Blu-spec: Sony's latest CD format

If CDs really are on their way out, Sony is ready with their replacement: Blu-spec CDs.

Although details about the new format, launched in Japan in November, are somewhat scant, we do know that users won't need a new player for Blu-spec CDs.

"The Blu-spec CD format boasts a new approach to the faithful reproduction of music by utilizing the leading-edge blue laser diode technologies optimized for the manufacturing of Blu-ray," according to CDJapan. The new discs' polycarbonate plastic, optimized for Blu-ray discs, is used "to ensure accurate reading of the data."

Sony doesn't claim that the Blu-spec CD sounds any better than a CD or how the new discs compare with Sony's previous and nearly dead super-CD format, Super Audio CD (SACD).

Although Sony made its Blu-spec PR splash in Japan, a few titles to the United States. The site lists Blu-spec CDs from Aerosmith, Jeff Beck, Bob Dylan, Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, and Weather Report. While most Blu-spec CDs carry a list price of $25 in Japan, Amazon.com is selling them for $35.49 here.

Another CD format, SHM-CD, seems to be similar to Blu-spec CD, but with non-Sony artists.

Have you heard a Blu-spec CD or SHM-CD yet?

[uptheironsrafi]

NOT AGAIN!!!!!

[bob.mcclenahan]

I don't get it. CD-quality sound on a Blu-ray? What's the point? I give it 20 titles or 12 months.

[techwiz2001]

Wow I can't belive all this branding of crap taking place. It looks to me that everyone is now just trying to copy Apple. Apple put's an 'i' in front of everything so Sony has to put 'blu' infront of everything it puts out. Plus, Microsoft is putting retail stores in Malls now cause it works for Apple.

Just because it works for Apple doesn't mean it will work for you!!!

[solu1978]

Dude .. try and live a life without a Apple .. there is no need to get apple involved here .. this article is about CD's not some shiny hardware.

[jpdrvr51]

Ummm... didn't Apple copy Gateway with the retail store idea?

[thelemurking]

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick... *** does this have to do with Apple? Nothing! Yet the little Macintards have to chirp in like Apple is the only company in the world that can do no wrong. I mean it's not like Apple has never copied or stolen anything before. ;)

Sony is the main inventor of the Blu-Ray... perhaps it's Apple who is copying Sony by adding Blu-Ray players to some of their products. Why shouldn't Sony be allowed to adapt their technology and name to other products? I think it will be a failure, but they are not copying Apple in the slightest.

Apple has to have their own stores because hardly no other retailer will carry their products. About the only place I ever see anything other than iPods is at Best Buy and they have maybe 1 or 2 Apple laptops for sale and every now and then maybe a Mac Mini.

[whclevelandjr]

@jpdrvr51

Ummm... I wouldn't call it copying. It's not really that uncommon for manufacturers to open retail outlets. Apple just decided to locate their stores away from the 'manufacture outlet' mall.

Gateway didn't really open a retail store. You couldn't buy a computer there. You could look at the current models and talk to someone about the options available ( They read the catalog to you ), but you had to order your system using the 1-800 number. This was stupid because (1) it was a waste of a store front and (2) forced you to pay state and local taxes because Gateway actually had a local presence. This gave Dell a huge advantage, since you still had to call a 1-800 number but the system was cheaper due to the lack of a sales tax.

I don't know why you even bring up the Gateway store... Did they sell Blu-Spec CDs?

[iff2mastamatt]

Macintards: Epic! hahahahahahahaha!

[shootthecops]

we need a format that goes into studios and kills sound engineers for over-compressing audio

[pubmat]

It sounds to me as if you have an anger management problem, with a penchant for violence.

[Spartan_458]

Or maybe is it that you're a sound engineer?

[ejhayes76]

What's wrong with the CDs we have now?

[pubmat]

They are limited in their bandwidth, and the trend in sound engineering is to over compress audio and make it all TOO BLOODY LOUD with no sense of dynamics. (Called dynamic range compression) Cds recorded correctly, can sound pretty damn good, but real blu ray LOSSLESS audio has the potential to be the BEST.

[Seaspray0]

There is nothing wrong with the CD's we have now. Their frequency response is zero to 44 khz. The range of human hearing is 20 hz to 20 khz at best, so CD's exceed the sound spectrum that we can hear. As for dynamic compression.. most people prefer some amount of dynamic compressions. Without dynamic compression, you might have one song where you strain to hear it and another that blasts your eardrums. The format on a CD is a straight binary encoding of the music and it's considered lossless. No other component of a stereo can claim the high fidelity specifications that a CD can, and a stereo is only as good as it's weakest link. If you want to improve something, improve the weakest link, not the strongest.

[Spartan_458]

pubmat,

Bandwidth has nothing to do with it. CDs ARE lossless. That's the point. Nothing gets better than the CD, and a different disc won't change that. The trend in sound engineering to over-compress is just that: a trend, and a trend that can be easily changed. You pointed out that CDs, when recorded correctly, sound damn good. So why change something that doesn't need to be changed when the real problem lies with the engineers and their faulty techniques? (That's a funny statement; engineers fix problems, yet they are the problem. Ironic to the last.)

