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

[schan1269]

Yeah that whole Scandinavian "opera-thrash" is even more niche than Sepultura and Napalm Death.

 

[David_B_K]

How many listen to audio optical disc? How many people own either DVD-Audio or SACD discs?

Most of my collection is on redbook CDs. I seldom buy MP3s. I do listen to an iPod, but only when I am away from my stereo. I have a fair number of SACDs and DVD-As. I listen primarilly to classical music, where there were quite a few releases in SACD. IMO, hi-fef music formats are like hi-def video formats: what's not to like about higher def? In some cases, they can feature multi-channel sound as well, to make some of the more epic pieces really shine. The organ on the Ondine SACD recording of the Saint-Saens Organ symphony featuring Eschenbach/Philadelphia Orchestra is a good example. No LP or CD recording has ever reproduced the organ part as well as that recording does. My wife had tears in her eyes when I first played that version for her. Likewise, the Mehta Israel Philharmonic recording of Mahler's 2nd. In some recordings, one has to strain to pick out the organ from the mass of instruments and chorus and soloists during the finale. When the organ makes it entrance on the Mehta recording, it's like a jetliner is flying over your head!

It really doesn't matter if the original source is analog if the original has been remastered at a higher bitrate. Some of the RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Prescence recordings from the 50's sound stunning in 3-track SACD. Also, the Sinatra and Nat Cole Capitol releases are remarkable, even the ones in mono. I suppose if one listens to music that features a lot of purposful distortion, or is recorded live with primitive equipment, a higher-def format may not be appealing.

I am interested in pursuing the new Blu-ray audio discs. One drawback of SACD is that many of the new classical releases seem to feature obscure orchestras and conductors in order to save money. It really doesn't matter if the quality of the recording is magnificent if the performance is only average.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I have both a Oppo SD-DVD player that supports DVD-Audio (and SACD), plus a Sony ES SACD/CD 5-disc carousel player. I have a modest collect of SACD and DVD-Audio discs, but have not purchased any in a few years. I cannot remember the last time I just sat and listened to music on my system -- my music listening these days takes place mostly in my car or via an iPod. My car stereo has a USB port that I use to listen to my own MP3's -- all made from my CD and concert SD-DVD collection.

I just do not have enough time to sit and listen critically to music at home anymore. When I do have music playing on my main system, it is usually just background music when we have guests. Pandora streaming is more than adequate for that purpose.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I'm seeing a lot of posts mentioning Oppo players from people that like their quality and also got them because they are great multi-format machines.

I was keeping an extra deck in my system just for the DVD-As and SACDs (but it was a PITA to change all the settings in my receiver each time I wanted to use it). So, I got myself a Pioneer Elite 62-FD which plays all formats and passes the high-rez audio via HDMI. Easy peasey.

I am committed to high-rez audio. I jut wish there was more of it--and especially more of it to my tastes (and at a better price). Don't want much, do I?

Maybe this new wave of Blu audio releases will do the trick. I know there are a good number of these titles I would add to my collection--once they become available in the US and as long as they are affordable.

 

[Doug Otte]

I'm sticking w/ SACD. I listen to music on my basement rig, which has an SACD player, but no blu-ray or monitor.

In the living room HT where I have a blu-ray player and monitor, I rarely listen to music.

 

[jcroy]

Then when mixing technology improved, many "originating albums" went back...again...to the master tapes and "re-master" was born.

For albums which originally sounded like total shit (whether due to incompetence, sabotage, malice, etc ... or just plain shortage of cash), in practice the only way to improve the sound is to go back to the original 24-track studio tape and mix all the songs again from scratch.

The few albums where this was actually done, the results can be quite significant. In a few cases, it sounded like the difference between night and day. In other cases it was at best marginal, but still had a slightly better sound production than the original version.

One case I'm familiar with is the "Peace Sells, But Who's Buying?" album by Megadeth. The original vinyl and cd versions from the 1980's, sounded like complete garbage. Around a decade ago or so, they went back into the studio and remixed the entire album. This new mix sounded much clearer and way better sounding than the original version.

(Though some "purists" may object to such a drastic "revision" of an album).

 

[schan1269]

"Though some "purists" may object to such a drastic "revision" of an album"

The only time a purist should carp about a revision...is when the original people weren't involved and changes were made. In almost all cases of really good re-masters...

The artist and/or the original recording engineer were present (The RCA "life" recording etc notwithstanding).

 

[jcroy]

"Though some "purists" may object to such a drastic "revision" of an album"

The only time a purist should carp about a revision...is when the original people weren't involved and changes were made. In almost all cases of really good re-masters...

The artist and/or the original recording engineer were present (The RCA "life" recording etc notwithstanding).

There is one famous case of a "revision" being almost universally reviled.

Around a decade ago or so, the controversial re-releases of the first two Ozzy Osbourne albums "Blizzard of Ozz" and "Diary of a Madman" had the drums and bass tracks completely re-recorded. Allegedly this was done due to various then-ongoing legal disputes surrounding these two albums, by the original drummer and bassist.

 

[bigshot]

If the record companies would simply master albums correctly on redbook CD, there would be absolutely no reason for hires formats. The difference between hires and CD from a technical standpoint is inaudible... frequencies beyond the range of human hearing that aren't even in the music, and noise floor so low you would have to turn the volume up to the level of a jet engine at close range to discern. (That is if you don't go deaf first.) Totally pointless and designed to get you to buy Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon again in yet another format.

