How you see the future of BD-Audio? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 100 Old 04-10-2008, 10:07 AM - Thread Starter
 
Clara Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think with the latest news about DTS-HD Master Audio support for PS3 nobody will question use of this codec on music releases.
Clara Fox is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 100 Old 04-10-2008, 11:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
William's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 8,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara Fox View Post

I think with the latest news about DTS-HD Master Audio support for PS3 nobody will question use of this codec on music releases.

It is still an optional codec and Profile 3.0 will require a mandatory codec. Also DTS-HD Master offers no sonic advantage whatsoever over TrueHD or LPCM (only jitter) and is still not accessible to the vast majority of STB BD owners. You can all but bet the rent money that LPCM will be the codec used for Profile 3.0.
William is online now  
post #33 of 100 Old 06-14-2008, 04:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
Clara Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
New Blu-ray Audio Disc with 7.1 DTS-HD lossless Master Audio is Available for preorder:

Tchaikovsky - Piano Concertos Nos. 1&3 - Acoustic Reality Experience
Clara Fox is offline  
post #34 of 100 Old 04-28-2009, 04:45 PM
Member
 
dmytty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger View Post

PCM is all you need but the content owners are leary of giving away their studio masters on a format that is completely open to piracy. Consumer level tools do not exist to manipulate Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA streams, but virtually anyone can handle PCM.

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

Firstly, as to the comment on codecs, playback of TrueHD is capable via any multimedia player based on FFMpeg (90%) as Dolby publicly released this standard. For the moment, DTS-HD is not supported, but it should happen with Google's Summer of Code '09.

In short, there's no content security to be found within a codec, or even DRM for that matter.

A further reality is that BD-Audio simply wastes disc space, and the cost/distribution structure imposes significant restrictions on 'niche' releases.

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.

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 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.

Here's a breakdown of file sizes.

I used Exact Audio Copy 3 to create 5 192/24 5.1 files based on Trondheim Solistene Divertimenti:
  1. PCM encoded to FLAC: 6,482,369 KBytes
  2. Dolby TrueHD FFMpeg decoded and re-encoded to FLAC: 6,482,367 KBytes
  3. DTS-MA Arcsoft decoded & re-encoded to FLAC: 6,482,355 KBytes
  4. 'Ripped' (demuxed) DTS-MA directly (no FLAC): 6,561,800 KBytes
  5. '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 source 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?

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.

I believe the piracy phenomena is based as much on giving a finger to the lawyers and oppressive record labels as it is on getting a free lunch. Personally, I extremely dislike giving mega-corporations and RIAA a cut of the money that simply funds further restrictions on media playback.

Simply put, why can't I use an XBMC frontend with an Iphone remote to surf Hifi surround sound audio - without breaking DRM laws? DRM locks people into using a lame 100-button remote, compromised audio, and loading/unloading discs. How 1990's is that compared to coverflow music selection and real-time in-depth artist info with internet links to new releases!

Currently, most of the record labels exist to simply repackage the same artists umpteen ways and gouge consumers rather than reward artistic creativity. How many people have paid for the same content in mp3, cd-audio, and dvd-video formats?

Sony will lose more money on Bluray. In the midst of a recession, their plan is that you can buy a BD-Audio machine and expensive new discs? Don't think so.

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?

PCM/FLAC is at parity when it comes to file size and quality, and it offers far superior distribution. Video may be another story, but there's simply no business case for BD-Audio without significant arm-twisting on artists.

Try as they might, Sony et al will ultimately lose in their effort to control content by controlling the physical medium.
dmytty is offline  
post #35 of 100 Old 04-28-2009, 07:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
QuadESL63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would like to see Blu-ray audio flourish... but the reality is:

(1) General public has zero interested in hi-res audio, period, be it 2 channels or multi-channels. Even hi-def movies are slow to catch on (folks hanging around here are NOT regular folks - we are enthusiasts)... who cares about hi-res Blu-ray audio? They'd rather go for lossy downloads (legitimate or not) or, on the other end of the extreme, vinyl - just to be different, I guess. Audiophile market is a really small niche.

