Music Blu-ray coming!

[darien87]

So while 'high art opera', may be great for some, it is complete crap to others, and making any judgements against a movie like Jumper, while praising what you love, is insultive to those who feel that what you love is crap, and what you hate is high art perfected.

You're not trying to say Jumper was a good movie are you???

 

[BMXTRIX]

You're not trying to say Jumper was a good movie are you???

I haven't seen it, so I won't comment.

But, in perspective, on Rotten Tomatoes, 16% of reviewers gave it a positive, so there are some who thought it was alright.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jumper/

I'm not about to tell someone that they aren't entitled to their opinion of a movie, even if the majority agrees with me. Music, is WAY more diversified for tastes than videos are, so I think that those who go making statements about something being good or bad are out of line. Beyond personal opinion, it's all crud.

 

[j_garcia]

I agree that they could very easily have just recorded a concert or video taped the session, which they may have done and could potentially be on the disc the way some DVD-As are. However, this disc's focus is audio, and just like the music HD DVD, video simply wasn't done for the simple reason that they didn't need to do any video shooting or editing.

Something that I hadn't heard of before also was the use of "DXD" instead of DSD; I don't know if that is a technical term, or just what they are calling it.

I had to look up Jumper to see what it was for the upcoming release list...I'll pass.

 

[aberkowitz]

I'm not about to tell someone that they aren't entitled to their opinion of a movie, even if the majority agrees with me. Music, is WAY more diversified for tastes than videos are, so I think that those who go making statements about something being good or bad are out of line. Beyond personal opinion, it's all crud.

Fantastic point. 100% agree.

Music is such a beautiful medium of expression- the more people that we can get to listen to any sort of music (be it Opera or Justin Timberlake) the better in my opinion. Nobody should be discouraged or put down from enjoying music b/c of their individual tastes.

 

[dobyblue]

Trent Reznor was the first to release an audio-only Blu-ray release, with Ghosts I-IV in 24/96 PCM stereo.

Now I know that could have been done on other formats, but it's still there.

There's a Rob Halford concert coming out in 5.1 24/96 later this year on Blu-ray (audio only) and several classical efforts en route.

I have spoken with a friend at SonyBMG and there are audio only releases in the works, but I wouldn't expect to see them until towards the end of next year as the Blu-ray player base starts increasing exponentially. BMG and the other three biggies are all in similar mindframes about the opportunities Blu-ray will present for audio-only discs as the format becomes more adopted throughout its third and fourth years and as long as they allow the discs to work on any Blu-ray player, there is DEFINITELY light at the end of the tunnel for high resolution and surround music.

 

[Gatsby191]

It isn't on Blu Ray, but U2's "Rattle And Hum" concert is on HD DVD, for those of us that have both type players. I still like my Toshiba HD player better than my Panasonic Blu Ray player. Too bad they couldn't find a profitable way to "play nice together. Oh well.
Joe B.

 

[allargon]

It isn't on Blu Ray, but U2's "Rattle And Hum" concert is on HD DVD, for those of us that have both type players. I still like my Toshiba HD player better than my Panasonic Blu Ray player. Too bad they couldn't find a profitable way to "play nice together.

You can try one of the two recently discontinued combo players. The Samsung even has 7.1 analog audio outs that work after yesterday's firmware update. AFAIK, Doby's right about that not at all cheap Nine Inch Nails release being the first audio only on Blu.

 

[aberkowitz]

It isn't on Blu Ray, but U2's "Rattle And Hum" concert is on HD DVD, for those of us that have both type players. I still like my Toshiba HD player better than my Panasonic Blu Ray player. Too bad they couldn't find a profitable way to "play nice together. Oh well.
Joe B.

Rattle & Hum is being released on BD this Tuesday.

 

[dobyblue]

Rattle & Hum is being released on BD this Tuesday.

Rattle and Hum came out on Blu-ray October 10th, 2006.
I've had it for over a year on Blu-ray.

The Tuesday is simply a re-stock of the title by Paramount.

 

[Geno]

For you Pink Floyd fans, David Gilmour has a BD concert, $18 at Costco.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

What is the point of introducing yet another "high definition" music format, especially since none of the others ever caught on?

 

[j_garcia]

Never caught on with the mainstream... The simple fact that so many out there are satisfied with mid-bitrate MP3 says that quality isn't the highest priority to the masses unfortunately.

 

[itschris]

Why put out a concert disc which will sell for $15-20 when you can sell tickets for an average price of at least $80 a pop!!

I think few people equate the experience of a live concert with watching it on tv.. even if it's blu-ray.

Why do many fans, me being one, like to download concert bootlegs or other live peformances even though they have the studio disc at home? I think if people want to see their favorite bands play live, they do it for the experience and having a single performance on disc won't change that. Besides, what's the margin on an $80 ticket vs a $30 disc and how many more discs would you sell vs the number of concert goers you would lose (assuming your theory is correct that it's simply one or the other)?

