What happened to Blu-ray Audio?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by floyd, Mar 25, 2017.

  1. marcb

    marcb Forum Resident

    Location:
    DC area
    They are very different masterings IIRC. The 1st stand-alone HFPA blu-ray is squashed to hell. I'm pretty sure the 30th blu-ray stereo has full dynamics - although I think I only listened to the stereo program once since I bought it for the 5.1. The CD of the 30th set is also squashed but I don't think it is the same mastering as the HFPA because the DR's are too different (the CD's DRs are about 2 higher across the board.

    I initially received the HFPA in error in instead of the 30th. I opened it up before putting 2+2 together but I noticed right away that the stereo section sounded wrong and was completely baffled when I couldn't find the 5.1 program.

    Edit: I'm taking this back now that I'm digging back in my memory. I actually think the HFPA and the 30th blu-ray stereo are the same. There are so many versions of Legend that I'm getting them confused. So IIRC, HFPA 2.0 = 30th 24/96 2.0, however the 30th 16/44 2.0 is not the same (but not great either).

    Only buy the 30th for the 5.1 (which is excellent and sounds great).
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  2. Bill Mac

    Bill Mac Forum Resident

    Location:
    So. ME USA
    Totally ridiculous statement :rolleyes:! To make a general statement that "rock, pop etc. with over amplified sound and no reference to acoustic environment etc" shows how little you understand about multichannel music and recorded music in general.
     
  3. marcb

    marcb Forum Resident

    Location:
    DC area
    You have to use the natural loudness button and crank the Quad 5.1.

    The bottom-end, which sounds anemic at the 70dB or so level at which many people listen to music, is much more balanced when cranked.
     
    quicksrt and PhilBiker like this.
  4. Bill Mac

    Bill Mac Forum Resident

    Location:
    So. ME USA
    I've cranked the volume quite a few times when listening to the Quadrophenia 5.1 mix. Other than the overall volume of the mix being louder the additional volume does not bring the bass any fuller into the mix. Not sure what "Quad 5.1" is as I always thought a multichannel mix was either Quad or 5.1 not both.
     
  5. marcb

    marcb Forum Resident

    Location:
    DC area
    Quad is just short for Quadrophenia.

    On my system, the bottom end fills in and balances nicely when cranked. See Fletcher-Munson curve. You should be hearing a change in the EQ balance of every recording at differing volumes. It's one of the key challenges of mixing and mastering.

    What I don't know is if this was the intent or whether they just stumbled into the truth when mixing the 5.1. It's certainly subjective as to whether turning it up loud is still insufficient - but it definitely changes the balance of the mix when cranked.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
    TonyCzar and PhilBiker like this.
  6. TonyCzar

    TonyCzar Forum Resident

    Location:
    PhIladelphia, PA
    To save somebody from wasting several hundred dollars based on his/her own experience with different genres?
     
    showtaper likes this.
  7. parman

    parman Well-Known Member

    Location:
    In The Mitten
    Do you guys think this is all a natural progression? HDCD, DVD-A, Blu-ray, maybe others I've forgotten. Probably something new coming over the horizon as we speak.
    How about this question, what kind of a player will play all those formats? Maybe I'll pick one up on Craigs List
     
  8. floyd

    floyd Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Spring Green, WI
    No. I have the original BR or HFPA (high fidelity pure audio) that only has the two channel. I got that way back when these first came out. I saw great reviews of the 30th Anniversary edition Blu-ray and CD set and ordered it, thinking that the two channel tracks were remastered. I don't do surround at this time, I would like to try it eventually but I am concentrating on my stereo playback.
    It seems from some posts above that the 30th uses the same mastering as the HFPA but I'm not sure. My 30th has not arrived yet either.
     
    Shvartze Shabbos likes this.
  9. marcb

    marcb Forum Resident

    Location:
    DC area
    The only progression I see is largely frugal, strategy-less desperation on the part of the remaining big record companies to try to hang on to the revenue stream of some sort of physical product.

    There are many universal players that will play most if what you throw at them. Oppo is a good place to start.
     
    Steel Horse, PhilBiker and TonyCzar like this.
  10. tkl7

    tkl7 Agent Provocateur

    Location:
    New York, NY, USA
    Sony has players that will play SACDs for well under $100
     
  11. McLover

    McLover Forum Resident

    Location:
    East TN
    Blu-Ray audio withered on the vine due to lackluster label support, emphasis on surround sound above all else, the need often for HDMI and A/V gear two channel audiophile purists despise, and other reasons. SACD is a better audiophile accepted format.
     
    scobb, TarnishedEars, Kyhl and 3 others like this.
  12. TonyCzar

    TonyCzar Forum Resident

    Location:
    PhIladelphia, PA
    Well, they kinda have to, don't they?

    At some point, they stopped making MiniDisc players.... (I think!)

    I briefly had a Pioneer-branded DVD player with SACD capability. I had some dual-layer discs on hand, and I was curious to hear the SACD sides. But I never even unboxed it. Turned out my TV/listening room needed the flexibility of two disc-spinning thingys, each with their own all-zone-disc/USB/MPEG capabilities, more than it needed what would basically be a dedicated SACD anchor.