(2) Folks who are into hi-end audio may not necessarily into hi-res digital format. Two channels folks have vinyl - the analog hi-res format. For the ones who are they have already had SACD (at least for classical music and some jazz fans). Hi-res 24 bits FLAC and WAV downloads are catching on for the people who are experimenting with HTPC/PC hi-res audio. Heck! Some of these folks are now making their own hi-res discs (homebrew DVD-A or DVD-ROM with DXD/DSD files) out of their vinyl collections by using DSD recorders and PCs! Not to mention the number of hi-enders who are interested in multi-channels musics are very small - a niche within a niche. Blu-ray audio only player will have a hard time making a break through.

(3) High-end audio companies are NOT investing in Blu-ray, at least for the foreseeable future. Admission cost is too high for them and too much risk at the moment. They have virtually no R&D resources/experience on Blu-ray technologies for now and the best they can do is purchase one of the reference designs and slap on some beefier power supplies, uber analog stages, etc. But then who will pay for these? If you already have a nice hi-end pre-pro with HDMI why bother? How many folks have good multi-channels analog preamp to take advantage of a Blu-ray audio player with good analog stages?

(4) Even Sony, one of the Blu-ray co-creators, is still pushing SACD w/ new players, etc. Their SACD R&D costs have probably been recap'ed/written off so anything that is selling now is just gravy. Same for the hi-end companies that have invested in SACD & DVD technologies - why bother when you have something working which already has good software supports (5000+ SACDs have been released versus how many Blu-ray audio only discs?). Sounds quality is more than acceptable and customers who are into it are happy with the format. Some of these companies even go the extra miles explaining to their (potential & existing) customers why they won't go Blu Things are changing too fast for them to follow.

Denon is releasing their flagship universal player soon and it sounds like Marantz will have a Blu-ray (non-audio only)/SACD/DVD player by the end of the year, both companies seem to pay extra attention to the analog output stages, esp. for stereo. We shall see how hi-res Blu-ray "audio" will play out with these experiments.
QuadESL63 is offline  
post #36 of 100 Old 04-28-2009, 09:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eldithomaso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: So. California
Posts: 1,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuadESL63 View Post

I would like to see Blu-ray audio flourish... but the reality is:

(1) General public has zero interested in hi-res audio, period, be it 2 channels or multi-channels. Even hi-def movies are slow to catch on (folks hanging around here are NOT regular folks - we are enthusiasts)... who cares about hi-res Blu-ray audio? They'd rather go for lossy downloads (legitimate or not) or, on the other end of the extreme, vinyl - just to be different, I guess. Audiophile market is a really small niche.

(2) Folks who are into hi-end audio may not necessarily into hi-res digital format. Two channels folks have vinyl - the analog hi-res format. For the ones who are they have already had SACD (at least for classical music and some jazz fans). Hi-res 24 bits FLAC and WAV downloads are catching on for the people who are experimenting with HTPC/PC hi-res audio. Heck! Some of these folks are now making their own hi-res discs (homebrew DVD-A or DVD-ROM with DXD/DSD files) out of their vinyl collections by using DSD recorders and PCs! Not to mention the number of hi-enders who are interested in multi-channels musics are very small - a niche within a niche. Blu-ray audio only player will have a hard time making a break through.

(3) High-end audio companies are NOT investing in Blu-ray, at least for the foreseeable future. Admission cost is too high for them and too much risk at the moment. They have virtually no R&D resources/experience on Blu-ray technologies for now and the best they can do is purchase one of the reference designs and slap on some beefier power supplies, uber analog stages, etc. But then who will pay for these? If you already have a nice hi-end pre-pro with HDMI why bother? How many folks have good multi-channels analog preamp to take advantage of a Blu-ray audio player with good analog stages?

(4) Even Sony, one of the Blu-ray co-creators, is still pushing SACD w/ new players, etc. Their SACD R&D costs have probably been recap'ed/written off so anything that is selling now is just gravy. Same for the hi-end companies that have invested in SACD & DVD technologies - why bother when you have something working which already has good software supports (5000+ SACDs have been released versus how many Blu-ray audio only discs?). Sounds quality is more than acceptable and customers who are into it are happy with the format. Some of these companies even go the extra miles explaining to their (potential & existing) customers why they won't go Blu Things are changing too fast for them to follow.

Denon is releasing their flagship universal player soon and it sounds like Marantz will have a Blu-ray (non-audio only)/SACD/DVD player by the end of the year, both companies seem to pay extra attention to the analog output stages, esp. for stereo. We shall see how hi-res Blu-ray "audio" will play out with these experiments.

