to $5000 or more on speakers, they'd rather buy a $499 all-in-one 'Home-Theatre' set.

[Filterlab]

Originally Posted by drtweak

I totally disagree that well-recorded music sounds just as good on CD as it does on vinyl or tape, but hey, if your system is not too resolving...

System not too resolving?!

Have you read my signature?

I agree that top quality vinyl is very, very good indeed, but tape? Come on! Pathetic dynamic headroom and terrible noise levels, even Nakamichi could never get it as good as CD.

Yes, the Linn LP12 is astonishing and others from the like of Clearaudio etc are wonderful, but CD should not be ignored as a legitimate music source.

Millions are sold every year and CD has long since overtaken total sales volume over vinyl.

Try listening to players from the likes of Wadia, Esoteric, Lindemann, Krell and Audio Research and you may be surprised.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by drtweak

Zinn,

NO NO NO, my man, that would be a serious marketing blunder! If they made a Blu-ray hybrid disc with a regular redbook CD soundtrack, owners of regular CD players would be content with that and wouldn't purchase a Blu-ray player...

Frank A.

Originally Posted by drtweak

What would happen is that I would get sucked into the Blu-ray player purchase through the allure of the hi-res MUSIC offerings. Then I would realize I need a newer TV with higher-res capability and an HDMI digital interface. I would also need to update my home theater receiver for the same reason. All this would spark me to start buying new music and movie titles in the Blu-ray format for the ultimate audio/video experience.

You totally contradict yourself there. I bought SACDs hybrids long before I got a SACD player. Gave me the advantage of already having the disc when the time comes and still be able to enjoy the music in the meantime. The same could be true for BDs with a redbook layer. You say so yourself, BD music would get you to buy a better HD TV.

Originally Posted by Filterlab

Thing is that the iPod has put paid to a lot of potential high quality audio, due to its 'funkiness'.

I'll go on record saying that high quality audio has been around for many many years, and in either analogue or digital form, high quality is still high quality.

Just because Blu-ray offers large data transfer rates this will still not compensate for a half deaf, convenience driven, compression happy audio engineer. Unfortunately most music is mastered by these fools these days.

However, if one is to listen to something by Supertramp, Dire Straits, Alan Parsons Project or something of that ilk, they may be surprised in that it sounds cleaner and crisper than something of the modern day.

Why? Simply because they are / were self produced musicians - the best of both worlds. Does it make any difference what Mbps transfer rate the media runs at? Course not, in fact any of these type of artists will sound amazing on redbook, but only because the original recordings are first class.

Yes, my Esocteric player has SACD capability, but I own none. Why have I not bought any? Because redbook is excellent quality as it is and the machine is engineered properly. Will the PS3 ever replace it? HAHAHAHA! Don't be ludicrous!

My thoughts exactly

Heck, I 'only' have the Denon to play my CDs now, but I get some really nice sounding music out of it through my studio monitors.

[Filterlab]

Thank you my friend.

I think my reply, as far as Dr Tweak goes, has fallen on deaf ears.

Luckily I have my intelligent Swiss acquaintance to understand logic.