Blu-Ray music releases are being planned.

[Audi A3]

Chris Gerhard. Just to let you know - you're not the only one, who thinks Blu-Ray (Audio & Video) have a chance of success. I don't understand why so many members of this forum are so negative.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

Chris Gerhard. Just to let you know - you're not the only one, who thinks Blu-Ray (Audio & Video) have a chance of success. I don't understand why so many members of this forum are so negative.

I have been using it for three years and it is clearly better than any consumer audio video format I have used and I have used almost all of them. In fact, there isn't even a close second and it is supported by an entire industry, I can't think of a single major player that is sitting this one out. I can't see what more we could ask for. That sure doesn't guarantee success but if quality, value and industry support doesn't matter, what does? I don't base my opinions of a product on some emotional nonsense like a bias against Sony for some silly reason. The good news is if somebody doesn't want a Sony product in their home, there are plenty of other options. Of course missing Sony Blu-ray software releases because of a bias like that is like cutting off your nose to spite your face since Sony Blu-ray releases are consistently high quality. My observation would be Sony has passed Disney in my expectation of nearly flawless video and audio quality when I rent or buy. All of the companies involved are doing a great job in my opinion with the single exception of Samsung and their broken firmware development department. I wish they would subcontract that to Sony or Oppo or Panasonic, I have no idea how they can be so inept at such an important piece of the Blu-ray business model.

Chris

 

[ArnoldLayne]

Chris Gerhard. Just to let you know - you're not the only one, who thinks Blu-Ray (Audio & Video) have a chance of success. I don't understand why so many members of this forum are so negative.

I am positive to blu-ray as a format, it has many possibilities for both audio and video. My negativity springs from Sony's behaviour, they have made incalculable damage to the spreading of hi-res surround for over a decade now:

- They launched their own format (SACD) and used it for selling their back-catalog but never backed it up by issuing new mainstream albums in it.

- They dominated the DualDisc launch in terms of albums but refused to put anything else than Dolby Digital in all of them

- Despite being the proprietary of both SACD and BD, they have failed to provide us with players that read both these formats.

And they will continue. Next step will likely be to impose a special BD-Audio standard, not necesarily compatible with current players. Their motives for doing this we can only guess but can I assure you that it is not a technical issue. It is actually very simple to put together hi-res surround PCM and still pictures, compile it as BD5 or BD9 and burn / press it on an ordinary DVD disc. So easy that I managed to do it myself in a weekend, using publicly available freeware.

It is not my intention to be ungrateful for the news transmitted by the creator of this thread. But as far as I'm concerned, surround sound is better off if Sony stays away from it. My BDP-S350 is likely to be the last Sony-branded product I ever buy. And for some time now I'm thinking twice before spending money on albums from their labels.

 

[daved64]

Chris Gerhard. Just to let you know - you're not the only one, who thinks Blu-Ray (Audio & Video) have a chance of success. I don't understand why so many members of this forum are so negative.

Has history taught us nothing?

People.
Don't.
Care.

......about surround music, without video.


And if people don't care, other than the few hundred of us chowder heads here, why would the record companies piss money away on them? Unless there is video involved, the majority of consumers don't wanna sit in front of a 53 inch TV that is off while playing a Blu-Ray.

I love surround, but I am a realist.

 

[The Quadfather]

They will probably botch it up by reprinting what was already done in DVD A and SACD, therefore not utilizing the market of confirmed surround enthusiasts. People won't buy what we already have. Or they will just be stereo only. Or they will not promote them properly. I remember seeing ads on TV for recordings that had been released in DVD A or SACD, and no mention of the fact that they were availlable in surround formats.

OTOH, If people want to watch something, give them music videos to watch with the surround recordings. Those of us who don't want to watch the filth and perversion that will no doubt show up in these videos can just turn off the TV.

Sorry, I'm just in a really cinical mood. Y'all have a happy Thanksgiving, and may your turkey be tender and juicy.

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

Has history taught us nothing?
People.
Don't.
Care.

......about surround music, without video.

And if people don't care, other than the few hundred of us chowder heads here, why would the record companies piss money away on them?

Love for their fellow human being?

(the above answer sounds better if at the same time you picture in your head that 70s Coke commercial where they sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing....." )

 

[surroundophile]

There is an article in this month's (September) (pg. 15) Stereophile magazine that the Audio Engineering Society of London at their 128th convention, through papers and workshops, reinforced the desirability of hires AUDIO ONLY Blurays. Some of the ideas included use of the colored buttons on Bluray remote to control the disc without having to connect a monitor (as DVD-Audio did). They also mentioned thatt all eyes are on the Tom Petty Bluray audio release. So if you haven't purchased your copy yet, please do!!

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

I plan on purchasing no physical discs in the foreseeable future except for maybe a few concert Blu-rays.
Personally, as a consumer, I've been conducting a lot of research the past couple of weeks. I never thought I would be the one to ever say, "No More Physical Medium". If someone were to ask me a 2-3 weeks ago, I would have told them that I would always purchase a physical disc or other source but would never give in to completely downloading music, even at my mature age. I've come to the conclusion that I no longer want physical discs and will eventually burn what I have, then store them. I, for one, can't wait for more popular high resolution downloadable music including surround.
So, I've decided to jump into downloads head first and will be downloading all my music from here on out.
Personally, I see Blu-ray being a short lived format, kind of like Windows Millennium & Vista.
It might remain for a niche market.
Though, I will say that I could be wrong about the life span of the Blu-ray format but I'm almost certain on the Compact Disc and DVD.
It's only a matter of time.

 

[timbre4]

While physical formats are already fading for music, I suspect that DVD/BluRay for video have a longer shelf life.