With the advent of BD players and a properly backward compatable spec I think BD concert disks will do for BD audio and the audio improvement publicity what SACD never did. I don't mind switching from SACD/DVD-A to a DTS-HD or Dolby HD Concert video. In fact I find they are quite satisfying.

Perhaps if Joe Blow upgrades his system each year and has a MERE BD player with BD concerts in lossless audio encodes he will start to see how much better both the audio and video are from DVD and jump on this bandwaggon.

One can hope....

Isn't it time someone promoted quality as value?
eldithomaso is offline  
post #37 of 100 Old 04-29-2009, 04:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
davcole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think one of the advantages of BD is all players will be able to play BD- Audio discs, if not the lossless tracks but the lossy core. This is an advantage that not even DVD-A had as you had to purchase a specific player.

I think BD audio has a future, though that future may not be right now but eventually. When the production of BD's become on par with that of CD's and DVD's, then they'll be able to price a competitive product. The only question to me is packaging? I think you have to make it jewel case size even if it's not jewel case. You also need an authoring standard.
davcole is online now  
post #38 of 100 Old 04-29-2009, 05:02 AM
Member
 
-Spiff-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I hope BD audio is successful, though not as a distinct "profile 3". Anything that complicates the format (even if it's a "simpler" format that BD video) will just add to consumer frustration, as if there isn't enough of that already.

Since the DTS-MA, Dolby TrueHD and PCM tracks are equivalent, my personal preference is DTS-MA, as this provides the highest quality sound output for non-HDMI receivers that don't support LPCM over HDMI. Eventually, when I get an HDMI receiver, it won't matter.

I suspect the biggest problem for audio on BD will be for content producers to make enough profit to pay for Blu-Ray licensing costs.
-Spiff- is offline  
post #39 of 100 Old 04-29-2009, 08:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
davcole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think i'd like to see the 2 channel mix as PCM. It's the most universal format and for those who only have 2 channel analogue outs which ideally should give them the full bandwidth. For the multi-channel, it wouldn't make much difference between the DTS-MA or the TRUEHD so long as both offer legacy tracks. This way music companies have choice of codec just like the movie studios do.
davcole is online now  
post #40 of 100 Old 04-29-2009, 10:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
William's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 8,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Spiff- View Post

I hope BD audio is successful, though not as a distinct "profile 3". Anything that complicates the format (even if it's a "simpler" format that BD video) will just add to consumer frustration, as if there isn't enough of that already...

Profile 3.0 will cause no consumer confusion since it will be basically unseen. Profile 3.0 is about authoring of the disc (plug and play audio without needing a menu system) and will only be applicable in hardware on players that choose to forgo all video circuitry (read high end audio players).
William is online now  
post #41 of 100 Old 04-30-2009, 08:56 PM
Senior Member
 
fuzz!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I can't see how it will succeed.. For the same reasons DVDA failed.

Digital audio quality is already (for all intents and purposes) perfect in terms of quality, and all the music world is turning towards online purchase.

Surround sound is a feature lacking in the current marketplace, but nobody really seems to want that. Mostly because surround won't help you when you're listening to the music on your iPod with stereo headphones.

Nope.. with negligable difference in quality and no need for surround sound - can't see it happening.
fuzz! is offline  
post #42 of 100 Old 04-30-2009, 11:16 PM
Senior Member
 
FitzRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I agree with Fuzz. It will fail for the same reason DVD audio failed: human biology taps out at 16/48 or less. Anything more incurs unnecessary space/bandwidth costs which just hurts portability for no reason.

One thing I would like to see which never happened was movie soundtracks included with the movie. Now there's an actually useful extra. Would have been a good thing to do with blu-ray as they're having trouble converting DVD purchasers to rebuy discs on blu-ray.

Dillon: My men were in that chopper when it got hit! Hopper's orders were to go in and remove grain and the detail just disappeared.
Dutch: It didn't disappear. It was scrubbed alive!
FitzRoy is offline  
post #43 of 100 Old 05-01-2009, 02:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
BuckNaked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 782
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The talk on Beatles forums is that the next round of releases will be hi-rez 2 channel stereo & mono and 5.1 remixes on Blu-ray Audio. There would still be room for documentaries, photos, interviews, album galleries, etc.

