With all the discussions about how the HD video format ware are similar to VHS/Betamax wars, it strikes me that we are seeing SACD and DVD-A scenario all over again. It is possible that both could win and both could lose. I bet that many of you have not bought a SACD or DVD-A disk lately. The formats are not dead, but they sure did not catch on as everyone expected.

The multi-channel formats were introduced amid lots of buzz about how they were going to revolutionize the way everyone was going to listen to music. Some of the following I see as similarities:

1. You had Sony backing one format, SACD, over the other.

2. You had a niche market.

3. You had to pay a premium for the multi-channel capability, at least initially. And it required you to buy a new player.

4. The early adopters had to choose one or the other format.

5. The disks cost more that standard CDs.

6. Joe Six Pack still does not own a SACD/DVD-A player.

7. Eventually companies started making universal players for the audio formats and you were not stuck with one format over the other.

I see a similarity and will be interested to see if the HD video formats follow the same pattern. Personally, I hope the dual players become the norm and the cost hits a reasonable price point. Because I am tired of hijacking my sons XBOX to watch HD movies downstairs on the projector. And I am not ready to buy a player of each format.

Yeah, despite the higher quality of SACD and DVD-A normal CDs remained the standard. The same thing will probably happen to HD DVD and Blu-Ray

Well I believe that video HD formats will survive. I don't see a repeat of the SACD/DVD-A war. Music in 5.1 just doesn't interest most people. Heck, I love music and I strongly prefer stereo to 5.1 mixes any day of the week. BD/HD DVD is another story entirely, sure there's better audio but it's the improved video that people really care about. It's the HD demo video in the store that grabs Joe Sixpack's attention. As for audio, he's more concerned with volume than he is with quality IMO.

nyg is right.

With DVD-Audio and SACD the studios got greedy. They thought they could replace a "open" format like CD with a DRM format.

In order to entice us they attempted to add surround sound and higher bitrates/SQ.

They failed to realize a couple of important things.

1. Audio isn't as important to people as video. Witness $5000 Plasmas on the wall with cheapo lifestyle speakers flanking the screen.

2. Telling consumers that in order to enjoy DVDA/SACD they'd need to add 3 more speakers was foolish.

Plus DVDA and SACD came at the precipice of a revolution. MP3 and the era of jukebox and custom playlists.

HD DVD and Blu-ray will neatly sidestep this issue because.

1. They only require a HDTV which consumers seem to enjoy snapping up as the price decreases.

2. They don't have issues with setup (like finding where to put 5 speakers.

3. Consumers on the whole watch much more TV than they listen to music.

There are some caveats however.

HD DVD and Blu-ray cannot assume that they can beat DVD by increasing the quality alone. They need to have value added features. The net access needs to be taken advantage of. The interactivity should be clever and useful. And last but not least Managed Copy needs to address the accessibility to content that consumers demand.


Handle those things well and you wont end up like the Dodo.

In a word, No, IMO. As mentioned, it all boiled down to DRM. The required hoops to jump through in order to properly play SACD and DVD-A were just too many. They were dead formats before they ever got started.

Video is an entirely different beast. DRM issues are far less of a factor because video is not very portable and it has a one-wire hookup solution.

Doug

People will choose HD format eventually. With more and more shows being in HD people will start not liking the picture on DVD's. When people go out to buy a season of their favorite TV show (Heroes for example) on DVD they will think this looked better when I watched it on TV.

I would not disagree that video is a different animal thank audio when one discusses the average joe. The folks I know who are not big into this hobby have heard of blu-ray, but have no intention of buying one, even if it looks better.

My point really, is that I see the HD-DVD versus BR in the same light as SACD versus DVD-A. I believe we will see both formats fill a niche market and you will see dual format players become prevalent the same way the universal cd players did. If Denon, Panasonic, Pioneer, Yamaha and Marantz begin to market dual format players, I believe we will see both formats around for quite a while. But, they will never become the norm and have the same market share that DVDs do today.

I hope dual format players continue to evolve and the studios continue to support HD.

Yeah, I don't see them as that analogous either, even though some people love to make the comparison.

First of all, that they happened to come along when compressed music and the ability to have random access was important. The system of listening to random songs from a hard drive or portable player is compelling. Movies are not like that. I don't see myself saying "okay, now I'm going to watch chapter 6 of The Matrix and then I'm going to watch chapter 14 of The Two Towers" and so on. Movies require enough time investment that having them on demand as opposed to getting a disc out is not a big deal. The new audio formats couldn't be ripped either, although that was understandable in this day and age.

Second, music is a medium that is often enjoyed on the go, and if it isn't always that way, people at least like to know they can make it portable if they want. You had one format that couldn't be played on portable players at all (DVD-A) and another that either couldn't be played (non-hybrid SACD) or offered no advantage over CD on a portable player or on a computer. I still think the decision to make SACDs unplayable on computers doomed it from the start, even though I completely understand why it was designed that way.

Third, multichannel aside, I just don't think the improvement is that noticeable to the average consumer. It takes better equipment, and even then, the difference is not that great compared to a well-mastered CD. HD video, on the other hand, is very noticeable to anyone who has an HDTV, even though size/viewing distance can limit this.

From a personal perspective, my problem with DVD-A/SACD was that there just weren't enough releases I was interested in. I've bought 60 HD DVDs/BDs so far, and I'm not sure I could even find 60 titles I would buy on DVD-A/SACD unless I decided to start collecting classical or jazz music. New hit movies are on the HD video discs, but we rarely saw hit albums released day and date on the new audio formats. Even if this HD thing does stay a niche, I'd be just fine with it as long as I have enough to buy.

I agree with much of what SirDrexl said. I want my music portable and rippable. I don't want to file share, I just want instantaneous access to any song at any time, at the highest quality (uncompressed or lossless). With movies, I want to sit down and watch the whole movie, preferably on a large screen (the exception being television series), with the best sound and video possible.

HM is right-Video is king. I own both DVD-A and SACD, because I love music and really wanted to hear some of my favorites take advantage of my theater's surround capabilities. But most people can't hear the difference or don't care, and the format war killed them before they could catch on.

