First Blu-ray record, Divertimenti, released
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]
Filed under: Home Entertainment
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Bunson @ May 29th 2008 10:06PM
Higher audio quality than humans can detect for more money... what a revolutionary thought!
Ignatius @ May 29th 2008 10:15PM
Just like Monster cables, eh? ;D
Mike Cerm @ May 29th 2008 10:22PM
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?
Plothole @ May 29th 2008 10:41PM
I can just imagine, say around ten years from now they'll be announcing HVD Records with even "higher quality" audio. Oy.
fred @ May 29th 2008 10:50PM
"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.
frozo @ May 29th 2008 11:31PM
Try upgrading your audio system. You'd be surprised--there is most definitely a discernible difference.
MrFairladyz @ May 29th 2008 11:52PM
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 LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ May 30th 2008 2:18AM
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
James @ May 30th 2008 5:54AM
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..
thebadmintonking @ May 30th 2008 12:47PM
Great! We can now pay SIGNIFICANTLY more to purchase something that still doesn't outdo vinyl.
What's the point/big deal?
I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ May 30th 2008 5:47PM
@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.
MastrCake @ May 29th 2008 10:08PM
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.
JohnTitor @ May 29th 2008 10:38PM
first good luck Blu-Ray
it's not going much forward itself
Chino B @ May 30th 2008 12:09AM
JohnTitor doesn't know what he's talking about. Please go away.
DaLa @ May 29th 2008 10:11PM
90% of BluRay is the PS3, why wouldn't it be compatible?
Rakar @ May 29th 2008 10:15PM
Because it could be part of the 10% that's not, apparently.
KEROLiUKAS @ May 29th 2008 10:14PM
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.
Jared @ May 29th 2008 11:00PM
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.
ryan @ May 29th 2008 11:16PM
@Jared
He said that it you can tell the difference at 64, but not at 300+
Reading is fundamental
Jared @ May 29th 2008 11:55PM
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.
Michael @ May 30th 2008 12:02AM
...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
KEROLiUKAS @ May 30th 2008 12:17AM
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?
Juaquin @ May 30th 2008 12:45AM
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 :)
tekdemon @ May 30th 2008 2:03AM
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.
Joe Anstine @ May 30th 2008 1:03PM
@ 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.
Josh @ May 29th 2008 10:14PM
Nine Inch Nails album "Ghosts" came in Blue Ray via the Deluxe Edition of the record that came out May 1st.
Stephen @ May 29th 2008 10:22PM
Yeah, I think Ghosts was the first.
Derek @ May 29th 2008 10:46PM
Yes, pease do more research before posting, Engadget.
Adrenaline @ May 29th 2008 10:52PM
Didn't nin also release the first live music/concert Blu-Ray with "Beside You in Time"?
Darkest Daze @ May 29th 2008 11:55PM
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.
MMaster23 @ May 30th 2008 6:06AM
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...
josh @ May 30th 2008 9:44AM
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.
superkly @ May 30th 2008 10:17AM
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?
Jonathan @ May 29th 2008 10:20PM
my 8-track works just fine. I made a belt with a rubber band. Try that with your fancy PS3!!
itlnstln @ May 30th 2008 9:28AM
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.
Stephen @ May 29th 2008 10:22PM
What about Nine Inch Nails. Ghosts? It had a Blu-Ray release months ago.
imatt @ May 29th 2008 10:32PM
Word. Ghosts. Time to pull the story, Mr. Rather.
shaun @ May 29th 2008 10:35PM
They should put offensive messages at high frequencies to see if the audiophiles can actually hear the difference
OziD @ May 29th 2008 11:14PM
audiophile is such a creepy word.
it's like they like to touch kids in the junior high band
monkfishbandana @ May 30th 2008 5:48AM
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.
Reader @ May 29th 2008 10:35PM
Is the fact that it's 5.1 the only improvement from normal lossless? Big whoop
jason @ May 29th 2008 10:44PM
no 7.1? that is a downer.
len @ May 29th 2008 10:56PM
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.
Jared @ May 29th 2008 11:04PM
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).
vdogg89 @ May 29th 2008 11:13PM
audio quality means nothing whatsoever to the public. what matters is functionality and ease of use.
OziD @ May 29th 2008 11:20PM
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.
Jared @ May 29th 2008 11:22PM
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.
Jared @ May 29th 2008 11:29PM
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.
len @ May 29th 2008 11:41PM
"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
ddub @ May 30th 2008 12:00AM
yeah i get a boner when i can hear them turn the sheet music page.
sheesh