|
|
|
From the moment I saw what blue ray disc was all about I began to wonder about the future of DVD-A (which I consider somewhat dead out of the gate) and Super Audio CD.
What bothers me is that I'm starting to see some stability in the new hi-res formats, especially SACD. Sony sells zillions of dream HTIB that support SACD, with Philips moving some as well but not anywhere near what Sony pushes. Circuit City has finally let SACD spill into the regular CD section. Best Buy has a solid selection, and Tower Records does as well, too bad they are filing for bankruptcy. Local MEGA stores Amoebas here in Berkeley and SF (california) have a great selection of SACD. Also the players range from dirt cheap to hyper expensive.
RollingStone put 1.3 million SACDs into their Dec 17 issue, I could go on but that's enough to make the point. What bothers me is that now progress is being made into the mainstream, the more casual consumer and Blu-ray could cause more problems.
with a single layer disc holding 25 Gigs, and a dual layer disc holding 50 gigs, I see (possibly) dolby labs and CERTAINLY DTS trumping both DVD-A and SACD. DTS could announce a 10 channel format, each supporting 24/192K res per channel or even 32/352K. I'm starting to wonder if DVD-A and the SACD camp jumped the gun and should have waited for either dual layer DVD media for the hi-res portion, or blu-ray disc.
Now some people could balk, and say we don't need 10 channels, or 18 or whatever, but someone with half a brain could figure out that those 18 channels could simply be used to eliminate the crossover in all speakers. A current 5.1 set-up configuration could be used as the basis with two or three way set ups for some (or all) speakers. Imagine a discreet channel for brushes on cymbals, another for guitars, and yet another for vocals. It's what I always wanted from Super Audio CD, but never got, and I don't see it coming from anyone.
Yes Blu-ray is still what.... two years away, but that's not the issue. The problems is the "Wait and See" crowd is exactly that, SACD or DVD-A could be a "sorta kinda" purchase on the horizon, and Dolby, DTS or even some Super DVD-A camp could screw it all up.
This is probably the first time in history that such a problem has ever existed, with technology getting so much better and cheaper, we are now facing this. When the CD was introduced, nobody wanted to risk spending the money for R&D on something that might not even fly. Now PCM even in higher-res flavor is common, understood and CHEAP. Even codecs like DTS that are exclusive to them aren't so complex and expensive anymore.
So this isn't really a bad thing, because blu-ray could be a Torjan for something much better, the problem is that all new formats (including anything new from blu-ray) could suffer because it could cause more confusion and everything could end up stalling. Either way, I see DTS with something in the works now. Don't forget that DTS CDs were out well before DVD took off. DTS doesn't get anything out of DVD-A and SACD. Even though their name is on some DVD-A titles, that's not bread and butter money. When DVD first hit, DTS was an unknown and didn't have the muscle that Dolby did. Either way, DTS did manage to sneak in the superior 1.5 Mb sec codec, I'm sure they will do the same with Blu-ray. This time around, don't be surprised if they throw in a multitude of bit rates including a REALLY high one just for hi-res music. Blu-ray maxes out at what 25Mb sec? or possibly more? DVD-A is just over 9Mb and SACD is probably lower because the bit rate is locked in for multi-channel and stereo unlike DVD-A. I also don't really mention the new HD DVD because it doesn't hold as much data, and will use compression tricks like Mpeg4 to squeeze hi-def TV onto the disc. Of the two I see Blu-ray getting the attention from the sound folks.
Either way, I do see a shift coming from the audiophile camp once someone announces a killer codec for blu-ray, I can smell it from here. If Super Audio CD isn't almost completely intrenched by the time someone announces the sound codecs and options for blu-ray, things could stall. I'm very curious to read what others have to say about all of this.
- Tony
http://www.StrangerSoundLabs.com
|
|
|
Post by zeus February 29, 2004 (2 of 23)
|
|
sound_labs said:
From the moment I saw what blue ray disc was all about I began to wonder about the future of DVD-A (which I consider somewhat dead out of the gate) and Super Audio CD.