With HD DVDs, I agree that Video is king, but this format war is keeping me, a typically early adopter, on the sidelines in this one. For one thing, I have an incredible lumagen processor that makes most DVDs look amazing on my 9 foot screen. I go from DVD to HD programming and noone even notices, especially if it is a good transfer.

I know HD DVD/BD is a serious improvement, but until the market sorts itself out and the format war is over, I'm not jumping in. I have a great catalogue of DVDs and Netflix. I can wait forever. And even if the format issue is resolved, the market will never burn and sizzle like DVD did, because DVD was such a HUGE improvement in every meaningful way over VHS, while HDDVD/BD is still an incremental upgrade by comparison.

My conclusion: Because video is king the HDDVD/BD products will not die like DVD-A/SACD. However, they will never take over the market like DVD did, and will languish as niche players until they sort out the format issue.

I also own DVD-A and SACD. I bought it for the same reason as Greg099, to listen to my music in the best possible medium. These formats are now relegated to a niche market because the manufacturers could not agree on a common or dual format and bring the price point to a reasonable level. Greg is correct in that most ppl either cannot hear the difference or simply do not care. I do not think it will die because people like me and Greg099 will continue to buy SACDs or DVD-As of artists that continue to utilize either format. But I also agree w/the other posters that video is king. We may not be "joe sixpack", but unless manufacturers create technology that is affordable to him (not us), then the format or technology will never have the type of success needed to give it longevity. One of these formats will survive and while I have frequently been an early adopter, I too am sitting on the sidelines right now. I may jump in next fall if the Samsung combi player is a decent machine and comes in at a reasonable price point.

I think the other major difference is that most people, on most systems, cannot really differentiate between SACD/DVD-A and CD. The differences between BR/HDDVD and regular DVD are clearly apparent on all but the smallest HDTVs.

Video is different. Neither SACD nor DVD-A compare to the visual aspect of high definition television. Given backward compatibility of high def players, lowering cost, the growing HDTV market and you have a winning formula.

It's all in the name--if there had been only one format that was 6.1 audio and offered 1080p/24 HD video and they had named it Sextraphonic HD--the whole world would have gone hog wild for it!

The video upgrade was apparent after awhile, but not right away, though. Will the mainstream market care, I don't think so.

What I'm wondering is if any of the BD/HDDVD combo players will also be SACD/DVD-A combo players? If it then had good DVD 480i HDMI output (for a scaler) I could replace nearly a third of my rack with one box (throw in DVD recording and I'd be in heaven :) )... and I guess retire the LD collection. :rolleyes:

SACD/DVD-A are niche formats which might ultimately fail because of Blu-Ray/HD DVD. There's already at least one (1) Blu-Ray music video title which not only has a 5.1 24/96 PCM soundtrack (perhaps better than most of the current DVD-A soundtracks) but a hi-definition video track. A choice between SACD and a Blu-Ray music hi-def video of the same performance with similar audio quality almost becomes a no-brainer. I might even play the opera game if hi-def video, hi-rez audio starts to show up on the market.

In a word, No, IMO. As mentioned, it all boiled down to DRM. The required hoops to jump through in order to properly play SACD and DVD-A were just too many. They were dead formats before they ever got started.
If HDMI had been available when DVD-A/SACD were starting, they might have had a better chance, but I think it was the fact taht you couldn't rip them to a computer and transfer them to a portable player that doomed the Hi-Def audio formats.

If HDMI had been available when DVD-A/SACD were starting, they might have had a better chance, but I think it was the fact taht you couldn't rip them to a computer and transfer them to a portable player that doomed the Hi-Def audio formats.If HDMI was available at that time, I don't think they would have allowed the high-resolution tracks to be sent over HDMI, because of their piracy paranoia. Most universal DVD-A/SACD players right now that have HDMI won't pass the hi-res audio over HDMI; the HDMI is really just for DVDs.

I agree that a quality change in video is noticeable to the average Joe, but how many of those people are making use of their 5.1 setups now that they have been out for 10 years. I mean lots of people have surround sound but how many of them have it hooked up right? Optical/Coaxial cable vs just using 2 RCA's, and then changing their surround option to virtual of some kind. I see the best buy bots not even know how to do this... So when the average person buys an HD player with his HDTV and hooks it up wrong and says damn this just doesn't look much better than DVD and returns it or just keeps it that way. That could pose a problem. The change in formats and quality is great, but the change we have been making in connectors; (Composite, S-Video, Component, DVI, HDMI) some people just don't get it.

"With all the discussions about how the HD video format ware are similar to VHS/Betamax wars, ..."

Just skimmed, but didn't see mention of a crucial difference - HD DVD and BR can easily coexist in the same player, and on the same disk for that matter.

Yeah, despite the higher quality of SACD and DVD-A normal CDs remained the standard. The same thing will probably happen to HD DVD and Blu-Ray

i fear that the standard will soon be mp3

we love our tvs and hdtvs are selling big time its just a matter of time people will relize theres hd players out there and they will catch on.im tried of all the doomday posts both formats are in this to win,both sides know what there doing.im also sure they are already planning for 2008.hd is here ,relax and enjoy what you have.

I agree that a quality change in video is noticeable to the average Joe. That could pose a problem. The change in formats and quality is great, but the change we have been making in connectors; (Composite, S-Video, Component, DVI, HDMI) some people just don't get it.
LoL
How True
;)

I gotta believe that a dual format player priced between $500 and $800 will sell. Have component and HDMI out. Have 5.1 output for audio.

You would have most everyone covered with connections, and allows one player to let everyone be format neutral.

I have a universal player. I do not worry whether it is a redbood CD, SACD or DVD-A. I put it in and it plays. At least for me, that is the way I would like my video. Put the disk in the player and watch a movie.a The ultimate would be a truly universal player. you put the disk in and it plays, whether music or movies.

I'm personally waiting on the 1st Gen LG to get replaced so I can buy it used for cheap. I have a secondary home theater in my family room with a HDMI equiped tv and an older reciever with 5.1 analog in's, and that player would be perfect for it, and since it would replace an existing component, it would be wife approved!

