If we like it or not the recording industry is about profit.

Now that Blu_ray audio has come out, will we see any
re-issues on Blu-Ray

What I wonder is what is the cost to
Convert a Big-time Album such as :
Who's Next
Led Zep Runes
Pink Floyd Wishing you were here
into Blu-ray Audio..

You would think, or hope that there is a market.
Does anyone know, what would it take
sales wise to make this profitable and
attractive to record companies sitting
with old catalogs of music

Bob

If we like it or not the recording industry is about profit.

Now that Blu_ray audio has come out, will we see any
re-issues on Blu-Ray

What I wonder is what is the cost to
Convert a Big-time Album such as :
Who's Next
Led Zep Runes
Pink Floyd Wishing you were here
into Blu-ray Audio..

You would think, or hope that there is a market.
Does anyone know, what would it take
sales wise to make this profitable and
attractive to record companies sitting
with old catalogs of music

Bob

Welcome to my world. This is what we discuss every day for an hour, getting a new startup company off the ground, and our lifeblood depends on making 5.1 audio (films AND music) palatable for everyone - not just audiophiles.

Record companies are pretty much dependent on Apple now for sales, using platforms like American Idol and other media licensing opportunities. Making their back-catalog available in 5.1 is difficult: many 4, 8, 16, and 24-track tapes no longer exist. Penteo stands ready to separate out all the musicians and singers from the stereo masters, but convincing the record companies that enough people are interested in it is not really realistic.

With the Internet, very few people listen to music without video. It's just not a common thing to do these days, because most music listening is done with iPods, or else in automobiles.

It's an odd condition that nearly all new sound systems for the home are 5.1 capable, but we have no real stream for the distribution of 5.1 music.

Like I said, welcome to my world.

-John

John ,

Your audio world sounds challenging..
I see the Ipod/ Car mobile world
everyday with my teenagers..
They think it's strange when I go into
my media room and just listen to music..

I still wonder if we have some classic album
from the 60's or beyond where sales are flat,
wouldn't it make sense to re-issue on a hi-rez
format to create a new market, and sales,,

we certainly see this with all the re-mastered
cd's coming out like the Beatles catalog in
September

Bob

John ,

Your audio world sounds challenging..
I see the Ipod/ Car mobile world
everyday with my teenagers..
They think it's strange when I go into
my media room and just listen to music..

Popular music for young people is pretty much just a background. One of the best examples is when two people share a single iPod by putting one earbud in each person's ears. Telling them that they're only hearing half the sounds, music, whatever, is pointless. True stereo separation isn't even being used that much on modern recordings because of such possibilities; most pop music today is pretty much mono with stereo echo -- and many sounds duplicated in the left and right as stacks.

Of course most music these days is created on workstations as opposed to mix consoles. Sometimes mix consoles are being used as giant "mouses" to control the workstation, but that doesn't mean that pan-pots really get used much for fear that something critical to the music will get lost if one channel or the other isn't being heard.

Now to move that into a 5.1 Blu Ray world -- is truly a challenge -- when you're trying to attract mainstream dollars. it's more likely that eventually the original multitracks will be digitized as files and distributed so that home listener hobbyists can do their own mixes, as they are doing now with video games like Guitar Hero.

I'd be shocked if there were anything but a limited trickle of hi-rez audio on bluray. The industry has gone down this path twice before with nothing to show for it either time - they're not likely to do it a third time. Certainly we will see a good selection of concerts on bluray (many with lossless tracks) but audio only: I don't think so. There is actually a good editorial at the start of the most recent issue of Stereophile that offers a good perspective on why 5.1 audio has failed.

I think the only realistic hope for hi-rez surround sound is via streaming/download. It's probably the long-term future for all audio, but at least in the near future, avoiding the manufacturing and distribution costs of physical media might make hi-rez surround profitable as a download even given the relatively small customer base. Fingers crossed!

What a sad thread :(

I guess the trick is to find a way to market to the enthusiasts and price accordingly to profit. Not knowing what that margin would need to be in order to make money I do know I would pay $5-$10 per song in a itunes type download if the songs were lossless 5.1 surround.