I personally don't see it having much immediate impact on music delivery, but I wouldn't spend big bucks on a video player today.
|
|
|
Post by nucaleena February 29, 2004 (3 of 23)
|
|
sound_labs said:
From the moment I saw what blue ray disc was all about I began to wonder about the future of DVD-A (which I consider somewhat dead out of the gate) and Super Audio CD.
I'm basically in agreement with Stephen, Tony.
Does anyone who's ever been pushed to the brink of divorce because of the unsightliness (not my opinion or word) of 6 speakers think for a moment that anyone other than single or already-divorced males will ever be allowed 18??????? Now a disc that could hold a whole series of cookery programs, you could probably sell to your partner, so I can see the passing of DVD and what's left of VHS, but 18 speakers???? It ain't going to happen in most houses.
And although I suspect that a lot of users of this site are, like me, single and/or divorced, I think there are reasons why we self-indulgent early-uptakers might be late to run to blue-ray for music.
For one thing, the idea of a separate speaker for each instrument would be enough to send me running screaming away. That way lies aural madness. And represents the diametric opposite of the holy grail of music reproduction, - a natural perspective on a natural sound in a natural acoustic.
So would many audiophiles be attracted? Well the idea of even higher rez would certainly interest many, but what more can we physically hear? (quite apart from what more can we afford). Most of us, especially males, lose their high end hearing progressively from about 46 or so onwards, so by the time we could afford the multiple mega-amps and 18 speakers and so on, we'd be unable to hear any difference between the end result and what we're used to anyway.
And although some of us might think we want all five Beet. symphonies on one disc, isn't that a pretty expensive way to solve a storage problem? And wouldn't you have to turn on your tv just to play them, - in order to get a GUI or some form of index to select the only piece you have time to listen to tonight? And how many duplicate versions are we going to be willing to live with of all the bits and pieces on the collections that Blue Ray could store?
So, no, I wouldn't see blue ray as a threat to SACD quite yet.
BUT, ultimately, if blue ray was a contender and it won the day over SACD and DVD Audio because it genuinely offered more and better sound, then I'd probably be interested (provided I wasn't on a pension by then). Of course, I wouldn't make the leap unless it offered backwards compatibility with both CDs and SACDs, but assuming it did, why would I worry if SACD production was wound down if there was something better and I could still play SACDs already in my collection?? The phase out of redbook doesn't bother me for that reason and the defeat of SACD wouldn't bother me either (backwards compatibility assumed). It's not the carrier I care about, it's the music it carries.
I have no great loyalty to SACD or any other music carrier format, just a desire to hear the best possible sound given to the music I love. At the moment that's SACD. When I was young it was vinyl. When my dad was young it was shellac, though he couldn't afford a gramophone. When my grandad was young, they sang to each other. Or, if they were middle and upper class, played the piano. If blue ray, sting ray or sugar ray perform that function of giving the best available sound, fine. In other words, what's the big deal? Shellac died. Vinyl and cassette are just about dead. Long live their successors until they die and then long live them too until.......and so on.
By the way, what is HTIB?
|
|
|
Post by axel4hans February 29, 2004 (4 of 23)
|
|
Home theatre in a box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
HTIB Home Theater in a Box........
- Tony
|
|
|
Post by raffells March 1, 2004 (6 of 23)
|
|
sound_labs said:
From the moment I saw what blue ray disc was all about I began to wonder about the future of DVD-A (which I consider somewhat dead out of the gate) and Super Audio CD.
http://www.StrangerSoundLabs.com
I must admit to posting the opposite view the future of this technology in the " Sony weasels itself into dvda? via one of the two New format disc.."
I can see the benefit down the road timewise in having SACD(copy protection) possibly version "2" along with HDVD video and surround...but tying it own to CD length timing of 79 minutes seems silly...already noted and commented upon...
I still think the experiments in two cities USA is just testing the technology not testing the water....Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why not plan to come out with some kind of Blue SACD? DSD is clearly the superior art, being so close to analog in its bit pattern and all. You could make the sampling rate, oh, 5.6448 MHz, and the frequency response could be 200 kHz or so, and no competitor would be able to touch it.
