or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Surround Music Formats › How you see the future of BD-Audio?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How you see the future of BD-Audio? - Page 4

post #91 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post

Why is there no consistency here?!

I believe that is the $60K question with these UMe HFPA releases. I would say there will be no consistency with these releases in both SQ and the way they are formatted (menu wise). When I read UMe was planning on releasing up to 1K HFPA titles I thought then that there is no way all those titles will be mastered from the "original master tapes" wink.gif.

Below is a blurb from Music Direct in reference to the HFPA titles.

Universal Music Group has gone back to the original master tapes to deliver fully uncompressed, high-resolution versions of many of your favorite albums. Mastered at 24bit/96k, the label's Blu-Ray Pure Audio Discs deliver the sound the artists heard in the studio when these classic albums were recorded.
•Recordings are transferred from the original master tapes and delivered in High-Resolution 24bit/96khz audio
•Three separate choices of audio file format for playback: PCM 2.0, Dolby True HD, or DTS-HD Master Audio (Note: 5.1 available where noted)
•Your preferred audio format is chosen either by pressing the "Audio" button on your Blu-ray remote or via the On-Screen Menu Display

So my question would be how could UMe possibly churn out 1K titles in a years times going back to the "original master tapes"? Could they actually find the "original master tapes" of all these titles? Do they have that many mastering engineers to do that? I'll be honest and admit I know very little if anything about the music industry. But I see how long a process it takes to get new SACDs released by MOFI, APO and AF. So with that I do not believe for a second all the hype behind UMe's HFPA campaign. I was hoping that these HFPA titles would sound incredible and was really looking forward to them. But looking at the releases so far I have to be realistic and think it is nothing but a slick marketing scheme by UMe.

Bill
post #92 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post

I have to say, I'm bemused as to why there is no standardised disc authoring method for this new High Fidelity Pure Audio disc format. For example....

Also, Back To Black offers a 'named' track list, while the other disc's offer only a 'number' track list.

Why is there no consistency here?!

There's as much consistency as there is on any BD release. This is NOT a "new disc format", its just another BD disc. They can use a number of different authoring schemes to assemble a program, use JAVA and seamless branching or not. The choices are many, but there is no such thing as a "Pure Audio disc format". (except in the minds of marketing execs)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post


•Recordings are transferred from the original master tapes and delivered in High-Resolution 24bit/96khz audio

The skeptic in me does not see that statement as a declaration that NEW transfers are used. You could say that ALL releases are "transferred from the original master tapes". And "delivered in 24/96" has equally little meaning. All that statement really says is that they are putting 24/96 audio on the disc, it says nothing about the actual process, or whether a new A-D transfer was actually done. Absent any clear mastering credits and description on the liner notes, nothing should be assumed.
post #93 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgrimes View Post

The skeptic in me does not see that statement as a declaration that NEW transfers are used. You could say that ALL releases are "transferred from the original master tapes". And "delivered in 24/96" has equally little meaning. All that statement really says is that they are putting 24/96 audio on the disc, it says nothing about the actual process, or whether a new A-D transfer was actually done. Absent any clear mastering credits and description on the liner notes, nothing should be assumed.

How can a marketing statement saying "Recordings are transferred from the original master tapes" mean anything than what it says? If these statements have no meaning then why are they used? Seeing that UMe is using these statements then they should be 100% true. If not then UMe is using using deceptive marketing which is outright wrong.

You never did reply to my post questioning your statement that ALL HFPA titles "are just re-encodes of the old SACD masters".

Bill
post #94 of 100
The problem I have with UMG or whatever they're called now is how many times do they expect us to buy the same material with the only changes being format?
Talk about flogging a dead horse.
Plus they don't invest anything in exploiting the features that SACD or BD have.
No surround, mostly, no extras, nada zip zilch and still charge a premium price.
I gladly purchase titles redone by Wilson, Hoffman, Scheiner, etc. because I know exactly what I'm paying for.
No thank you, again.
post #95 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgrimes View Post

There's as much consistency as there is on any BD release. This is NOT a "new disc format", its just another BD disc. They can use a number of different authoring schemes to assemble a program, use JAVA and seamless branching or not. The choices are many, but there is no such thing as a "Pure Audio disc format". (except in the minds of marketing execs)
Hmmm...

This is supposed to Blu-rays answer to the audio CD. ie: a no frills high fidelity audio transport system that does not require a menu. This being the case there's no requirement for Java.

So the disc authoring methods are fairly limited...
post #96 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post

Hmmm...

This is supposed to Blu-rays answer to the audio CD. ie: a no frills high fidelity audio transport system that does not require a menu. This being the case there's no requirement for Java.

So the disc authoring methods are fairly limited...