I think if Apple (Records) puts these out, it would signal that BD-Audio is here to stay.
BuckNaked is offline  
post #44 of 100 Old 05-01-2009, 07:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Health Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 5,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As far as music videos are concened, you can have DVD-Audio quality and 1080i60 video together, so bandwidth and space are not an issue however you cut it... You can have 24/96 DD True HD which is no different than DVD-Audio, so who really cares? I care in the sense I hope that true multichannel recordings will become more popular in the future...

24/96 multichannel audio and 1080p30 or 1080i60 video together can be done already on Blu Ray... no big deal, just bring the content...
Health Nut is offline  
post #45 of 100 Old 05-02-2009, 08:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HarrisonS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

I agree with Fuzz. It will fail for the same reason DVD audio failed: human biology taps out at 16/48 or less. Anything more incurs unnecessary space/bandwidth costs which just hurts portability for no reason...

I believe that you may be right, but not necessarily for the reason that you mention. For some reason, multi-channel audio-only recordings have never succeeded in the marketplace. Most recently it has been SACD and DVD-Audio. While Sony dropped SACD altogether, it survives in a small niche market among audiophiles. Still SACD failed to capture the broader market. And DVD-Audio has been discontinued completely. And then there was quadraphonic in the 1970's; although it could be argued here that it failed also due to the fact that it required some rather clumsy hardware upgrades.
HarrisonS is offline  
post #46 of 100 Old 07-26-2009, 08:49 PM
Newbie
 
maxdet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think it is very important we understand that the majority is not like us. They prefer practicality, portability and are incapable of differentiating mp3 from lossless.

I think BD-Audio's best chance is focussing on multichannel. Stop bothering people with things only audiophiles can understand and care about. People have to be convinced this is something for them and not just some new thing for an elite.

Maybe if there is a real effort on behalf of the record labels into offering a new way of listening to music things could change. This means putting aside fears for having lossless audio going around and start producing some serious multichannel music. If well done, people will easily notice and appreciate the difference between 5.1 and stereo.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying destroy the stereo. What I'm trying to say is that it's not us sound-lovers the format has to satisfy, it's them, all mere mortals. If they accept it we all profit: they get their multichannel and we get lossless in maybe both a 5.1 and stereo on the same disc and most importantly we both get a descent library.
maxdet is offline  
post #47 of 100 Old 07-26-2009, 10:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxdet View Post

I think it is very important we understand that the majority is not like us. They prefer practicality, portability and are incapable of differentiating mp3 from lossless.

I think BD-Audio's best chance is focussing on multichannel.

But as the post before yours points out, when has the general public EVER showed they care about > 2 channel music? They haven't. So why should they now?

The only hope I see for this working is making it as cheap and simple as possible. DON'T require a special BR player, DON'T load the discs with any extra cost items, including video. Just use LPCM or True HD. Use 25 Gig discs. Forget the general public. Survive as a reasonable size niche. Simplify, simplify.
RobertR is offline  
post #48 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 03:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NIN74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Skoghall, va, Sweden
Posts: 3,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I see no real future for it. For 2-channel music there is no use for BD over CD (except if the BD is mastered better, for a more audiophile crowd) and surroundmusic will probably be a very small niche.

Sound and video is not magic, it is pure physics. Physics that can be magical
NIN74 is offline  
post #49 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 06:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Big J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm sorry, but I certainly don't see this succeeding. Most people are happy with MP3s, and think CDs are hi-res. BD audio only is a failure waiting to happen.
J
Big J is offline  
post #50 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 07:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
camaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London, Great Britain
Posts: 1,498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm not an audiophile but I'd like to see BD-audio succeed. I wanted DVD-A to succeed but they screwed that up. BD-A must have the following:
1) Playable on all players. BD-A shouldn't require a special player, if someone can't play it on their BD player, it reduces the market. Additionally it shouldn't require a separate decoder for the same reasons. If possible DTS-MA and the Dolby equivalent should be mandatory on BD players.
2) All discs should work without needing a TV. If people had to turn their TV on every time they wanted to listen to a CD, they'd probably do it less.
3) DVD-A shouldn't contain DRM. This is the biggest issue. Labels, I'm lead to believe, are unhappy that CD's are so easy to "pirate". Surely they'd be tempted to ensure any replacement for CD to close that gate. It would be a big mistake, people would be reluctant to give up that benefit and BD-A would fail. Labels would still be in the same position they are now.So ideally, a DVD-A disc would be either unencrypted or have a CD layer. You get to rip the low quality bit but not the high quality bit. A win-win.

