Should Audio Fidelity Issue Multichannel BD Audio Discs?

Find deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Amazon
QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
bmoura said:
Unfortunately you lose the Stereo SACD & Stereo CD fans with BD-A. So it's a non starter for many companies.
In fact, a writer over on the Computer Audiophile forum mentioned having lunch with Universal Music Europe - who asked him at lunch why is there a lack of interest among consumers in BD Audio? Hmm....
Click to expand...
1. no, you don't. as i mentioned earlier, ones, who was in mood and financial condition to purchase SACD player in the past,
most likely already does have BD player or easily can afford to buy one (which will cost to them equal of purchase of 2 SACD disc).


2. a) the answer to this question would be a question - how ones can avoid lack of interest to their product, if from their side was
done NOTHING, to promote it and educate potential consumers.
b) variety+quality+price=success. so far i see they going the way, SACD, DVDA, DualDisc already tried before and failed miserably.
poor selection, average, for most part, quality, high price it's recipe for failure.
 
0tto said:
1. no, you don't. as i mentioned earlier, ones, who was in mood and financial condition to purchase SACD player in the past,
most likely already does have BD player or easily can afford to buy one (which will cost to them equal of purchase of 2 SACD disc).


2. a) the answer to this question would be a question - how ones can avoid lack of interest to their product, if from their side was
done NOTHING, to promote it and educate potential consumers.
b) variety+quality+price=success. so far i see they going the way, SACD, DVDA, DualDisc already tried before and failed miserably.
poor selection, average, for most part, quality, high price it's recipe for failure.
Click to expand...

Number 1 relies on two things - that the player will not mixdown before output, and also that the person who invested in SACD has a multichannel amp that accepts HDMI (let alone having the player in a place where it can be connected to their TV)

Number 2 b - you may have implied yourself that variety is not necessarily the answer: increased authoring costs, at least one format taking a hit at the expense of the other and they should both be making their money back + profit.
 
rtbluray said:
Sorry but I can't believe that's even a question.
Putting CD together with Blu-Ray, or CD together with DVD-A/V, or a CD layer on a Hybrid SACD still gives people the optical disc with the biggest compatibility and portability, while providing all of the added benefits of these higher res surround discs.
EVERYONE WINS!

To me that's why DVD-A failed to take off. WB, UMe, and other companies insisted for the longest time on selling DVD-A discs on their own without CDs, and once they did try to provide CD with DVD-A/V, they did so in the most abysmal way with Dualdisc, which has a CD layer that's too thin for most players, making it completely unreadable!
It wasn't until 2005 that Warner finally got their act together and released CD/DVD-A combo packs (like they always should have), but by that point, their interest in DVD-A had dwindled too much anyway.

And let's not forget the mistakes made on the SACD side as well. Too many discs released in the early years were playable only on SACD players. BIG MISTAKE! Why? If people weren't getting a CD layer too, why would they want to invest in discs and a player that would cost them a lot of money if they didn't have that safety net of backwards compatibility with CD players? Once again, by the time they made Hybrid discs the standard, the interest disappeared for the most part.

And now we're on to Blu-Ray Audio. UMe has made the mistake at times of only offering a Blu-Ray audio disc with no CDs. Then again when they do offer CDs with Blu-Ray discs, it can be in really expensive packages! CD/Blu-Ray should be a new standard, but it hasn't yet caught on from a convenience and affordability standpoint.

Essentially this is why labels are so scared of surround and the various formats...
Click to expand...

What you are describing is a "marketing" reason...nothing more...it has absolutely nothing to do with sound quality...and that's what hi rez applications are designed to provide...it's a niche market product..not a swiss army knife for all occasions...I must admit that this type of thinking is very popular with record companies and has led to marbles...scarfs and just about every useless accessory known to man to give the illusion of being a "good value"...a lot of posters now consider "value" in their surround votes...so if they get CD's...pictures of the band..and numerous trinkets it's now worthy of more points in a poll vote...personally I don't need needle drops..CD's I will never play and every version of an album that was ever conceived...this concept of trying to please everyone never works in the long run..especially in a specialized segment...


In regards to the demise of DVD-A...IMO packaging had absolutely nothing to do with their failure...
 
rtbluray said:
Sorry but I can't believe that's even a question.
Putting CD together with Blu-Ray, or CD together with DVD-A/V, or a CD layer on a Hybrid SACD still gives people the optical disc with the biggest compatibility and portability, while providing all of the added benefits of these higher res surround discs.
EVERYONE WINS!

