Blu-ray is to DVD as SACD was to CD: Better, but not enough better?

(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)

The SACD is a "super" CD, it sounds better, offers multichannel, high-resolution sound, and hybrid SACDs are backwards compatible with CD players. Sony initially pushed SACD as a CD replacement and the market yawned. OK, but you would have thought that audiophiles would have, en mass, supported SACD, especially after so many of them bashed CD for its harsh digital sound. SACDs, at least ones sourced from high quality recordings, really do sound better than CD (but a crappy original recording, remastered to SACD, still sounds crappy). No, just a small segment of the audiophile market embraced SACD, why, I'm still not sure.

So my question is, now with the distraction of the HD DVD/Blu-ray format war finally out of the way, why would the market embrace Blu-ray, which is merely a "super" DVD? Yes, the format can hold up to 25GB on a single-layer disc and 50GB on a dual-layer disc, offers 1080i/p resolution, and a host of other features that, for the most part, no one cares about. My videophile pals tell me that Blu-ray's superior picture quality won't be all that visible to most people with 50 inch or smaller displays (especially when their DVDs are upconverted to 1080i/p). Hell, most people are pretty happy with DVDs and already think DVDs are HD.

I also think that the problem for both SACD and Blu-ray is that the new and improved discs looked almost identical to the older format. There's no perceived difference between the physical appearance of a SACD and a CD, or a Blu-ray and DVD disc. When CDs were introduced, the sonic differences between LPs and CDs was obvious, plus the difference in the way the played was likewise unsubtle. CDs also looked way cooler than LPs. The same benefits to the consumer were apparent during the transition from VHS tape to DVD. Consumer didn't have to be "educated," and once prices came down on DVD, the vast majority of VHS holdouts jumped on the DVD bandwagon.

With HD DVD out of the picture, I have no doubt Blu-ray will do better, but it will grow far more slowly than DVD did. Blu-ray will likely remain a niche format, while the market for downloads gains more and more momentum. DVD sales, already past their peak will continue to decline.

[Leria]

Blu-Ray is going to be the next big thing in backing up computer data and for photographic fanatics like myself whose collections of pictures already take up the whole of 100 or so DVD's, once the burners come down in price and come out.

[barrington thompson]

Leria,

Do you think that most people are stupid enough to buy expensive Blu-ray disks when they can buy cheap DVD rewriter/recording disks.

If, 'The Establishment' wanted us to have recordable Blu-ray disks why do you think that we havenot had recordable Blu-ray players by now, whilst they have been boasting about the extra Blu-ray memory disks compared to HD DVD disks?

Why do you think that Blu-ray members were using regional coding and preventing consumers from recording HD programmes and HD films on to HD recordable players for personal use?

With the hype (con) about Blu-ray's storage space being superior perhaps somebody can explain why it was HD DVD that was pushing back the boundaries of HD technology and not Blu-ray?

[filmfan214]

Steve, I think you're probably right. And it's too bad, because I would like to be able to buy some hi def movies and feel good about it...but I'm not sure I can.

Leria, I'm not sure I agree that Blu-Ray will be the next big thing in backing up data. I think external hard drives (increasingly solid-state drives) will be better.

[barrington thompson]

I think that computers, hard disk drives and wireless networking will make Blu-ray redundant.

The probalem with solid-state drives the size of the memory is far too small and far too expensive.

The problem with Blu-ray disks is that they are far too expensive amongst other things. If they were any good - see my previous reply to Leria.

[quality4me]

Blu ray isn't the next big thing, it's an area for you to waste your money before the next big thing comes. Get real people, you really don't need blu-ray unless you have a 50inch plus 1080P TV. I'm buying DVD's for 6-10 dollars right now and upconverting them with my ps3 to 1080i on a 42" tv, from 15 feet away you show me the difference. And I paid $700 a year ago for my 1080i/720p Westinghouse LCD. People are paying way more then me, for what? Ohh yeah and not to mention my 450 dvd's arent obsolete now..

[mruane]

Seriously? At ~10' away from a 40" LCD the difference between upscaled DVD and HD resolution DVDs is very significant (IMO). So much so that I'd never consider watching a standard def DVD if there was a bluray version available.

[griz_fan]

********. Simple ********. Upconverted DVD does not equal BR. And it is a lot more than simple resolution. 42" TV from 15 feet away, who cares? For people with 42" TVs sitting 8 to 10 feet away, 720p or 1080p TVs, doesn't matter, there is a difference. Color is better, bit-rate is better, audio is better. That's like saying McD's is the same as a fine restaurant because it all goes in your mouth. Seriously... and what a user name! no quality 4 you...