I posted about a week ago and said I was sitting on the fence. I may still end up w/a dual format player, or even Blu-Ray. But last week I pulled the trigger on the Toshiba HD A2. The price at Value Electronics to AVS members was just too good to pass up. So much for fence sitting. I purchased a couple of HD DVDs, got 3 free from VE and will get another 5 from Toshiba. The rest will be Netflix.

I hope they do better....

Consumers are embracing digitial tv. Granted, it is a govt mandate, but flat panel 16:9 units are quickly replacing 4:3 CRTs.

The DVD was developed specifically for analog television. No matter how you manipulate the image: uprez, old line doublers, etc., the standard for regular DVDs is, and will remain, 480i.

I have a high end Denon that uprezes the 480i to 1080i; it looks pretty good on my 50" plasma. But not as good, not nearly as good, as a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player.

The reason a hi-def disc format will succeed is because of the large, flat, digital TV.

Movies are not like that. I don't see myself saying "okay, now I'm going to watch chapter 6 of The Matrix and then I'm going to watch chapter 14 of The Two Towers" and so on.

I would strongly disagree with this.

My two boys and I do this every weekend. We will watch Count Dooku battle Anakin and Obi-Wan and then turn aound and watch the Bride battle the schoolgirl, then maybe watch Napoleon "rock out" at the end of Napoleon Dynamite. It looks and sounds so good that we like to watch them over and over. It's what Home Theater is all about to me.

With all the discussions about how the HD video format ware are similar to VHS/Betamax wars, it strikes me that we are seeing SACD and DVD-A scenario all over again. It is possible that both could win and both could lose. I bet that many of you have not bought a SACD or DVD-A disk lately. The formats are not dead, but they sure did not catch on as everyone expected.

The multi-channel formats were introduced amid lots of buzz about how they were going to revolutionize the way everyone was going to listen to music. Some of the following I see as similarities:

1. You had Sony backing one format, SACD, over the other.

2. You had a niche market.

3. You had to pay a premium for the multi-channel capability, at least initially. And it required you to buy a new player.

4. The early adopters had to choose one or the other format.

5. The disks cost more that standard CDs.

6. Joe Six Pack still does not own a SACD/DVD-A player.

7. Eventually companies started making universal players for the audio formats and you were not stuck with one format over the other.

I see a similarity and will be interested to see if the HD video formats follow the same pattern. Personally, I hope the dual players become the norm and the cost hits a reasonable price point. Because I am tired of hijacking my sons XBOX to watch HD movies downstairs on the projector. And I am not ready to buy a player of each format.

You could be right, and both formats fail ....

But I do think there is a fundamental difference: most people could not, and likely still cannot, tell the difference between SACD/DVD-A and CD/DVD-V, whereas on all bu the smallest HDTVs, BR/HDDVD is easily superior to DVD.

My 2 cents!

You could be right, and both formats fail ....

But I do think there is a fundamental difference: most people could not, and likely still cannot, tell the difference between SACD/DVD-A and CD/DVD-V, whereas on all bu the smallest HDTVs, BR/HDDVD is easily superior to DVD.

My 2 cents!

I agree with that. Of course, the multichannel option is a separate issue, and is what got me interested in the new audio formats more than the sound quality improvement. Maybe the problem with multichannel is that people relegate music to be listened to on the go or sitting at the computer, so that when it comes time to sit down and experience something with their undivided attention, they also want to watch something, not just listen to it.

As for BAMAVADER's comment, while he enjoys it, I would just say that I don't think that use is typical of the average consumer. Then again, maybe more people would do it if they didn't have to go through the steps of ejecting the disc, inserting another one, waiting for the copyright screens and trailers to play out, selecting the scene from the menu, and so on.

I agree with that. Of course, the multichannel option is a separate issue, and is what got me interested in the new audio formats more than the sound quality improvement.

Don't disagree, however, remember that multi-channel audio is (and has been for some time) available to anyone with a DVD player in non hirexz formats. I think most people can hear the difference between regular CD and, for example, DTS 5.1, but I am not sure most people can hear the difference between DTS 5.1 and SACD 5.1.

Well I believe that video HD formats will survive. I don't see a repeat of the SACD/DVD-A war. Music in 5.1 just doesn't interest most people. Heck, I love music and I strongly prefer stereo to 5.1 mixes any day of the week. BD/HD DVD is another story entirely, sure there's better audio but it's the improved video that people really care about. It's the HD demo video in the store that grabs Joe Sixpack's attention. As for audio, he's more concerned with volume than he is with quality IMO.
i agree with nyg,and hes right joe six pack is interested in hd video.just hang out next time your in best buy,or cc and just watch people looking at hdtvs.listen what there asking the salesmen. hdtvs are getting into homes and that will lead to interest in hd dvd or blu-ray

I would not disagree that video is a different animal thank audio when one discusses the average joe. The folks I know who are not big into this hobby have heard of blu-ray, but have no intention of buying one, even if it looks better.

My point really, is that I see the HD-DVD versus BR in the same light as SACD versus DVD-A. I believe we will see both formats fill a niche market and you will see dual format players become prevalent the same way the universal cd players did. If Denon, Panasonic, Pioneer, Yamaha and Marantz begin to market dual format players, I believe we will see both formats around for quite a while. But, they will never become the norm and have the same market share that DVDs do today.

I hope dual format players continue to evolve and the studios continue to support HD.
no and wrong. dvd didnt do well at first.it took a couple years before it took off.hd dvd and bd are doing way better then dvd did in the first year and a half.it wont become a niche market.prices are dropping fast on hdtv and hd video players and that a key!

I really believe that as it now stands dual format HD disc players are DOA (from a commercial viewpoint). The reasons I have this opinion are:
1. BD is winning the format war (now accounts for 2/3 of all HD disc sales and more new software is now being released on BD) and the Xmas 2007 shopping season will probably be HD-DVD's last stand to gain a real foothold in the marketplace, but is unlikely to succeed.
2. Cost delta to manufacture and sell a dual format player is simply too high. This is due to a combination of additional hardware/software complexity plus the addition fees for patent licensing of the 2nd format. Most consumers will not pay a significant premium for a dual format player over the cost of a BD player, especially given number 1 above.

