First Blu-ray record, Divertimenti, released
By Joshua Fruhlinger 
posted May 29th 2008 10:02PM
posted May 29th 2008 10:02PM
Fans of high-def audio rejoice: The first Blu-ray recording has been released. Fans of anything other than Divertimento, hold your horses: The first release is from Thondheimsolistene, an orchestra from Norway. "Divertimenti", as it is called, will be released by the 2L label in full HD audio glory along with a SACD track for those not on the Blu-ray bandwagon just yet. Formats include 2.0 LPCM, 5.1 LPCM, 5.1 DTS HD Master Audio, 5.1 Dolby True HD, 5.1 Dolby Digital at 48KHz, and it has been confirmed to work just fine on the PS3.[Via MiC]
Higher audio quality than humans can detect for more money... what a revolutionary thought!
Just like Monster cables, eh? ;D
I'm totally excited for this new, higher quality format. Just one question, can I rip it to MP3 and take it with me?
Oh, record industry. Will you never learn?
I can just imagine, say around ten years from now they'll be announcing HVD Records with even "higher quality" audio. Oy.
"I'm totally excited for this new, higher quality format. Just one question, can I rip it to MP3 and take it with me?"
Maybe 10 seconds of it.
Try upgrading your audio system. You'd be surprised--there is most definitely a discernible difference.
Not when your using a Bose(R) audio system!!!!!111!!1!
Also, it says hybrid audio cd included.....that can only mean (cue piano)
HD-DVD HAS RETURNED!!!!1111!!1!1
(dahn duh daaahhhhhhhhh)
I agree with Frozo. I own the same Diana Krall album on Standard CD, DTS encoded 5.1 CD, and Super Audio CD. I could not hear a difference untill I upgraded to my new receiver and Paradigm speakers. Now, when I put all three discs in my six disc universal disc player then switch between them, the CD sounds null, the DTS 5.1 CD is boring, but the SACD comes alive. All three discs are from the Same Artist and are the same album. I don't have the DTS DVD, but DVD-Audio's sampling rate is much lower than SACD I suspect you may or may not notice a difference. The SACD is much more analogue like (dare I say vinyl?) compared to CD.
I encourage all of you to take the same test, go to your local high end dealer that sells McIntosh take in the same album on both CD and SACD and ask if they can play both back for you. SACD will blow the doors off anything else, it's like Audible TNT.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=krall+love+scenes&x=0&y=0
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=krall+love+scenes+SACD&x=0&y=0
48khz is not necessarily audible by humans but your dog will have a good time.
Seriously though... Frequencies at a level above 20khz are normally harmonic values of frequencies below 20khz. So the overall audible tone of frequencies is affected and you get a more natural tone. 48khz technology has been used in microphones for years for this very reason..
Great! We can now pay SIGNIFICANTLY more to purchase something that still doesn't outdo vinyl.
What's the point/big deal?
@JAMES
48KHz HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FREQUENCY OUTPUT ALL CDs CAP OUT AROUND 20KHz, 48KHz IS THE SAMPLE RATE AND HAS TO DO WITH HOW MANY SOUND SAMPLES THE RECORDING COMPUTER TOOK PER SECOND AND THE BITS 16,24, OR 32 DESCRIBES HOW MUCH WAS SAVED IN EACH SAMPLE. THE HIGHER THE SAMPLE RATE ALONG WITH A HIGHER BIT DEPTH, THE MORE ANALOGUE LIKE THE SOUND BECOMES.
Awesome idea...
Loved the idea of DVD-audio and SACD, but they never really caught on.
Good luck Blu-Ray music...
You're gonna need it.
first good luck Blu-Ray
it's not going much forward itself
JohnTitor doesn't know what he's talking about. Please go away.
90% of BluRay is the PS3, why wouldn't it be compatible?
Because it could be part of the 10% that's not, apparently.