The key to success is not segmenting the market but merging it. No one would care if all CD's had a bonus BD-A layer in the future. Luddites get to keep things the way they are, technophiles get what they want, the labels and the CE's get to sell more units.
camaj is offline  
post #51 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 07:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SirDrexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 4,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Leaving it unprotected just isn't going to happen. While it wouldn't satisfy everyone, I think they could include a code to download a compressed version for portable devices (kind of like the equivalent of a digital copy for movies). Those that aren't satisfied with this can, uh, find a way to rip the lossless audio.

It would be nice if it could work without a TV, but I fear they'll be compelled to have the copyright screens come up at the beginning. If they can resist that, they could just have the disc start playing, with a note on the screen (if you have one) to press the appropriate button to see the menu.

I don't know if a second CD layer is possible. Wasn't there some discussion about that and they gave up on it, or was that just for a DVD layer? It also sounds like something that would have to be specially supported in BD players. How would the player know which layer to play, and how would you select that in a "normal" player?
SirDrexl is offline  
post #52 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 08:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stanton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX USA
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

One thing I would like to see which never happened was movie soundtracks included with the movie. Now there's an actually useful extra. Would have been a good thing to do with blu-ray as they're having trouble converting DVD purchasers to rebuy discs on blu-ray.

I agree. This is why "Apollo 13" is one of my favorite DVD's ever: (almost) the entire soundtrack is included in the "menu" of the disc (it only took me about 10 years to figure out how to isolated and burn a CD of it). There are other discs with isolated music soundtracks or additional movie music (the original "Mummy" and "Matrix" come to mind), but nothing with 60+ minutes of actual music like "Apollo 13". I would even RE-BUY a movie like "Dances with Wolves" or "Braveheart" if they were to include (DD2.0 or PCM) soundtracks on the DVD.

Yamaha DSP-A1 Integrated Amp
(4) Polk Monitor 10B's w/SoniCaps and Mills resistors (R/L F/R)
(2) Polk Monitor 4's w/peerless tweets (dual centers)
B&O TX2 Turntable
Nakamichi Cassette Deck 1
Pioneer CLD-99 Elite LD
Samsung BD-P2550 Blu-Ray/DVD
Princeton AF3.0HD Monitor
Optoma HD65 Projector
Stanton is offline  
post #53 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 09:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
colossus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buffalo, NY area
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirDrexl View Post

Leaving it unprotected just isn't going to happen. While it wouldn't satisfy everyone, I think they could include a code to download a compressed version for portable devices (kind of like the equivalent of a digital copy for movies). Those that aren't satisfied with this can, uh, find a way to rip the lossless audio.

It would be nice if it could work without a TV, but I fear they'll be compelled to have the copyright screens come up at the beginning. If they can resist that, they could just have the disc start playing, with a note on the screen (if you have one) to press the appropriate button to see the menu.

I hate to agree with you here, but you're right.

IMO, these two issues are the primary driver for 'piracy' in people. If I can't back up (or render it more portable), I won't buy it.

I've a DVD-A of 'Brain Salad Surgery' that I won't play anymore. Why? Because I can't copy it and it's worth too much money for me to risk damaging in a 5-year old DVD player. Same BS I dealt with using vinyl. First thing ya gotta do is make a more durable copy.

Copyrights, FBI warnings, logos and whatnot- anything that makes the media harder or more frustrating to use is an incentive to get a copy without the logos and warnings. The fact that it's "free" is a sweetener too tough to resist. Copy protection on software is even more dumbly implemented, in some cases, and look that what little that's done for the publisher's bottom lines...

Until the idiots running these businesses figure this out, people will have more than just "it's free" as an incentive. You get what your reinforce. In this case, they reinforce both pricing and convenience to favor what many consider a 'victimless crime'. It's not, but that's besides the point.

Worse, the absurd RIAA lawsuits and underpaid musicians only provoke anger. It's like kicking an angry bear to make him stop being angry.