[Fantastipotamus]

I think you're on to something about the physical format not being a departure from DVD's being a hurdle that Sony has to overcome.

I will say two things though:
1) I think the untrained eye will be better at perceiving the difference between Blu-ray and DVD, while the untrained ear would be less likely to perceive the real difference between SACD/DVD-Audio vs. regular CD's. As an example, if you were to watch a regular DVD (even through a '1080i upconverting dvd player') on a big screen HDTV -- whether a $700 couple-year-old model or a new one, and then watch the same movie on the same TV in Blu-ray, the difference will be.. well, as clear as day. However, if the same thing were done with a SACD to CD comparison, the difference may not feel as tangible to as many people.

2) How quickly Blu-ray grows is directly dependent on where Sony decides to price it's discs and players. If it wants to cover more ground quicker, it's my feeling they should keep the player range in the $200-600 range, and bring the discs in at $20 each (to compete with DVD's). If you keep the players in the $300-900 range, and keep the discs at $35 (a 75% price premium), it's going to take off slower.

Obviously Sony needs to make the money back, as the BRD/HDDVD battle cost both sides a lot of money in signing studios, development, advertising, etc, but it's my feeling that if they really want this to become the next 'standard', they're going to need to get a lot of people onboard more quickly.

[barrington thompson]

What, The Establishment' and their supporters have forgotten not everybody is stupid enough to allow them to be ripped off.

There is no way of recording and viewing recorded HD (high definition) programmes and films at least in most Blu-ray products, if any, so what is the purpose of the massive storage space?

[potestasx]

I think that the problem is indeed the average consumer's little- or no-perceived difference in picture quality. The picture size does make a difference, but so does the distance from which you sit from the screen and the quality of the TV. HDTVs are definitely becoming more and more ubiquitous, but a majority of them that are "compatible" with 1080i/p signals have fewer than 1080 rows of pixels. So, if you take a TV that is not full HD (sub 1920x1080), and sit at a distance far beyond the "recommended" viewing range(1.5x-2x the diagonal screen size), then sure, there's not going to be a lick of difference. Besides that, there are so few movies that are worth getting in HD. I'm not about to spend an extra $15-20 for The Simpsons movie in HD, nor something like Old School. I don't see much outside of action or CGI movies that really would be worthwhile getting in an HD format.

[griz_fan]

Again, same ********, different poster. When will people realize that there is far more to the experience than simple resolution. Stop repeating the same mindless crap the Best Buy sales rep told you and do some thinking and some research. Who gives a fvck about resolution? Contrast ratio, color accuracy, bit rate. If all you care about is resolution, then fine, stick with upconverted DVD and pretend you're getting the same thing. But, the reality is, resolution is just one of many factors that contribute to overall picture quality. Once you open your mind to that possibility, you can start to realize that Blu-Ray does offer a better movie experience and once the price gap closes a bit, it will really take off.

[MasterKenobo]

Watching DVDs upscaled to 1080p is cool but is not as good as Blu Ray for two reasons.

The picture IS better.

The sound is better. You can CLEARLY hear what people are saying even in a film like Miami Vice where the characters mumble like hell.

[barrington thompson]

The problem is that most of the HD programmes and films being shown by broadcasters are not being broadcast in 1920x1080p native resolution.

It was HD DVD and not Blu-ray that created proper; HD DVDs with HD sound (HD-DTS, Dolby True HD, and Dolby Digital Plus). HD DVD also implemented interactive features - what were Blu-ray members doing besides - the hype about superior storage?

[Johnny Mac 7]

I have observed what I consider to be an interesting phenomena which I don't recall has been addressed before. Once a movie has begun and you are drawn in to the events taking place, if the picture and sound quality isn't distracting, you don't notice the quality but just go with the flow. Many DVDs give you this quality of experience. Also, the closer the camera is to the subject the less higher resolution is noticeable. This is easily seen watching a college or NFL football game. I have recorded a game broadcast in HD onto a DVD and during playback when the camera is on a player or small group of players it's hard to see the difference, but when they show the whole field you definitely can see the difference. The advertising for HD discs say they have up to 6 times the resolution (or quality) of standard definition DVDs. Most people don't see it. It may look 2 times as good in the best case scenario. For most people sound is even less of an issue if an issue at all. What I'm wondering is will the movie studios stoop to lowering the quality of regular DVDs so that Bluray will look even better?