Heck there are some songs I would pay $20 for if it was lossless 5.1

it's not just music...mp3s became mainstream it seems to me around the time DVDA and SACD were trying to take off, but now i feel we're having the same problem in the video world where things like MKV (or compressed streaming video) are going to wipe out Bluray :mad:

It seems the masses care way more about portability and collecting large masses of music/video but not very much about quality. Makes me worried and depressed about the industry.

I remember when mp3 really was catching on people swore they couldn't hear the difference between 128mbps mp3's and CD, now many of them concede but say 192 or 256 is "good enough". I don't know when or if we're going to see mainstream adoption of HD Music unless bluray completely takes over the DVD market and they can spit out bluray music discs for the same or less than a CD...and even then we still have to worry if the whole market goes to downloads/direct distribution. I think in some ways there is more hope in some sort of HD FLAC if companies actually embrace music downloads instead of painfully agree to that world.

I think if they dont stop dropping retail bluray discs the format will not catch on. I know one or two people with Bluray players (that isnt a PS3). The players are reasonable but most stores sell the movies for like $25. I'd rather pay $25 for a music disc than a movie, if you think about it the higher price for movies doesn't really make sense since the replay value of a movie is no where near that of music (unless its a music video). At least thats my opinion.

it's not just music...mp3s became mainstream it seems to me around the time DVDA and SACD were trying to take off, but now i feel we're having the same problem in the video world where things like MKV (or compressed streaming video) are going to wipe out Bluray :mad:

It seems the masses care way more about portability and collecting large masses of music/video but not very much about quality. Makes me worried and depressed about the industry.

Although I'd certainly agree with you about the appeal of portability for many of todays music buyers, I don't think it's as true for movies. I have also long been of the opinion that one of the primary reasons SACD and DVD-A failed as mass-market formats is that most people were unable to hear a difference. I wouldn't worry too much about Bluray getting replaced anytime soon as its benefits are pretty obvious on all but the smallest HD displays.

I think if they dont stop dropping retail bluray discs the format will not catch on. I know one or two people with Bluray players (that isnt a PS3). The players are reasonable but most stores sell the movies for like $25. I'd rather pay $25 for a music disc than a movie, if you think about it the higher price for movies doesn't really make sense since the replay value of a movie is no where near that of music (unless its a music video). At least thats my opinion.

No question the price of BD movies has to come down, and I think they will. Remember, we are still just at the point where BD is moving from early-adoption to mass-market penetration - for the same period for DVD, disc prices fell quite dramaically. My guess is that most BD discs will end up in the $20 range, about a $5 premium to DVD.

If we like it or not the recording industry is about profit.

Now that Blu_ray audio has come out, will we see any
re-issues on Blu-Ray

What I wonder is what is the cost to
Convert a Big-time Album such as :
Who's Next
Led Zep Runes
Pink Floyd Wishing you were here
into Blu-ray Audio..

You would think, or hope that there is a market.
Does anyone know, what would it take
sales wise to make this profitable and
attractive to record companies sitting
with old catalogs of music

Bob

Most of the albums you list are recorded on mediums that don't tax standard CD's much (if at all). There is no reason to re-release them as Blu-Ray with TrueHD or DTSMA tracks since you aren't getting anything more than what is on the original master tapes. Zep IV was envisioned as a two-track stereo album, designed to work with the limitations of the equipment available at the time. That's what we have. A 7.1 mix with re-recorded samples and such is not Zep IV, but something else. Something quite similar to Zep IV, but not the same thing.

As far as new music goes, some artists record with the intent to make HD multichannel mixes (Steven Wilson comes to mind). For them, Blu-Ray might make sense. It will probably exceed DVDA's install base, so it could become the standard choice for artists who want a HD 5.1 (or 7.1) format.

Also, the trend I'm seeing is having a mass-market version (CD or MP3 download) and a premium version with MP3 download with receipt. What that premium version is depends on the artist. For Opeth it is a 5.1 DTS 96/24 on regular DVD-V. For Steven Wilson it is DVDA. Guns and Roses picked Vinyl (probably because of the larger artwork and natural collectibility). Trent Reznor made 96/24 uncompressed files available for his latest album, and you could buy a very collectible boxed set of vinyl and artwork to go with it (kitchen sink, if you will). Now more than ever, the market accepts a premium/audiophile version to go along with iTunes and CD distribution.