Not really, as I said, there's no such thing as this format except in marketing-speak. There's a consortium of companies agreeing on the "Pure Audio" designation, but that's just about features like mShuttle (which requires JAVA and BD-Live support). None of it has anything to do with how a disc is authored. You can make assumptions about what its "supposed" to be and "wish" it was one way or another. But its just another BD disc in authoring terms.
The only real authoring "requirement" is imposed by the bandwidth capabilities of the BD disc. With 5.1 audio at 24/192 or 7.1 at 24/96, the video must be low bitrate (usually slides, low res loops or no video). But its all contained in standard M2TS files with standard BD authoring.
post #97 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post

I have to say, I'm bemused as to why there is no standardized disc authoring method for this new High Fidelity Pure Audio disc format. [. . .] Why is there no consistency here?!

I seem to recall seeing some press several months back about a breakdown of harmonization discussions between Universal Music's High Fidelity Pure Audio Group and the non-profit Pure Audio Group (link) which had presumably related to Universal Music's High Fidelity Pure Audio Group possibly adopting the existing standards|formats already in use by the Pure Audio Group...?!

( No extra points for confusing the names of the two organizations! mad.gif )
_
post #98 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgrimes View Post

The only real authoring "requirement" is imposed by the bandwidth capabilities of the BD disc. With 5.1 audio at 24/192 or 7.1 at 24/96, the video must be low bitrate (usually slides, low res loops or no video). But its all contained in standard M2TS files with standard BD authoring.
Well... If you look at the stream sizes within a typical .M2TS file, you'll discover that there's nothing 'low bit-rate' about the video stream. It's huge. See here: -
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
General
ID : 0 (0x0)
Complete name : D:\BD Audio Tests\Sources\Love Is A Loosing Game.m2ts
Format : BDAV
Format/Info : Blu-ray Video
File size : 832 MiB
Duration : 2mn 35s
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 45.0 Mbps
Maximum Overall bit rate : 48.0 Mbps

Video
ID : 4113 (0x1011)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L4.1
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, GOP : N=1
Codec ID : 27
Duration : 2mn 35s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 36.5 Mbps
Maximum bit rate : 40.0 Mbps
Width : 1 920 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 24.000 fps
Standard : NTSC
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.733
Stream size : 675 MiB (81%)
Color primaries : BT.709
Transfer characteristics : BT.709
Matrix coefficients : BT.709

Audio #1
ID : 4352 (0x1100)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format : PCM
Format settings, Endianness : Big
Format settings, Sign : Signed
Muxing mode : Blu-ray
Codec ID : 128
Duration : 2mn 35s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 4 608 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 96.0 KHz
Bit depth : 24 bits
Stream size : 85.3 MiB (10%)

Audio #2
ID : 4353 (0x1101)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format : DTS
Format/Info : Digital Theater Systems
Format profile : 96/24 / Core
Mode : 16
Format settings, Endianness : Big
Muxing mode : Stream extension
Codec ID : 134
Duration : 2mn 35s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 1 509 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 96.0 KHz / 48.0 KHz
Bit depth : 24 bits
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 27.9 MiB (3%)

Audio #3
ID : 4354 (0x1102)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format : TrueHD / AC-3
Mode extension : CM (complete main)
Format settings, Endianness : Big
Muxing mode : Stream extension
Codec ID : 131
Duration : 2mn 35s
Bit rate mode : Variable / Constant
Bit rate : 640 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 3 222 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: C / Front: L R
Sampling rate : 96.0 KHz / 48.0 KHz
Bit depth : 16 bits
Stream size : 11.8 MiB (1%)

Indeed, with the right backing-up tools it's possible to remove the video stream completely, which considerably reduces their file size. And if you save your preferred audio stream(s) to the .MKA container and create a .CUE file they work great with the Oppo wink.gif
post #99 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

I seem to recall seeing some press several months back about a breakdown of harmonization discussions between Universal Music's High Fidelity Pure Audio Group and the non-profit Pure Audio Group (link) which had presumably related to Universal Music's High Fidelity Pure Audio Group possibly adopting the existing standards|formats already in use by the Pure Audio Group...?!

( No extra points for confusing the names of the two organizations! mad.gif )
_

And neither of them has any standards for authoring of discs.
post #100 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgrimes View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

I seem to recall seeing some press several months back about a breakdown of harmonization discussions between Universal Music's High Fidelity Pure Audio Group and the non-profit Pure Audio Group (link) which had presumably related to Universal Music's High Fidelity Pure Audio Group possibly adopting the existing standards|formats already in use by the Pure Audio Group...?!

And neither of them has any standards for authoring of discs.

My mistake! I had assumed (apparently incorrectly) that the Pure Audio Group's user interface "look and feel" consistency was also the reflection of a more consistent underlying organization of soundtrack structure on disc. Thanks for setting me straight!
_
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Surround Music Formats
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Surround Music Formats › How you see the future of BD-Audio?