Let loose the Susan Boyles of the world!

Bluray content is already unlocked, now we just need to unlock the overbearing distribution model of Hifi audio. From a historical perspective, physical media such as DVD-Audio and SACD were relevant during a time of dial-up internet, but no more.

In the midst of a historical recession, the cost of BD-Audio only highlights the case for a music industry realignment based on PCM/FLAC distribution. New technical abilities now meet the business reality.

First to lay some groundwork:


There's no content security to be found within a codec, or even DRM for that matter. Dolby TrueHD and FLAC are currently decodable with open-source software, and DTS-HD will follow Summer '09. There's about a 3 week lag for new DRM methods to be cracked. Record labels can no longer offer 'strong-arm protection' to artists to protect royalty streams so an artist has no reason to pay 'protection money'.
Regarding physical media advantages, BD-Audio simply wastes disc space, and the cost/distribution structure imposes significant restrictions on 'niche' releases. The space issue will be seen with some real-world testing.
An internet 'download' only model offers quicker time to market and more flexibility for small 'indy' releases by 'in-house' labels associated with orchestras (LSO, Chicago) and garage bands.
With the advent of USB 3.0 DACs and amps, a PC offers comparable audio quality and far better playback ability from a usability standpoint. Touchscreen coverflow browsing beats old school remotes and disc shuffling.
Big Box music browsing doesn't present any sort of visceral thrill when it comes to audio shopping. In contrast, the internet offers infinite creative promise and far better 'try before you buy' opportunities.


Given the cost of Bluray pressing and distribution, as well as the immature Bluray player market, I would not be surprised at all to see mainstream distribution via direct download using something like lossless PCM with FLAC compression. The authoring tools already exist, and PCM/FLAC actually yields a slightly smaller file size than DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD - not that Dolby/DTS couldn't be used for internet distribution either.

As regarding the relevancy of 25-50 Gbyte Bluray physical media, breakdown of file sizes is perhaps surprising. For file size comparison tests, I used Exact Audio Copy 3 to create 192/24 5.1 files based on the Trondheim Solistene Divertimenti Bluray:


PCM encoded to FLAC: 6,482,369 KBytes
Dolby TrueHD FFMpeg decoded and re-encoded to FLAC: 6,482,367 KBytes
DTS-MA Arcsoft decoded & re-encoded to FLAC: 6,482,355 KBytes
'Ripped' (demuxed) DTS-MA directly (no FLAC): 6,561,800 KBytes
'Ripped' (demuxed) Dolby-TrueHD directly (no FLAC): 6,951,385 KBytes


Note that otput FLAC files range from 100-500 Mbytes smaller than the 'native' DTS-MA and Dolby-TrueHD files. Audio information doesn't seem to be lost as all the FLAC files (regardless of lossless source coding) are within 14 KBytes of each other. What's DTS and Dolby doing with all those extra bits? It seems that's the overhead associated with the lossy 5.1 and Stereo channel encoding.

When it comes to physical media advantages, the math is conclusive: Bluray is not needed for Hifi audio distribution. 5.1 192/24 yields 6 GByte files, and that not only fits on a dual-layer DVD but is certainly also compatible with broadband internet distribution.

So why don't we have internet delivery of Hifi audio? Well, we do. There are limited releases of FLAC material via specialty websites, and there's also the thriving piracy scene. In my opinion, artists can best mitigate the latter by embracing the former.

Give consumers a chance to buy directly over the internet and we will get a better product, the artists gets more $, and there's far less energy intensive packaging and distribution involved. How long can Sony et al fight that reality?

The creative revolution is at hand. PCM/FLAC is at parity when it comes to file size and quality and it offers far superior distribution via internet. Video may be another story, but there's simply no business case for BD-Audio without significant arm-twisting of artists. In fact, given the viability of FLAC/internet distribution, artists are now in a position to win arm-wrestling matches with record labels. They need only ignore BD-Audio and embrace internet distribution to win this fight.

Try as they might, Sony et al will ultimately lose in their effort to control content by controlling the physical medium. In the future, it will be just you and your (slightly obsessive) relationship with favorite artists...no record label guardian or chaperone required!

