Dave,

An interesting question to ask the replicator that is getting 50% yields for BD50, what they feel is the ceiling? What I mean by that is, can BD50 reach 95%> yields or is there a technical limitation in manufacturing that would perhaps seem them hovering around 70% (or whatever number) in a best case scenario?

Thanks for all your contributions Dave,
Robert.

They all have high hopes that this can be resolved. There are plenty of smart people working on it. But like fixing a bug in software, you fix one thing and could possibly make something else worse.

All that being said, they have time to fix this. "Big" sales are still at least a year away, maybe more, or even possibly never. Who knows?

Question from the other thread. Currently, there are two performance levels. Here's a rundown:

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11631#iii

It will be interesting to see how/if the HD DVD folks communicate these to the consumer.

Interesting. However, the different performance levels will not affect how studios author their disks. All levels meet HD-DVD spec. It seems like the extra levels are an attempt to define an optimum performance level that newer players should aspire to. External memory capability can give the user the ability to download more trailers and content. 24p output is a good idea -- to negate BD talking points if nothing else (and is something I want). But, there is nothing that changes how an authored disk will be experienced. That isn't the case with the BD profiles.

Keith is a very bright guy and both a journalist and a trained engineer (he does cars as well as audio by the way). He is also the former editor of a "subjectivist" audio magazine (Hi-Fi Answers, now defunct) and has long been interested in shining lights on aspects of the digital audio debate.

Amir has answered the question already in some detail, so I don't need to repeat that. And indeed many good recordings don't have a dynamic range much beyond 14 -16 bits. However it is still a good idea to keep noise floors as low as possible especially in discrete multichannel material where sound from one direction may not mask artifacts coming from another and listening levels (think THX plus a few dBs) can mean you can hear significantly beyond 16 bits in the upper midband in a good listening room. THX's own noise spec for residual noise in multichannel power amplifiers is more like 19 bits below full power for example, for the very good reason that on sensitive speakers you might otherwise hear the background noise in a channel when all else is quiet. So if low to medium frequency signals aren't properly dithered during studio mixing etc you may then hear some unpleasant albeit low level artefacts in the upper mid band where the ear is really sensitive. I speculate that this may be exacerbated if you use some of the upcoming smart processing algorithms which lift up quieter sounds when more modest listening levels are used.

Overall I definitely think there's a case for more than 16 bits in audio at the point of delivery, but the last 4 or 5 bits of those 24-bit signals are always going to be noise....there's no point in encoding that in real life, whether or not storage space is constrained. And this does mean that compression algorithms such as DTS or DD+ running at say 1.5 Mbits/sec are for the most part going to be very hard to distinguish from lossless audio.

Food for thought :-)

John Dawson (Arcam)
Industry Insider

Thanks John.

And as a reference for folks here, the bitrates for 6 channel TrueHD@ 16bit/48Khz is 1.4Mbps avg/3Mbps peak. The rates for 6 channel 24bit/48Khz is 3.4Mbps avg/5Mbps peak. Notice the non linear scaling of the bitdepth-to-bitrate ratio due to the increased noise in the lowest bits to which John refers to.

As such for 20bit/Khz, a bitrate of 2.4Mbps avg/4Mbps peak is a safe assumption, and it may be more like 2.0 avg/3.7-3.9 peak in reality.

Just please consider that for less than 4Mbps peak bandwidth, you can have lossless compression at a bitdepth that exceeds anything the source is going to have delivered to begin with. And for a 2 hour movie that's a whopping 1.8GB total storage.

Of course, lossless 16 bit sound is still stellar if mastered correctly, and even requires less bit budget.

Just some context for any arguments that either of the formats can't do lossless audio while still having sufficient bitrate for pristine video and extras.

I am with you on this. Sharp transients can be muddled if low bit rate lossy compression is applied to them (due to "pre-echo"). But this is not evident in movie tracks where transients are described as rattling the room with 1000% distortion :). Also, hearing such artifacts even when present, requires skilled ears which you and I might have, but 99% of the people who claim to need lossless, do not.

How did you listen to DD+ track? After conversion to DTS on the way out? If so, then you are hearing double lossy compression for DD+, as compared to single lossy compression for TrueHD. So that is not a fair comparison of lossless versus lossy.

In the above scenario, someone with good ears that can hear compression artifacts, would indeed hear a difference. Such is not the case with DD+ at 1.5mit/sec compared to TrueHD without any other compression applied on output.

Thank you, sir;

It never occurred to me that DD Plus via DTS would be double compressed/decompressed.

I feel better knowing that.

See. That's why we appreciate your input here.