Brian
http://brianaural.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp December 4, 2004 (8 of 23)
|
|
There are economic reasons why record companies do not want to sell you an entire lifetime's worth of music in a form factor that will fit into your pocket.
When CD was developed, the story many of you have heard is that "they" decided the maximum playing time based on fitting a performance of Beethoven's 9th symphony on one disc. Remember, LPs held about 45 minutes of music (or less), so this was a slight problem for the companies. Now they _could_ get almost 2 "albums"-worth of material on one disc. This meant that consumers looked at that "total playing time" number as one of their purchase criteria. But more tracks = more royalties paid = more expense.
So while it may be possible today to put Elton John's entire catalog on one platter in surround, in order for everybody to get paid properly the disc would have to cost $400 US, a number which I've thoroughly researched while I was pulling it out of my hat.
If the Apple model is "a buck a song," and that's the "going rate" for pop music, and if you would be reluctant to plop down 2 weeks' wages on something that does not fit on your wife/girfriend's finger, then you understand the pressures that are in play to not fulfill the potential capacity of one disc.
|
|
|
Post by gfresh December 4, 2004 (9 of 23)
|
|
I don't really care if Blue Ray upsets SACD or DVD-A if it sounds better. Actually I hope it does! Sound quality can be improved in both formats, 24/384 PCM is supposed to sound better than 64fs DSD, and 128fs DSD was supposed to be the optimal DSD format. Just like with CD as Dan Popp pointed out, 64fs was chosen because of play time, even though most engineers thought 128 was necessary. Of course, even 128 fs is still half of what consumer CD players stream at anyway. You could probobly improve the quality and dynamic range even more at 256fs, but I think the jump from 128 would be very small.
As for 32 bit PCM, you really don't need that many bits to reproduce music. 24 bits is enough for 17 million points of resolution and ridiculous dynamic range. Hell, we don't even have a true 24 bit converter anyways, the best converters are only 20 bit. PCM does not need more bits, its needs higher sampling rates. Ironically, DSD is sort of reversed, it needs higher sampling rates for more better dynamic resolution and less smearing details at high frequencies at high amplitude. Plus that helps with ultrasonic noise.
Well I hope Blue Ray doesn't overlook audio, because I still see some room for improvement.
|
|
|
Post by tailspn December 5, 2004 (10 of 23)
|
|
Two points please. First, spec numbers ( 64fs, 128fs etc.) can be interpreted to support virtually any belief. The fact remains that a back–to-back connected DSD A/D to D/A converters, compared real time to the incoming analog signals (microphones or tape sources), prove to be indistinguishable from one another. This test has been preformed numerous times in both professional field locations, and studios. While I'm sure there is a methodology flaw in there somewhere, it's close enough for me to appreciate that the real limitations are recording engineering judgments. IMO, the differences in the sound quality of available classical music SA-CD's would not be affected or improved by faster fs speeds. They are the result of a careful mating of the hall with the orchestra and music, the microphone selection and placement, the care of processing (if any) and delivery of those mic signals to the converters, and most of all, the experience and abilities of the recording engineer and producer.
It appears to me that unless one is in the business of producing or selling the latest piece of HiFi gadgetry, I think is disingenuous to cast in doubt the "finally!" satisfaction of people who have spent considerable money purchasing the SA-CD hardware they now own, on the premise that the current DSD recording technology is flawed, and can be fixed with the next generation of stuff.
Secondly, as has been stated before, Blue Ray is a delivery medium, not a recording format. I agree with Steve, and with Dan with his economics reasons, that the niche market for classical music that SA-CD has become will not be affected by the coming of Blue Ray technology. I do think, as faster chips come along, that there will be 128fs and 256fs for the production/studio market to solve some of the editing and production limitations, but I believe 64fs will remain the delivery speed. So why any impact of Blue Ray on audio, other than add HD video to what we now enjoy?
Tom
|
|