Lame, audio quality can only be detected to some extent to the human year, this is all my opinion...all those 'audiophiles'....BS....64 kbps, yes u can hear that, but when we're talking about 300+ i dont think you can tell by every day non headphone listening..so waste of BluRay.
You can definitely hear the difference between 64kbps mp3 vs 320kbps vs...flac...vs 24bit resolution, etc. But the simple answer is that it DEPENDS. Depends on the source material, your DAC and amp, your headphones or speakers. But the point is you can. Now whether most people care, have the equipment in question, notice a difference, etc...is an entirely different matter. But it is possible to appreciate the difference just the market is obviously much smaller.
@Jared
He said that it you can tell the difference at 64, but not at 300+
Reading is fundamental
I would agree that reading tends to be important. Please follow your own advice and notice how I was not specifically attacking his comment. I was merely addressing the issue of (digital) audio quality in a general sense. Thanks.
...which was therefore a pointless argument because you didn't address his comment, but rather commented for no other reason other than to make an unrelated statement
this is why i love this site, people bashing each other over pointless things..w00t.
I'm gonna start a new war..
Apple sucks.
Microsoft sucks.
AMD sucks.
Intel sucks.
nVidia sucks.
Asus sucks.
MSI sucks.
oh and
Sony sucks
Nintendo sucks.
Now, fanboys, where you at?
Note: Some of the above brands actually do not suck, but can you tell which ones?
High bitrate files aren't about quality in listening - it's about having good quality to make a copy or to convert into other formats. I make FLAC copies of all my CDs so I can burn a perfect digital copy should I ever lose/break/scratch the CD, and also so I can encode to whatever format I want without any lose in quality. If you were to rip an MP3 at 320kbps and then decide to encode it to ogg or wav or whatever, you would lose quality from the compression.
Also, FLAC is and always will be DRM-Free :)
You can't tell the difference after 300+, but that's because you're comparing a 300+kbps MP3 to the original 44.1Khz CD source.
That doesn't neccessarily mean that you can't tell a 300+kbps MP3 from an SACD original though.
While the difference is most likely not going to be of any real value if you just want a track to listen to while jogging, if you're really anal about audio you probably could tell the difference between an SACD and a 320kbps MP3.
Personally I'm all for an improvement in audio quality, I liked the idea of SACD with it's insanely enhanced sampling rate.
Plus anyways, why are you even complaining, storage is getting cheaper and bigger all the time, and it's not like most people can fill up a 160GB ipod with 320kbps MP3s. Time for ridiculously massive songs tracks that'll have audible differences on high end hardware!
BTW, I don't think you even need all that high end hardware to tell the difference between SACD and 320kbps MP3. Any semi-decent pair of headphones would probably reveal that the SACD has a smoother texture than the MP3 just due to sampling rates. I don't know about you but I can easily tell the difference between 22Khz, 32Khz, and 44Khz sampling rates, so I'd be willing to bet that I can tell the difference between several million times per second and 44Khz.
I'm not saying that little extra is some insane neccessity for life, but all things being equal it'd be nice to have higher quality.
@ KEROLiUKAS
sorry you can't enjoy hearing the very noticeable difference in sound quality from one form of media to another. that must suck. also, that is the point of these threads. if you don't like it, then don't read them. typing long comments like that is lame and every1 just scrolls past it neways.
Nine Inch Nails album "Ghosts" came in Blue Ray via the Deluxe Edition of the record that came out May 1st.
Yeah, I think Ghosts was the first.
Yes, pease do more research before posting, Engadget.
Didn't nin also release the first live music/concert Blu-Ray with "Beside You in Time"?
Is it me or has Engadget become REALLY sloppy with their reporting lately? I know it's a blog, but crap, what's the point in even having it, if you're going to start being wrong more then you're right.
No .. actually one of the first was DJ Tiesto: Elements of Life Live in Kopenhagen back in March.
I'd know as I got it for my birthday in march...