For people specializing in hifi recording (whether multichannel+digital like iTrax or analog stereo minimalists like Mapleshade), since they are recording and producing their own music, they will go with whatever format works for them. Blu-Ray is certainly a contender. It has some technical superiority to DVDA. Some combination of the original mastering technology, number of channels, codec licensing, physical media cost, and video extras will determine the choice.

One thing that keeps getting blurred. Surround music and hi-rez music are not the same thing. Surround music can be multichannel AAC or mp3Surround (they exist), WMA or even plain AC3. Right now every broadcast digital TV channel could offer a dozen AC-3 surround music-only streams, if they thought consumers would be interested. We hope they are.

Hi-Rez music, on the other hand, involves consumer formats that often exceed the capabilities of the source recordings. Almost every motion picture mixed in the last decade has been mixed on the stage at 48/24, and that goes for a lot of the music, too. Having a 96/24 copy unnecessarily is forcing you to listen to a sample-rate converted copy, when a 48/24 would have been a true clone of the master mix. It's the double-spaced equivalent of a document that was written single-spaced; you're just wasting paper.

The master mix of a major motion picture climax song was recently handed to me on a flash drive at 44.1/16.
That was the original source master.

We can easily do light compression that makes waveforms that absolutely, losslessly, match the original waveforms. The bits don't necessarily match, but the waveforms do, so much so that they cancel out the original perfectly (to absolute silence) when put up against the original. As long as you're listening to first-generation, it's audibly indistinguishable from the master. No "listening test" can argue with the dead silence of total signal cancellation when the waveforms negate each other.

Of course on Blu-Ray that could mean "days" of surround music on one disc. Unfortunately surround music formats languished in part because there was so much format confusion, with many companies vying for the patent rights that DVD-A and SACD provided. AC3 files on DVD-V's would have played just fine on every DVD player ever made (nobody said that DVD-Vs HAVE to have video), and would downmix just fine back to stereo. They could have (and still can) accomodate several hours of 5.1 surround per disc. Audio-only DVD-Vs could have easily accomodated 640kb DD. Same is true for DTS-CDs at 1,411.2kb, though there is not as much universal compatibility.

Unfortunately the clamor for patent rights for new formats killed the pig.

Now Blu-Ray, another new format patent attraction, offers tremendous capacity, admittedly with gorgeous video, but for audio, no backward compatibility.

One thing that keeps getting blurred. Surround music and hi-rez music are not the same thing. Surround music can be multichannel AAC or mp3Surround (they exist), WMA or even plain AC3. Right now every broadcast digital TV channel could offer a dozen AC-3 surround music-only streams, if they thought consumers would be interested. We hope they are.

Hi-Rez music, on the other hand, involves consumer formats that often exceed the capabilities of the source recordings. Almost every motion picture mixed in the last decade has been mixed on the stage at 48/24, and that goes for a lot of the music, too. Having a 96/24 copy unnecessarily is forcing you to listen to a sample-rate converted copy, when a 48/24 would have been a true clone of the master mix. It's the double-spaced equivalent of a document that was written single-spaced; you're just wasting paper.

The master mix of a major motion picture climax song was recently handed to me on a flash drive at 44.1/16.
That was the original source master.

We can easily do light compression that makes waveforms that absolutely, losslessly, match the original waveforms. The bits don't necessarily match, but the waveforms do, so much so that they cancel out the original perfectly (to absolute silence) when put up against the original. As long as you're listening to first-generation, it's audibly indistinguishable from the master. No "listening test" can argue with the dead silence of total signal cancellation when the waveforms negate each other.

Of course on Blu-Ray that could mean "days" of surround music on one disc. Unfortunately surround music formats languished in part because there was so much format confusion, with many companies vying for the patent rights that DVD-A and SACD provided. AC3 files on DVD-V's would have played just fine on every DVD player ever made (nobody said that DVD-Vs HAVE to have video), and would downmix just fine back to stereo. They could have (and still can) accomodate several hours of 5.1 surround per disc. Audio-only DVD-Vs could have easily accomodated 640kb DD. Same is true for DTS-CDs at 1,411.2kb, though there is not as much universal compatibility.

Unfortunately the clamor for patent rights for new formats killed the pig.

Now Blu-Ray, another new format patent attraction, offers tremendous capacity, admittedly with gorgeous video, but for audio, no backward compatibility.