[extirpator]

The biggest problem with CD's is actually that they are limited in audio channels. CD's were designed in the era of stereo's. Most modern sound systems have the potential for far more than two audio channels. With current PCM encoded CD's any additional channels are derived through some from of channel synthesis. Thus any additional channels beyond the first two on current CD's are not loss less. 80 minutes of 7.1 channel loss less uncompressed audio would require roughly the storage space of a DVD. If something with the capacity of a blue ray disc were used in theory one could separate music into sections of instruments. For example one could isolate percussion from strings. This type of audio control would give the listener unprecedented control over how their music was played.

That being said Blu-spec CD's are silly as they don't do any of this. Blu-spec CD's use a blue laser to reduce bit write errors on standard CD's that could lead to play back issues; however, most bit errors on current CD's are not caused at the time of writing, but at play back from scratches and surface grime. The bit error correction circuits in most modern CD/DVD/Blu-Ray players should be able to overcome most of these kind of errors even if they do occur. Also there is nothing that prevents a Blu-spec CD from suffering from errors from grime and scratches after they've been burned as they still rely on the same bit correction circuitry that normal CD's use. Thus the only improvement they make over standard CD's from what I've read is in the area that is typically the least problematic as it is. The only other potential advantage is it may increase the longevity of the recording unit; however, this would hardly affect the listener in any way shape of form.

[amoebaassassin]

CD's are not "lossless" as they take analog data and convert that to digital. The only true "lossless" formats are analog, such as magnetic tape and vinyl, but even then you can induce errors due to the recording and manufacturing process. Also, I'm quite surprised that someone would claim that it doesn't get any better than CD in an audiophile forum, but I'm willing to let that slide for the time being since I have a headache and don't feel like fighting about that at the moment.

Also, as it turns out, 44 kHz wasn't a high enough sampling rate... it's somewhat complicated, and a rather long winded discussion, but it has to do with the PCM conversion method. Direct Stream Digital (DSD) was created to solve that issue, and is the technology used in SACD, another fine Sony product. If you're at all interested in such things it's worth taking a look at the two methods; it's quite an interesting study in digital conversion.

I do love SACD, as for all intents and purposes as it most closely reproduces analog sound without the drawbacks of vinyl or magnetic tape, but never really caught on since most people think MP3's sound fine so it has no mass market appeal. Sony has a nice long history of this... Betamax, MiniDisc, SACD, and now Blu-spec.

[pubmat]

Seaspray0, The frequency response, if i remember correctly is NOT 44khz. That refers to the SAMPLING rate, ie,the number of times the master waveform is sampled on a CD. The more times (as in 192khz for SACD) the better, of course. The frequency limit on a recorded CD is (now, someone correct me if I'm wrong) about 20k. The limiting factor of CDs, as my admittedly limited knowledge allows, is that the sampling is INCOMPLETE. In other words, there are gaps to the waveform that are being omitted. For storage purposes, (how many 1s and 0s you can fit on a CD) and sampling limitations, they are limited to that 20k I referred to. LPs have a much higher frequency potential....but that doesn't mean they sound better, I still think that CDs are superior.

[pubmat]

Spartan,
Maybe I used the wrong choice of words, my bad. You are right, but technically, CDs are limited in their storage capacity, as I'm sure you know. As a result, there are gaps in the waveform that are omitted, both for sampling limitations as well as storage limits. BluRay is closer to the original studio masters because of their higher storage and sampling. Thats why I don't like to cal them "lossless'.

[alegr]

Seaspray0,

I suggest you read a bit on Nyquist theory.

44100 is sampling rate. Sampling theory states that you can restore an original contiguous frequency-limited signal if you sample it at twice the rate. That means you can restore a signal which doesn't have components at an above 22050 Hz, from its samples at 44100 samples per seconds. In reality, because you cannot have an ideal anti-aliasing filter, you have to limit your original signal frequency range a bit more.

There are a couple extended sampling theoremes. One says that if your signal is limited at frequency F, you can restore it from its sample and its derivative as sample rate F. Another theoreme says that you don't have to have uniform sampling; you san sample with average rate 2F.

[alegr]

amoebaassassin,

Analog media is far from lossless. It introduces non-linear distortion and noise, which adds up with every copy, and changes and increases with every playback due to wear. You can make an exact copy of a CD; you CANNOT do that with a tape or LP.

[Synthmeister]

At this point most studios record audio at double or quadruple the resolution of CDs so a new format would be nice but they already have a new format that can take advantage of the extra resolution. It's called BlueRay.

Just dumb. This format has no advantages over CDs except it's "new." No wonder Sony is losing money.

[MasterJ24]

It's blu-ray.

And that new format is called FLAC

http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_tasks.html

[Synthmeister]

You are correct. Sorry for the misspelling.

I'm just floored that Sony doesn't try to push the BluRay/FLAC format into the high-end audiophile realm. It could easily be better than SACD and DVD Audio. If people buy CDs at all, they don't want to buy another piece of gear to play them on.
BluRay could do everything people want, Play music, play mp3 play movies, etc. but Sony looks like it's going to fritter away it's advantages being distracted by this kind of crap.