On another note altogether, perhaps the greatest unrealized gain in audio comes by increasing the number of speakers - and BD-Audio locks in 7.1 as the max speaker count. Perhaps 5 years from now, audiophiles will be listening to 14.2 sound systems with 'reference' setups. The PC would handle these changes with ease with multiple USB 3.0 amps and speakers, and on the artist's side such sound could be enabled by simply adding more mics and a '14.2 download' link.

To illustrate the flexibility of the download/PC model, note that the Norwegian site (2L) (http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html) actually allows download of 5.1 files at 382/24! How's that for audio nirvana?

In summary, it's far easier to make advances by not locking into a hardware spec that limits innovation in hardware and content creation. BD-Audio enables nothing and disables much.

Lest my voice not be so convincing, perhaps the reader remembers that the top music download site (Apple) also has firmly rejected the Bluray bandwagon. Considering Apple's presence in Music (garageband, etc), the creative arts (Job's Pixnar days), and having a 'premium' brand, it certainly stands to reason that Apple is retaining it's hardware independence for good reason.

I would like to be able to download hi res multichannel content from the web. I had a problem with Blu Ray because it was a Sony propritary system. When Sony is involved both the playsers and the media are priced high at the outset and still are. They are just going to kill the format. Also the lack of fair use recording for backup and personal use really bothers me. I have a lot of DVD-A's that would be so costly to replace I'm almost afraid to play them!

Also it seems the only Hi res that's goingto Blu Ray are live concerts and not studio efforts so they have something to show. Better sound and mixes on the whole are from studio efforts and not live concerts, but there's nothing to show with it.

Bottom line is I would love to see the artists dump the big corporations and provide their work directly to the consumer. I'd like to see alot more expirimentation with multichannel from the artists as well and more multichannel content.

I'm waiting!

Bluray content is already unlocked,


Really???

It's long been my conviction that Hollywood went with Blu-ray due to it having great copy protection.

And where is the commercial software, that you can easily buy, that will permit ripping of hi-rez audio from a BD disc?

now we just need to unlock the overbearing distribution model of Hifi audio. From a historical perspective, physical media such as DVD-Audio and SACD were relevant during a time of dial-up internet, but no more.

In the midst of a historical recession, the cost of BD-Audio only highlights the case for a music industry realignment based on PCM/FLAC distribution. New technical abilities now meet the business reality.

First to lay some groundwork:


There's no content security to be found within a codec, or even DRM for that matter. Dolby TrueHD and FLAC are currently decodable with open-source software, and DTS-HD will follow Summer '09. There's about a 3 week lag for new DRM methods to be cracked. Record labels can no longer offer 'strong-arm protection' to artists to protect royalty streams so an artist has no reason to pay 'protection money'.
Regarding physical media advantages, BD-Audio simply wastes disc space, and the cost/distribution structure imposes significant restrictions on 'niche' releases. The space issue will be seen with some real-world testing.
An internet 'download' only model offers quicker time to market and more flexibility for small 'indy' releases by 'in-house' labels associated with orchestras (LSO, Chicago) and garage bands.
With the advent of USB 3.0 DACs and amps, a PC offers comparable audio quality and far better playback ability from a usability standpoint. Touchscreen coverflow browsing beats old school remotes and disc shuffling.
Big Box music browsing doesn't present any sort of visceral thrill when it comes to audio shopping. In contrast, the internet offers infinite creative promise and far better 'try before you buy' opportunities.


Given the cost of Bluray pressing and distribution, as well as the immature Bluray player market, I would not be surprised at all to see mainstream distribution via direct download using something like lossless PCM with FLAC compression. The authoring tools already exist, and PCM/FLAC actually yields a slightly smaller file size than DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD - not that Dolby/DTS couldn't be used for internet distribution either.

As regarding the relevancy of 25-50 Gbyte Bluray physical media, breakdown of file sizes is perhaps surprising. For file size comparison tests, I used Exact Audio Copy 3 to create 192/24 5.1 files based on the Trondheim Solistene Divertimenti Bluray:


PCM encoded to FLAC: 6,482,369 KBytes
Dolby TrueHD FFMpeg decoded and re-encoded to FLAC: 6,482,367 KBytes
DTS-MA Arcsoft decoded & re-encoded to FLAC: 6,482,355 KBytes
'Ripped' (demuxed) DTS-MA directly (no FLAC): 6,561,800 KBytes
'Ripped' (demuxed) Dolby-TrueHD directly (no FLAC): 6,951,385 KBytes


Note that otput FLAC files range from 100-500 Mbytes smaller than the 'native' DTS-MA and Dolby-TrueHD files. Audio information doesn't seem to be lost as all the FLAC files (regardless of lossless source coding) are within 14 KBytes of each other. What's DTS and Dolby doing with all those extra bits? It seems that's the overhead associated with the lossy 5.1 and Stereo channel encoding.