Well, you make some good points, certainly. If your source material is CD-quality resolution, then there is no audio resolution benefit to Blu-ray. If you have 44.1/16 masters and wanted to do a 5.1 mix, it might be better to do a DTS-CD or a 5.1 mix on regular DVD-Video. You don't lose much and get to include artwork and perhaps extra videos.

But a lot of music is now being recorded in much higher resolution than what CD offers. I have a friend who is setting up a home studio to record some blues and rock. The audio interface defaults to 96/24 (and goes to 192/24). He would have to explicitly turn down the audio resolution to make it CD-quality. From what I understand, this is the standard. Even home studios can capture 96/24 if the artist wishes to do so. Storage being so cheap, there is no reason not to.

So, why would someone choose Blu-ray over DVD-Audio or SACD?

1. Blu-ray players are becoming more and more commonplace while DVD-A and SACD seem to have plateaued. There is a greater likelihood of someone having their Blu-ray player properly setup with the receiver (HDMI, receiver DAC doing the TrueHD/DTS-MA decoding, etc...). This is especially true of SACD 5.1. The only time I've seen SACD 5.1 decoding over HDMI (true DSD, not converted to PCM) was in a showroom. I have the SACD player hooked up to the receiver by 6 RCA analog ports and every one I personally know does the same thing with their SACD player if they have one.

2. HD video along with the audio. As of now, Blu-ray is the only viable format that does this. HD-DVD does, but I don't think any new players are coming out for that format. For music-only it might not matter. For concert/live albums or compilations it makes a big difference.

3. Audiophile recording - DVD-Audio can't do more than 96/24 with 5.1 channels. If, for whatever reason, you wanted to release music on a physical medium in 192/24 with 5.1 channels, Blu-Ray is your only choice.

4. Blu-ray can do downloadable content. Niel Young offers his Blu-ray customers new material from his archives as it is discovered and remastered - all done by the standalone player. It is a lot more secure than download links, and is fully integrated into his product. A nice value-add.


Anyway, if an artist wants to make a 5.1 mix of his/her music, then more power to them. Depending on the resolution of the source recordings, the amount/quality of the video, and the value-adds, Blu-ray could be the best one for that particular project. Then again, something else might be better. I think it is undeniable that the current music trend is to release a standard (lossy/MP3/CD) version, and a premium version (LP/DVD-A/SACD/DVD-V) with a free MP3 download for the iPod. The cost of producing the premium version is quite small, and every band wants to encourage its dedicated fans, or even turn a regular fan into a dedicated fan with a beautifully produced premium edition.

So, why would someone choose Blu-ray over DVD-Audio or SACD?


Not a single reason that I can see.

Blu-ray will die a slow death similar to what happened with Beta.

The "ta-da's" about the "death" of SACD and even DVD-Audio, are clearly premature.

IMHO those who spend the extra money to buy Blu-ray, are putting it down a rat hole.

Cheers

Not a single reason that I can see.

Blu-ray will die a slow death similar to what happened with Beta.

The "ta-da's" about the "death" of SACD and even DVD-Audio, are clearly premature.

IMHO those who spend the extra money to buy Blu-ray, are putting it down a rat hole.

Cheers

The "someone" in this case is the artist. So, if my particular project benefits from 7.1 hi-res sound, then Blu-ray is the only game in town. Now, I have no idea what project would benefit from so many channels, but that's the reason I'm not a recording artist/engineer. :D

I think one of the conclusions from all this is that it is difficult to tell which formats are going to be around for a long time and which ones are going to vanish. CD as a lowest-common-denominator format will be around for a very long time. It is ultra-cheap to produce, it's sound quality has no serious drawbacks except on very high-quality equipment, etc... Vinyl will remain as a collectible format as well as for DJ work. It is, for consumers, the last analog format standing. As such it will remain healthy. All the others - who knows? I just follow the releases I want to hear, so that means I can play Vinyl, CD, SACD, and DVD-A/V. When there is enough music released on Blu-ray, then I'll jump on board. It's up to the artists and labels to determine when that happens. They seem to be in no hurry.

It's EASY to say "SACD is dead", "DVD-A is dead", "Blu-Ray will die". So, why bother? We're different. We login here. We read the "surround" section of this forum. We're the minority!

**WE MUST STAY POSTITIVE**

Wait and see. There's more at the door! :D

Not a single reason that I can see.

