Blu-ray music albums target replacement of SACD and DVD-Audio (1 Viewer)

[Brian Dobbs]

I'm not interested in enhanced stereo. Give me more MULTICHANNEL!

 

[Yorkshire]

I guess that depends upon the listener's ears. I listen in stereo, and I can definitely hear a difference between a CD and an SACD. Admittedly, the difference is smaller w/ my Sony 5400, because it apparently smooths CDs by converting them to DSD, but I can hear it. On a few occasions, I played the CD layer of a hybrid SACD by mistake, and I could hear the lower quality before I looked at the display. Of course, we're assuming that the CD and SACD layers are from the same master.

I may be wrong, but I suspect that one of the main reasons for some of the differences we hear is that the sort of processing (loudness wars, etc) used on CDs for the average listener are not applied (or not applied as often or as much) to SACDs/DVD-As, because they know the target audience don't want it.

It's maybe worth buying HD audio for hat reason, even if there's no other audible difference.

Steve W

 

[bigshot]

I guess that depends upon the listener's ears. I listen in stereo, and I can definitely hear a difference between a CD and an SACD.

It's not the ears, it's the mastering. I tried to do a direct level matched A/B comparison between SACD and redbook, and every hybrid SACD I found had different mastering on the redbook layer than on the SACD layer... obvious differences in fade outs and balances. I wash't able to make a fair comparison until I tried a Pentatone DSD mastered SACD hybrid. The disk sounded phenomenal, but other than a small difference in volume, the two layers sounded identical.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

One of the jewels in my CD collection is the MFSL 24 carat gold disc of Sting's The Dream of the Blue Turtles, but again, it's not that the reflective layer is gold; it's that MFSL went back to the original master and produced a superb 16-bit digital encoding. That being said, I still love the idea of BD audio, especially the multichannel possibilities. I would love a remaster of Peter Gabriel's PLAY compilation for BD, which combines music video and multichannel remixes of the songs. The original DVD was problematic because the DTS 96/24 multichannel track was mastered WAY too quiet (as in, I had to crank the volume to ear-splitting levels to actually hear the track, which was unfortunate).

 

[Doug Pyle]

First, different ears hear differently, and music appreciation is not evenly distributed throughout the human population. So, not everyone will hear the difference that is so obvious to others who can hear and appreciate hi-res music. I for one cringe when I hear beautiful music (be it Beethoven or Led Zepellin or Al DiMeola) in an MP3 format. I have plenty of friends who are happy as pie to listen to music that has been crunched into cramped little MP3 bits. I don't mean this as any criticism - my own family includes members of both descriptions, and I love them all. For those who are sensitive to the kind of detail that SACD and DVD-A bring out, I have found my first exposure to a blu-ray audio to be a revelation into the music - which I will describe more fully a couple paragraphs down....

But briefly, like Doug Otte has commented above, the difference between CD and SACD is obvious - that is, if you have the interest and ears to be sensitive to the difference.

That said - I can now follow up on my impressions of the Yes "Close to the Edge" blu-ray audio - which I first mentioned in an earlier post. First impression was WOW! And surprised, because I also already owned it on SACD, LP and several CD releases. The Blu-Ray Audio version is by far the best release, and provides literally new perspective and revelations into the music of this classic album.

However, the difference is not in music resolution. Both SACD and blu-ray audio can go to 192 kHz /24 bit resolitions. They both potentially sound 'as good.' The difference is all the extra room to do so much more on a blu-ray audio disk - it can do much more than simply deliver hi-res. And the Yes CTTE release takes great advantage by providing many versions of the entire album, as well as rough cuts and early versions of specific tracks.

The blu-ray version not only packs lots of bits and hi-res samples of sound available from remastering original tapes. It also presents a brand new mix in hi-res, which brings out more detail and clarity of ensemble performance among the band members. AND there are both stereo & multi-channel mixes.

AND yes, you can view static pictures of the album artwork on the TV while listening (someone commented that a visual element can be an advantage). PLUS there are special features - even a hi-res 'needle-drop' digital recording of a clean & high quality vinyl LP. Somehow, I find that hilarious, but what the heck. Blu-ray offers plenty of room to give all the extras one can imagine. And on the Close to the Edge release, I can't imagine wanting much more than was delivered.

I enjoyed listening to each special feature and bonus, but what I'll return to time & again is the stereo hi-res re-mix of the entire album. Those who like hearing instruments oddly playing somewhere behind your right or left ear instead of on stage will also enjoy the technically well done surround-sound version of the album. But I like to hear music coming from where the musicians would be, up front on stage, and the new stereo mix in hi-res on this blu-ray brings new clarity to the complex, interweaving ensemble performances of each band member. That mix is a new revelation into the performance and nuances of this classic Yes album. I think it greatly improves on every previous release of CTTE.

So - how this relates to the thread topic...

Regarding the new format 'war': To me, this example of blu-ray audio suggests the format is not just an entry into the hi-res format war (with SACD or downloads). If fully utilizing the format, it can offer much more than either SACDs or downloads can, to flesh-out releases with additional versions and bonus features that add to the experience and appreciation of the music. If this Yes release is an example, then the format can be a step forward, beyond what SACD (or hi-res downloads) can offer.