I really believe that as it now stands dual format HD disc players are DOA (from a commercial viewpoint). The reasons I have this opinion are:
1. BD is winning the format war (now accounts for 2/3 of all HD disc sales and more new software is now being released on BD) and the Xmas 2007 shopping season will probably be HD-DVD's last stand to gain a real foothold in the marketplace, but is unlikely to succeed.

Flame bait?

I can't see so clearly that BD is winning when HD-DVD players are already at the $300 price point (and BD players... are not).

Flame bait?

I can't see so clearly that BD is winning when HD-DVD players are already at the $300 price point (and BD players... are not).
I don't believe that the lowest cost disc player decides who is winning or not. Right now there is a lot more industry support for BD (more manufacturers of players and more studios releasing software), sales of BD software is now running 2-to1 over HD-DVD, and the largest B&M movies rental chain (Blockbuster) recently annouced they are pulling HD-DVD and will go exclusively with BD. I'm not saying the 'format war' is over, just BD appears to be the likely winner. Also it now appears likely that there will be a BD player for $299 on store shelves this fall for the Xmas shopping season (at discount retailers, such as Walmart) - see this link for the news release on the low cost BD player being manufactured by Funai: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=277

Given that both the current LG and the soon to be released Samsung dual format players are in the $1000 price range I really don't see they will sell very many units and by the time the price for a dual format player could be expected to drop significantly (i.e., to less than $500) I expect there will be a clear winner in the 'format war' and the need for dual format capability will no longer exist.

I don't believe that the lowest cost disc player decides who is winning or not. Right now there is a lot more industry support for BD (more manufacturers of players and more studios releasing software), sales of BD software is now running 2-to1 over HD-DVD, and the largest B&M movies rental chain (Blockbuster) recently annouced they are pulling HD-DVD and will go exclusively with BD. I'm not saying the 'format war' is over, just BD appears to be the likely winner. Also it now appears likely that there will be a BD player for $299 on store shelves this fall for the Xmas shopping season (at discount retailers, such as Walmart) - see this link for the news release on the low cost BD player being manufactured by Funai: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=277

Given that both the current LG and the soon to be released Samsung dual format players are in the $1000 price range I really don't see they will sell very many units and by the time the price for a dual format player could be expected to drop significantly (i.e., to less than $500) I expect there will be a clear winner in the 'format war' and the need for dual format capability will no longer exist.

Cost is a factor because J6P is a very price sensitive market. J6P is clearly not buying EITHER HD format at current prices or there would be a lot more players sold. HD-DVD is clearly leading the pricing battle for players and there is no reason to believe they won't continue to do so.

Block buster did not announce they are pulling HD-DVD and going Blu-Ray exclusive. They said they were expanding their Blu-Ray titles into more stores than the existing trial stores that had both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. They still aren't going to have Blu-Ray in all of their stores. Fact is I can walk to the Block buster a block from my house and rent HD-DVD for them if I want to. They will also continue to carry HD-DVD for online rentals for anyone subscribed to their service.

Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have rumors of cheap players coming out. At this point it's just rumors for both. Until actual products are in store and available for sale they will both stay that way. HD-DVD already has a 299 MSRP player that can be easily found for 250$ street price and even had a few 199$ limited time situations. I'm pretty sure HD-DVD will be down to at least 199$ street price for the christmas season with a 149$ or 99$ black friday sale as a real possibility.

Cost is a factor because J6P is a very price sensitive market. J6P is clearly not buying EITHER HD format at current prices or there would be a lot more players sold. HD-DVD is clearly leading the pricing battle for players and there is no reason to believe they won't continue to do so.

Block buster did not announce they are pulling HD-DVD and going Blu-Ray exclusive. They said they were expanding their Blu-Ray titles into more stores than the existing trial stores that had both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. They still aren't going to have Blu-Ray in all of their stores. Fact is I can walk to the Block buster a block from my house and rent HD-DVD for them if I want to. They will also continue to carry HD-DVD for online rentals for anyone subscribed to their service.

Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have rumors of cheap players coming out. At this point it's just rumors for both. Until actual products are in store and available for sale they will both stay that way. HD-DVD already has a 299 MSRP player that can be easily found for 250$ street price and even had a few 199$ limited time situations. I'm pretty sure HD-DVD will be down to at least 199$ street price for the christmas season with a 149$ or 99$ black friday sale as a real possibility.

the real competition happens when hd dvd crosses 1 million stand alone players ,which should happen by this christmas ,once that happens then block buster releases will avg 250k per release or more ,maybe then we will see studios go neutral (fox,lionsgate,disney)

this war is just barely beginning despite what blu-ray group says

I don't believe that the lowest cost disc player decides who is winning or not. Right now there is a lot more industry support for BD (more manufacturers of players and more studios releasing software), sales of BD software is now running 2-to1 over HD-DVD, and the largest B&M movies rental chain (Blockbuster) recently annouced they are pulling HD-DVD and will go exclusively with BD. I'm not saying the 'format war' is over, just BD appears to be the likely winner. Also it now appears likely that there will be a BD player for $299 on store shelves this fall for the Xmas shopping season (at discount retailers, such as Walmart) - see this link for the news release on the low cost BD player being manufactured by Funai: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=277


I think this is a good assessment - with which I agree completely!

My sense is that there are three groups of consumers: early adopters, hdtv owners, and the mass consumer (J6PK). Clearly there will be some overlap, but for the purposes of BR/HDDVD I think they are discreet. BR/HDDVD is still in the early adopter phase, where consmers are relatively price insensitive. I think as these formats move into the next consumer group, HDTV owners (where the price of entry indicates a willingness to spend considerable $), the requirment for a really cheap player is still overestimated. Seems likely that players in the $300-500 range will suffice.

