They should all be 5.1 and have some kind of screen art, photos, etc. Also they should just use regular cd jewel cases and include a cd and digital copy like most other Blu-rays. Great video.
Could have been a great commercial medium had they not imposed pointless "rules" - imagine having all these classic albums with all the bonus audio and video content on one affordable disc...
I absolutely love the format. I have a nice 5.1 surround setup in my office and love to have the music all around me as I work. I have a variety of formats from the 5.1 audio released on DualDisc to DVD-A to Blu Ray. I missed many of the discs you showed, so if you're ever interested in selling them, please contact me.
I have about ten of these. I totally agree with your comments, lots of potential in the format but many of the releases are so bare bones. Disappointing when you see the amount of material XTC put on their blu-rays.
I love blu-ray audio & DVD-audio when they have surround mix. When they have bonus, then much more, of course. But even when they only have stereo format, the sopund quality is much better than in a sacd or cd. I know that most of people doesn't have Surround HIFI system at home but who have it, love listen music in surround. I agree that the Pure Audio collection, most of them only in stereo, has not too much sense, much more when they have no bonus content. For me, it's a pity that this format could disappear (dvd/bluray audio). I think it will not, due to each year some bands support those formats with new albums (not only new deluxe editions); the 5.1 gives more value to their music, and listen surround music, with a good production/mix, of course, it's fantastic, it's a pleasure. you discover new details in old songs , and taste better the new ones.
Honestly I love them. I have 8 of the pure audio disc. My favourites are Selling ENGLAND by the pound and Supertramp’s Crime of the century followed by Tears for fears Songs from the big chair. :)
One of biggest missed opportunities was Crime of the Century by Supertramp, like, come one screams for a surround mix. Same with The hurting. Now the weirdedt thing about that Is that you get a download with all the extras but it's only MP3. So... Go figure
Just checking on eBay some of the discs you mentioned are selling for £70 to £100 most expensive is Hotel California over £100 on eBay there are a few more stevie Wonder Songs in the Key and Talking Book stereo only. Quadropehena in 5.1 great master and les Mis film soundtrack. I have about 20 myself including Grace Jones Nightclubbing but in stereo with lots of extra mixes
Do they have higher frequencies?Or they are at the template of Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish, they all use nowadays, with dull bass, hard kick drums and extreme loudness?Even newer remastered editions I have heard from many artists (especially in Greece) they use the standards of nowadays and they sound awful, for that reason I prefer in althe first 90s editions.
If it's not 5.1 what's the point? The vast majority of people can't hear the difference between a CD and a hi-res format, but 5.1 is a different story. So many great albums would sound so so good in a 5.1 format.
they should sell dvd's with 24 bit 96 kHz audio in stereo. should call it pure audio, but there is no real reason to put it on blu ray (in stereo; I don't know if surround mixes would fit on a dvd, but stereo surely would)
We should be lucky that some albums are in 24 bit 96 kHz at all, its just a bonus if they have extra stuff. CD's which are only 16 bit 44 kHz are the same thing and they also have version variations, some being just the standard and some having bonus tracks (Japanese tending to have more bonus tracks than other versions). If people cant figure out Pure Audio albums are different from each other just like CD's are then I dont know what to tell them except they probably shouldnt be getting into his res audio yet. The people who these Pure Audio discs are for are those who want high res music they can own instead of paying for some high res streaming service. The quality over CD alone justifies the price for any true audiophile. I mean some SACD's go for literally hundreds of dollars lol. Everyone else who arent passionate about music or just dont care for their music in a higher resolution should stick to CD's, they're plenty good enough for most people; and if you dont have good enough gear (audiophile grade) you probably wouldnt hear the difference anyway.
For the most part Pure Audio is 5.1 or some sort of surround format. All of the discs you featured are decent with the exception of Lionel Richie. You can burn that one.