It can provide the same musical clarity and definition as SACD, but adds much more potential in terms of added content and choice, such as multiple versions, studio outtakes, and special features - much like the special features we enjoy on movie blu-ray. The question is, will the blu-ray audio potential be as well realized, as it was with the excellent & enjoyable release of Yes: Close to the Edge on blu-ray audio?

I have yet to try other blu-ray audio releases, but hope the Yes example sets the standard for future releases.

 

[bigshot]

Redbook CD audio is capable of reproducing the full range of human hearing distortion free, with a dynamic range that's roughly double what is normally needed in recorded music. "Hi Res" is a misnomer in this because within the range of of human hearing, high bit rate and high sampling rates are *identical* to Redbook. The only differences exist at volume levels that you would need to turn your stereo up to the volume of a jet engine to hear, and frequencies beyond the ability of any human on this planet to hear.

It's all mastering and placebo.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

By total coincidence I'm writing right now about Blu ray PUre Audio for our leading newspaper here in Australia. 'The Age', and tonight will be interviewing by phone the European global head of Universal whose responsibility this falls into.
I have six Blu ray audio discs to date ... the Getz Gilberto jazz album, Ella and Louis, soprano Anna Netrebko recital album, Carlos Kleiber conducting Beehoven 5th and 7th, and the Stones Exiles on Main Street and The Who's Tommy.
I have a few of these already on SACD (Getz, Kleiber and Tommy) and have to report that the same clear audio improvement is evident compared to CD (lack of compression, better definition especially in transfers from analog material) and there seems to be a slightly sweeter warm sound and a deeper bottom-end but I'm not sure if that's due to the encoding, or a new transfer or what. I'll pursue that tonight when I speak to the Universal man.
I'm hoping for a lot more of these releases and hope that the fab Solti recording of the Ring makes it to the PUre Audio catalog. It has already been transferred to Blu ray but only sold so far as part of a hugely expensive deluxe edition for well-heeled Wagnerites.
The advantage of Blu ray AudIo is not just its superior sound compared to CD but to the fact a special player is not needed .. these discs will play on all Blu ray players. I have an Oppo in my cinema room, but it's great to be able to get superior sound in my audio room as well, using my budget Toshiba.

 

[Robin9]

I have six Blu ray audio discs to date ... the Getz Gilberto jazz album, Ella and Louis, soprano Anna Netrebko recital album, Carlos Kleiber conducting Beehoven 5th and 7th, and the Stones Exiles on Main Street and The Who's Tommy.
I have a few of these already on SACD (Getz, Kleiber and Tommy) and have to report that the same clear audio improvement is evident compared to CD (lack of compression, better definition especially in transfers from analog material) and there seems to be a slightly sweeter warm sound and a deeper bottom-end but I'm not sure if that's due to the encoding, or a new transfer or what . . . . .
The advantage of Blu ray AudIo is not just its superior sound compared to CD but to the fact a special player is not needed .. these discs will play on all Blu ray players.

I have the Ella And Louis BRD. It's good but it sounds a shade too smooth for my taste. I prefer the clarity available from the original vinyl albums.

I have the Kleiber Beethovens on CD. The Fifth is unlistenable because of distortion. As Kleiber's is one of the great Beethoven recordings, I'd love a HiRes disc. Is the BRD distortion free?

 

[schan1269]

I just thought of something as well...

Maybe this will be the impetus for BD to finally arrive in the car. I'm sure there could be allowances made for audio only playback...

We already had(have) some carmakers including DVD-A. Logical leap.

 

[ImreM]

So do "Pure Audio" Blu-Ray discs require navigating through an on-screen menu in order to play the tracks? Having to connect a monitor of some kind to play back most DVD-A discs (vs. SACD) was something that to be honest, really detracted from the experience for me.

 

[Mike Frezon]

'Require?" No.

If you can see track numbers on the display of your player, you can do that in most instances.

The other thing commonly onscreen is the audio format selection (PCM, DTS HD-MA, etc).

However, a disc like the Ella and Louis Blu-ray Audio is actually a two album collection and you DO need to select between the two sets of tracks from the video screen, so....

I guess sometimes yes, sometimes no.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I've experimented with using the blu ray audio discs without the on-screen display and after a couple of goes it's pretty simple ... the Ella and Louis is ok as long as you don't want to select a particular album. But this facility doesn't worry me since I have a display as part of both my sound systems as one system is linked to my home projector system, and the other gives me the opportunity when needed to get best sound from discs I'm viewing as well as using that system as a regular hi-fi set-up.
The Kleiber does sound great to my ears .. I was never happy with the sound on CD as I was too used to the LP. This is every bit as good as the LP (probably better as my memory of the LP is from more than a decade ago) and even better than the recent SACD. Great performances!

