 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.240.103.205
In Reply to: RE: Just read "Blue Ray Demystified" wonder about BD spec3 audio?? posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on January 02, 2009 at 08:18:19
Agree with your analysis and prognosis.
It was ALWAYS all about copy protection with "better than CD" SQ used as an incentive to get equipment makers to sign up for CP'd digital audio. The plan fell apart when a cheap standard digital interface was not supplied to the equipment makers along with the software. By the time iLink was deployed, it was too late - digital video was coming down the pike and digital hi-rez was shoved off to the side to grab what bits it could in the new interface. The HDMI inteface is the result.
It was always going to be a single digital inteface for both video and audio, but I believe it was theoretically possible, in the early days, for hi-rez audio to prove out the validity of jitter-free buffered transmission modes such as iLink's HATS. Had it done so, hi-rez audio would certainly have claimed HDMI interface real estate for buffer commands. Instead, the fight for jitter-free audio bits will have to be waged all over again.
Chris points out that we have, in HDMI, a very large pipe for the transmission of unlimited audio quantity and quality. The specific form of software transiting the interface is irrelevant as long as hi-rez SQ requirements are met. Sure, we'll all have to rebuy our software, but after LP, 8-track, cassette, DAT, CD, SACD, DVD-A, etc., we've demonstrated we're up for that.
williak
Follow Ups:
I am in general agreement with all in this thread about the potential of Blu-ray music only releases. But, I have no plans to rebuy my SACD's. I am getting the Oppo Blu-ray player which supports SACD. Oppo seems committed to supporting the SACD format, which is included in all their excellent universal audio/video players to date. And, they sound terrific in Mch via HDMI, though less so via analog out.
Edits: 01/02/09
You are missing the point, Fitz.
This is not about SACDs. That ship has sailed. That bus has left the station. SACD had its chance and it failed in the marketplace. Hopefully, due to the low cost of providing DSD over HDMI decoding, your SACD disks will play on BD and near-BD universals into almost any processor as is currently the trend. Great for you, great for your SACD collection.
However, FUTURE production of hirez will NOT be SACD. It will be whatever the market decides it will be. The market has already spoken on the future of SACD - it has none. Being an optimist, I look forward to the "new" hirez over HDMI whatever it is called. I am confident that the engineers who were so concerned about the technical perfection of SACD and DVD-A will work their little calculators off again in packing as much capability into the HDMI pipe for hirez audio as they have for hirez video. It is, after all, in the nature of engineers to do so.
Your choice, in the future, will be to remain with CD/MP3 quality music which should be around for a long, long time and/or remain with your limited SACD collection, or to rebuy your music into the new hirez format, playable on BDs over HDMI, fully copy-protected, and, hopefully, a technical tour de force that will be worth all the MP&A we hirezzers have long suffered.
williak
I understand, and I agree completely with your optimism about Blu-ray music. I am buying a player to get ready for it and also to watch the occasional movie. I am on board with Blu-ray. I am not fighting it like a few in this forum. I completely agree that SACD's days are probably numbered, though the new releases keep coming for now. It ain't dead yet.
It's just that, as long as SACD players are still supported, we will not have to rebuy, unless Blu-ray sonics are far superior to SACD. That may or may not be true. We shall see. I personally do not expect any great sonic breakthroughs here over SACD, although I would welcome 7.0 or 7.1 channel music. Nor do I think hi rez PCM is necessarily a step backwards from DSD, as do several zealots in this forum.
Meanwhile, besides Oppo, Denon is realeasing a $3,800 Blu-ray machine with SACD support. Sony just released a $1,400 SACD/CD machine. Marantz has some new 2-channel SACD machines, and there is a 6-month old, $10,000 stereo player from Playback Designs. This may be the last hurrah for SACD, but we shall see.