Blu-ray will die a slow death similar to what happened with Beta.

The "ta-da's" about the "death" of SACD and even DVD-Audio, are clearly premature.

IMHO those who spend the extra money to buy Blu-ray, are putting it down a rat hole.

Cheers


The "someone" in this case is the artist. So, if my particular project benefits from 7.1 hi-res sound, then Blu-ray is the only game in town. Now, I have no idea what project would benefit from so many channels, but that's the reason I'm not a recording artist/engineer. :D

I think one of the conclusions from all this is that it is difficult to tell which formats are going to be around for a long time and which ones are going to vanish.


Agreed.

CD as a lowest-common-denominator format will be around for a very long time.


Also agreed.

It is ultra-cheap to produce, it's sound quality has no serious drawbacks except on very high-quality equipment, etc...


JVC XRCD (top quality CD; XRCD2 etc.) is IMO worth a listen. Expensive, but still worth a listen.

Try http://www.xrcd.com/

Vinyl will remain as a collectible format as well as for DJ work. It is, for consumers, the last analog format standing. As such it will remain healthy. All the others - who knows? I just follow the releases I want to hear, so that means I can play Vinyl, CD, SACD, and DVD-A/V. When there is enough music released on Blu-ray, then I'll jump on board. It's up to the artists and labels to determine when that happens. They seem to be in no hurry.


The big disc players (Denon e.g.) seem to be lining up behind Blu-ray.

Excellent upconverting DVD movie players make this seem (to me) like a very questionable move.

Beta was better but VHS won. AFAICT DVD is good enough, not unlike VHS roughly a decade ago.

Cheers

If the AACS license fee is mandatory and the setup fee is as high for music blu ray's as for video the record industry will never adopt blu ry on a wide scale because the cost is too high.

I'd be shocked if there were anything but a limited trickle of hi-rez audio on bluray. The industry has gone down this path twice before with nothing to show for it either time - they're not likely to do it a third time. Certainly we will see a good selection of concerts on bluray (many with lossless tracks) but audio only: I don't think so.
<snip>


I wonder about that. When SACD and DVD-A were introduced, you needed to buy a new player and more speakers in order to hear surround sound. But with more and more people buying Blu-Ray players for movies, if those people also buy surround sound amplifiers and the extra speakers, and if they then see their favorite music available on Blu-Ray, wouldn't they be inclined to buy the Blu-Ray version rather than the redbook CD version?

Not a single reason that I can see.

Blu-ray will die a slow death similar to what happened with Beta.

The "ta-da's" about the "death" of SACD and even DVD-Audio, are clearly premature.

IMHO those who spend the extra money to buy Blu-ray, are putting it down a rat hole.

Cheers
Huh?

What parallel can you possibly draw between Beta and Blu Ray? Surely you meant to write HD-DVD, since it lost the format war like Beta did.

If the death of SACD and even DVD-Audio are clearly premature, formats that nearly nobody of the general public knows about, how can Blu Ray die a slow death (like Beta) when even my small town video rental has them on display to rent. Once people have heard great movies on Blu ray, they may well be ready and willing to get their favorite music on the format as well.

I wonder about that. When SACD and DVD-A were introduced, you needed to buy a new player and more speakers in order to hear surround sound. But with more and more people buying Blu-Ray players for movies, if those people also buy surround sound amplifiers and the extra speakers, and if they then see their favorite music available on Blu-Ray, wouldn't they be inclined to buy the Blu-Ray version rather than the redbook CD version?

Exactly. I think Blu ray has way more audio quality potential than SACD, and soon a good proportion of the 5.1 system owning population will be able to play them, which was not ever the case with SACD.

I wonder about that. When SACD and DVD-A were introduced, you needed to buy a new player and more speakers in order to hear surround sound. But with more and more people buying Blu-Ray players for movies, if those people also buy surround sound amplifiers and the extra speakers, and if they then see their favorite music available on Blu-Ray, wouldn't they be inclined to buy the Blu-Ray version rather than the redbook CD version?
That was the same thinking behind DVD-A, and looked what happened even though DVD's market penetration was several fold better then BD's 3-4 years after the launch. DVD-A feature was present on many low end models from Panasonic, JVC and from the emerging Chinese brands. The logic was sound, the software just wasn't there, not in the numbers we would like to see it anyway.

