Home› Music
Options

Blu Ray Audio - yay or nay?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 264
Forum Member
✭
in Music #1
Have you heard about this new format? It's basically a high fidelity audio format that launched here last month, and I was wondering what people thought about it. Several albums have been released on Blu-Ray, such as Bob Marley and The Rolling Stones' respective greatest hits collections.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24441979

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/6098-new-blu-ray-audio-format-a-dinosaur-in-the-digital-delivery-age.html

The audio quality's supposed to be really, really good, but will it succeed, I wonder?
«1

Comments

  • Options
    JamesBsheppardJamesBsheppard Posts: 341
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #2
    I've ordered Supertramp Breakfast in America on blue ray audio,waiting for it to arrive. I don't think the format will do well,other hi quality formats didnt.DVD-A failed & SACD is only just hanging on,even though you can play most SACD discs on any CD player (at standard CD quality) giving the user freedom to have 1 disc that can be used in the car or portable players & not limited to the 1 player under the TV.
  • Options
    rfonzorfonzo Posts: 11,772
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    It will be interesting to hear what the audio sounds like on such an advanced technology.
  • Options
    cnbcwatchercnbcwatcher Posts: 56,681
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #4
    I wouldn't be able to play it on my Macs, so it's no good to me. It'll be interesting to see if it takes off though.
  • Options
    JamesBsheppardJamesBsheppard Posts: 341
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    The disc arrived today(see earlier post), sound quality is excellent (I rate it = to SACD) lots of dynamic range, which really benefits the lower frequency's.I compared it to the original CD release not the remastered version (which has lots compression on it) . I haven't had a time to compare it to the vinyl version yet.
  • Options
    performingmonkperformingmonk Posts: 20,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    If it wasn't for the ease of mp3s, high def disc formats would have taken off years ago. Unfortunately, not enough of the music-buying public care about the sound quality of what they're buying.
  • Options
    JamesBsheppardJamesBsheppard Posts: 341
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    performingmonk wrote: »
    If it wasn't for the ease of mp3s, high def disc formats would have taken off years ago. Unfortunately, not enough of the music-buying public care about the sound quality of what they're buying.

    I agree,plus to get the full benefits of hi def you have to buy relatively expensive equipment,which most people aren't interested in doing.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 264
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #8
    performingmonk wrote: »
    If it wasn't for the ease of mp3s, high def disc formats would have taken off years ago. Unfortunately, not enough of the music-buying public care about the sound quality of what they're buying.

    I agree with you entirely. I myself am not keen on MP3s, as I don't think the quality is that good; plus I don't see the point in paying for what is, essentially, air. I like to have the physical artefact: something that I can hold in my hands, something tangible.
    JamesBsheppard wrote: »
    I agree,plus to get the full benefits of hi def you have to buy relatively expensive equipment,which most people aren't interested in doing.

    Yes, I can understand that. It's a shame, really, as the sound quality is quite important where music's concerned, IMO.
  • Options
    CeeOCeeO Posts: 860
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #9
    With the disgusting brickwall compression and absence of sound quality at the mastering stage of modern music releases, the blu-ray format will add nothing of value.

    Re-releases of early CD's which were mastered in the 'golden' era of digital music (mid 80s thru early 90s) may benefit but only on high end audiophile equipment.

    Ultimately, most people these days are happy if the music's loud with oodles of boom and tizz.
  • Options
    TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #10
    Who the hell can afford high end equipment these days?
  • Options
    uniqueunique Posts: 12,442
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #11
    bluray audio has been around longer. i'm not sure how long i've had the stones disc for, but i'm sure i got it long before october, and that was bough instore in the uk

    i don't know how long it will last as a format as dvda and sacd didn't do well, but if it's supported on all standard bluray players as opposed to needing a universal player like sacd and dvda then more people will have the facilities to play it, whereas few people would be like myself and spend a lot more on a bluray player to get both sacd and dvda playback, and the same again in the previous generation where my dvd player cost a lot more to play both formats

    it doesn't need to cost a lot of money to play it, you can get an hdmi amp for £150 onwards from the likes of richer sounds to upgrade your old amp. plug your bluray player into it and it will play the HD audio formats

    although i agree that the idea of hi fidelity sound seems to be lost on a lot of people these days who are happy with mp3s played in car stereos and crappy earbuds. my earbuds alone are worth more than many peoples smartphones
  • Options
    Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    TheTruth1983 wrote: »
    Who the hell can afford high end equipment these days?

    I've got a high end system. ;)

    Although to be fair it has taken 30 years to get to the stage it is at now and I don't have a mortgage or kids!

    In saying that, though, somewhere like Richer Sounds is a good place to go for a more moderately prices system that will be a vast improvement on what most people have. However it seems to me most people are happy to accept mediocre as "good" these days.
  • Options
    Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #13
    [QUOTE=Buffalo Man;69625280]I agree with you entirely. I myself am not keen on MP3s, as I don't think the quality is that good; plus I don't see the point in paying for what is, essentially, air. I like to have the physical artefact: something that I can hold in my hands, something tangible.