When it comes to physical media advantages, the math is conclusive: Bluray is not needed for Hifi audio distribution. 5.1 192/24 yields 6 GByte files, and that not only fits on a dual-layer DVD but is certainly also compatible with broadband internet distribution.

So why don't we have internet delivery of Hifi audio?


Interesting stuff (above).

Well, we do. There are limited releases of FLAC material via specialty websites,


Kindly post at least 2 site/cite on MC (5.1) coded FLAC audio files. Or another 5.1 audio format, if you can't find 5.1 FLAC.

and there's also the thriving piracy scene. In my opinion, artists can best mitigate the latter by embracing the former.

Give consumers a chance to buy directly over the internet and we will get a better product, the artists gets more $, and there's far less energy intensive packaging and distribution involved. How long can Sony et al fight that reality?

The creative revolution is at hand. PCM/FLAC is at parity when it comes to file size and quality and it offers far superior distribution via internet. Video may be another story, but there's simply no business case for BD-Audio without significant arm-twisting of artists. In fact, given the viability of FLAC/internet distribution, artists are now in a position to win arm-wrestling matches with record labels. They need only ignore BD-Audio and embrace internet distribution to win this fight.

Try as they might, Sony et al will ultimately lose in their effort to control content by controlling the physical medium. In the future, it will be just you and your (slightly obsessive) relationship with favorite artists...no record label guardian or chaperone required!


You might find this recent writeup on discs and online downloads of interest: "Blu-ray Sales Increase by 105%" http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-news/blu-ray-software-news/blu-ray-sales-increase-by-105.html

IMO, the title is misleading.

The key sentence/data is: "Breaking this number down, the study finds that Blu-Ray sales increased 105%, DVDs dropped 14%, and downloads rose 19% in the first quarter of 2009, totaling $230 million, $2.89 billion, and $487 million respectively."

I note that "downloads" totaled more than twice that of Blu-Ray discs.

I can't help but wonder what/how details about the "downloads"?

e.g. what percent was movies, and what percent was music?

My hunch is that the music downloads was all 2 channel, or no less than 99.0%

Cheers

Really???

It's long been my conviction that Hollywood went with Blu-ray due to it having great copy protection.

And where is the commercial software, that you can easily buy, that will permit ripping of hi-rez audio from a BD disc?


AnyDVD HD (http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvdhd.html) allows ripping of the decrypted Bluray file structure to the hard disk drive. Thereafter, Exact Audio Copy allows demuxing/encoding/etc of the audio and video tracks.

Kindly post at least 2 site/cite on MC (5.1) coded FLAC audio files. Or another 5.1 audio format, if you can't find 5.1 FLAC.
http://www.boomkat.com/labels/?id=3422&format=flac_release (http://www.boomkat.com/labels/?id=3422&format=flac_release)

http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html (http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html)



Big MP3 sites that may be changing...note that Eclassical's listener poll indicates that 10% of users already listen to MP3's through a Hifi system
http://www.classicsonline.com/category/classical_non_sacred.aspx?all=0&tab=0


http://www.eclassical.com/eclassic/eclassical?page=small_index&choiceNr=5 (http://www.eclassical.com/eclassic/eclassical?page=small_index&choiceNr=5)


There's a few others on my other computer bookmark list...

I note that "downloads" totaled more than twice that of Blu-Ray discs.

I can't help but wonder what/how details about the "downloads"?

e.g. what percent was movies, and what percent was music?

My hunch is that the music downloads was all 2 channel, or no less than 99.0%

Agreed...MP3 2 channel is the norm. However, with surround sound systems gaining in popularity, I think the seas are shifting.

On another note altogether, perhaps the greatest unrealized gain in audio comes by increasing the number of speakers - and BD-Audio locks in 7.1 as the max speaker count. Perhaps 5 years from now, audiophiles will be listening to 14.2 sound systems with 'reference' setups. The PC would handle these changes with ease with multiple USB 3.0 amps and speakers, and on the artist's side such sound could be enabled by simply adding more mics and a '14.2 download' link.