Go try to buy "Ghosts" as a stand-alone Blu-Ray disc record. You have to buy it as part of a relatively expensive "Deluxe Edition". So as far as being the first Blu-Ray record, not convinced.
The fact is, Josh, you can still buy it, regardless of it only being available in the Deluxe Edition, and it came out before this.
It's an album, right?
It's on Blu-ray, right?
May 1st is before May 29th, right?
What more do you need in order to be convinced?
my 8-track works just fine. I made a belt with a rubber band. Try that with your fancy PS3!!
That's how I used to fix old CD-Roms back in the day. Well, except for the one time I used a rubber band a little too tight, and it snapped the gears.
What about Nine Inch Nails. Ghosts? It had a Blu-Ray release months ago.
Word. Ghosts. Time to pull the story, Mr. Rather.
They should put offensive messages at high frequencies to see if the audiophiles can actually hear the difference
audiophile is such a creepy word.
it's like they like to touch kids in the junior high band
I mentioned the 'Monster cable vs coat hanger' story the other month to my friends, and I kept saying 'audiophile'.
Of course they kept thinking I was saying 'audio file' and had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.
Is the fact that it's 5.1 the only improvement from normal lossless? Big whoop
no 7.1? that is a downer.
ipod users have become so accustom to low quality audio they don't know any better. Try a decent mp3 player and good quality phones. The difference will be as striking as when you saw HD video for the first time.
the ipod has been the death of quality audio.
I agree largely with this. But I do not think the general public really knew what decent audio was anyways before the ipod. However even if people listen to my Etymotic ER-4p's and notice the drastic difference on a decent portable source, they don't really care that much. Some people just don't appreciate music or music quality to get excited about hearing musicians breathing or moving sheet music (amongst other horde of other things used to describe "good" audio).
audio quality means nothing whatsoever to the public. what matters is functionality and ease of use.
yes because i really want to hear Ray J gasping for breath or Beck's new guitarist fumbling with his sheet music while i'm jogging or on the subway.
i'm not going to spend 1000's on audio equipment when I can pay my brothers band 50 bucks to play in my back yard.
I don't even think the public knows what functionality is per se with regards to tech. In theory that is true, but most people just dont understand what you COULD do given lack of manufacture's constraints, etc. It took quite a while (relatively...) for DRM to start being understood by a decent chunk of the public before they figured out they shouldn't like it.
OziD: nobody ever put a price tag of thousands needed for good portable audio. And why do you have such an attitude about it? We are acknowledging the lack of applicability for most people. It is just peoples' interest or hobby. And...I will just assume your brother's band consists of truly great musicians? And when I said sheet music...I was referring to classical duos or other small ensembles where dynamics and silence with ambient noise from musicians really gives something extra to me and other appreciative audio hobbyists.
"audio quality means nothing whatsoever to the public. what matters is functionality and ease of use."
Sounds like you drank the Apple Kool-Aid
Your ignorance is Apple's Marketing Dept's bliss
yeah i get a boner when i can hear them turn the sheet music page.
sheesh
I think your statement is partly true.
I use a first-gen iPod Nano. Initially I ripped all my MP3s at 128kbps, but noticed a lot of hissing, and basically just general crappiness in the audio quality. Re-ripped everything at 192 kbps VBR, and the difference was very noticeable. Definitely not "audiophile" quality, but more enjoyable.
So basically, the iPod is a decent MP3 player, tests have shown the various models have a good signal-to-noise ratio, and that audio is reproduced well. Problems are more with people not knowing the settings available within iTunes to better their listening enjoyment.
ps- why did the first-gen shuffle allow you to downgrade your MP3s on the fly to save space on the shuffle, but preserve high-bitrate songs on your computer...but the Nanos don't have that feature?
Couldn't agree better. But does the iPod support Apple's [mathematically] Lossless Audio format (average 500 kbps for mono, 1 Mbps for stereo) which iTunes can use for ripping CDs? Or is it restricted to lossy MP3 and AAC?