 

[dobyblue]

Next step will likely be to impose a special BD-Audio standard, not necesarily compatible with current players. Their motives for doing this we can only guess but can I assure you that it is not a technical issue.

They will not do this. All Blu-ray Discs released have to conform to the standards already in place since before 2006 for BD-25 and BD-50 video discs. Changes to the Blu-ray specifications have to go through the Blu-ray Disc Association, like the recent 3D changes...the other participants on the board of directors, like Time Warner, will not be interested in doing any specialty format for audio as it will only succeed if it plays on all players.

Mojo plays just like a standard CD. It starts in 24/48 and you can press the "AUDIO" button to toggle to dts-ma 5.1 without turning on an HDTV.

However I think the popular blu-ray music releases will be ones that incorporate several additional special features including some live footage, interviews, b-side, CD digital copy or Digital Download coupon, interactive discography, videos from the album in question in high definition 1080p where the source material allows, etc., etc., as well as high resolution stereo and multi-channel versions of the album for the people like us who want fidelity.

I think the push will start in 2012 with The Beatles remastered 24/192 Blu-ray sets as well as a 5.1 deluxe edition of Thriller complete with restored full lenght Thriller video in 1080p with high resolution stereo and surround of both the video and album.

It can happen and be sustainable.

 

[dobyblue]

Sometimes I wonder if we are brothers from another mother.

Big differences in my opinion:

1. 100% industry support for the format. SACD and DVD-A had fractured support with big players missing from both camps. In my opinion, a consumer audio video format that doesn't have support from the industry doesn't succeed, period. Whatever market could have been realized had no confidence either format could survive and of course for good reason, neither could. Why bother with a format like SACD or DVD-A that won't see many releases and can't be played by friends and family?

2. HD video simultaneously with high resolution audio. Neither SACD or DVD-A had any video so Blu-ray can do everything SACD and DVD-A could do and so much more. Audio only releases or combination of audio and video work on Blu-ray. Of course DVD-A could also offer lossy audio and video by inclusion of a DVD-V section or separate disc, but that wasn't nearly as attractive for use with a high quality audio video system, video and audio were both compromised. Blu-ray requires no compromise with capacity and bitrates available to do everything needed.

3. There is a much larger customer base with players already in service, bigger than both SACD and DVD-A combined, and it is growing at a good pace. Consumer products that succeed by reaching a market for use with a product that already existed for another reason are common. Blu-ray has far greater market awareness, people that don't own it now are considering a purchase and I am finding that many people I know that don't own it understand it will replace DVD. Blu-ray is only succeeding by reaching the market that already owns an HDTV. SACD and DVD-A had very poor market awareness and in my experience, when somebody knew about either, the opinion was often negative. Blu-ray is held in high esteem by everyone I know in real life that is interested in home audio and video.

4. The existing mixes for the debacle behind us can be used again, it isn't like a large market already owns the music. New music of course must be mixed and the selection needs to be a multiple of what was available on the older formats. Equipment and personnel already exist to do this work, let them get busy.

I feel certain that Blu-ray will do much better than SACD and DVD-A but I am also certain it can't reach a market as large as DVD and CD did but with both of those declining, these companies all need something to help offset the decline. We still see some LP releases. I don't know the number of turntables in service, but it has to be a tiny fraction of the number of Blu-ray players in service. I know the primary reason for the Blu-ray player purchase wasn't to play music, but that doesn't matter, it works great for that purpose. There is a market for high quality audio and it should be big enough to matter. Why wouldn't they give Blu-ray a chance? When to proceed and how to proceed needs to be worked out.

Chris

 

[Quadro-Action]

I will also sometimes wonder, when surround-fans, which always wants more actual surround productions, simultaneous puts forward reasons, that this is not possible for the industry.
I think, there are Possibilities for a Pure Audio Blu Ray, because with the BD we have again a wordwide only one standardized Video Medium with together Audio possibilities. The important reason, why quadraphonic surround and later digital surround with DVD-Audio and SA-CD failed, was always the battle between 2 sytems. But the consumer wants only one system and is waiting (except from us early adaptors), which system may be the winner. By quadraphonics there was in the end no a winner and also not by DVD-Audio and SA-CD. And also the Blu Ray was endangered to miss a breakthrough, as there was in the same time the HD-DVD on the market. Only a very small sale was done till then by also ore only a few early adaptors.

To have a stimulating effect, I have now written an open letter (4 pages with optical interesting designing) to the software industry and the leading management (presidents) as there are EMI, Warner, Sony, Universal in the headquartes USA and the branch offices in Great Britain and Germany. They should catch the chance, because there is now the needed only one sound medium with the Pure Audio Blu Ray, which is easy to handly like a stereo CD.

The really target gioup for surround music are for my opinion not the fans of home cinema, but the till now listening many stereo-consusmers. They prefere the sound, the home cinema fans are more or often fixated on video programms. But most music productions are only audio. And those studio productions have mostly a better quality as the live concerts in big stadiums with a racket audience. And also those concerts have as basis the studio productions before.

With an easy handling, a popular music programm,which found many interess by the music consumers, the Pure audio Blu ray can reach gradual a position on the market (also stereo has needed any years for the success - sometimes forgotten) that surround productions are also a profit or at least not a lost. To produce 10 Pure audio Blu Rays in the beginning can not be a finaziell ruin for the big firms. After a new start for 3-D in Cinemas and Videos for our eyes we should have also a new start of 3-D Sound (Surround) for our ears.

Dietrich

 

[dobyblue]

I for one would be happy to write personal, polite letters to all those contacts too about Blu-ray's massive potential to be a sustainable media for music if you'd care to post them all to save us the time.

Feedback is all important when done properly.