I think prospects for Blu-ray music discs are excellent. The installed base of Blu-ray players in homes already far exceeds anything SACD might have dreamed of. But, there are some key marketing and software creation uncertainties. The medium is not even on the lauching pad yet, maverick discs like Divertimenti notwithstanding. How long will it take for a reasonable-sized repertoire to be built? Many years, probably. So, in the long run, with proper marketing and support from recording labels (a rather large if), I believe your forecast for Blu-ray stands a very good chance of success. But, it is not a lay-up by any means. Hopefully, the industry will be patient and persistent with it.
Meanwhile, we both need to put on our flak jacets against the tirades of DSD zealots/PCM haters here in this forum who are clueless as to the economic realities that will make or break Blu-ray and SACD for music releases.
You said The installed base of Blu-ray players in homes already far exceeds anything SACD might have dreamed of.
Maybe in a few years but not yet only 4.9 million BluRay players sold so far according to Google searches I just made.
Read this news from May 3, 2006 by Stephen Best the owner of sa-cd.net quoted 13 million SACD players SOLD before the announcement of PS3
"Somebody earlier asked how many SA-CD players there were but I couldn't find the original query:
"News from Sony indicates that there is global installed base of more than 13 million Super Audio CD players, with in excess of 180 models currently available from 37 manufacturers covering every application from entry-level stereo players to high-end multi-channel audiophile systems. The number of manufacturers seeking licenses and the number of models available continues an upward year-on-year trend." - Super Audio CD News
Support for SA-CD is still on track for the PS3 later this year which should boost numbers considerably.
http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread.php?page=1
I searched Google and could not find any more recent figures than those which are 2 1/2 years old! In the last 2 1/2 years SACD sales are easily double that, perhaps Stephen has more recent figures.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now here is what I found in google searches for BluRay sales:
The Blu-ray Disc Association says that through November 24, 2007 over 2.7 million players have been sold, but it did not break down how many of those were Playstation 3 consoles, reports Video Business.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35116/97/
2.2 million BluRay players sold for 2008, with a projected 3.84 million for 2009
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6621296.html
That means a total of 4.9 million BluRay players sold now
8.74 million BluRay players expected to be sold by the end of 2009
So by the end of 2009 BluRay will have half as many players SOLD as SACD did in 2006.
If Sony had given SACD the market push it gave BluRay, SACD would have replaced CD many years ago, I have no doubt whatsoever about that! Have you see the large kiosks and videos running on most of the TVs at WalMart explaining what BluRay is? Have you ever seen anything ever at WalMart about SACD?
And yes many of us do not want to take a step backwards to high resolution PCM but prefer where we are now with DSD SACDs, we are no zealots as you say but music lovers!
Happy listening,
Teresa
"2.2 million BluRay players sold for 2008, with a projected 3.84 million for 2009"
Well, Sony announced that they sold over 1.8million Playstation 3s in the first half of 2008 alone so maybe Playstation 3s aren't included in the figures at all.
Regardless, the figures don't mean much as it's the sales of software which ultimately determine the success of a format, and just as owners of many multi-format players which play SACD won't buy any/many SACDs, owners of PS3s also probably won't buy many Blu-ray discs.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Classic Records and others have proven how great 192kHz PCM can sound, but pure DSD SACDs are of a higher sonic level that PCM has yet to approach. I also download 24 Bit 96kHz PCM but I harbor no illusions it is a good as DSD.
I buy and sell music a lot, but If I am going to buy the same titles again I prefer them to at least be sonically superior to the ones I sold. This will not be the case with BluRay music, indeed just as it was with DVD-Audio I predict 192kHz PCM will be rare and most music releases on BluRay will be 96kHz or even 48kHz.
BluRay thus is an unacceptable music format to me, unless of course the BluRay player also plays SACDs. Then I would only buy a BluRay titles if it was not released on SACD, much like I do now with DVD-Audio.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Teresa,Why are you assuming the new hirez format will necessarily be of lesser quality than DSD? Why would an engineer, given adequate bandwidth, choose to forego a master format that can accomodate existing formats as well as new ones? Certainly, directly competing (mutually exclusive) formats are a problem as we well know, but this does not appear to be the case with HDMI.