To illustrate the flexibility of the download/PC model, note that the above-linkied Norwegian site (2L) actually allows download of 5.1 files at 382/24! How's that for audio nirvana?

In summary, it's far easier to make advances by not locking into a hardware spec that limits innovation in hardware and content creation. BD-Audio enables nothing and disables much.

knowing none of the facts supporting it I find the op's argument compelling. seems like there would be some requisite high end device that would provide "reference retreival" of downloaded content. a whole new generation of audio receiver/processors would be instantly born...

I note that "downloads" totaled more than twice that of Blu-Ray discs.

I can't help but wonder what/how details about the "downloads"?

e.g. what percent was movies, and what percent was music?

My hunch is that the music downloads was all 2 channel, or no less than 99.0%

Agreed...MP3 2 channel is the norm. However, with surround sound systems gaining in popularity, I think the seas are shifting.

On another note altogether, perhaps the greatest unrealized gain in audio comes by increasing the number of speakers - and BD-Audio locks in 7.1 as the max speaker count. Perhaps 5 years from now, audiophiles will be listening to 14.2 sound systems with 'reference' setups.


You need to get real; meaning that those with a speaker setup that exceeds 7 (fronts, center, surrounds/rears) is likely well under 1% of people with a home theater/music setup.

The PC would handle these changes with ease with multiple USB 3.0 amps and speakers, and on the artist's side such sound could be enabled by simply adding more mics and a '14.2 download' link.


The one other thread that I'm currently following on this, suggests strongly that USB is not the way to go; try either digital coax (1st) or digital TosLink (2nd).

To illustrate the flexibility of the download/PC model, note that the above-linkied Norwegian site (2L) actually allows download of 5.1 files at 382/24! How's that for audio nirvana?

In summary, it's far easier to make advances by not locking into a hardware spec that limits innovation in hardware and content creation. BD-Audio enables nothing and disables much.


Thank you for the response and the 5.1 links. I'll check it out, but may or may not do anything for now. Meaning that I'm so far still making up my mind about the worth of decent 5.1 SACD discs, of which I have a lot of already, and still a growing collection at very reasonable prices (i.e. less than $20/disc).

Cheers

You need to get real; meaning that those with a speaker setup that exceeds 7 (fronts, center, surrounds/rears) is likely well under 1% of people with a home theater/music setup.

Bluray needs to get real. Ultra-high quality audio is only relevant for systems having awesome analogue stages. However, nearly all people's 5.1/7.1 setups are not good enough to utilize lossless audio. As such, Bluray is akin to strapping a Pinto transmission to a Ferrari engine: it's an unnecessary expense that can never be utilized or enjoyed.

The 1% of people having systems that could take advantage of Bluray audio (ie awesome amp/speakers) are exactly the audience that would feel the effects of BD-Audio 7.1 limitations. That 1% market will quite likely have moved beyond 7.1 Audio within 3-4 years.


The one other thread that I'm currently following on this, suggests strongly that USB is not the way to go; try either digital coax (1st) or digital TosLink (2nd).

Considering that my day job is partially involved with creation of a USB 3.0 device, my perspective is that TOSLINK and Coax are outdated and USB 3.0 is just what the audiophile ordered.

USB 2.0 is crippled largely due to the design and lack of Class 2 Audio support. However, USB 3.0 is quite similar to PCIe x1 and has great latency, bandwidth, and QOS provisioning. Moreso, given the optical coupling, EMI from the PC is eliminated. OS and chipset support will be here in 1H 2010, just in time to make the PC the audiophile's Receiver platform.

I can't help but think that SACD is throwing good money after bad. That format is most decidedly dead, and BD-Audio will soon follow.

Bluray needs to get real.


I agree, but from what I've seen so far, I won't be holding my breath on Blu-ray player/disc prices coming down in any significant way anytime soon if ever.

Ultra-high quality audio is only relevant for systems having awesome analogue stages. However, nearly all people's 5.1/7.1 setups are not good enough to utilize lossless audio. As such, Bluray is akin to strapping a Pinto transmission to a Ferrari engine: it's an unnecessary expense that can never be utilized or enjoyed.