Back to the thread, though, I think MP3's have done the listening public a tremendous injustice. Quantity vs. quality reigns supreme. I don't see hi-res audio taking off until that changes.
colossus is offline  
post #54 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 09:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jvillain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 2,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The major music studios know DRM is hurting them more than helping them so unlike the MPAA I don't see the RIAA demanding any restrictions. Having said that, unlike movies I think music on BD will always be a niche product. The world has mostly moved on beyond spinning disks for music. If the studios want to sell us high quality audio tracks they can do high quality encodes and sell them over the internet. Unlike movies, music doesn't require a monster internet connection. The only reason to put music on a BD now is if you want to include a bunch of extra crud with it. Most consumers don't want that.
jvillain is offline  
post #55 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 10:28 AM
Member
 
JerryElbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
While I'd love to hear some of my favorite albums in multi-channel, high-resolution sound through my existing Blu-Ray play (as opposed to having to upgrade to a 3.0 player), I kind of doubt the success of Blu-Ray as a music format. The reason is not technical, it's financial. High-resolution sound has been and will probably always be a niche product. For each of us who considers ourselves to be an audiophile/videophile, there are hundreds or thousands of people who think compressed MP3 audio files played on mediocre portable electronics and heard through abysmal earbuds is more than good enough. The overwhelming, vast majority of people out there, even among those who are willing to plop down good money for a big screen TV and maybe even for half-way decent speakers and amplification and possibly a Blu-ray player (though DVDs are plenty good enough to many of these folks), just don't understand the joy of listening to well-recorded music captured in high resolution format played back through great electronics and speakers. And they certainly don't understand why that new-fangle Blu-ray music disc won't play on their boom box or car stereo or why they can't rip the audio from it to play on their MP3 player. And if Blu-ray music discs come in at a retail price higher than standard music CDs (as Blu-ray movies have compared to DVD movies), then I have no hope at all of it succeeding. And by "succeeding" I mean, "becoming the dominant physical media for music album distribution". Sure, Blu-ray music discs may become available and sell for years, just as SACDs are technically still available (not that I can ever find any titles to choose from at local retailers and not that I can even find popular titles I'd love to hear even on the Internet).

Still, I hope I'm wrong. I would love to hear a multi-channel, high-resolution remix of Alan Parson Project's "Tales of Mystery and Imagination by Edgar Allen Poe", among many, many other titles.
JerryElbow is offline  
post #56 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 12:05 PM
Member
 
Pravda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryElbow View Post

While I'd love to hear some of my favorite albums in multi-channel, high-resolution sound through my existing Blu-Ray play (as opposed to having to upgrade to a 3.0 player),

As has been pointed out earlier (and correctly) in this thread, the 3.0 standard does not change the AV format at all. It only specifies a class of player license which does not allow for video output and also does not require a JVM for BD-J. The music industry was very clear that they did not want another DVD-A situation where the media required a special player. In fact, the only reason why there is going to be a 3.0 spec at all is because the movie studios didn't want the player manufacturers to have a loophole that would allow the sale of HDMV-only players (movie players without BD-J). That is why there is a separate player category which is NOT ALLOWED to output any video (and is therefore only useful for audio-only discs).

All "BD-Audio" discs will play in every player ever released, though, since they don't have any changes to the AV format specification.
Pravda is offline  
post #57 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 03:19 PM
Senior Member
 
fuzz!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big J View Post

I'm sorry, but I certainly don't see this succeeding. Most people are happy with MP3s, and think CDs are hi-res. BD audio only is a failure waiting to happen.
J

CDs *ARE* hi-res
fuzz! is offline  
post #58 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 04:10 PM
Member
 
Zoraster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm rather optimistic. Render the discs playable in all blu-ray devices and launch a vast, sexy marketing campaign. The erstwhile formats failed because they competed with one another, confusing the lay person, and required special expensive players.
Zoraster is offline  
post #59 of 100 Old 07-27-2009, 05:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoraster View Post

I'm rather optimistic. Render the discs playable in all blu-ray devices and launch a vast, sexy marketing campaign.

What would be the "hook"? "Buy these! They'll sound sooooo much better on your Ipod!". Oops, can't play them there. Can't burn your own either.

I don't think so. Aim at those who care, not "vast" numbers.
RobertR is offline  
post #60 of 100 Old 07-28-2009, 02:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Russ Younger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Meridian ID
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think that most people don't sit down to listen to music anymore. This is just a way of the modern era. For example I just got back into vinyl after 25 years of CD and I was amazed in how my own listening habbits have changed from the 80's. Now when I listen to my records it is like a concert simulation rather than simply listening to tunes. It's a funny thing when I have friends over and they see me just simply listening to my records instead of doing somthing else, you know like the only thing music is good for is background noise. Strange times we live in.
Russ Younger is offline  
Reply Surround Music Formats

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off