I do agree that appealing to the mass consumer will require sub $200 players (and discs that are on par with the price of DVD), but do these consumers even have HDTVs yet. Further, I thin Ron Jones is right: by the time the mass consumer wakes up to BR/HDDVD, the format war will likely be over (and hopefully one of the formats remains standing).

simon

I think the DVD-A vs. SACD war is very analogous to the current Blue laser DVD war. For every obstacle SACD had in front of it, Blu-ray equally has one. When I calibrate TVs, 80% of folk have their DVD player outputting a 4:3 image. 80% of the PS3s and Xbox 360s I see are connected to the HDTV via composite or set to 480p. DVDs were sold primarily for the convenience of not having to rewind at the end of a movie. When J6P learns how to get the most out of the products stuff they already own, then we might see the encouragement for higher performance. Flat panel TVs sell due to the asthetics of wall mounting. Quality or performance has never been a driving force for the adoption of any consumer electronic device. Otherwise, we would have used Beta, DAT, D-VHS, DVD-A, etc.

D-VHS has a HiDef picture. But it was dead out of the chute due to the fact that it was 'VHS Tape'. People had moved on from 'VHS Tape', and all the problems associated with 'Tape' (stretching, no random access, rewinding, and all of the problems with the delicate little mechanical parts that it took to make VHS work in both the machine, and the cassette). Plus, it was known that a HiDef DVD type disc was already in development. So I believe that most people (me included) decided just to wait for the HiDef DVD.

no and wrong. dvd didnt do well at first.it took a couple years before it took off.hd dvd and bd are doing way better then dvd did in the first year and a half.it wont become a niche market.prices are dropping fast on hdtv and hd video players and that a key!
actually they aren't. They are doing better in raw numbers, but not as well in percentage of households. Remember, way less people had video playback devices and bought movies in 1997. Now everyone has it, and it's cheap. VCRs cost a lot of money in 1997.

actually they aren't. They are doing better in raw numbers, but not as well in percentage of households. Remember, way less people had video playback devices and bought movies in 1997. Now everyone has it, and it's cheap. VCRs cost a lot of money in 1997.

Well one thing I know for sure, VCR's were a lot cheaper in 1997 than they were in 1983. I bought my first 'Hi-Fi' VHS in 83'. It was made by NEC, and cost $1400.00! That was a LOT of money in 1983 (not to mention I only made about $200.00 a week back then). Of course it had high fidelity stereo out (something brand new at the time). Plus 6 different levels of slow-mo, both forward and reverse. We were using that to disect the quality of the special effects shots in the then current 2 Star Trek films (yeah we were geeks. ;)). But I suppose this is why I balk at people who think that $1200.00 for the LG player is expensive.

D-VHS has a HiDef picture. But it was dead out of the chute due to the fact that it was 'VHS Tape'. People had moved on from 'VHS Tape', and all the problems associated with 'Tape' (stretching, no random access, rewinding, and all of the problems with the delicate little mechanical parts that it took to make VHS work in both the machine, and the cassette). Plus, it was known that a HiDef DVD type disc was already in development. So I believe that most people (me included) decided just to wait for the HiDef DVD.

I whole heartedly agree with you that D-VHS was dead from the start, but none ofyour reasons have anything to do with Performance or Picture Quality. D-VHS's performance was undeniable, yet it failed miserably. I personally don't understand why people in this thread feel that Blu-ray/ HD-DVD's performance makes it an exception to the rule; that it will magically rise above all of the silly buying habits consumers have.

I whole heartedly agree with you that D-VHS was dead from the start, but none ofyour reasons have anything to do with Performance or Picture Quality. D-VHS's performance was undeniable, yet it failed miserably. I personally don't understand why people in this thread feel that Blu-ray/ HD-DVD's performance makes it an exception to the rule; that it will magically rise above all of the silly buying habits consumers have.

Because, mate, you are completely mistaken that quality/performance has no role in adoption: it clearly does! It is not the only consideration, however, so history is littered with better-peforming losers. But there are plenty of better-performing winners as well.

I say, again, that SACD/DVD-A is not a good analogy because the vast majority of listeners could not (and cannot) hear a quality improvement. Most people can see a difference between HDDVD/BR and standard DVD. I think the question that will determine the long term sucess of HDDVD/BR is 'do enough people care'?

The purchase rationale behind HDTV has been an interesting one. I think that for many years the HDTV was used largely as a widescreen disply for anamorphic DVDs because the picture looked far better than on standar AR sets (do we have a vote for better performance). Initially, a relatively small number of HDTV owners actually used an HD set-top box - thus the inevitiable conclusion that they were not actually watching HD - however that is now changing in a big way with both satellite and most cable companies making it easy for consumers to watch HD programming. Now that consumers have 'learned' to appreciate HD, don't you think it is inevitable that they will also 'learn' to demand it on disc? I do!

Simon

Because, mate, you are completely mistaken that quality/performance has no role in adoption: it clearly does! It is not the only consideration, however, so history is littered with better-peforming losers. But there are plenty of better-performing winners as well.

I say, again, that SACD/DVD-A is not a good analogy because the vast majority of listeners could not (and cannot) hear a quality improvement. Most people can see a difference between HDDVD/BR and standard DVD. I think the question that will determine the long term sucess of HDDVD/BR is 'do enough people care'?

The purchase rationale behind HDTV has been an interesting one. I think that for many years the HDTV was used largely as a widescreen display for anamorphic DVDs because the picture looked far better than on standar AR sets (do we have a vote for better performance). Initially, a relatively small number of HDTV owners actually used an HD set-top box - thus the inevitiable conclusion that they were not actually watching HD - however that is now changing in a big way with both satellite and most cable companies making it easy for consumers to watch HD programming. Now that consumers have 'learned' to appreciate HD, don't you think it is inevitable that they will also 'learn' to demand it on disc? I do!

Simon

Why do you assume people can't hear the improvements of SACD/DVD-Audio vs CD/mp3? I've never had a problem demonstrating the differences for people. I gladly make the statement that many comsumers can't see the differences between DVD and Blu-ray/HD-DVD, but I qualify it by also stating that this is due to poorly setup HDTVs. Nonetheless, you sidestep the issue I presented. Where is the presidence of performance being a catalyst for the winning of a format war?

I agree that HD recorded media will eventually become common place. That format doesn't have to be Blu-ray or HD-DVD. I don't know how long you have followed this, but there are many different medias to hold HD content.