    Fast forward to today, and I enjoy SACD rips off the Internet, and I bought the Stones' "In Mono" boxset in DSD from Acoustic Sounds, and use a Fiio DAP to play DSD where I like, enjoying portability even within my modest apartment.

    (Portability isn't just dazed millenials walking on your lawn and bumping into you on the street....)

    I'm sold on DSD goodness. SACD, not so much.
     
  13. TonyCzar

    TonyCzar Forum Resident

    Location:
    PhIladelphia, PA
    Wow. Killed two potential markets with one stone. Give that industry a medal.
     
  14. Flaming Torch

    Flaming Torch Forum Resident

    My Oppo BDP-103EU plays them all along with my flac 24/96, 24/192 etc files on usb sticks. Right and Left channel Analogue outputs to my non digital amp. I paid about £500 and am very pleased. I like a lot of old pop and rock which has been released in so many different formats that if you like several different acts you would want to be able to play different formats. Blu-ray for Tommy and Quadrophenia, sacd for Dylan at Sony. HDCD for Neil Young and the Grateful Dead.
     
    vegafleet, 2141, parman and 1 other person like this.
  15. Bill Mac

    Bill Mac Forum Resident

    Location:
    So. ME USA
    Quad = Quadrophenia, duh :help:!

    Never really listened for a change in EQ on music I'm listening to as the volume changes. After listening to the Quadrophenia 5.1 mix a number of times at loud volumes the bass is not brought to a level that it is well defined as it should IMO. John Entwistle is arguably one of the best bass players of all times in rock music. To have his incredible bass playing buried in the 5.1 mix is a shame. Increasing the sub level with my processor is an option I will definitely try the next time I listen to the Quadrophenia 5.1 mix.

    My question would be what is that members actual experience with Rock/Pop multichannel music to make that statement. I'm glad I didn't see any posts like that on any online forums when I was just getting into multichannel music. I probably would have disregarded statements like that anyhow. I have quite a few multichannel Rock/Pop titles and enjoy them very much. To say "totally pointless for rock, pop etc. with over amplified sound and no reference to acoustic environment" is a total joke IMO. If someone is interested in multichannel music and has a 5.1 system they should find out for themselves instead of listening to ridiculous statements like that :rolleyes:.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
    head_unit likes this.
  16. Bubbamike

    Bubbamike Forum Resident

    Quadraphonic not Quadraphonia which was the name of an album.
     
    TarnishedEars likes this.
  17. Bill Mac

    Bill Mac Forum Resident

    Location:
    So. ME USA
    If you look back a few posts marcb made reference to "Quad". That was short for Quadrophenia which many people use instead of spelling out the entire title. By the way it's Quadrophenia not Quadraphonia ;).
     
  18. MYKE

    MYKE Offended By The Easily Offended

    And that's why you don't jump on here, read only the last post, then proceed to "correct" someone. I did the same a few minutes ago, but read up the page until I saw what the conversation was.
    .
     
  19. floyd

    floyd Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Spring Green, WI
    I might throw out one other reason here that I think does have some barring. Aesthetics! Blu-ray audio choose to put their product in those ugly clamshell cases that have no relation to original artwork proportions. Music artists have been working in the square format forever. There has been great attention by graphic artists for the artwork to work in the square format (which ironically is not the way most art is proportioned.) To me these titles did not feel like music releases and the packaging felt cheap. I don't have a problem with movies in the clamshell format (think movie posters or even cinema screen proportions.)

    All the things being mentioned above are the main reasons, true. I just have to believe good design is important and did not add to the experience. Thankfully not all the blu-ray audio releases came that way.
     
    scobb and jeffreybh like this.
  20. Bill Mac

    Bill Mac Forum Resident

    Location:
    So. ME USA
    You make a valid point on how many Blu-ray Audio releases come in the cheap clamshell cases. I'd much prefer SACD style jewel cases or DVD-A style jewel cases. But for me the music especially if it's 5.1 is much more important than the case it comes in.
     
    kokishin, PhilBiker, Linger63 and 3 others like this.
  21. Flaming Torch

    Flaming Torch Forum Resident

    That is an interesting point. They certainly don't put any real effort into packaging for the clam shell type editions and to use the blu-ray format for only often 40 minutes of music is poor value. For example my blu-ray of The Velvet Underground and Nico only has the stereo mix. Why not include the mono as well?
     
    floyd likes this.
  22. oneway23

    oneway23 Forum Resident

    Location:
    NY, US
    Not a Steven Wilson fan, I take it?
     
  23. floyd

    floyd Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    Spring Green, WI
    For me it is the sound. The 5.1 is a bonus for me right now as I don't have that system, maybe someday. Some have fine packaging, the Neil Young titles the Steven Wilson remixes for instance. The clamshell case is just lazy.
     
    PhilBiker likes this.
  24. Bubbamike

    Bubbamike Forum Resident

    Who?
     
  25. ti-triodes

    ti-triodes Forum Resident

    Location:
    NYC

    I still think Townshend was having a hissy fit when he was working on the 5.1. He was probably pissed at Entwhistle about something, even though John is long gone. Maybe it was just Pete reminding us what a genius he is. :rolleyes: If you ever read anything about these guys, it wouldn't be surprising.
     

Share This Page