Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems Blu Ray vs HD-DVD

Ask for 1080p and 24/96 multichannel audio for your ballet and opera, and ye shall receive, or something like that.

Tick, tock... waiting for word on the final audio codec selection for Bluray (fingers strongly crossed for mandatory MLP)


I remember when I/we were asking for MLP compression of movies soundtracks several years ago. Is it really a big deal for movie studios to use MLP instead of DTS Lossless for one primary high quality audio track? Does it really make any difference that DTS is in commercial movie theaters and MLP is not?

I look forward to direct comparisons of MLP and DTS lossless now that apple to apple comparisons will be possible.

I also look forward to HD music videos with 24/96 multichannel audio. Any word on the future of multichannel audio and the future of MLP? So far all I see is 8 channel 24/96 uncompressed and 6 channel 24/192. For those that care (not sure I'm one of them) 8 channel 24/192 or 16 channel 24/96 could take up the same space used by 8 channel 24/96 uncompressed.

Please say we are not leaving the only lossless format to DTS only... oh please. Options, we need options, we need MLP!

[This message has been edited by Health Nut (edited 02-15-2005).]

Rumors throughout the gaming industry suggest that while Playstation 3 will have the Blu-Ray drive, Xbox 2 will go it with a standard DVD drive. NEC is the first company to put forth a date for an HD-DVD, DVD, CD drive, to be released the last quarter of 2005. Xbox insiders suggest this is too late for Xbox 2, scheduled for release around the same time.

This very well maybe another great dual in the infinite wisdom of Japanese electronics. VHS-Beta, SACD-DVD-A, and now one more format that no typical American consumer has heard of, or will ever hear of again...Blu-Ray-HD-DVD. Whats so wrong with our current format of DVD? My 598 produces an image that rivals, and sometimes beats my HD cable. 480p, with good software can look quite amazing. I have a 50"HD DLP, the difference between 480p and 720p and 1080i is small...very small. Prior to the 598, I had a Pioneer Elite DV-59avi with selectable resolution through an HDMI output. After switching between resolutions again and again, I decided that on my screen the difference was small enough to go without the HDMI, so I sold my redbook player and my Pioneer and invested in a 598 which is amazing for all formats! I predicit many more years of crappy universal players...oh yes I can see it now...the new all in one DVD, CD, DVD-A, SACD, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, DVD-RW, MP3, MPEG, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD. Enough! The average American consumer cannot program a VCR, but they bought it because it seemed simple enough. What now? I'm not a fan of government interaction, but this almost has me writing a letter to my congressman. How many more years of indecision must we stand? Obviously we need one format for our video and audio needs. One format that will replace the CD and DVD, but will remain backwards compatible (I don't see Grandma replacing all of her CD's with DVD-A, and all of her DVD-V with Blu-Ray, do you?) Forget dual disc...DVD-A should be scrapped altogether. Isn't anyone put off by the long loading time, or the wait between tracks, or the terrible menus that are awful to navigate, or the fast foward/reverse issues. Or how between every track, I lose my surround presest...1, 2, 3...default preset! I love that! SACD was a better disc in all of those areas. It even had a logical case, with the name on all sides, rounded corners, and a normal size. DVD-A went to the troble of making a unique size case that was too large for travel, and didn't fit in any conventional CD/DVD rack. Brilliant! Give me the ease of use that CD is known for. Give me the audio quality that DVD-A has. Give me the video of HD-DVD or Blu-Ray or whatever. Give me a small package that fits on my CD rack. Every Japanese company needs to step up to the plate, hand in hand, and give us their best effort. One, small, brilliant little silver disc that will replace all. They have the technology, and if used correctly they could sweep the market. Stop putting out these less than stellar attempts, that only detract peoples attention from higher fidelity. I grew up listening to the rumors of Laser Disc taking over the video market, and Mini-Disc winning over the audio market. Where are you now? The same place that all current formats will eventually go to...eBay auction heaven!

Cheers, Jim

My thoughts:

The format that will win is almost certain to be 'Blu-Ray'.

The reason has nothing to do with technical superiority, quality of audio or video information or availability. It's far simpler than that.

The marketing people will be able to sell a funky product called 'Blu-Ray' in far greater numbers than something called 'HD-DVD'. When you're hyping something up, a cool name is one of the most important factors, and 'Blu-Ray' scores over 'HD-DVD' in this area. Also, HD-DVD can be seen as just a more expensive DVD - whereas people will see Blu-Ray as a new technology and will be more willing to pay for it, especially if the marketing guys get their act together!

Cheers,

David

David,
it is even simpler than that sony owns so much of the film catalog I don't think they will release anything on HD-DVD don't you?
FB

fb:

Sony/MGM/Fox/Disney in comparison to:

Warner
Universal
Paramount

It's about a wash, with blockbusters on either side of the aisle.

As I've said elswhere, my concern is that neither format survives, leaving us with no High Definition option.

Cheers,

New Line also announced content on the HD-DVD side.

