Surprised there isn't a push for 96khz and above by now?

[richieb1971]

Surely some of the studios or even the artists are audiophile purists?

It's sad that technology keeps moving forwards but studios keep holding back. Going back through some of my BDA's today, I suddenly remember how much better the sound is. Sadly, I don't have too many discs because what there is, isn't my taste.

Whats the consensus among you? Is it a case of the standard resolution audio is so successful its not worth upgrading it?

[BobbyMcGee]

I'm surprised as well.

IMO, I would have thought Blu-ray audio would have found its niche with audiophiles by now and the studios would have responded to it more in earnest as well. Especially since it is such a user friendly format in comparison to Vinyl and SACD, which remain popular.

[slimdude]

There is a very small market for music blu-rays, which are in the same category as the niche DVD-A and SACDs. The success of the blu-ray format is primarily from movies, TV series and shows, not music. I've never purchased a music blu-ray yet, and I never will. My most interests in blu-rays are movies. To me watching a concert on any home video format, is not the same as if you're seeing the artist perform live in person. It's an entirely different experience!

[Scarriere]

Originally Posted by slimdude

There is a very small market for music blu-rays, which are in the same category as the niche DVD-A and SACDs. The success of the blu-ray format is from movies, TV series and shows, not music. I've never purchased a music blu-ray yet, and I never will. My most interests in blu-rays are movies. To me watching a concert on any home video format, is not the same as if you're seeing the artist perform live in person. It's an entirely different experience!

You're talking about something else.

Those Dudes are talking Blu-ray Audio.

This is my first one:

https://www.discogs.com/Nirvana-Neve...elease/5234930

Hopefully these catch on and more Albums are released.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Scarriere

You're talking about something else.

Those Dudes are talking Blu-ray Audio.

This is my first one:

https://www.discogs.com/Nirvana-Neve...elease/5234930

Hopefully these catch on and more Albums are released.

Basically DVD-Audio, SACD and Blu-ray Audio are very similar, (but different formats) because they are all recorded with high fidelity audio. Standard CDs (which is cheaper) are gradually diminishing from the market due to internet downloading, so what average consumer is willing to pay more money for blu-ray audio, when they can download unlimited music at a very low price, and sometimes it's free. The new generation and mid-age people as well (including myself) prefer to listen to MP3s through their earbuds or headphones on the go on their portable, wireless devices.

[78deluxe]

The problem is very few people have both the ears and an audio system that really reveals the difference.

Even in a blind test between 24bit 48hz (your typical Blu audio) and 24bit 96hz my ears would have a toss up on most systems and I'm a recording engineer.

[Dwayne]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

Surely some of the studios or even the artists are audiophile purists?

It's sad that technology keeps moving forwards but studios keep holding back. Going back through some of my BDA's today, I suddenly remember how much better the sound is. Sadly, I don't have too many discs because what there is, isn't my taste.

Whats the consensus among you? Is it a case of the standard resolution audio is so successful its not worth upgrading it?

I too want the BDA format to work well but it seems as if this format will fail just like DVD-A, and SACDs. The biggest problem is that there are limited selections of artist that are chosen for these formats. It really does suck that having a physical disc with 5.1 audio which sounds incredible does not appeal to most music lovers. It appears that the number of audiophiles out there is big enough to keep these formats barely alive, but with a limited number of artist that we all like. Sadly streaming music, and downloading the standard format will always prevail.

[Strilo]

Originally Posted by slimdude

The new generation and mid-age people as well (including myself) prefer to listen to MP3s through their earbuds or headphones on their portable, wireless devices.

Not trying to be a jerk here, but... if this is true for you then why are you reading and responding to an audiophile forum for High Resolution music?

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Strilo

Not trying to be a jerk here, but... if this is true for you then why are you reading and responding to an audiophile forum for High Resolution music?

The OP asked why 96khz is not mainstream marketed and I've given an answer. There is a very small percentage of consumers who've invested in high resolution music. It doesn't appeal to everyone, or people just couldn't care less about it! The vast majority of people do not need high fidelity audio to enjoy their music, and strictly do not want to sit in a sweet spot when listening to it. People listen to their music on the go when they're walking, jogging, riding, driving or just hanging out with their friends. Besides 90% of the music is not even available on DVD-A, SACD and Blu-ray audio anyway. So therefore if a person want to buy their music, they would either have to get the regular CD or download the MP3 from the internet. DVD-Audio, SACD always have been a niche market, and it will always be, so as Blu-ray-A. I know this is not what the audiophiles want to hear, but unfortunately it's the truth.