It should be possible, and there is already substantial evidence that it is, to pump many different forms of content over the same transmission mechanism. Furthermore, I don't see why one form of audio data storage cannot be packed within a generic format which then transits the HDMI link for unpacking, followed by native processing on the other end.
Specifically, I ask whether DSD can be packetized within a format which can readily transit HDMI where it can be unpacked, then buffered and independently clocked for jitter-free DAC? HATS would not be required between player and processor since packetized control protocols are already in place between them, and control of the DSD buffer would be completely within the processor. Would such a mechanism give us everything we want? Namely, jitter-free DSD over a cheap, standard digital interface allowing producers to hybridize hirez audio in both "native" BD form for the masses and "hidden" DSD for us? Cheap universal transports feeding a range of processors from mass-market all-in-ones to heavily modded ones with separate power supplies, DAC stages, etc.? Seems like the sky is brightening...
williak
Edits: 01/02/09 01/02/09
The current Blu-ray spec does not support DSD and, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think there is any future plan to encapsulate DSD on Blu-ray. The audio only spec is just a profile for music only discs to be played on any future Blu-ray music player w/o any sort of video screen for manipulating menus.I don't think there is anyone keen on inventing another new hi-res format at the moment when Blu-ray has just been able to get a bit of momentum. Judging from the current small resurgence of SACD format (new players that support SACD, steady SACD releases from smaller classical music labels, etc) it will stay in the niche audiophile and classical music + jazz market for the foreseeable future. Studio might even release a few 'usual suspect' recordings on Blu-ray "music" discs to test the water but I'm not holding my breath on it when even the Blu-ray movie market is still trying to stand on its own feet. The general public is NOT into hi-res audio.
Edits: 01/03/09 01/03/09 01/03/09
For many of them stumbling upon a site offering 24 Bit 96kHz downloads will be their first taste of music beyond CD resolution. I predict in time 24/96 downloads will be a craze,
And still 999 out 1,000 people have never heard of SACD or DVD-Audio. A person cannot reject something they have never heard or even know about.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Yes, the marketing of hi-res audio is not that great in the past and the DVD-A v.s. SACD format war didn't help either... but I doubt the general public care. Most folks are happy with the sound quality of CD, DVD (tracks from concerts/opera DVDs) and MP3 downloads. A lot of popular HTiB (Home-theatre in a Box) systems and DVD players in the last few years are compatible with either one or both hi-res audio formats so if a curious mind care he/she could have started to explore.
I also buy mostly SACD's and only if something isn't available in DSD I look for hi-rez PCM release, but if the future of hi-rez means PCM, then I'm afraid I will have to stop supporting digital formats altogether and will switch to vinyl.
Just my 2 cents, I believe disc based media will soon be gone and there will not be any new format launches, downloads are the future. They can provide easy access, choice and convenience. Just look at the explosion of mp3.
"I like blood on the floor jazz"
JM
Yes, except part of the appeal to record producers of both SACD and Blu-Ray is copy protection. Downloads are antithetical to that. Note that there are no DSD downloads available. Also, the download times measured in hours for a typical household of hi rez multichannel album is probably way too much for most people. 2 channel 96K FLAC or the equivalent may be workable for some, but even there it's too much for most, not to mention a lot less convenient. Add video content, and a Blu-ray download could take the better part of a day to download, typically. So, I think disks and players will be with us for quite awhile longer, at least in hi rez.
Perhaps they may use some sort of copy protected/authenticated bit torrent type scheme for high-res downloads where downloaders are also uploaders instead of relying on one of two servers from the content distributors. It may help to speed things up. If you have used Bit-torrent to download a LINUX DVD-ROM distribution you would know how efficient it can be. Of course, more people have to be on broadband type services too.
Edits: 01/04/09
Peer to Peer means the download is two way instead of one way. I prefer traditional one way communications from Server to my Computer. Going two way is faster but IMHO too risky as it opens up one's computer to attack.
A traditional 24/96 album download takes about an hour with my DSL connection.