Too bad there are still no optical drives for computers that support SACD. Come on Sony, at least make an SACD-compatible BD drive for your über-expensive VAIO media centers, just like the unit you dumped into the PS3!
Srsrly.
The first time I listened to an iPod with those iPod earbuds my reaction was pretty much, "How can people listen to this?"
Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds released their concert at Radio City Music Hall last fall ... What's the point here? That it's an album and not a first release of a concert? BFD.
am I the only engadget reader still buying new records on Vinyl?
Weezer's new record comes out next week and I probably wouldn't even care about the digital versions but they're marketing people are smart enough to offer a deluxe version on iTunes with like 6 extra tracks that aren't on the vinyl for only $13.
I don't have expensive audio equipment, but my records feel better than my CDs. who cares about the audio quality. Just give me that feeling.
I hear great things about vinyl but I dont have the funds or space to invest in putting together a good vinyl setup. More power to you though and those who can do it :).
mp3
bah. that came out wrong.
ignore the post.
Whoa, they still release vinyl? I had no idea.
Nope, you're certainly not the only one buying new records on vinyl. I'm buying quite a bit, simply because the audio quality is usually vastly better than MP3. I download an album on MP3 and then, if I like it, buy it on vinyl.
A few things to consider:
1. 45rpm records almost always sound better than 33rpm records. It may seem silly that R.E.M.'s new album is on 2 records despite being barely half an hour long, but the enhanced sound quality is worth it.
2. Heavier vinyl usually sounds better than lighter vinyl. A standard record is generally 130 gram. I have new records as heavy as 220 gram. The heavier, thicker records are less likely to wobble as they play and are less likely to bend or warp.
3. Colored vinyl is usually, although not always, a lower gauge than black vinyl. The reasons for this are purely financial: most pressing plants charge more for 180g colored vinyl and require larger print runs. Unless a colored record specifically states that it is heavyweight, it is likely 130g.
That said, there are some fantastic record labels pressing really cool stuff, both on vinyl and on SACD or DVD-Audio. Equation Records released a DVD-A by Bass Communion that will shake your house to its foundation. Burning Shed releases No-Man and Porcupine Tree in DVD-A format. Mobile Fidelity is reissuing Pixies and Dead Can Dance on SACD. Aural Exploits and Vinyl Collective release really nice, extremely limited colored and splatter vinyl sets. Matador Records continues to be a source of really nice sounding 180g records. And Warner Brothers has recently re-launched their audiophile label Because Sound Matters and is really worth checking out. Yes, even corporate whores still care about music! And finally, check out Classic Records for their series of HDAD discs, a format even more obscure than XRCD24!
JET
Can I get all Gun's N Roses on Blu-Ray please
Is it region-free, or is it locked to region B? (considering that we're talking about an European orchestra that's very little known in USA, even less known than the London Symphonic Orchestra who brought us the music of Star Wars and Indiana Jones.)
i love how whenever people get into arguments over the internet (ahem... jared and ryan) they start using fancy words like "merely" and "fundamental" . this isn't a pissing contest
Those are fancy words? Hooray for sub-standard education!
ok, let me rephrase that. People just like to talk like they're smarter when they're arguing. I knew SOMEONE would call me on that, but people DO try to flex their academic muscles, if you will, whenever they argue. And I dont have substandard education...
i like the idea of this, and i like the highest definition audio, and picture quality , but i'd never be able to afford what it takes to actually enjoy that. I have a ps3, a 32 inch toshiba regza , and a 40 dollar surround sound system with no receiver. you could say i'm pretty F'n sweet....
Awesome. I'm glad to see some people still care about audio quality too. It amazes me that a lot of people who are into tech don't care more about advancing audio quality, rather than accepting the backward regression which has been going on.