[BobbyMcGee]

Blu-ray Audio will definitely remain a niche product. Personally, I would be happy to see Blu-ray Audio reach the same level of popularity as SACD and/or vinyl. Again, I am surprised it has not caught on more with the niche consumer of high fidelity audio.

[richieb1971]

Peoples current best listening experience is probably in the car. Because effectively you are always sitting in the sweet spot because your surrounded by decent sound.

I just don't see any problem with people having a choice of 48 vs 96khz. And it can't be that hard to implement it. Especially for downloading.

[SuddenStorm]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

Peoples current best listening experience is probably in the car. Because effectively you are always sitting in the sweet spot because your surrounded by decent sound.

I just don't see any problem with people having a choice of 48 vs 96khz. And it can't be that hard to implement it. Especially for downloading.

I wouldn't say a car is the best current listening experience for most people. Lots of road noise, and most factory speakers aren't that great. A good pair of headphones is probably the best listening experience for people, short of going to a concert hall or a theater with top notch audio and amazing acoustics.

[dobyblue]

My best listening experience is in the sweet spot on my couch, no headphones come anywhere near this experience which is a full physiological experience of feeling as well as hearing and headphones just don't do 5.1 the same as a 5.1 array of speakers can.

The car is best for modern day recordings which have been slammed in the mastering stage and are vitims of the loudness wars, because my car has a crappy factory system and due to all the ambient noises of traffic, etc., critical listening can't be done...I can still enjoy the songwriting.

That's not to say I wouldn't enjoy having a car like the Hyundai Genesis or one of the ES models of Acuras that have DVD-A surround systems in them, but given my limited income I'd prefer putting all my audio/video budget into my main room.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

The problem is very few people have both the ears and an audio system that really reveals the difference.

Even in a blind test between 24bit 48hz (your typical Blu audio) and 24bit 96hz my ears would have a toss up on most systems and I'm a recording engineer.

I used to be a recording engineer and I agree! Years ago, I bought the Alessis Masterlink 9600 standalone CD recorder partially because in addition to Redbook, you could record at higher bit and sampling rates. So I excitedly made my first transfer at a high rate and I couldn't hear any difference whatsoever. On original live recordings I hear a very slight difference.

Very few people can hear beyond 22KHz and most adults living in noisy urban areas can't hear much above 17KHz and far lower if they've attended rock concerts or stand on subway platforms without hearing protection. Therefore, higher sampling rates don't really make much difference and can actually make things worse by using up amplifier power and heating up speaker cones for frequencies one can't hear anyway (and many speaker systems can't reproduce).

Higher bit rates can have an affect on certain material because they increase the voltage resolution and reduce quantization error.

But you already know all this.

And taking existing recordings (which were probably recorded 48/24) and remastering them at 96/24 isn't going to get anything more out of them because the high frequencies were probably rolled off in the mix. People who insist on these high sampling and bit rates are almost like the people who want their amplifiers to "go to 11".

[richieb1971]

People who want to buy these hi resolution mixes just want to make the most of the hardware they bought.

Blu rays are all high resolution aren't they? Why have better sound coming out of a movie than a audio track? If I'm watching a movie and the credits roll to a familiar song, it sounds much better than if I played that track through a CD player.

Becks sea of change on Blu ray audio (and I assume the other hi resolution versions) sound unbelievable. So we know whats possible, we just aren't getting that level of SQ anywhere else.

I don't understand why high res music is so expensive though. Its a con.

[almo89]

I wish Blu Ray pure audio would get more of a push since it's capable of multi channel. It's way easier to rip than SACDs. Also more people have a blu ray player than a SACD player, but yet SACDs are more more popular.

[Alister_M]

I have a couple of SACD-compatible BD players, but I have more HFPA discs than SACDs... as far as home formats goes, what labels should really be doing is offering CD/BD combo deals. Kind of like how BD/DVD combo packs are used to lure people into upgrading, if CDs came with a high-quality BD copy it might convince a few more listeners of the potential for improvement.