That was the same thinking behind DVD-A, and looked what happened even though DVD's market penetration was several fold better then BD's 3-4 years after the launch. DVD-A feature was present on many low end models from Panasonic, JVC and from the emerging Chinese brands. The logic was sound, the software just wasn't there, not in the numbers we would like to see it anyway.

And since starting Penteo, you would be AMAZED to know how many classic albums' master multitracks were simply erased and reused (just like the Apollo 11 video) when the 2-track had been mixed. It was $250 a reel, which would be like $1500 a reel today, so since almost none ever had splices, the policy was often to simply bulk erase and re-use the 2" tape. Hence, remixes for a huge part of our musical heritage would never have been possible.

And since starting Penteo, you would be AMAZED to know how many classic albums' master multitracks were simply erased and reused (just like the Apollo 11 video) when the 2-track had been mixed. It was $250 a reel, which would be like $1500 a reel today, so since almost none ever had splices, the policy was often to simply bulk erase and re-use the 2" tape. Hence, remixes for a huge part of our musical heritage would never have been possible.

Slightly off topic-

The same thing has happened in the film industry. In the 1950's a number of features had three channel (L/C/R) or four channel L/C/R/S) mag multi-channel mixes. But after a feature's initial opening, studios saw little use in multi-channel stereo sound. In the 1960's, Jack Warner ordered all old mag tapes re-used or junked. :eek: I think there's been a few instances where 2-channel Dolby Surround mixdowns were done in the late 80's / early 90's, but when some mag masters were later revisted, they had turned to cheese.

And since starting Penteo, you would be AMAZED to know how many classic albums' master multitracks were simply erased and reused (just like the Apollo 11 video) when the 2-track had been mixed. It was $250 a reel, which would be like $1500 a reel today, so since almost none ever had splices, the policy was often to simply bulk erase and re-use the 2" tape. Hence, remixes for a huge part of our musical heritage would never have been possible.
That's pretty sad, but that shouldn't affect today's approach of using digital storage as opposed to tapes. Where is today's music on Hi-Rez surround?

That was the same thinking behind DVD-A, and looked what happened even though DVD's market penetration was several fold better then BD's 3-4 years after the launch. DVD-A feature was present on many low end models from Panasonic, JVC and from the emerging Chinese brands. The logic was sound, the software just wasn't there, not in the numbers we would like to see it anyway.

But how many of those DVD owners had more than two main speakers? I suspect not very many. But today, there are lots of relatively inexpensive surround sound systems available. You can even buy them for your computer for $100 or so; not that they sound good. But the first time people hear properly recorded and mixed surround sound, they have this "Ah Hah!" moment. Even if the speakers are lousy computer plug-ins it's enough to get the point across. Then, when they sit down to watch a movie, they'll want surround sound, and once they have the capability, why wouldn't they buy the music if it's available?

When DVD movies were introduced, the surround sound aspect wasn't a big deal. It was hardly mentioned. The big deal was getting rid of the awkward video tapes that jammed on the players and deteriorated with use.

If somebody is going to upgrade to a Blu-Ray player for high rez video, I think they are far more likely to upgrade the audio system as well. I don't think that was the case when people switched from video tape to DVD. Maybe I'm just dreaming. I hope not.

But how many of those DVD owners had more than two main speakers? I suspect not very many. You suspect wrong. First of all I wasn't talking about when DVD was introduced, but when DVD-A and SACD was introduced, which was a few years later. While I'm sure there are more surround systems out there today then in 2000-2001, audio seemed to take precedence over video. Back then the hottest single item was a powered subwoofer, today it is flat screen LCD TVs. Look at the birth of forums like this, that just popped up out of nowhere and I'm guessing you weren't around at the time, because surround sound be it for movies or music became very important to those who were interested in HT thanks to DVD.

I am an SACD fan, especially for soundtracks, jazz and classical. I simply love the DVD-A of Return of the King.

But ... while all new films are being produced for Blu Ray (and their associated soundtrack in high rez surround sound) I am amazed that both SACD production and the promise of BD audio is completely ignored. There was a brief moment when almost all new soundtracks were being released in SACD (Titanic, A Beautiful Mind, etc).

Luckily, Opera seems to have embraced BD. And they're getting better all the time.

But, it is sad that soundtracks are being downmixed to regular CD.

Marcus