[epitone]

"Once a movie has begun and you are drawn in to the events taking place, if the picture and sound quality isn't distracting, you don't notice the quality but just go with the flow."

I actually disagree with that. Maybe I've just gotten really used to watching high-quality video, but I definitely notice the lack of detail on many standard DVDs these days, whereas when watching a good quality Blu-Ray disc I'm continuously noticing the crispness of the picture. And it's not just eye candy; it really helps draw me more into the film.

[jscott418]

OK, we are willing to watch a movie on a iPod and yet we have to have Blue Ray and a 10 ft screen to watch a sitcom? Come on, I really don't think everybody can afford or can notice the HD improvements. Best thing we could have done was to keep the 4:3 ratio and just add digital tuners, for those who cannot afford a $2000 TV. As a person who has worked in video production. I think the focus has been too much on resolution and screen size. This does not indicate quality all the time. I have seen very poor quality LCD and plasma screens which tout 1080P and look worse then my old CRT RCA. Blue Ray is no good to anybody if you cannot see the difference because of a crappy TV. Its just like the audiophile audio CD's. Unless you have the whole package (Amplifier,CD Player,Speakers) you will never notice the quality.

[barrington thompson]

You probably meant that the TV should be 16:9 rather than 4:3.

This is because about one third of the side of the picture is missing on a 4:3 TV

When I talk about resolution I not only talk about 1920x1080p but everything that makes up the picture quality.

I suppose that you are probably correct, because I would state that the picture quality depends on the quality of the video upscaler amongst other things including resolution.

Until we get proper 1920x1080p native resolution with an excellent upscaler etcetera we cannot call it pproper high definition.

If a DVD as been properly been upscaled compared to a broadcasted 720p or 1080i it would be difficult to see differences.

When manufacturers are allowed to con people - place HDMI 1.3 labels on to products that HDMI 1.3 features have not been properly implemented what do you expect?

I have given what I think is an excellent page from the official HDMI's site:
http://hdmi.org/learningcenter/videos.aspx

In a court case in America - I think that it was against Panasonic a person and his lawyer, I think, claimed that HD was 1080p - that was extremely stupid.

This is because all Panasonic had to say was that HD could be 720P, 1080i or 1080p, but instead, whatever the official professional body is, they verified that there is no resolution pixel number to represent HD.

I am sure that this means that one pixel could be requarded as HD!

I took the attitude that the person should have probably prosecuted his lawer, because he had zero chance of winning, especially with their argument that they were using - what an idiot.

[Sugith]

When I was a young audiophile, good sound was a niche market. With the preponderance of MP3 files being the new state of sound for the public, it remains a niche market. Good video remains a niche market.

In order for Blu Ray to be widely adopted studios would have to stop releasing DVD's. CD holdouts had to finally buy a player when they realized they would no longer be able to get new releases unless they had a CD player.

The vast majority of people with HDTV's do not have HD cable or satellite boxes so they do not even know what HD looks like! They just equate wide screen with HD. That's a qualitative difference they CAN see. I don't see them switching to Blu-Ray when they think they already have HD--even though it isn't HD!

[minimalist]

No, all that really needs to happen now that we have a single, unified format is Blu-ray discs need to reach the 19.99 dollar price point at places like Best Buy. When DVD's are seen in the discount bin ghetto for 10 bucks they will automatically be perceived as a bargain or fire-sale product, just like VHS was during its last days. Prices can only go so low before a products value is erased.

Comparing an audio product like SACD to a video product like Blu-ray discs unwise. People will buy a 2000 dollar big screen TV because they see the words "1080p" on it (even though cheaper 720p sets are more than adequate at smaller sizes). Yet they listen to audio on crappy iPod dock systems that cost 100 bucks. People simply care more about visuals than they care about audio.

[griz_fan]

"The vast majority of people with HDTV's do not have HD cable or satellite boxes so they do not even know what HD looks like! "

Again, more ********. care to back up this claim with some sort of evidence? or is your dumb-ass opinion all that we need?

[barrington thompson]

In England, especially with Virgin Media (cable) there is only one BBC HD channel and that is a joke!

I have advise people to wait for HD Freeview players and recorders are marketed instead of being ripped off...

[Steven H. Taylor]

I think a considerable part of the audiophile community embraced SACD. Why not all? Perhaps because the 'format war' with DVD-Audio did not have as clear-cut an end as Blu-ray Disc vs HD-DVD (although I think it's fair to say DVD-Audio is to SACD what HD-DVD is to BD).