Music releases on Blu-ray have so much potential, but it's been wasted. For stereo and especially mono, there is little to no perceptible difference in fidelity past CD. Surround mixes could already be done well with DVD-Audio. Just releasing surround albums or especially stereo albums on this format is pointless. What they ought to do is complete discography releases. Blu-ray can hold a ton of data -- up to 100 GB, compared to 700 MB on CD -- so having every song in an artist's catalog, including live versions, on one Blu-ray is quite doable. You could even have separate surround and stereo mixes, or original and remastered mixes. Rather than audio only, how about on-screen lyrics, interesting visualizers, or notes about the songwriting? It would also be an excellent format for complete videography releases, particularly for artists that have a lot of videos shot on film.
The Concert For George is a sonic abomination... incredibly low volume and thin, brittle sound. the CD blows that piece of poorly mastered and authored piece of tripe out of the water.
@@stafonvoncamron can you really tell the difference between an 16 bit 44.1 kHz and a 24 bit 192 kHz recording?^ a human can only hear between 20 Hz and 20 kHz... have you ever made a hearing frequency test? frequencies above 10 kHz already sound very very high.
They should all be 5.1 and have some kind of screen art, photos, etc. Also they should just use regular cd jewel cases and include a cd and digital copy like most other Blu-rays. Great video.
Could have been a great commercial medium had they not imposed pointless "rules" - imagine having all these classic albums with all the bonus audio and video content on one affordable disc...
...that you can play on every computer with a blu ray player/writer !
I absolutely love the format. I have a nice 5.1 surround setup in my office and love to have the music all around me as I work. I have a variety of formats from the 5.1 audio released on DualDisc to DVD-A to Blu Ray. I missed many of the discs you showed, so if you're ever interested in selling them, please contact me.
My experience with Blu ray audio has been good. Wish they made more of them.
Can't wait for a new look-back video. Keep them coming, Paul!
I have the Lynyrd Skynyrd Blu-ray audio and it's in 5.1 and it sounds amazing. Very underated
I have about ten of these. I totally agree with your comments, lots of potential in the format but many of the releases are so bare bones. Disappointing when you see the amount of material XTC put on their blu-rays.
Love the XTC Blu-ray nicely done I’ve got all of them
It would be gret if you would do an XTC/Steve Wilson remasters video..... Some of the best value sets out!!
What is the song used for the intro?
I love blu-ray audio & DVD-audio when they have surround mix. When they have bonus, then much more, of course. But even when they only have stereo format, the sopund quality is much better than in a sacd or cd. I know that most of people doesn't have Surround HIFI system at home but who have it, love listen music in surround. I agree that the Pure Audio collection, most of them only in stereo, has not too much sense, much more when they have no bonus content. For me, it's a pity that this format could disappear (dvd/bluray audio). I think it will not, due to each year some bands support those formats with new albums (not only new deluxe editions); the 5.1 gives more value to their music, and listen surround music, with a good production/mix, of course, it's fantastic, it's a pleasure. you discover new details in old songs , and taste better the new ones.
The queen, night at the opera mix was different from the previous DVD.
Honestly I love them. I have 8 of the pure audio disc. My favourites are Selling ENGLAND by the pound and Supertramp’s Crime of the century followed by Tears for fears Songs from the big chair. :)
One of biggest missed opportunities was Crime of the Century by Supertramp, like, come one screams for a surround mix.
Same with The hurting. Now the weirdedt thing about that Is that you get a download with all the extras but it's only MP3. So... Go figure
Just checking on eBay some of the discs you mentioned are selling for £70 to £100 most expensive is Hotel California over £100 on eBay there are a few more stevie Wonder Songs in the Key and Talking Book stereo only. Quadropehena in 5.1 great master and les Mis film soundtrack. I have about 20 myself including Grace Jones Nightclubbing but in stereo with lots of extra mixes
Nightclubbing is selling for like 200 dollars. I got warm leatherette and the download codes dont even work! Total scam company.
Wooow I couldn't even imagine you dont like them, Im really interested on them sell them to me, I do love love those formats
Do they have higher frequencies?Or they are at the template of Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish, they all use nowadays, with dull bass, hard kick drums and extreme loudness?Even newer remastered editions I have heard from many artists (especially in Greece) they use the standards of nowadays and they sound awful, for that reason I prefer in althe first 90s editions.