 

[larryKR]

Amazon Canada has a Jan. 28th release date from Universal Music for The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed on Pure Audio (Blu-ray Audio) for $20.99. I don't see a listing on Amazon.com as yet.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The only disc I've really heard anything negative about is Nirvana's Nevermind. Apparently, when the album was remastered for the 20th anniversary CD release, it was subjected to the typical "loudness war" mastering, and that was the master Universal chose to use for the BD-A release, which is a shame. Nevermind was a well-recorded album, and the original CD is quite good, if you can find it.

Trent Reznor has been releasing audio Blu-rays for quite some time now, both solo and as Nine Inch Nails. Unfortunately, since Hesitation Marks was a major label release, it's only available on CD and digital download, but the CD is available in an Audiophile Mastered Version in addition to the regular release version.

 

[David Wilkins]

I still follow (and purchase) SACD, which isn't as dead a format as many people assume. New titles are still being released, though mostly jazz and classical, or older popular music. There also have been some very well remastered red book CD's and gold CD's during the past few years. I look forward to checking out a few BD-A titles. The Oppo players have been fantastic for high-end audio.

I steadfastly resist MP3, aside from the iPod when going for walks or at the gym. After all, it was created as a PORTABLE music format, not as a replacement in terms of fidelity.

 

[Bobby Henderson]

I disagree with the notion 16-bit 44.1kHz audio (Red Book CD standard) surpasses anything the human ear can hear. It may go to the upper 20kHz and lower 20Hz limits of most ears. But that bit depth and sample rate doesn't capture all of the detail in the audible frequency range. 24-bit 48kHz does a noticeably better job. Most movies played in theaters use LPCM tracks mastered at that resolution. Music material can yield the biggest differences if it is mastered properly. 24-bit 96kHz is worthwhile for that. There is a lot of debate on whether anything can be gained from 24-bit 192kHz recordings. It it a case of diminishing returns beyond 24/96 or do hardware limitations actually get in the way at the 24/192 level?

Blu-ray Audio is a good idea for certain genres of music where better techniques in music recording, editing and mastering may be used. Jazz and Classical are the obvious candidates.

Much of the music being released in the Pop, Rock and Country categories sounds as if it was tailor-made for lossy formats and playback in portable devices -mainly smart phones with ear buds attached. I still prefer to buy music on physical CDs. Unfortunately the volume levels and compression techniques used to master that music make it loud, harsh and difficult to distinguish between a lossy version of the same LPCM WAV file.

The only thing that gives me any hope some of this could change is growth in the premium headphones market. With people blowing $300 or more on a pair of fancy name brand headphones they might actually want the music they're playing to sound better instead of louder. Maybe I'm getting my hopes too high.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I've very recently bought three SACD releases on Sterling Sound label of albums Billie Holiday cut in the 1950s for the Verve label.
Sterling though give us only the equivalent of one LP per SACD whereas Universal could release the entire Clef/Verve etc late Billie Holiday catalogue on Blu ray on probably four or five discs at similar or better sound!
And since I'm a huge Billie Holiday fan, I'll buy these all over again on the new format and give the SACDs to my children .. that is, if they have a universal player able to play SACDs!

 

[Dave Upton]

I still download FLAC by and large, but I can't really say anything negative about Blu-ray audio. The biggest problem for me is ease of playback - i'm a headphone user so I do listen to most of my music at work.

 

[Robin9]

I disagree with the notion 16-bit 44.1kHz audio (Red Book CD standard) surpasses anything the human ear can hear. It may go to the upper 20kHz and lower 20Hz limits of most ears. But that bit depth and sample rate doesn't capture all of the detail in the audible frequency range. 24-bit 48kHz does a noticeably better job. Most movies played in theaters use LPCM tracks mastered at that resolution. Music material can yield the biggest differences if it is mastered properly. 24-bit 96kHz is worthwhile for that.

Within a few years of CD coming out, many people with decent hearing were complaining about the sub-standard sound quality. Chesky responded by remastering two analogue recordings at 24/96 and releasing them on DVD: Red Rodney and Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances/Donald Johanos/Dallas Symphony Orchestra. Both quickly became collectors' items among audiophiles, and quite rightly so. The sound quality is superb.

The Rachmaninoff was already an audiophile favorite on vinyl.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

Yes, CDs can be surprisingly good if mastered properly from a high-sample source but this became evident really only in the last decade, with people being asked to purchase the same material twice-over .. first in the standard original slipshod transfers, then in the sort of careful transfers which should have been standard from day-one. My own belief is that early release engineers were so obsessed about getting rid of every bit of analog 'noise' such as tape hiss that they scrubbed the source so clean that it stripped all the original ambience from the music. And for some reason, probably to do with original sampling rates, DDD digital recordings in the early era were strangely lifeless too.
But while transfer technology and practice has improved immeasurably .. as shown by the recent Beatles remasters and the Dylan mono set -- the sonic experience of an SACD or Blu ray is still a notch ahead of CD. Of course, a reasonably good sound system is needed to benefit from these audiophile technologies. My own system is pretty basic -- B & W in one room and Quad in the other -- but does qualify as true hi-fi. In the garden I still rely on my windup gramophone with steel needles and my library of 78s.....