There used to be this exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art and it consisted of about six clusters of six high quality studio monitors arranged in a circle that provided this beautiful 3D effect to the choir singing, each cluster playing a different track in synchrony with all the others. It was the most beautiful, exquisite, and humbling thing I've ever heard and it drove me to tears. If I'm going to buy a Blu-Ray audio release, I want to be able to feel that again on my Logitech Z-5500 sound system, not audio fidelity beyond my detection.
also, it's TRondheim like the place.
"Thondheimsolistene"
Take one look at the Cover please ;)
Anyhow, this intrigues me, to bad it will never be an industry standard because the normal "person on the street", or "mannen på gata" as we call it in norway, will never see the use in this, why bother paying more, or get new players when the old one sounds just as good?
Whatever you do, the weakest link will always be your limit, and the 99$ boombox aint gonna cut it for Blueray-recordings ;)
Perhaps the BD is for those not on the SACD bandwagon yet?
Whichever way, the overlap is substantial since the main SACD player of millions is PS3. See www.ps3sacd.com
These people can choose just about any of the formats included.
Being Norwegian, I am somewhat biased, and I own a couple of recordings from 2L already.
The unique thing about this enjoyable classic music recording is not only that you get great music, perfectly recorded in a great format, but also that you get a great tool to compare different formats.
Myself, I have listened to this a bit the last couple of days, and there are clear differences, both between the 5.1 and 2.0 tracks (obviously) and between lower and higher bitrates/samplerates/precision. My equipment do not enable me to play DTS-HD-MA, but as I said, there are clear diffences, and I would rate the experiences like this:
1) 5.1 LPCM 24BIT/192 kHz (Blu-ray)
2) 5.1 Dolby True HD 24BIT/192 kHz (Blu-ray)
3) 2.0 DSD (2.8224Mbit/s each channel) (Hybrid SACD)
4) 2.0 LPCM 24BIT/192 kHz (Blu-ray)
5) 2.0 Ordinary CD (16 BIT / 44.1 kHz) (Hybrid SACD)
6) 5.1 Dolby Digital 48kHz (Blu-ray)
Now, between 1 and 2 on the list, the differences are subtle at best. Both have a airy, clear presence which makes it feels like you are in the middle of a circle of great live performers.
The 2-channel experience is quite different, both 3 and 4 have a great airy presence where the musicians now play in front of you.
The CD version also sounds great, but lose a bit of the air and presence of the higher bitrate. It also sounds a bit compressed, the dynamic peaks sound a little stressed out.
The Dolby Digital track is definately more muddy in its presentation than all of the former, and didn't give me the feeling of being there that the better multichannel tracks offer.
How about MP3? Didn't try, to be honest, it is not a supplied option here. But even if high bitrate MP3 closely match the CD quality, the high bitrate multichannel tracks is just a different experience of connecting with the music. I guess that if you listen to this through an MP3 player with your favourite headset, it would probably be a dull experience. You need the air of a room and a decent set of louspeakers to make music like this come alive.
But don't try it if you don't mean it, you may not want to go back, and you may even change your taste in music entirely from the dynamically castrated mainstream CD realeases that doesn't even take advantage of the dynamic capabilities of the CD medium. Sure, those dynamically challenged recordings make the transition to your headphones via MP3 just fine...
PS. I have not listened to these tracks: 5.1 DSD (2.8224Mbit/s each channel) and 5.1 DTS HD Master Audio 24BIT/192 kHz.
OK, so Dolby TrueHD is a lossless compression format, which means it is going to sound the same as the 5.1 LPCM, Full stop.
The only reason they'd sound any different is if they used different sources, or have enabled Dynamic range Compression or Dialogue Normalization (which if they have shows they don't understand about the technologies).
Now assuming the producers aren't monkeys, neither DRC or DN are going to be applied, and the TrueHD is from the same recording as the LPCM, there is not going to be any difference whatsoever between the two.
This isn't the first "recording" on Blu-ray.
http://ghosts.nin.com/main/order_options
One option for the Nine Inch Nails album Ghosts I-IV is a Blu-ray version.