The DVD-A vs SACD war is very fresh in peoples minds and those who remember when they launched, should see the similarities. The arguments on both sides are uncanningly similar to those of the Hi-rez audio war. (Studio support, catalogs, brand recognition, etc) BTW, many looked at SACD as winning that war, but again DVD-A was the superior format from a techincal/ performance standpoint.

FYI, HDTV adoption took off with the launch of flat panel displays (Plasma), so the cool factor trumped performance. People spent significantly more money and got lower quality TVs compared with the direct-view CRTs and CRT RPTVs on the market at that time. We've only recently surpassed the quality of CRT based HDTVs and even that can be disputed.

Well,
i can only speak for myself. I love music and have been into hifi gear for a long time until the end of the 1990s, with the main focus on analog. Though i have moved on to video as one of my main hobbies now, i still love music and enjoy tracking down new artists and bands (mainly pop and rock) very much. And that´s my problem with high-rez audio: It´s just not available for a large number of artists (actually, i haven´t seen one single release i´ve bought over the last years as being available on any high-rez audio format.) The software just isn´t available. I would get into high-rez audio anytime, if let´s say half of the stuff i hear were to be released as high-rez audio. For me, high-rez audio remains an oddity. But that is just one geek speaking for himself. :)

Thank god, this is not the case with HDM from my point of view. A wide variety of software for all different kinds of taste are available right now, barely a year after the lauch of the formats. I can get great popular stuff like 300/PotC, as well as classics or rather obscure titles (such as Shaun Of The Dead). I´ve bought my first hdm player now because of '300'.

So, i think the two format-wars are not very similar. I share most of the views from this post
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=865913
here.

Cheers :)

Well,
i can only speak for myself. I love music and have been into hifi gear for a long time until the end of the 1990s, with the main focus on analog. Though i have moved on to video as one of my main hobbies now, i still love music and enjoy tracking down new artists and bands (mainly pop and rock) very much. And that´s my problem with high-rez audio: It´s just not available for a large number of artists (actually, i haven´t seen one single release i´ve bought over the last years as being available on any high-rez audio format.) The software just isn´t available. I would get into high-rez audio anytime, if let´s say half of the stuff i hear were to be released as high-rez audio. For me, high-rez audio remains an oddity. But that is just one geek speaking for himself. :)

Thank god, this is not the case with HDM from my point of view. A wide variety of software for all different kinds of taste are available right now, barely a year after the lauch of the formats. I can get great popular stuff like 300/PotC, as well as classics or rather obscure titles (such as Shaun Of The Dead). I´ve bought my first hdm player now because of '300'.

So, i think the two format-wars are not very similar. I share most of the views from this post
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=865913
here.

Cheers :)

Lets see, Dylan, Beatles, Sting, Norah Jones, Stevie Wonder ,etc. Those are just off the top of my head. If you don't like the artist that are on SACD or DVD-A, then just state that, but that imply that there isn't much popluar or classic artist on SACD/DVD-A is just a fallacy. Anyone reading this can look for themselves. http://www.sonymusic.com/sacd/

Another fallacy I keep reading is they were exclusively 5.1 recordings, when they all had stereo mixes or at least could be downmixed to 2 channel. The misinformation regarding these two formats is very similar to the misinformation being thrown around regard Blu-ray/HD-DVD. Again this only helps to prove the point of the original post.

I'm finding that those who don't know much about DVD-A/ SACD may not see the similarities. So please research before posting.

Why do you assume people can't hear the improvements of SACD/DVD-Audio vs CD/mp3? I've never had a problem demonstrating the differences for people. I gladly make the statement that many comsumers can't see the differences between DVD and Blu-ray/HD-DVD, but I qualify it by also stating that this is due to poorly setup HDTVs. Nonetheless, you sidestep the issue I presented. Where is the presidence of performance being a catalyst for the winning of a format war?

The DVD-A vs SACD war is very fresh in peoples minds and those who remember when they launched, should see the similarities. The arguments on both sides are uncanningly similar to those of the Hi-rez audio war. (Studio support, catalogs, brand recognition, etc) BTW, many looked at SACD as winning that war, but again DVD-A was the superior format from a techincal/ performance standpoint.

FYI, HDTV adoption took off with the launch of flat panel displays (Plasma), so the cool factor trumped performance. People spent significantly more money and got lower quality TVs compared with the direct-view CRTs and CRT RPTVs on the market at that time. We've only recently surpassed the quality of CRT based HDTVs and even that can be disputed.

We can debate this endlessly, I suppose ..... but a few observations:

1. Let's be clear about SACD/DVD-A versus CD (bringing MP3 into the argument changes the comparision since that is a poor quality audio source) - For most listeners these formats offerred two new things: enhanced resolution and surround sound. I submit that MOST people (not all, but most) could not hear the former and while the latter was more obvious, it was already available in lossy formats that did not require a new player. BTW, I don't assume this as I have done many side-by-side demonstrations of SACD (and DVDA) versus CD and most cannot tell any difference (and my sound system is state-of-the-art). So, for most consumers, neither SACD nor DVDA were 'superior'.

I would, by the way, debate your asserion that DVDA is better than SACD. I am not a 'specs' guy, I just use my ears - and to me both formats offer superb sound quality and are comparable. Asking people to be able to differentiate between SACD and DVDA is really 'splitting hairs'.

2. There are many examples of performance driving format sucess. But again, let's be clear about what performance is! It is more than just inherent picture/sound quality; it is also things like ease of use, compatibility, software availability, etc. Beta may have been technically superior, but in the eyes of the consumers it was inferior to VHS due to broad availability - so VHS was 'superior'. DVD was superior to laserdisc and VHS - both in terms of audio/video quality and ease of use - and quickly replaced both (or at least mostly replaced VHS). HDTV is superior to NTSC, and is now clearly winning out (although the 'appliance' nature of the televsion implies a longer replacement cycle). Similarly, HDDVD/BR is superior to DVD and I would expect it to ultimately win out (again subject to the replacement cycle of the television).

