PureAudio Blu-ray Music format

[InterMechanico]

Not sure if this is worth posting.

There is a new format being pushed by a dude named Mark Waldrep. It uses the Blu-Ray format, with its' large storage capacity to create tracks with a ratio of 1 GB:4 Minutes. Many audio configurations as well as video playback. Here's the link:

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=727

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24441979

 

[amey01]

I'm sure it would sound great, but I don't think anyone cares for another physical format. I for one couldn't imagine going back to shuffling physical discs in and out of rudimentary tempermental machines.

And with similar-capacity solid state memory avaiable for not much more than a Bluray disc, I fail to see the point.

 

[InterMechanico]

Well, at this point in time, I think the prospect of downloading or streaming 1 GB tracks is an impossibility, even with a very high speed server. The format also requires no new equipment (blu-ray player) for most people. I'm sure the quality of the disc player would affect the quality of the music, but most people (not me yet lol) have a decent Blu-Ray player already in their home. I, for one, am going to try at least a few of the Blu-Ray albums out of curiosity. As far as flipping discs goes, I love love love my CD player and find the investment in DL'd music to be a little pricey, and the quality to be inconsistent. This, ofcourse, is strictly subjective :music:

 

[amey01]

Well, at this point in time, I think the prospect of downloading or streaming 1 GB tracks is an impossibility, even with a very high speed server.

Not at all. In fact, they have used every tactic to inflate their figures, eg. by quoting surround multitrack audio in uncompressed form.

Truth is, they're talking about measily 24/192 audio, which is already all over the internet.

for high-resolution sound (up to 192 kHz/24Bit) in surround and stereo with the easy and straightforward handling of a CD.

These files are nowhere near 1GB - the bitrate for uncompressed 24/192 audio is 8.7 odd Mbps, which equates to only 66MB per minute. That is less than 270MB per 4 minutes. FLAC can more than halve that with zero difference in quality.

Conversely, the files are very managable.

They appear to be inflating their figures by talking about uncompressed audio (unnecessary and unwarranted) and 5.1 and 7.1 streams (gimmick).

If the gimmick of 7.1 surround audio is important to you, go hence forth..........

Conversely, if all you want is the 24/192 stereo, you can get that (and better FLACs, up to 32/384) on the internet, right now, in very managable form.

 

[InterMechanico]

So, to summarize, they take a 24/192 track, add a few other surround formats, and an HD Video feed, Et Voila; 1 GB! lol. I wonder why they bother though? There are a few large production companies involved, which to me means there must be something different about the format. They have Blu-ray music; live concerts, etc... already.

So here’s my definition for HD-Audio:

HD-Audio is a recording that has been captured during an original session using equipment capable of matching or exceeding the capabilities of human hearing. If the generally accepted measure of the human auditory system includes a frequency span of roughly 20 Hz to 20 kHz and a dynamic range that tops out at around 135 db, then a recording system would need to be able reach these specifications to be considered HD. In the world of PCM digital recording this would translate to at least 48 kHz and 24-bits. Given there is some evidence that higher frequencies may impact our listening experience and that moving to 96 kHz has advantages for equipment designers, it’s seems reasonable to adopt 96 kHz as the minimal HD sampling rate (I would accept 88.2). As an engineer/producer creating new HD tracks, I choose 96 kHz/24-bits as the minimal specifications to achieve HD-Audio.

I think they are selling new recordings rather than re-hashed (re-mastered) old recordings.

 

[amey01]

So, to summarize, they take a 24/192 track, add a few other surround formats, and an HD Video feed, Et Voila; 1 GB! lol.

It would certainly seem that way. I can reasonably safely draw that inference from what I have read.

I wonder why they bother though?

Making money? From re-selling people the music they already own, and make one last hurrah from physical formats. Maybe?

I think they are selling new recordings rather than re-hashed (re-mastered) old recordings.

Recording quality is always important. But it doesn't necessarily mean you need a new physical player to enjoy them.

 

[InterMechanico]

Good call. I had a look a his website (Mark Waldrep) http://www.realhd-audio.com/, and for what it's worth, he is a knowledgeable guy. I've enjoyed reading his articles anyway.

 

[InterMechanico]

So.... I've just found a good deal on a Yamaha NP-S2000 (Network Player) to match up with my other gear. I'm going to pick it up and see how I like it. I have about 16 GBs of music on my laptop; some of it is HQ.