To me that's why DVD-A failed to take off. WB, UMe, and other companies insisted for the longest time on selling DVD-A discs on their own without CDs, and once they did try to provide CD with DVD-A/V, they did so in the most abysmal way with Dualdisc, which has a CD layer that's too thin for most players, making it completely unreadable!
It wasn't until 2005 that Warner finally got their act together and released CD/DVD-A combo packs (like they always should have), but by that point, their interest in DVD-A had dwindled too much anyway.

And let's not forget the mistakes made on the SACD side as well. Too many discs released in the early years were playable only on SACD players. BIG MISTAKE! Why? If people weren't getting a CD layer too, why would they want to invest in discs and a player that would cost them a lot of money if they didn't have that safety net of backwards compatibility with CD players? Once again, by the time they made Hybrid discs the standard, the interest disappeared for the most part.

And now we're on to Blu-Ray Audio. UMe has made the mistake at times of only offering a Blu-Ray audio disc with no CDs. Then again when they do offer CDs with Blu-Ray discs, it can be in really expensive packages! CD/Blu-Ray should be a new standard, but it hasn't yet caught on from a convenience and affordability standpoint.

Essentially this is why labels are so scared of surround and the various formats...
Click to expand...


And let's not forget what was probably the most ridiculous format approach: the MVI disc. The one release I actually do like quite a bit though is Donald Fagen's Nightfly Trilogy box. Still a jumbled mess, though.
 
This thread will be for comments on the concept of Audio Fidelity adding Blu Ray Audio discs to their current approach to the market. Namely Stereo SACDs, Multichannel SACDs and Stereo Vinyl LP releases.
 
Clint Eastwood said:
pictures of the band..and numerous trinkets it's now worthy of more points in a poll vote...personally I don't need needle drops..CD's I will never play and every version of an album that was ever conceived...this concept of trying to please everyone never works in the long run..especially in a specialized segment...
Click to expand...

And there's the rub. Some people - like me sometimes - want the things you consider useless (I'm referring to media rather than trinkets, specifically) so who do the record companies please? Universal are taking a great step at the moment in terms of offering huge content in more modest boxes (TFF, Simple Minds, etc.) and also offering a 2CD or even single CD alternative, BD-A and even vinyl. Thankfully, and sensibly they aren't throwing all of them in the same box and charging $150 plus for them.
 
Absolutely...expanding the portfolio increases business...with the proliferation of universal players within the audiophile community these blu ray audio discs would add another good choice for the consumer...and just maybe that young professional who is curious about surround music might be tempted to buy some titles... since he already owns a blu ray player or gaming device that is capable of blu ray playback...or can buy an affordable blu ray player
 
bmoura said:
This thread will be for comments on the concept of Audio Fidelity adding Blu Ray Audio discs to their current approach to the market. Namely Stereo SACDs, Multichannel SACDs and Stereo Vinyl LP releases.
Click to expand...

I'm against the idea. And vinyl too. Let's just go 100% multichannel SACD. And no downloads either. And while we're at it let's get rid of the silly slipcases and limited edition number stickers. I would suggest super jewel cases but I read somewhere that they are no longer manufactured. I wonder what Analogue Productions is going to do about that.
 
Mike the Fish said:
And there's the rub. Some people - like me sometimes - want the things you consider useless (I'm referring to media rather than trinkets, specifically) so who do the record companies please? Universal are taking a great step at the moment in terms of offering huge content in more modest boxes (TFF, Simple Minds, etc.) and also offering a 2CD or even single CD alternative, BD-A and even vinyl. Thankfully, and sensibly they aren't throwing all of them in the same box and charging $150 plus for them.
Click to expand...


I don't have any problem with "tiers" with various offerings....as long as they offer the single disc as an alternative...which wasn't the case on discs like aqualung($150 to get the blu ray disc)or Tom Petty Anthology...or some of the Pink Floyd sets...and was the norm for awhile..holding people hostage and forcing them to buy a bloated set to get the surround disc...give me the Division Bell DVD 5.1 for $10 or $15 every day of the week and I'd be happy for the rest of my life...I could care less about the cheap packaging...just give me the music....but this concept that these discs must have some companion discs of a lesser sound quality to make them attractive is insulting to the savvy consumer...to me it's just a ploy...giving you more of what you don't want is still more to many people..
 
Mike the Fish said:
And there's the rub. Some people - like me sometimes - want the things you consider useless (I'm referring to media rather than trinkets, specifically) so who do the record companies please? Universal are taking a great step at the moment in terms of offering huge content in more modest boxes (TFF, Simple Minds, etc.) and also offering a 2CD or even single CD alternative, BD-A and even vinyl. Thankfully, and sensibly they aren't throwing all of them in the same box and charging $150 plus for them.
Click to expand...

