Thread: 2L Founder Declares Blu-ray the Future of High Quality Music Reproduction

Posts: 26
Page: 1 2 3 next

Post by GoldenRedux July 29, 2008 (1 of 26)
http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/2L-Founder-blu-ray-audio-future-1652.shtml

Anyone who has purchased the DIVERTIMENTI SACD+Blu-ray audio-only disc release from Norwegian label 2L knows exactly how good both discs sound. As much as I love SACD & DSD, I would not mind seeing Blu-ray take off if it means we get 192/24 high-res music at up to 7.1 channels on a format that takes a hold in the market place much better than either SACD or DVD-A ever did.

Post by zeus July 29, 2008 (2 of 26)
GoldenRedux said:

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/2L-Founder-blu-ray-audio-future-1652.shtml

Anyone who has purchased the DIVERTIMENTI SACD+Blu-ray audio-only disc release from Norwegian label 2L knows exactly how good both discs sound. As much as I love SACD & DSD, I would not mind seeing Blu-ray take off if it means we get 192/24 high-res music at up to 7.1 channels on a format that takes a hold in the market place much better than either SACD or DVD-A ever did.

I can see myself getting a Blu-ray player sometime in the mid future, but it won't be hooked up to my music system. While I'm sure there are some that lurch from one music carrier to the next chasing that elusive perfect sound, my interest ... and I suspect that of most ... is getting the best sound from my existing music collection. If I can do this plus add new purchases of higher sound quality (as I can with SA-CD) all the better. The attraction for me with Blu-ray is higher picture quality which ironically means that you're less likely to pay attention to attendant sound quality. Having the best of both worlds is attractive in theory but I don't think is likely to drive music listening habits.

Post by Daland July 29, 2008 (3 of 26)
GoldenRedux said:

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/2L-Founder-blu-ray-audio-future-1652.shtml

Anyone who has purchased the DIVERTIMENTI SACD+Blu-ray audio-only disc release from Norwegian label 2L knows exactly how good both discs sound. As much as I love SACD & DSD, I would not mind seeing Blu-ray take off if it means we get 192/24 high-res music at up to 7.1 channels on a format that takes a hold in the market place much better than either SACD or DVD-A ever did.

If it is correct that most people are not interested in high-resolution audio, why should a Blu-ray audio-only format fare better than SACD? It would be more awkward to handle than an SACD (you would need a screen) and could not be played on a CD player. I don't think that a Norwegian label can change this.

Post by RWetmore July 29, 2008 (4 of 26)
Daland said:

If it is correct that most people are not interested in high-resolution audio, why should a Blu-ray audio-only format fare better than SACD? .

Because all blu-ray players would have the capability to play the discs at full resolution. People won't have to buy additional players or equipment like they did with SACD and DVD-Audio. Looked at another way, it could be the equivalent of the "DVD-CD" we never got.

Post by RWetmore July 29, 2008 (5 of 26)
Daland said:

It would be more awkward to handle than an SACD (you would need a screen) and could not be played on a CD player. I don't think that a Norwegian label can change this.

If the format is ever going to have a chance, the discs will have to play like CDs/SACDs without the use of any video menu. At the very least one should be able to set up the player to default to 2 channel or multichannel. If they design it like DVD-Audio where you have to use a video menu, the format has no chance, IMO.

I think they should call it Blu-ray CD or BD-CD. With "CD" in the name everyone will "get it."

Post by zeus July 29, 2008 (6 of 26)
RWetmore said:

Because all blu-ray players would have the capability to play the discs. People won't have to buy additional players or equipment.

This cargo cult thinking didn't work with DVD-A. If most (average) people think about sound quality at all, it's better earphones for their iPods. Splintering high resolution delivery over a number of formats adds to production/distribution costs and could well diminish the market for such.

Post by RWetmore July 29, 2008 (7 of 26)
zeus said:

This cargo cult thinking didn't work with DVD-A. If most (average) people think about sound quality at all, it's better earphones for their iPods. Splintering high resolution delivery over a number of formats adds to production/distribution costs and could well diminish the market for such.

It didn't work with DVD-Audio because the format was not designed and marketed correctly. The discs could not play on all DVD players. In fact, they can't play on the vast majority of players.

BD does not have this problem. I wouldn't expect it to ever be anything but a very small part of the market, but I think if it's done correctly, it has the potential to become significantly more widespread than both DVD-A and SACD.

Post by Claude July 30, 2008 (8 of 26)
RWetmore said:

It didn't work with DVD-Audio because the format was not designed and marketed correctly. The discs could not play on all DVD players. In fact, they can't play on the vast majority of players.

BD does not have this problem.

How so? Do Blu-ray discs play in all DVD players, or do you assume that Blu-ray players are already present in every home?

Audio-only Blu-ray discs, like the ones 2L is planning, are for audiophiles. Only audiophiles care about hi-rez sound. If you count all PS3 owners (the biggest Blu-ray hardware base) among potential buyers of these discs, you're not accepting the market reality.

Post by mwagner1962 July 30, 2008 (9 of 26)
I have then 2L SACD/BD, and the SACD sounds, as usual, stunning!!! I do NOT have a Blue Ray player though my friend does....both of us have pretty serious systems (McCormack, SIM Audio, Tara Labs, etc) and though my friend can play Blue ray movies and the 2L, we cannot get the 100% full resolution of the Blue ray music because as of now, there are no blue ray receivers (or whatever they are called) that are even near the level of the rest of his system....sorry, but neither of us will put something from Onkyo, Denon or Yamaha in our systems....and please, no flames as it is quite easy to best the mass fi stuff from the mega stores...

SIM Audio has a high definition processor, but it is about $16K...by very late 2009 or early 2010, SIM will likely have a very serious Blue Ray player....

As far as the Blue Ray disc from 2L, we find the SACD layer to be better...that is until my friend (or I, who needs both) gets a substantially better high definition processor...as it stands now, the 2L BD disc sounds a wee bit less good in the next-to-highest level than the SACD......a year from now when I have a serious Blue ray player/processor and my friend has a serious processor (and we can hear the FULL resolution of the Blue Ray) then both of our opinions of the new 2L will continue to strongly favor the SACD..

Cheers,

Post by hanser July 30, 2008 (10 of 26)
Claude said:

How so? Do Blu-ray discs play in all DVD players, or do you assume that Blu-ray players are already present in every home?

Audio-only Blu-ray discs, like the ones 2L is planning, are for audiophiles. Only audiophiles care about hi-rez sound. If you count all PS3 owners (the biggest Blu-ray hardware base) among potential buyers of these discs, you're not accepting the market reality.

While you are correct that many people do not care about hirez sound, blu-ray has a better chance since now there is no more format war. Also Blu-ray is currently educating the general puplic about the benefits of high resolution pictures, therefore if this succeeds the general public may be more open to the idea of hirez sound. Currently adoption rate of Blu-ray seems to be at least as high as it was for DVD 10 years ago, so there is hope.

I agree that music only BD should be playable like CDs: just press play, no menu necessary. This does not exclude the possiblity of additional video material on this disc that could be accessed via menu.

Page: 1 2 3 next

Closed