The only purpose for SACD or Blu-Ray sound is multichannel. Multichannel sound is a definite improvement, but only if the person doing the surround mix is good. I have some that sound like a monkey took a real engineer's two channel master and spread it all around like feces.

 

[jcroy]

If the record companies would simply master albums correctly on redbook CD, there would be absolutely no reason for hires formats. The difference between hires and CD from a technical standpoint is inaudible... frequencies beyond the range of human hearing that aren't even in the music, and noise floor so low you would have to turn the volume up to the level of a jet engine at close range to discern. (That is if you don't go deaf first.)

What would be examples of "improper" cd mastering, which do not conform to redbook specs?


That is, besides the infamous "loudness" war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

 

[Gary Seven]

Love hi-res recordings... listen to SACD and DVD-A quite a bit (and vinyl). I really enjoy multi channel, some more than others depending on the mix.

I listen to 320 Mp3 at work or working out, but I never purchase them. Only discs.

I did not see whether these new BR will have multi channel mixes.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Love hi-res recordings... listen to SACD and DVD-A quite a bit (and vinyl). I really enjoy multi channel, some more than others depending on the mix.

I listen to 320 Mp3 at work or working out, but I never purchase them. Only discs.

I did not see whether these new BR will have multi channel mixes.

Some will...Queen's "A Night At The Opera" is among them...

 

[Gary Seven]

^^ In that case, I will be keeping an eye out for these releases.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

No reason why they can't have multi channel mixes. I'm a big fan of The Flaming Lips, and would love to see Zaireeka released as a multi-channel lossless BD, as the original package is somewhat unwieldy, unless you want set up four boom boxes and run it that way. A 7.1 mix would recreate the original intent nicely, and they could always optimise it for 9.1 (Dolby ProLogic IIz or dts Neo:X) or even 11.1 (dts Neo:X).

Primus went back to the mixing board with their deluxe edition of Sailing the Seas of Cheese, not so much because of any audio deficiencies, but because the original mix for CD got lost, so they had to go back and remix to recreate the original mix. While they were at it, they did a 5.1 mix. The price of the package is a li'l high, but not prohibitive, and I'm looking into getting it, as I'm huge Primus fan, and Les Claypool and company are sticklers for audiophile quality.

 

[Ruz-El]

No reason why they can't have multi channel mixes. I'm a big fan of The Flaming Lips, and would love to see Zaireeka released as a multi-channel lossless BD, as the original package is somewhat unwieldy, unless you want set up four boom boxes and run it that way. A 7.1 mix would recreate the original intent nicely, and they could always optimise it for 9.1 (Dolby ProLogic IIz or dts Neo:X) or even 11.1 (dts Neo:X).

They recently re-release Zaireeka on vinyl so it's even more of a pain to listen to!

Neil Young has been putting a lot of music on Bluray, with the selling point of the music being completely uncompressed and lossless. His "Archives Volume One" set is easily the most impressive music based boxset I've ever purchased, even if the downloaded updates have stopped, and the tracks sound amazing through both a modest rig and a pricey one. It's a shame more artists don't copy it, it really is ahead of it's time.

 

[bigshot]

What would be examples of "improper" cd mastering, which do not conform to redbook specs?That is, besides the infamous "loudness" war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

You answered your own question. Clipping is out of spec.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

Can't wait. I have a few SACDs ... maybe 50 or 60 -- and a smaller number of DVD-Audio discs, but of course my Oppo will play blu ray audio as well as my SACDs.
The advantaqe I guess of Blu ray audio is simply that as more people convert to Blu ray video, then they have automatic access to hi-res playback as long as their video is connected to a decent audio system and not just to their display monitor. I have a B & W speaker outfit in my projection cinema room, and Quad (UK pre amp and power amp setup in my living room (with English Neat speakers) and the difference between a well mastered CD and equally well mastered SACD is quite obvious .. less emphatic sound on the SACD (no compression) but greater spaciousness and depth. I'm talking here of course of remstered material from the analog days ... great operas, or Bob Dylan, The Who, or Billie Holiday etc. Yes, Virginia, there is a difference. ....

 

[Yorkshire]

Eventually, the Pure Audio files could be distributed digitally themselves - but with a four-minute song needing 1GB of storage space it will be a while before technology affords the compression necessary to stream or the space to hold on a media device.

How does that work?

We can get a 4 hour film with lossless 8 channel audio (7.1) on a 50GB disc, but a stereo lossless audio track without video takes up 1GB for 4 minutes?

There's something wrong there somewhere. DVD-Audio (maximum capacity less than 9GB) regularly had far more than 9 x 4 minute tracks + other audio formats, video material, etc, etc.

I agree with a few of the earlier comments - as a society a lot of people don't sit still and listen to music much anymore. I think these might sellm better with some sort of visual content, even if it was just the album artwork, a slide show, or some sort of patterned screen saver.

Steve W

 

[Doug Otte]

The only purpose for SACD or Blu-Ray sound is multichannel. Multichannel sound is a definite improvement, but only if the person doing the surround mix is good. I have some that sound like a monkey took a real engineer's two channel master and spread it all around like feces.

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.

 

[EdReedFan20]

I want to see The Lord of the Rings soundtracks released in this format. I never got the chance to get my hands on the Complete Recording sets (only ROTK is still sold at its normal price). I remember hearing how wonderful the music sounded in 5.1. The only issue I'd have with these Blu-Ray Audio albums is a lack of digital copy (MP3 or whatever) so we can use it on our portable music players.