24bit 96Khz audio.
Came out a month ago.
95% of the time i'm using my iPod i'm in a noisy environment anyway, walking next to a road, on a bus, in a crowded place etc. I rip all of my MP3's at 320kbps, but anything gained by a higher bit rate is lost due to the sound of heavy traffic. If you're listening in an indoor environment with a decent audio system, then that's another matter...
Why bother having/listening to 320kbps Mp3s? Just listen to the damn CD instead. And what's the point of archiving music in anything other than PCM? PCM is not compressed and is compatible with everything. Anyone that thinks compressed music is synonymous with quality is out of their mind.
Compressed PCM, like flac or ape allow you to have your cake and eat it too.
NIN's "Ghosts" was the first Blu-Ray album.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Thondheimsolistene
According to google's suggestion, it looks like the orchestra's name is spelled incorrectly.
I think some people here are confusing freq. response with sample freq. sample freq is bascially the resolution. And yes, I can hear the difference between 48khz vs 96 or 192khz. 16 bit and 24 bit are the number of steps in amplitude and the dynamic range possible. Although a lot of recordings today use too much dynamic compression, making it difficult to hear the difference. So don't bash the audiophiles for wanting 24bit/192khz sample freq, they are not crazy. Until you hear the difference you will not have an appreciation for it.
"yes because i really want to hear Ray J gasping for breath or Beck's new guitarist fumbling with his sheet music while i'm jogging or on the subway."
That has nothing to do with the bit rate and sample rate, that has everything to do with the proximity and sensitivity of the microphone being used while recording, and that of the mixing engineer.
regardless of the quality it would still be there, just at lower rates it would sound even shittier.
48kHz -sampling rate- doesn't mean it will output 48kHz high sounds, but half of that.
Vibrations produce alternating current, and a complete wave cycle has to go up and down. ie. you need two samples at 48kHz to get a 24kHz tone.
Then there's the oversampling DAC vs. non-O.S. difference : a 24kHz tone at 48kHz can only be a square wave (so imagine CDs at 44.1kHz sampling rate, a 22.050kHz wave is square). On an oversampling DAC, it multiplies the sampling rate by four or eight, and by using preemphasis and deemphasis, the tone will be smoothed out to a sine wave, since 48kHz can only produce one type of wave at that frequency.
A 44.1kHz or 48kHz sample rate means that an easily hearable 10kHz tone is only shaped by about 4 samples. With an oversampling DAC (found in the vast majority of players, I don't know if you can find a new non-OS DAC) a sine wave will play fine, but a square wave will be rounded massively, with some sound artefact bonus in the process.
That said, CD and DVD-video sample rates are only good for sine waves at high frequencies. Some might claim that the fact that 10kHz can only output sine waves is OK as the next harmonic is 20kHz, which most people can't hear, but take an analog signal generator connected directly to a sound system and try both wave types, there's quite a difference. Now, do the same with your computer. Try a sine vs square wave. The sine wave will be OK, but you're very likely to hear ringing at lower frequencies than 10kHz when you'll play the square wave. It all depends of the processing done from the original signal to the analog output.
Now is the bitrate matter. 16-bit ISN'T enough. Sound engineers know this and this is why most CDs are compressed to hell compared to some vinyl releases (there's also a commercial war for the loudest sounding songs, which is another matter). You can use the lowest bits to output low-volume sound, but it will lack definition as there's a quite big jump in sound level between each steps at that level (ie. 0000000000000000 is -infinite dB and 0000000000000001 is -96dB) also, due to the way DACs work, 16 zeros will totally mute the output as there's no current flow, and 15 zeros+one will open one gate and noise from the PSU rail, digital clock, etc. will be output.
> audio quality means nothing whatsoever to the public.
> what matters is functionality and ease of use.
This is unfortunately true, a lot of people have poor audition. Hence why they are perfectly happy with boomboxes, iPods, cheap 5.1 systems, etc. and compressed recordings.