3. The other MAJOR difference between HDDVD/BR and SACD/DVDA is that the former already has had greater software support in one year than the latter had in five (excluding classical on SACD). Another good definition of 'performance'.

4. Don't disagree that form factor has a lot to do with the initial purchase of a plasma/lcd HDTV, however, don't marginalize the millions of early adopters who bought rear projection HDTVs in the late 90s and early 00s. What is is interesting is that most consumers appear to have bought these sets to enhance the DVD viewing experience rather than actually watch HD material.

Anyhow, I do not think SACD/DVDA is a good predictor of what will happen with HDDVD/BR - I think the sucess of DVD is a far more sensible barometer.

Simon

Lets see, Dylan, Beatles, Sting, Norah Jones, Stevie Wonder ,etc. Those are just off the top of my head. If you don't like the artist that are on SACD or DVD-A, then just state that, but that imply that there isn't much popluar or classic artist on SACD/DVD-A is just a fallacy. Anyone reading this can look for themselves. http://www.sonymusic.com/sacd/

I'm finding that those who don't know much about DVD-A/ SACD may not see the similarities. So please research before posting.

Classical aside, the criticism of a lack of software support for SACD/DVDA is valid. Certainly there is more available than the casual fan might think but it sure is hard to find and confusingly labelled.

You might be content with one beatles album, one pink floyd album, two Yes albums, etc. - but I am not.

There are occasional gems, Genesis on SACD, Doors on DVDA, but few and far between!

Classical aside, the criticism of a lack of software support for SACD/DVDA is valid. Certainly there is more available than the casual fan might think but it sure is hard to find and confusingly labelled.

You might be content with one beatles album, one pink floyd album, two Yes albums, etc. - but I am not.

There are occasional gems, Genesis on SACD, Doors on DVDA, but few and far between!

And the same could be said for Blu-ray/ HD-DVD. So how do they differ?

And the same could be said for Blu-ray/ HD-DVD. So how do they differ?

Do you really not see a difference ......

...... that HDDVD/BR are only one year old while SACD/DVDA are over five years in the market?

...... that there are announced plans to release the bulk of this year's movie blockbusters ... when was that ever true for the musical equivaent on SACD/DVDA.

A couple of examples.

simon

We can debate this endlessly, I suppose ..... but a few observations:

1. Let's be clear about SACD/DVD-A versus CD (bringing MP3 into the argument changes the comparision since that is a poor quality audio source) - For most listeners these formats offerred two new things: enhanced resolution and surround sound. I submit that MOST people (not all, but most) could not hear the former and while the latter was more obvious, it was already available in lossy formats that did not require a new player. BTW, I don't assume this as I have done many side-by-side demonstrations of SACD (and DVDA) versus CD and most cannot tell any difference (and my sound system is state-of-the-art). So, for most consumers, neither SACD nor DVDA were 'superior'.

I would, by the way, debate your asserion that DVDA is better than SACD. I am not a 'specs' guy, I just use my ears - and to me both formats offer superb sound quality and are comparable. Asking people to be able to differentiate between SACD and DVDA is really 'splitting hairs'.

2. There are many examples of performance driving format sucess. But again, let's be clear about what performance is! It is more than just inherent picture/sound quality; it is also things like ease of use, compatibility, software availability, etc. Beta may have been technically superior, but in the eyes of the consumers it was inferior to VHS due to broad availability - so VHS was 'superior'. DVD was superior to laserdisc and VHS - both in terms of audio/video quality and ease of use - and quickly replaced both (or at least mostly replaced VHS). HDTV is superior to NTSC, and is now clearly winning out (although the 'appliance' nature of the televsion implies a longer replacement cycle). Similarly, HDDVD/BR is superior to DVD and I would expect it to ultimately win out (again subject to the replacement cycle of the television).

3. The other MAJOR difference between HDDVD/BR and SACD/DVDA is that the former already has had greater software support in one year than the latter had in five (excluding classical on SACD). Another good definition of 'performance'.

4. Don't disagree that form factor has a lot to do with the initial purchase of a plasma/lcd HDTV, however, don't marginalize the millions of early adopters who bought rear projection HDTVs in the late 90s and early 00s. What is is interesting is that most consumers appear to have bought these sets to enhance the DVD viewing experience rather than actually watch HD material.

Anyhow, I do not think SACD/DVDA is a good predictor of what will happen with HDDVD/BR - I think the sucess of DVD is a far more sensible barometer.

Simon

By your definition of performance, DVD kills HD-DVD and Blu-ray. HDM formats require new player, require an HDTV, Cost more on the hardware and software side, and offers significantly less content. I would never call these performance attributes, but you just did. If you saw a recording on Betamax, you will clearly see why the professional market chose it over VHS. It looked better, meaning it offered higher performance over VHS.

SACD/DVD-A vs BD/HD-DVD format war similarities
1. Both formats unheard of by the mass market at the time.
2. Many consumers sit on fence waiting for one format to die.
3. Performance advantages by either format disputed.
4. Limited titles available for either format.
5. Loads of content exclusive to only one of the formats.
6. Performance over current media demonstrable, but questionable under typical circumstances. (Please read my previous post for explaination)
7.. Hardware price deemed expensive by mass market (I know $300 for an A2 isn't expensive to us but compared with $30 for an Apex at the local super market?)
8. Neither format used to its full potential. (Entire Beatles Box set on 2 SACDs, or Sanford and Son season 1 on 1 Blu-ray disc)

Here are some major obstacles for Blu-ray/ Blu-ray that counter all the pitfalls SACD/DVD-A had to contend with:

1. HD Video On Demand is increasing in popularity and requires little to no hardware investment. (Cable/DSS/XBox360)
2. HDTVs have less than 30% market penetration, and an HDTV is a requirement.
3. Just like CDs, most HDTV owners aren't even maximizing the performance of standard DVDs.
4. Confusion over Upscaling DVDs vs HDM players. (Many consumers think they already own an HD player)

Do you really not see a difference ......

...... that HDDVD/BR are only one year old while SACD/DVDA are over five years in the market?

...... that there are announced plans to release the bulk of this year's movie blockbusters ... when was that ever true for the musical equivaent on SACD/DVDA.