    Yes, I can understand that. It's a shame, really, as the sound quality is quite important where music's concerned, IMO.[/QUOTE]

    I have no problem with MP3, as for traveling an MP3 player is a wonderful device, however it would never be my source of choice at home. As for paying for them, I just rip my CDs, so I can rip them at the quality I want.
  • Options
    mrkite77mrkite77 Posts: 5,386
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #14
    Glawster2002 wrote: »
    I've got a high end system. ;)

    Even in today's economy, a decent surround sound system can be had for less than $200. (Although to be fair, I spent more than that on my center speaker alone).

    That's the real benefit of bluray music. 5.1 PCM without the lossy DTS you get on DVDs.
  • Options
    TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #15
    People must really have not enjoyed music before high quality audio and HDMI :rolleyes:
  • Options
    AcerBenAcerBen Posts: 21,329
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    I won't be surprised if this fails, but eventually 24 bit music will be the norm. They need to work on a format which compresses it down from 1GB a song and/or wait for internet speeds to get ridiculously fast. It might take 20 years but we'll probably be able to stream studio quality sound off the Net easily eventually. We won't need to stick to 320kbps MP3s forever.
  • Options
    AcerBenAcerBen Posts: 21,329
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #17
    AcerBen wrote: »
    I won't be surprised if this fails, but eventually 24 bit music will be the norm. They need to work on a format which compresses it down from 1GB a song and/or wait for internet speeds to get ridiculously fast. It might take 20 years but we'll probably be able to stream studio quality sound off the Net easily eventually. We won't need to stick to 320kbps MP3s forever.

    Actually there's got to be some sort of 24bit compressed lossless file already available hasn't there? Neil Young has been developing a music player for super high quality files dunno what happened to it.
  • Options
    AcerBenAcerBen Posts: 21,329
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #18
    Here we go, it's launching next year.
    http://evolver.fm/2013/08/13/neil-youngs-pono-ecosystem-will-put-a-freemium-on-sound-quality/
  • Options
    gomezzgomezz Posts: 44,625
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #19
    AcerBen wrote: »
    wait for internet speeds to get ridiculously fast
    Surely if internet speeds are already well fast enough to cope with streaming HD video then high quality audio by comparison is a breeze? Discs of any format are a medium whose days are passing.
  • Options
    uniqueunique Posts: 12,442
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #20
    AcerBen wrote: »
    I won't be surprised if this fails, but eventually 24 bit music will be the norm. They need to work on a format which compresses it down from 1GB a song and/or wait for internet speeds to get ridiculously fast. It might take 20 years but we'll probably be able to stream studio quality sound off the Net easily eventually. We won't need to stick to 320kbps MP3s forever.
    a 24bit flac album is less than 1gb in size. where do you get 1gb for a song from?
    even an 5.1 HD audio is much less than that per song
  • Options
    Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #21
    TheTruth1983 wrote: »
    People must really have not enjoyed music before high quality audio and HDMI :rolleyes:

    Historically there has always been a demand for improvement, FM over AM radio, vinyl, CD, etc. Where this falls down is with MP3, where quality, in terms of bit rate, is seen as less desirable over quantity.
  • Options
    Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #22
    gomezz wrote: »
    Surely if internet speeds are already well fast enough to cope with streaming HD video then high quality audio by comparison is a breeze? Discs of any format are a medium whose days are passing.

    There will always be a demand for discs, both CD and vinyl, because there will always be collectors and music lovers who will keep it alive, but for mainstream commercial pop music it is becoming less important.
  • Options
    DirtyhippyDirtyhippy Posts: 2,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #23
    I'd love to try it but I bet there will be very little released on it, just the highly successful baby boomer artists and groups if your lucky, and classical/jazz.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 264
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #24
    Glawster2002 wrote: »
    I have no problem with MP3, as for traveling an MP3 player is a wonderful device, however it would never be my source of choice at home. As for paying for them, I just rip my CDs, so I can rip them at the quality I want.

    To be fair, you do have a point - MP3 players/iPods are brilliant devices when it comes to travelling, but no, MP3s wouldn't be my source of choice at home either; and I rip my CDs too.
  • Options
    TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #25
    Wouldn't it be great to have space for CDs or vinyl?
    Or to be able to afford to buy top range equipment for so called 'superior' formats?

    But I don't and I can't so I have to 'make do' with 320k MP3 which, lets's be honest, most people cannot discern the differences between it and FLAC.

    I hate format snobbery and the misguided, idiotic notion that people who listen to MP3s are not true music fans. You know what? Live will ALWAYS beat recorded no matter what format it is on.
  • Options
    AcerBenAcerBen Posts: 21,329
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #26
    unique wrote: »
    a 24bit flac album is less than 1gb in size. where do you get 1gb for a song from?
    even an 5.1 HD audio is much less than that per song

    The article says it's 1GB a song on these Blu Rays. I'm surprised myself.
Sign In or Register to comment.