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]
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.