What continues to puzzle me is why a significant part of the audiophile community never embraced discrete multichannel audio, instead sticking to inferior stereo sound.

[johnnysocko]

I understand what you're saying about multichannel vs. 2 channel adoption wise. I like the multichannel, got an awesome Mickey Hart multichannel disc, absolutely mindblowing. But in devil-advocacy, live music comes at you, not from around you. Opera Theatres with their pits and others try to enhance the live sound as much as possible, but you still observe from a position linear to the music being played, and that's I think what our ultimate goal as audiophiles is: recreating our beloved music as faithfully as possible. Is that not why we our in pain when we can no longer see our favourite artists, the art they make will only be a memory recreated. God I miss Jerry. But the Dead carry on, and I support them and cherish the events. Sometimes though, I actually put an album on just to enjoy, not to go frolicking down memory lane. I love music, and support it all, but we have to draw the line between dollars, sound, format adoption, and make a choice for ourselves if the new technology will enhance our listening experience great enough to warrant the expenditure. Just hasn't happend with the SACD DVD format, 'cause we know now, the next great format is coming in........

[barrington thompson]

I purchased the Pioneer 747 DVD player, because probably at least ten years ago it was claimed that SACD would replace DVDs and I have never seen a SACD disk in Bristol.

Therefore, I purchased a Pioneer 747 instead of an Arcam DVD player, which I would not have done if I knew that we would still be using DVDs instead of SACD.

[Wes#1]

I believe it is all about SELLING. Some formats never grow because nobody pushes it on the sales floor; nor do they educate the public. Why buy what you don't see, or hear, or understand? And I'm not talking about seeing or hearing a DIFFERENCE; I mean the stores don't use the odd formats as their main demos. SACD, LaserDisc... sure you encountered them, but it was only playing in a handful of stores, and only on one display. And advertising was negligible.

Now take Blu-ray. Every studio is behind it, cranking out discs (unlike SACD or LaserDIsc), and every major big-box electronics store (including Wal-mart and your local Blockbuster) tout Blu-ray and have prominent displays in your face. THAT will make the difference that SACD (and 'ol LD) sadly never had.

It's all about selling. From studio, to manufacturer, to retailer. THEY can make it work.

[sroe2]

Around here the selling still sucks. They demo blueray on a 37 to 40" LCD instead of a 60" plasma or rear projection. They use the tv's speakers or a $500 home theatre in a box system, instead of a real reciever and a decent 5.1 speaker setup. Does it look and sound better? Who can tell. The 2 big video rental chains have about 50 titles, evenly split between HDDVD and blueray. I counted 14 titles for each that I would want to watch, so after 2 months, what am I supposed to watch?

[johnnysocko]

I agree with the author in that adoption of clearly better formats of audio being shunned is inexplicable, yet understandable.

The majority of my collection is not new material, mostly stuff I got hooked on in my youth, and I have already bought it at least twice; LP to cassette to CD on some of my favourites. As an audiophile, I want the best, but I have my spending limits.

I miss the old albums for their art and tangibility, but life moves on. I think when there is a superior new, downloadable format, that can be re-downloaded or converted when an even better method of coding comes along, we will all get onboard. Until then, I'd rather spend my money on some quality speakers now that will still be able to reproduce sound excellently in the future. Look at my favorites, the Klipshorns, sixty years later, I can play mp3 tracks through them, and though the format is inferior to CD's, and mp3's surely aren't my goto format, the music sounds better than some crap young people are hooking their ipods to. I bought mine 20 years ago, in cash, so for now, my advice is wait, buy some good gear you can afford, and wait it out.

The market dictates what manufacturers produce. I liked DVD audio, but it's not the future. It's on the right track, but I'm not going to spend buku dolares on another laserdisc and its appropriate media just to have to upgrade later, again.

I'll wait for the downloads in lossless, drm free, buy once for a lifetime tracks and albums.

Oh crap, must of fell off into a dream there for a second.!!!

[minimalist]

Downloads are so ridiculously overhyped. They have so many hurdles to overcome before they could even begin to become mainstream (DRM issues, a dozen or so competing proprietary formats tied to proprietary hardware, bandwidth issues, storage issues, etc). Plus movie companies are clearly holding back their titles for fear of cannibalizing their other methods of distribution. Not one download site breaks the 1000 movie barrier. Most have less than 500. Netflix has 90,000.

Video is not audio. People will spend 2000 dollars on TV's and then buy crappy Home theater in a box for 400 dollars, receiver included.