Happy listening,
Teresa
I agree. Bit torrent is a technique for distributing material at low cost, because it allows multiple downloaders to share the cost of uploading. This makes sense for distributing large files for free, where there is no revenue stream available for provisioning a server. However, it adds little or no speed to a download from a properly provisioned server.
For a website selling legitimate music downloads, the largest incremental cost of delivering a download is the royalty fee that goes to the musicians (or record label). The next largest incremental cost is credit card fees. The actual bandwidth costs of delivering a download are much less than the credit card fees, assuming the server is colocated near a major Internet switching hub. (Pennies on a 96/24 download selling for perhaps $16.00.)
To a pirate the numbers would look different, of course. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
No, I don't mean to be a pirate and get hi-def stuffs for free :) What I mean is in the future there may (will?) be bit-torrent like scheme where large, copy protected (encoded files signed by the content provider?) multimedia files are "share" between people who have (bought) the rights to use. For instance, I believe Microsoft has a research project called Avalanche that have people looking into this or the BBC iMP. Single point download only scheme is not efficient and put too much burden on a few high-end servers and will be too slow for hi-def materials w/ large file sizes.Even with today's bit-torrent there is a way to only let a few selected people sharing a torrent but the content being share is not protected from any further sharing by creating a "unlimited" torrent (e.g. I can get the file and seed it with another torrent on my own).
Not to mention legitimate software and multimedia files are being distributed with the existing bit-torrent scheme already. I have been getting game patches and LINUX distributions with bit-torrent (explicitly or implicitly).
As for PC security: unless you are never online or never turn on your PCs ever you are exposed to risk ;)
Edits: 01/05/09
Schemes for copy protection require that every single copy be kept under control. If only one copy escapes, then the game is over. This makes all schemes other than complete hardware lockdown unworkable, unless backed by draconian laws. There are always intriguing schemes that appear to work, but they all make assumptions about how the hardware and software are constructed that are not realistic.
SACD has copy protection. It hasn't kept at least one AA inmate from extracting the DSD stream and sending it on to a D.I.Y. DAC. He could just have well extracted the bits and put them in a file. Unless building audio equipment is totally regulated copy protection will never work. It will create inconvenience and increase equipment cost, however.
Bit torrent has legitimate applications, particularly for distributing free material, such as open source software. However it is not particularly cost effective compared to centralized servers except for data that is going to a very large number of points in a short period of time. Hi-res audio data is a niche marketplace and will never reach the required volumes. The economies of server farms colocated at internet hubs are too strong to compete with even free computers, considering the cost of electricity and last mile access.
As to particular dangers of peer to peer protocols, I don't subscribe to this theory. Email and the web are already effective vectors of malware. However, if one visits pirate bit torrent sites one can expect to find malware. But this is no different from the dangers of visiting any questionable neighborhood.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Yes, well, that's the problem. It's too techie for most people, and they do not have the bandwidth. I think hi rez downloading will be even a smaller niche than hi rez disc purchases for quite awhile, not to mention the copy protection issues which will limit the available formats.
Hi-res downloading as done by HDtracks is very easy to use and works well with their 96/24 products for anyone with decent Internet service. I don't believe that higher speeds would be generally practical today except for niche markets. People will wait an hour for a high-res download, but not two hours. And many computer audiophile systems are limited to 96 kHz sampling rates due to the limitations of USB.
It would be marginally practical to ship DSD over the Internet, but there are almost no consumer devices capable of computer playback of DSD data. The available devices are pro-audio equipment. I suspect this will change. I can see it as a fairly easy DIY project to modify existing gear to provide DSD playback capability. However, the "chicken and egg" situation of software and hardware needs to be broken before this could be common.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I believe a few Sony Desktops and laptops can play some sort of DSD files. Unfortunately I've never had a chance to play with any of these...
I have some software that allows WMP to play DSD files, but it works by converting it to PCM (and only at 44.1 kHz on my system).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
... I'm under the impression that some Sony laptops/desktops have native DSD decoding capability and don't rely on DSD -> PCM conversion. Again, I have never had one of these so it is just based on something I have read online.
.
And you can still do other stuff while downloading hi-rez such as checking email or posting here.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