No more costly box sets with marbles and stupid ass drink coasters! A kid would love it! The absolute dumbest 2 sets were the Van Morrison adventure in redundancy, and the awful box of Tull, with stuff no one really wanted! But, if you wanted the MC disc-you bent slightly forward and accepted what was offered., and paid for the privilege.
SACD is OK but like mentioned BD is more of an advantage to buyers and sellers.
 
Clint Eastwood said:
I don't have any problem with "tiers" with various offerings....as long as they offer the single disc as an alternative...
Click to expand...

Yes, that can be very frustrating. Especially if there's loads of double dipping with stuff duplicated on vinyl, CD, DVD and whatever (step forward Peter Gabriel's So box.)
 
leevitalone1 said:
OK but everyone has a blu ray player, (except my stupid buddy, who is a moron)
Click to expand...

Yeah but the audiophile snobs don't like blu-ray because of (one or more) of the following:

1. Like the fact that it outputs via HDMI - too much jitter etc...
2. They don't have a HDMI receiver
3. The analog outs on most Blu-ray players are crap... "it'll sound better at CD quality via my high end CD player"

You can't teach an old dog new tricks...
 
Clint Eastwood said:
Absolutely...expanding the portfolio increases business...with the proliferation of universal players within the audiophile community these blu ray audio discs would add another good choice for the consumer...and just maybe that young professional who is curious about surround music might be tempted to buy some titles... since he already owns a blu ray player or gaming device that is capable of blu ray playback...or can buy an affordable blu ray player
Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of truth to that. The bigger this Audio Fidelity pool of surround releases becomes, the more exclusionary it's going to appear to non-SACD people as you go along. It's going to say to them, "get an SACD player, or do without". Just one way of looking at it. My personal stance is with SACD and DVD-A.
 
Mike the Fish said:
Yes, that can be very frustrating. Especially if there's loads of double dipping with stuff duplicated on vinyl, CD, DVD and whatever (step forward Peter Gabriel's So box.)
Click to expand...

They're doing this with downloads too. Double dipping. First the 24bit/96khz download appears, followed by the 128khz version some time later. No more 96khz downloads for me.
 
LizardKing said:
Yeah but the audiophile snobs don't like blu-ray because of (one or more) of the following:

1. Like the fact that it outputs via HDMI - too much jitter etc...
2. They don't have a HDMI receiver
3. The analog outs on most Blu-ray players are crap... "it'll sound better at CD quality via my high end CD player"

You can't teach an old dog new tricks...
Click to expand...

I hear ya...as much as I respect the analog world...there is a lot of "mumbo jumbo" involved that modern science has refuted...sometimes it gets blown out of proportion...
 
In an ideal world we'd have a standard recording format for all hi-rez stereo and surround. But we don't live in an ideal world and standardisation ain't gonna happen anytime soon. :)

So in answer to the original question from Otto - I would say no to issuing Blu-rays. A change would alienate their existing fanbase, and most of us (here) have good or great SACD playback capability anyway.
 
well guys. i'm, like all of you, can utilize any of available formats, be it SACD, DVDA, AudioDVD, DualDisc, BD-A, CD, DTS-CD, vinyl,
cassette, open real or 8-track but this was forced on me by absence of wide variety of surround titles to select from.
very obvious, majority of record industry consumers won't do this, thus if record industry does want to survive, they MUST consolidate
one universal format, which can deliver most wider options, be affordable and can be easy for utilization even for less advanced users.
why it will make me happy? in such turn eventually i can hope on the much better selection of titles, which will be released in surround,
as there will be not only fistfull of audiofiles but all traditional market.
 
From the practical point of view the copy protection of SACD is still effective. Therefore, I understand why certain labels and artists have chosen that format. Eg. BD rips of the new SW album have been out there since the release date. Regarding the topic, imho the customer is always right. I would be happy if we customers could sort out the format wars without compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Oppo 205 help
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
mandrix
mandrix
Fourplay
QQwammys Idea
Replies
0
Views
193
Fourplay
Fourplay
Goldhamster916
How do I make a 7.1.4 system work in a very small room?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Starkenstein
S
P
Modern player for DTS CDs, DVD-A, and SACD 5.1?
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
8K
SeeMoreDigital
SeeMoreDigital
Scytales
Another kind of multichannel audio: front-end stereophonic multichannel
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
barturtle
B

Latest posts

Back
Top