[thelemurking]

now now Sony, I know you are hurting for cash, but redoing the CD to blue ray specs and charging twice as much for them isn't going to help you out of your financial crisis.

this is the whole reason why blu-ray sales suck... most people will opt for the DVD version of a movie because it's twice as cheap as the blu-ray counterpart. There are cases where you can bu 3 DVDs for the price of one blu-ray.

This only screams failure. It didn't work for mini-disc, it didn't work for SA-CD and DVDA... and it's not going to work now.

[gsmiller88]

Wait, wait, wait...The Blu-spac CD is supposed to offer higher quality, and yet it will play on a regular CD player? And $35 a pop?! Good lord, Sony, get a grip!

[ddhboy]

Who cares? Remember audio DVDs? Remember how no one bought them? Plus internet sales like those from iTunes or Amazon's MP3 store account for such a wide margin of profit that it isn't even worth it to invest in a new physical format since it seems most people are fine with 256kbps MP3 files. Yeah, there are the purists who will always choose vinyl over cds or for that matter mp3s and there will always be a place for them, but I don't se them being too enthused about a new audio disk format either.

[ewelch]

Another Sony proprietary technology.

Another failure.

Next!

[Spartan_458]

Hello UMD!

[damiandennison]

ejhayes76, I ask the same question. Aren't we moving away from CD's anyway? As for "techwiz2001" get a life! Apple was not the first put an "i" in front of it's products, did you know the they license the iPhone name? Why because to did not come up with it first. As it was said before this has article has nothing to do with apple, so go kick back with your ipod and chill.

[ematcion]

All these comments and I'd bet not one of you has heard a Blu-spec CD. Go ahead, admit it!!

And Steve, you know why Blu-spec CD and SHM-CD are introduced in Japan only? Because the audiophiles there tends to care MORE about sound quality. Same with SACD....why is Sony Music still releasing titles in Japan and not in the US?

Btw, MiniDisc was quite successful outside of the US. Same with SACD, as it celebrates its 10th anniversary this coming September.

[pubmat]

MiniDisc sounded like crap, because it was a lossy format, thats why it wasn't popular here. And there is as of yet, NO evidence that Blu spec CDs sound any better than the old red-book type. Thats the whole point of this blog. NO ONE has really heard one yet. SACD sounds great though. I listen to it all the time.

[danlevy]

This looks like Sony's effort to dispense with the limitations inherent to the Red Book spec that prevents the company from embedding more DRM on the disk. If they can assert a whole new spec that has fewer DRM limitations it doesn't matter whether there are any sonic advantages.

[hawkeyeaz1]

CDs are more or less a dead/niche format. Digital (i.e. online) is the way to go DVDs have some life still because ISPs are dragging their feet and kicking and screaming (in the USA at least) to avoid increasing the bandwidth to a reasonable rate while doing so for a reasonable price...

[abcd9009]

I agree, CDs are now a niche format, but not quiet dead yet. It will be soon just like cassettes. People are moving more towards online downloads because it's cheaper to download without Sales tax (at least for now) and I think partly because you are not forced to buy the entire album when you only like one or two songs. Another reason which I don't think alot of people care for is environmental reasons - no wastage of paper for booklets or plastic for covers. And now with the DRM free downloads it's almost like buying a CD - not restricted to only one MP3 player just like a CD can be played on any CD player.
We are making progress in the standards towards "consumer friendly" devices however because of the greed we all have living in a capitalistic society it will take a bit longer to reach neutral terms and will cost us more.

[NYJohn413]

CD sales still trump digital downloads currently. The market will eventually turn in favor of downloads but never to the extent resulting in a "dead" physical format.

[Spartan_458]

There will always be people who want a physical copy of the music that they bought. That won't go away.

[tipoo_]

DVD-Audio and SACD couldnt dethrone CD (unfortunately) so how will this be able to?

[soundman45]

This is the first I've heard of the blu-spec CD but from what I've read so far if it can be incorperated into the blu-ray format then it probably can support 24 bit audio up to 196k sampling rate. which means it's open source. Thats the great thing about blu-ray it can support any sampling frequency or bit rate that the audio industry wants to throw at it.

[one_flat_monkey]

i'm gonna pay 25 - 35 bucks for 45 - 60 minutes of music.

yeah, right.

[paulimusmaximus]

What? People still buy CD's?

[kelmon]

I've nothing against this idea as long as I would not need new hardware to play them. However, since I haven't bought a physical CD in years and that music is now downloaded, I wonder whether there really is sufficient demand to justify the product.

[serialcomputerrepair]

People, doesn't this article just say they added the protective layer that the bluray discs have? You know, that special coating they had to create because they made the discs themselves so thick and needed a superthin and strong coating. I think this has nothing to do with the laser color or storage capacity.

[soundman45]

Mybad on my previous post. It appears after some reading up on the subject Sony has only sought to improve the writing and reading of discs with it's blu laser. Apparently it improves with more accurate pit geometry in the creation of discs resulting in better error correction and in theory better sounding 16 bit audio reproduction. The problem is that it''s still a 16 bit CD. Enough said.