Stacey:

NewLine is a Warner studio

Cheers,

Don't get me wrong, I'm as eager for an ever higher quality format to succeed as most of the rest of you in this thread, but I do have some niggling doubts.
I first got into laserdiscs because of the quality, yes, but primarily because they were cheaper to buy than first run VHS that were then priced for rental ($30-$35 vs $70+ if I remember correctly). I also tended to forget to return rentals for so long that I may as well have bought them. This then became even truer when DVDs came along and Warner sold them for $19.99.
Now if a DVD costs much more than this I resist because I no longer view it as a convenience purchase. Only for movies I feel I must own will I pay a premium, and I don't feel that way about all that many of them.
I suppose my point is that even with a unified HD format, unless the price point is similar to that of DVDs on the software side, I'm likely to still buy the DVD over the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray unless the quality of that particular title warrants the extra expenditure. I don't think "Dodgeball" will ever be worth more than $19.99 whatever the resolution.
DVDs aren't going to be killed off, so what are the chances of any hi-rez system getting enough mass market traction to compete for shelf space in Tesco's or Wal-mart? And what constitutes enough of a success for a new format for studios to continue pruducing for it? And what sort of timeframe are they looking at? They can't possibly be looking for a repeat of the speed of uptake for DVD.
These are, I suppose, really questions for AVSforum, but as John Kotches (who as a contributing editor to Widescreen Review probably has a fair bit of insight into these matters) also posts here, I wondered what his and other members thoughts were on the odds of even a unified hi-rez format succeeding?
Along similar thoughts, had there been only one hi-rez audio format, instead of SACD and DVD-A splitting the market, do members feel it would have fared much better?

dBrowne,

I feel SACD could have been "the" new format for this decade had DVD-A not been in the picture. SACD often has dual layers allowing play on standard CD players, and its sound on the CD layer is often better than standard CD's because of DSD. This would have been the most convenient format for all people, because of the dual layer availability. Most people would have never discovered the SACD layer, so be it. For the rest of us, pure musical bliss! I still have plenty of SACD's from a past player, and I currently use them on my 598/568.2. These sound simply stunning thanks to DSD, they are without a doubt the finest CD's I own. I also never understood the video aspect of DVD-A, who watches lyrics or "art" while listening? Marketing B.S. SACD was the better format, but the powers that be decided differently. I feel this HD/Blu-Ray is more of the same...no right answer, only premature advancements in soon to be Vi-Fi (vintage fidelity). 10 years from now we are all downloading movies, music, etc from our PC's or perhaps hi-fi hard drives...thats the future.

Cheers,
Jim

Jim,
The CD layer on most SACDs is likely the same 16/44 data put onto the CD release - unless, of course, the original master was analog in which case it's possible that remastering to DSD for SACD allowed & resulted in a new version of PCM for the CD layer...

That the resultant PCM is more accurate &/or better sounding than an earlier direct from analog version is highly unlikey IMHO. Have you not heard of the noise around the CD layer of the Dark Side of the Moon, Come Away With Me etc. SACDs...?

With regard DSD/SACD in general; whilst there is no doubt that new DSD/SACD recordings/releases can sound superior to redbook I'm not sure you can generalize that it's better than hi-rez PCM (96-192/24). SACD certainly measures worse - arguably even than red-book - in certain respects.

For me though the real failing of DSD is that you cannot perform EQ, RC etc. (& usually even bass mgmt) with it. Surely for those with less than perfect domestic acoustics - just about everyone - the advantage of being able to do RC etc. significantly out-weighs any possible/imagined advantage of DSD over hi-resolution PCM...?

DSD/SACD is a flawed format that I support only because there are interesting new releases not available on high res PCM & whose performance surpasses (although often marginally) red-book.

IMO 96+/24 PCM should be the hi-rez format.

Paul.

[This message has been edited by Paulmcc (edited 02-19-2005).]

[This message has been edited by Paulmcc (edited 02-19-2005).]

Paul,

My comparisons were of Patricia Barber's CD's vs. DSD CD layer of SACD. I have nearly all her CD's on redbook and SACD, and the difference is noticable. It was my understanding that DSD is a direct copy of the original master, thus enhancing the resolution? As far as DVD-A vs. SACD, I believe both sound amazing, but it depends on the player. DVD-A did nothing for me, until I purchased a 598. The Pioneer transport made DVD-A sound thin and bright. Also, I have only heard SACD sound great when played on a dedicated CD/SACD player such as a Sony ES. SACD have always, at least for me, presented better imaging, and depth, incredible richness to individual notes. Always a very engaging listening experience, whenever SACD's are heard. DVD-A's on the other hand, are more detailed, have deeper bass, and a clearer picture of the musicians and their instruments. But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the tradeoffs are too big for me to enjoy DVD-A. I hate to turn on my TV just to play music, all because some DVD-A's make it necessary. And for the final fork in my haystack, they hit us with Dual-Disc. What on earth are they thinking? Great it works in every player! Right? Well no, don't place it in certain CD players or it may cause malfunction or jamming!... because of an ever so slight difference in thickness between DVD/CD's and Dual-Disc. Yeah, that won't create any problems years from now. Imagine junior trying to impress his friends with my cherished Levinson transport...disc sliding in...whir...whir...error!...blank. I'm sure Levinson transports are cheap to fix. And my son's paper route should more than cover it. Maybe not.

Going back to vinyl maybe an option I overlooked...

Cheers, Jim

I did a boycott on SACD as studios had to do the editing in PCM then turm it into DSD this is another process the Music could do without.

I don't like the sound of SACD and don't ever inent to listen to it.

It is full of HF noise that destroys amps and tweeters without a block filter.

Look at DSD what are the new formats likely to use and it is most certainly PCM as most studios edit the PCM signals.

If someone can prove technically DSD is better than PCM then feel free, however the added layers in studio work make me feel it will always be behind high res PCM ,

M