 

[aberkowitz]

I think few people equate the experience of a live concert with watching it on tv.. even if it's blu-ray.

Why do many fans, me being one, like to download concert bootlegs or other live peformances even though they have the studio disc at home? I think if people want to see their favorite bands play live, they do it for the experience and having a single performance on disc won't change that. Besides, what's the margin on an $80 ticket vs a $30 disc and how many more discs would you sell vs the number of concert goers you would lose (assuming your theory is correct that it's simply one or the other)?

I was being partially tongue-in-cheek when I made that comment- I don't think they're perfect substitutes for one another. However, as a bootleg fan myself I think we have seen a number of bands trying to further monetize their concerts by going out and releasing their own albums. Dave Matthews is a good recent example- he must have at least 5 or 6 albums (and DVDs) from various concerts for sale, as well as an entire 2nd disc of their greatest hits album made up entirely of live tracks. The Grateful Dead have taken even greater advantage with both ****'s Picks and their digital download series.

I don't think you can make a comparison from a margin perspective though. While a CD is much cheaper to produce than putting on a concert, you cannot have a concert CD/DVD without the concert occurring in the first place. A concert CD is a great way to go after that middle class of fan- the people who aren't quite hardcore but are more interested than a casual fan- who cannot afford the $75, $100, or even $200+ cost of a ticket. It also works great for special shows (e.g. Billy Joel Millenium NYE concert) that had seats going for $500-$2000.

 

[itschris]

I don't know... LIVE is my favorite band. I've been to at least 5 concerts of theirs and I would jump at any Blu release they'd put out. I'd still go see them the next time they come around.

Other bands that I like a lot, say... Incubus, Creed, and others... I buy all their discs, but don't necessarily go to their concerts. I'd buy their Blu releases as well. Maybe I think I'm like most, but perhaps my habits are different actually because the way I see it, it's a no lose proposition to put out a disc.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Never caught on with the mainstream... The simple fact that so many out there are satisfied with mid-bitrate MP3 says that quality isn't the highest priority to the masses unfortunately.

I don't think that that is the only reason. I have had the opportunity to compare standard CD and SACD versions of the same recording on an excellent system. In 2-channel mode, there was simply no difference at all. This is not because SACD is not excellent, but rather because CD leaves no room for audible improvement. SACD may have better specs on paper, but the differences exist far outside the limits of human hearing. Why would this be different for yet another format?

 

[itschris]

I don't think that that is the only reason. I have had the opportunity to compare standard CD and SACD versions of the same recording on an excellent system. In 2-channel mode, there was simply no difference at all. This is not because SACD is not excellent, but rather because CD leaves no room for audible improvement. SACD may have better specs on paper, but the differences exist far outside the limits of human hearing. Why would this be different for yet another format?

You hit the nail on the head with this one and i think it holds true for most things within the a/v realm. Too often, we get tied up on what the data sheet says or the steepness of that curve vs another or that this piece of gear is .00000 something "better" than the other.

It's all folly. The only thing actually hearing the audible differences of this kind of minutia may be your dog... and I doubt he cares one way or the other. My method is simple: 1) It has to be quality... meaning that it can't clearly be inferior and known to be of lesser substance... then 2) once that's established, buy and spend whatever you want... just because.

SACD, DVD Audio is cool. Who knows if there really is a quality difference... hell its like Ford vs Chevy. Most of these discussion are like that. Get SACD because it could be better and it gives you something different to talk about with your friends or brag about with your neighbors. That's reason enough.

 

[j_garcia]

I hear a definite difference between SACD and CD, but it obviously depends on how good the CD is, plus you have the obvious advantage of multichannel, which is a plus if it is mixed properly. I don't care what the specs say, only what I hear. I used Patricia Barber's Cafe Blue and the difference between the redbook and SACD is subtle but still easily noticed by everyone who has heard them on my system. When I heard the redbook I immediately said "Wow, what a well mastered disc!" but the SACD gives me just a bit more.

 

[tomd51]

I'd have to agree w/J on several points here. I can definitely hear the difference between an identical track on CD, SACD or DVD-A. It's very dependent on the recording and mastering of the track, the quality of the components can make a substantial difference as well.

The multichannel feature of SACD and DVD-A is just taking it things to another level. While a poor MC mix of a song might not add to the equivalent two channel track, a well mixed MC version can most assuredly provide a more appealing experience to all but the most finicky purists... -TD

 

[Soundman]

No.

It looks like it is a SACD and a Blu-ray Disc dual pack, so you get two discs in the box. One which you can play anywhere (SACD hybrid) and one which is Blu-ray and will play back in any BD player including all PS3 consoles.

But you still can't play the SACD with the 40G PS3?