FWIW, I like the Pinto/Ferrari comparison/mix. :)

The 1% of people having systems that could take advantage of Bluray audio (ie awesome amp/speakers) are exactly the audience that would feel the effects of BD-Audio 7.1 limitations. That 1% market will quite likely have moved beyond 7.1 Audio within 3-4 years.


Maybe, but then again maybe not.

Considering that my day job is partially involved with creation of a USB 3.0 device, my perspective is that TOSLINK and Coax are outdated and USB 3.0 is just what the audiophile ordered.

USB 2.0 is crippled largely due to the design and lack of Class 2 Audio support. However, USB 3.0 is quite similar to PCIe x1 and has great latency, bandwidth, and QOS provisioning. Moreso, given the optical coupling, EMI from the PC is eliminated. OS and chipset support will be here in 1H 2010, just in time to make the PC the audiophile's Receiver platform.


In the "Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)" forum, check out the short thread " Entering the world of high quality digital audio..." at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1142143

I can't help but think that SACD is throwing good money after bad. That format is most decidedly dead, and BD-Audio will soon follow.


IMO, current SACD players and discs are in fact the best hi-rez audio deal at this time.

For one thing, I've gotten most of my 300 SACD discs (new or used, usually hybrid discs) for $11 or less per disc.

For another, I got my most recent universal player (a Denon 1940) for under $90 (including shipping). See: " Dedicated sacd player" http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1127988

Cheers

I agree, but from what I've seen so far, I won't be holding my breath on Blu-ray player/disc prices coming down in any significant way anytime soon if ever.

Cost and crippled functionality are the reasons I think Bluray is a lost cause from an audio standpoint, and perhaps even video. In both Audio and Video, Bluray loses the value argument, as well as the 'futureproofing' or 'gimme the absolute best' contests.

Now I'll really go out on a limb...

If Audio artists embrace the FLAC/Net/PC model, and if Red camera is able to push forward 3K Net video delivery (their demonstration of 3k wavelet-based video @ 10 Mbits/sec video wowed videophiles), then Sony is likely doomed (I mean the whole company). Time to spin off the profitable parts (PC, movie studio) and bankrupt the Bluray

The Creative A/V Arts industry is no longer solely composed of big movie/music studios pushing big projects and big releases. Unlocked technology (Net/PC/Red Cameras) will unlock the creative impulses of artists, to the benefit of listeners, viewers, and the environment at large. It all begs the question: Why should talented artists and dedicated fans carry the deadwood of hardware manufacturers, studio executives, big-box copycats, and their shareholders?

Let's replace the term 'starving artist' with 'starving executive'. Let fans 'discover' talent rather than marketing departments and agents.


In the "Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)" forum, check out the short thread " Entering the world of high quality digital audio..." at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1142143

Digital Feedback Amplifier

DFA will render moot the need for a DAC and most other audiophile 'magic'. IMO, the current state of audiophile gear has completely lost any link between quality and cost. Above the well-spent $500 amp level, virtually all listeners will only hear subjective differences in quality (ie there will be no measurable improvement in double-blind studies). IMO, 7.1 speakers are an area that can see benefit by spending $1-2k, but the fixation on DACs, Receivers, Amps (not to mention cables and power cords) is not justified beyond $500 total for about 99.9% of listeners.

Considering that a $500 2010-release desktop HTPC with USB 3.0 DFA modules will provide decoding and playback of all formats (SACD excluded), it's hard to see why dedicated disc-playback hardware makes sense. The Oppo BDP-83 looks to be more realistically priced, but that still locks you a cabinet full of inefficient and user-unfriendly AV gear - though it's ironic that even Oppo will support UPNP media playback from a server (though they still lag HDI in FLAC support).


IMO, current SACD players and discs are in fact the best hi-rez audio deal at this time.
Cheers
I would vote for DVD-A if only for the fact that you can rip DVD-A to a PC with relative ease. Thus, your selection of media today does not determine your playback method in the future.

Of course, if you can't find the right stuff on DVD-A...carpe SACD. :)

P.S. I'm all for supporting the Arts, especially considering that several of my extended family members and friends are professional musicians. In fact, perhaps because of my exposure to their perspective, I just don't feel the studio drones to be deserving of their 80% of the take.