If it's not 5.1 what's the point? The vast majority of people can't hear the difference between a CD and a hi-res format, but 5.1 is a different story. So many great albums would sound so so good in a 5.1 format.
I own one blur/ray pure audio and still not comparable with reel to reel tapes at 7/1/2ips. reels sound is like slashes in your ears....
i wonder if any Connie Francis was issued on bluray audio, since the UMG are holders of her masters
Hello I usual look for dts which equals 5.1 surround
👍🏻
they should sell dvd's with 24 bit 96 kHz audio in stereo. should call it pure audio, but there is no real reason to put it on blu ray (in stereo; I don't know if surround mixes would fit on a dvd, but stereo surely would)
Stereo and 5.1 Mixes in 24/96 do fit on a DVD - That was the DVD-Audio format. Audio doesn't take up a lot of room in comparison to video.
We should be lucky that some albums are in 24 bit 96 kHz at all, its just a bonus if they have extra stuff. CD's which are only 16 bit 44 kHz are the same thing and they also have version variations, some being just the standard and some having bonus tracks (Japanese tending to have more bonus tracks than other versions). If people cant figure out Pure Audio albums are different from each other just like CD's are then I dont know what to tell them except they probably shouldnt be getting into his res audio yet. The people who these Pure Audio discs are for are those who want high res music they can own instead of paying for some high res streaming service. The quality over CD alone justifies the price for any true audiophile. I mean some SACD's go for literally hundreds of dollars lol. Everyone else who arent passionate about music or just dont care for their music in a higher resolution should stick to CD's, they're plenty good enough for most people; and if you dont have good enough gear (audiophile grade) you probably wouldnt hear the difference anyway.
Bryan Adams Reckless
like you said: brickwalled mastered blu ray audio makes no sense at all!
For the most part Pure Audio is 5.1 or some sort of surround format. All of the discs you featured are decent with the exception of Lionel Richie. You can burn that one.
Music releases on Blu-ray have so much potential, but it's been wasted. For stereo and especially mono, there is little to no perceptible difference in fidelity past CD. Surround mixes could already be done well with DVD-Audio. Just releasing surround albums or especially stereo albums on this format is pointless.
What they ought to do is complete discography releases. Blu-ray can hold a ton of data -- up to 100 GB, compared to 700 MB on CD -- so having every song in an artist's catalog, including live versions, on one Blu-ray is quite doable. You could even have separate surround and stereo mixes, or original and remastered mixes. Rather than audio only, how about on-screen lyrics, interesting visualizers, or notes about the songwriting?
It would also be an excellent format for complete videography releases, particularly for artists that have a lot of videos shot on film.
These down load codes don't even work! Don't waste your money
The Concert For George is a sonic abomination... incredibly low volume and thin, brittle sound. the CD blows that piece of poorly mastered and authored piece of tripe out of the water.
*Gone....*
78 rpm Vinyl
8 Tracks
Cassettes
Video Tapes
Laser Discs
Walkmans (Cassette & Cd)
Mini-Discs CDs
Audio Blu-Ray
Mp3 Players/ iPod Players
*Who will be next?*
DVD, Blu-Ray (visual), vinyl (regular), 180 gram Vinyl, CD-R, DVD-R
DVDs, Vinyls, CDs, Cassettes, Blu-rays, and 4k Blu-rays are all relevant have new releases or some sort of fanbase.
24 bit 96 kHz audio well mastered in stereo can't be topped !
@@lucalone 24bit 192khz is better though and is what the original masters are recorded in.
@@stafonvoncamron can you really tell the difference between an 16 bit 44.1 kHz and a 24 bit 192 kHz recording?^ a human can only hear between 20 Hz and 20 kHz...
have you ever made a hearing frequency test? frequencies above 10 kHz already sound very very high.
So, this guy didn't know what he bought 😭