A couple of examples.

simon


Actually Sony made tons of annoucement to release the bulk of their catalog. Promises are always made. I can clearly see the performance difference with HDM players. I too was shocked when people use to tell me that King Kong on HD-DVD didn't look much better than their upscaling DVD player. But as I posted earlier, most of the TVs I calibrate have DVD players set to 4:3, Xbox 360s and PS3s connected with composite cables or set to 480p, and HDTVs still set on VIVID or DYNAMIC mode. I was a Hifi salesman when SACD/DVD-A launched and was a salesman at a different store when HD-DVD / Blu-ray launched. So from a person who has sold all 4 formats, I can say with experience that both format wars have a lot in common.

Joquito:

Clearly we must 'agree to disagree' here.

I believe SACD/DVDA is NOT a good predictive model for HDDVD/BR ..... that the latter (or at least one of the formats) will survive and coexist with DVD as a mass market format.

Do you think that both HDDVD and BR will struggle to the point of mass market irrelevence and be supported by a tiny trickle of softtware .... I do not!

Will be interesting to see a year from now.

Simon

PS - HD VOD is a big, fat 'red herring' IMO where HDDVD/BR is concerned. By the time HD VOD is practical and ubiquitous the dust will have long settled on the HDDVD/BR format war.

PPS - take a look at the posting traffic on the AVS 'surround music' forum versus the HDDVD/BR forum(s) - a completely different level of interest.

Actually Sony made tons of annoucement to release the bulk of their catalog. Promises are always made.

OK, so if all of the studios announcements for movie releases in the 3rd/4th quarters of this year turn out to be 'vaporware' then I will concede the point. :D

most of the TVs I calibrate have DVD players set to 4:3, Xbox 360s and PS3s connected with composite cables or set to 480p, and HDTVs still set on VIVID or DYNAMIC mode.

Yes, no question the typical mass-market consumer finds this whole HDTV thing most confusing. My brother, an otherwise intelligent chap, insisits on stretching 4:3 content to fit his plasma - and it does not seem to bother him that everyone looks fat. Drive me crazy though!

Seems to me the CE industry needs to take a page from Microsoft and have devices interface automatically so that the DVD player 'knows' what kind of display it is being connected to (I think I read recently that this is possible with HDMI?). Won't help the guy in Kansas who is still watching programs on his 13" westinghouse black-and-white CRT, but ought to help most of the rest of us.

Joquito:

Clearly we must 'agree to disagree' here.

I believe SACD/DVDA is NOT a good predictive model for HDDVD/BR ..... that the latter (or at least one of the formats) will survive and coexist with DVD as a mass market format.

Do you think that both HDDVD and BR will struggle to the point of mass market irrelevence and be supported by a tiny trickle of softtware .... I do not!

Will be interesting to see a year from now.

Simon

PS - HD VOD is a big, fat 'red herring' IMO where HDDVD/BR is concerned. By the time HD VOD is practical and ubiquitous the dust will have long settled on the HDDVD/BR format war.

PPS - take a look at the posting traffic on the AVS 'surround music' forum versus the HDDVD/BR forum(s) - a completely different level of interest.


I'm curious as what your definition of VOD is. Most cable broadcasters offer VOD with 95% of the content in SD format, and free, excluding Payperview content. All they have to do is offer more HD and charge a flat mothly rate like netflix, and HD VOD is here (Forego the Payperview format). Moviebeam is dumb, and Xbox 360 is limited to rentals. But Cable and DSS providers can offer huge catalogs of movies right now, and long download times aren't needed.

Many people buy movies and only watch them once. Offering the ability to pay a flat fee and have access to 1000s of movies at the touch of a button, from any room in your house, is insanely enticing to consumers. Piracy would be virtually eliminated, or even the need for it, so studio support would be a nonissue and the infrastructure is already in place. I can win contests with my run-on sentences.

I'm curious as what your definition of VOD is. Most cable broadcasters offer VOD with 95% of the content in SD format, and free, excluding Payperview content. All they have to do is offer more HD and charge a flat mothly rate like netflix, and HD VOD is here (Forego the Payperview format). Moviebeam is dumb, and Xbox 360 is limited to rentals. But Cable and DSS providers can offer huge catalogs of movies right now, and long download times aren't needed.


I would certainly include the things you describe as VOD. I suppose I am just a bit cynical about the 'clockspeed' of my local cable company, and the point at which they would actually be able to offer an HD service as you describe. I bought my first HD-capable display device (an electrohome CRT projector) way back in 1999 and spent far more time than is healthy complaining to my cable company for dragging their feet on HD programming.

That is why I think that the HDDVD/BR tussle will have been resolved before my local cable company gets around to offfering any kind of appealing HD VOD.

Lets see, Dylan, Beatles, Sting, Norah Jones, Stevie Wonder ,etc. Those are just off the top of my head. If you don't like the artist that are on SACD or DVD-A, then just state that, but that imply that there isn't much popluar or classic artist on SACD/DVD-A is just a fallacy. Anyone reading this can look for themselves. http://www.sonymusic.com/sacd/

[....]

I'm finding that those who don't know much about DVD-A/ SACD may not see the similarities. So please research before posting.

Hi,
you are correct, i don´t know much about DVD-A/ SACD. For me, it is sadly an advanced product in a small niche market.

Yes, of course there are pop/rock titles available. I was trying to state, that compared to cds, only very, very few titles are released on DVD-A/ SACD. I would say, hundreds or even thousands of new cds get published each month. And if one is not into most of the artists you´ve mentioned, one is quite out of luck concerning DVD-A/ SACD. I didn´t comment on the available artists, because such comments would most likely appear negative towards the artists and there is no need for that. :)

ca1ore has stated already, that HD-Media has managed to release many different titles from big blockbusters to quite obscure titles in just one year. And some are very popular, look at all the threads concerning '300' being sold out. I cannot remember any time in the history of DVD-A/ SACD, i´ve heard of such a thing. HDM has to appeal to the mass-market in order to survive and prosper. Though there is still a long way ahead, i would say that HDM is on its way out of the niche (may just be wishful thinking of course ;) )

Cheers :)