Upscaling DVD players look alright but they certainly don't look anywhere near a real HD picture. Plus you are giving people far too much credit. They buy 1080 p LCD's all the time even though they probably can;t see the difference between 720 and 1080 on many of them. All they see is 1080 p and assume it must be better. As soon as blu-ray players gets below 200 dollars you will see mainstream adoption because DVD players will be relegated to the unlit back corners of the Best Buy showrooms.... just like VCR's are today.

[griz_fan]

finally, a comment with some thought and reasoning behind it. Someone who understands that watching a movie is actually a different experience than listening to music and that the SACD vs. Blu-Ray comparison is stupid and trite.

[RGBA]

Well... at least Nine Inch Nails will be releasing a blu-ray disc containing a 24-bit/96kHz stereo mix of their new album (Ghosts) on May 1st! Yes for me!

[tim platts]

As a recent convert to HD with a new 46" LCD Samsung TV I say there is an amazing difference between upconverted DVDs and BluRay. Even upconverted DVDs are only as good as the initial resolution. The 1080p BluRay picture has better contrast ratio and can be almost three dimensional in the best sources - the detail is much sharper, the color is richer and the sound is also better.

[Pixelstuff]

Well I've always thought the movie industry said we were buying the license to play a movie not he movie it self. So for the movies I already purchased on DVD, I'm still waiting for a free HD download or cheap Bluray upgrade to the movies I already bought on standard DVD. :-)

[will2416]

I have to agree on one point at least: I compared Pearl Harbor on DVD with my repurchased version on Blu-Ray. My Oppo DVD/Onkyo TX-NR905 upscale the regular DVD wonderfully to my 55" Sony full HD RP TV. So I watch the scene of the bombing of battleship row on DVD and then on Blu-ray. I saw virtually no difference. Not only was the resolution virtually the same, but even a jerkyness (forgot the geek word for this phenomenon) which was very apparent on the DVD version was even noticable on the Blu-ray version. The soundtrack is in 5.1 DD/DTS so now improvement to any type of 7.1 lossless attempted there either. It seems as if no remastering of the film was even attempted; the version you get on DVD is the version you get on Blu-ray. Same data, different medium. Blu-ray is in its infancy and films are only starting to come. Remember when DVD first came and the majority of the few films available were older with very few brand new titles? Another point: compare one of your first DVDs from the mid 90's to one of your latest purchases. Notice any aud/vid difference? I sure do! Same thing with CDs. Listen to a CD you bought in the late 80's and listen to a new CD. The sound quality is worlds apart. The data put on the discs is constantly refined and improved. So let's not count out Blu-ray just yet before it's even learned to walk and talk and lets all give it full support now that this stupid (forgot the profane word for this phenomenon) format war is finally over. One final question to the forum: Has anyone heard of the next gen technology that could replace Blu-ray? Realistically and within the next few years? (Not nanotech and deep future stuff). My personal speculation about the future? All of us whom have over the years spent thousand upon thousands of dollars on medium (VHS, CD, DVD, Blu-ray) and all the equipment to play it will have worthless crap in thier homes when everything becomes availabe via on-demand services, both at home and mobile.

[griz_fan]

Wow... you have some nice gear there, but something must not be hooked up right. While the movie sucked, the sound on Pearl Harbor is great. The uncompressed PCM audio is really nice, but only available if you are using HDMI to feed audio/video through your Onkyo. If you aren't doing that, fix that now.

Seriously, though... The movies are there already. The sound and video quality is here today. If you have a good Blu-Ray player (Panasonic BD 30, for example) that supports DTS-MA, pick up a Newline Cinema film (Pan's Labyrinth, Hairspray, etc...) and test out the 7.1 DTS-MA track. Then tell me if there's a ways to go for top-notch sound.

[Fantastipotamus]

I recommend trying something that was specifically remastered for HD DVD/Blu-Ray.

See if you can find a copy of the older releases of Blade Runner, and then grab the 5-disc remastered Blu-Ray/HDDVD set they've released.

It goes from being a great movie to a completely immersive experience, and it's one of my 'show off' discs. And unfortunately, they don't seem to have done this as much with BRD as they did with HD-DVD, but some of the re-releases of older movies (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory with Gene Wilder, not that Johnny Depp abomination, The Shining, and Bullitt all look fantastic, especially when compared with a DVD-upscaled version.)

Frankly, as griz_fan says, if you can't see the difference, you need to check your connections (like video signal passthrough on your receiver or checking the output resolution of your HD source), or you need to get your prescription updated, because your glasses are old.