Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blu-Ray Audio: The latest gimmick?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blu-Ray Audio: The latest gimmick? - Page 9

post #121 of 129
Well I think the thing is..... 5.1 "Blu-Ray Audio" _is_ indeed gimmicky, no doubt overpriced, unnecessary for 5.1 music.

As bigshot has said, and I agree based on my experience, the extraction of "surround" info doesn't need the discrete channel precision this sales gimmick is pushing.

It's a way of the industry trying to resell the same thing for the umpteenth time on the umpteenth format, higher-priced, requiring new equipment, etc. etc. etc.

While realism can be fun to strive for, the fact is that you can enjoy the music from a tabletop radio and be fine, too.

The pursuit of pleasure can take the form of commodity fetishism, gear worship, music enjoyment and study; the three are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they dependent upon each other, as the salespeople would have you believe.

This is why I don't mind the audio jewelry industry; if you want to buy that stuff, go ahead, doesn't hurt anybody any more than someone going out and buying golden earrings or neck chains.

Everyone needs a hobby. wink.gif
post #122 of 129

You might have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Discrete 5:1 is amazing... the best. But even 2 channel benefits from 5:1 playback with the proper DSP. I don't intend to imply that discrete 5:1 is the same as 2 channel through a DSP. True surround is astounding.

 

I agree that gear is secondary to ear. But some gear actually DOES make a significant difference. 5:1 sound is well worth the cost, great bang for the buck, especially compared to the DACs, amps, and fancy cables people buy.


Edited by bigshot - 11/20/13 at 6:33pm
post #123 of 129
Well that's for sure; I'd get a $50 Blu-Ray player and receiver with 7.1 and the proper speakers and room with the right dimensions over all that other stuff in a heartbeat, given the choice.

I'd spend the most on the room.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
post #124 of 129

I love my King Crimson and (2) Pink Floyd albums (and a couple of others including some classical music) in proper surround format (and accordingly remastered in the case of King Crimson). In fact, I can't stress how much I love them, it is totally "ear-gasmic" to me. I demand MORE surround music :)

 

But to be fair, they can actually fit on simple DVDs so Blu-Ray is kinda overkill unless you want to have some hi-res videos included alongside. Still it is no gimmick to me unless the blu-ray/DVD/SACD ONLY includes the same masters as the CD with a higher sample rate/bit rate (since I don't care about having more than 44.1khz/16bit for actual listening) and/or some cheap surround upmixing. 

post #125 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalston View Post
 

I love my King Crimson and (2) Pink Floyd albums (and a couple of others including some classical music) in proper surround format (and accordingly remastered in the case of King Crimson). In fact, I can't stress how much I love them, it is totally "ear-gasmic" to me. I demand MORE surround music :)

 

But to be fair, they can actually fit on simple DVDs so Blu-Ray is kinda overkill unless you want to have some hi-res videos included alongside. Still it is no gimmick to me unless the blu-ray/DVD/SACD ONLY includes the same masters as the CD with a higher sample rate/bit rate (since I don't care about having more than 44.1khz/16bit for actual listening) and/or some cheap surround upmixing. 

 

I thought DVD could not support 24/96 in surround sound because the bit rate exceeds the limit of the format or something, hence Blu Ray.  

 

I also have Dark Side Of The Moon from the Immersion Set.  I didn't find it to be anything spectacular but the 5.1 and 4.0 mixes are sweet.  Wish they would have mastered it as well as they did the original Harvest releases or the MFSL remaster though.

 

The Beatles Love DVD-A in 5.1 DTS is awesome too.  


Edited by hogger129 - 11/27/13 at 3:22pm
post #126 of 129

24/96 is more of a marketing gimmick than an actual sound quality feature. Well mastered 16/44.1 would sound the same, unless you're getting up to 130+ decibels or listening to frequencies beyond the range of human hearing.

post #127 of 129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

24/96 is more of a marketing gimmick than an actual sound quality feature. Well mastered 16/44.1 would sound the same, unless you're getting up to 130+ decibels or listening to frequencies beyond the range of human hearing.

 

You never know, hearing implants may extend the range of human hearing in future. Till then, 16/44 will suffice.

post #128 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post

I thought DVD could not support 24/96 in surround sound because the bit rate exceeds the limit of the format or something, hence Blu Ray.  

I dunno where that comes from but my King Crimson DVDs are 96/24 5.1 and lossless and there's still room for bonus tracks and stereo mixes. It's some compressed format like flac, mlp I think it's called? I rip all my music to flac for portability so I can't even remember :P
post #129 of 129
I know this is a old thread but I just have to express my opinion in a few words...high fidelity blue ray audio is plain crap the quality is just not there it's a real disappointment plus it's really hard to find 5.1 like it's almost impossible...over all it's just not worth checking out....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blu-Ray Audio: The latest gimmick?