I did also compare the two using the analog outs of the HD-DVD deck. They were both better -- more "air" around things -- with True HD more better.

I know analog outs are the best . . . . but it is too large a pain in the
ass at present to manually repatch for each source . . . and, yeah, the DTS chain is way fine for movies. Plus I love my Lexicon and I'm not ready to say goodbye to it yet just cuz some people are pushing HDMI.

QUESTION RE AUDIO;

Where is this all going PLAYER-wise.

Will most players HD-DVD and BR end up being able to directly output analog from ALL digital formats ?

IS DTS being "weird" about licensing their lossless stuff
or are the manufacturers being "weird" about implementing it.
. . . or did I miss something

Will HDMI audio / receiver decoding end up taking over?

. . . and for what reason HDMI at all?

Seems unclear to me if it's raison e'tat is better quality and convenience for the consumer or copy protection for the studios that INconveniences consumers and doesn't really have any affect on the people who ARE pirating.

Hmmm, sorry. That came out more loaded than I thought . . .

but so far the best explanation of HDMI is that "someday for some reason the analog outputs won't work." . . . and that would be sad.

Any thoughts?

-30-

It's all going to HDMI 1.3, which renders receiver decoding useless AFAIK.

Just some context for any arguments that either of the formats can't do lossless audio while still having sufficient bitrate for pristine video and extras.I think most posters simply point out that it is easier to do lossless audio with Blu-ray than it is with HD DVD. One of the most common counter arguments is to claim that 1.5 Mbps DD+ is just as good as lossless. Personally speaking I would want to see all the lossy audio codecs tested against lossless audio at different bit depths and sampling rates. In other words a truly objective test of both lossy and lossless audio in which the testers have no stake in the outcome. Personally I prefer lossless audio to be used if only because I know it does not have any lossy compression artifacts.

I think most posters simply point out that it is easier to do lossless audio with Blu-ray than it is with HD DVD. One of the most common counter arguments is to claim that 1.5 Mbps DD+ is just as good as lossless. Personally speaking I would want to see all the lossy audio codecs tested against lossless audio at different bit depths and sampling rates. In other words a truly objective test of both lossy and lossless audio in which the testers have no stake in the outcome. Personally I prefer lossless audio to be used if only because I know it does not have any lossy compression artifacts.

Did you fully read Steve's post above? 2GB max. for 6.1 TrueHD. That's not much for either format to overcome...

I would like to know how well the arbitrarily large precision of properly dithered 14 bit audio actually survives any form of lossy compression.

- Tom

Apparently, I grossly underestimated fanboy appetite for dirt on the opposing format. :rolleyes:


I own both formats. Do you?

Obviously, you aren't willing to answer why it's OK to stifle debate and new information. It's a process you know. It may not always be pretty, but these eyes have seen much worse.

I think most posters simply point out that it is easier to do lossless audio with Blu-ray than it is with HD DVD. One of the most common counter arguments is to claim that 1.5 Mbps DD+ is just as good as lossless. Personally speaking I would want to see all the lossy audio codecs tested against lossless audio at different bit depths and sampling rates. In other words a truly objective test of both lossy and lossless audio in which the testers have no stake in the outcome. Personally I prefer lossless audio to be used if only because I know it does not have any lossy compression artifacts.

If only it were that benign... many folks unfortunately authoritatively state that many HD DVD titles could NOT have had a lossless track, when they have no real evidence thereof. See UxiSXRD's recent posts.

As for your second part, check out FilmMixer's comments just a bit ago in the Insider's thread.

Did you fully read Steve's post above? 2GB max. for 6.1 TrueHD. That's not much for either format to overcome...

For the sake of clarity, 6 channel refers to a 5.1 mix.

Additionally, many folks site the bandwith used by lossless as the limiting factor on HD DVD... but I suspect they haven't done the math. Take for instance a TrueHD track at 3Mbps. That's only a 5% bit budget premium over it's lossy 1.5Mbps DD+ counterpart.

I own both formats. Do you?
I own neither. Does that have any significance or relevance?

Obviously, you aren't willing to answer why it's OK to stifle debate and new information. It's a process you know. It may not always be pretty, but these eyes have seen much worse.
I was trying to let it drop by refraining from replying to you. I do not/did not see it as debate. Otherwise, I'd be all for it.

Question from the other thread. Currently, there are two performance levels. Here's a rundown:

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11631#iii

It will be interesting to see how/if the HD DVD folks communicate these to the consumer.
Addendum: It lists only the Xbox 360 w/ HD DVD player as meeting HD DVD Video Player Performance Level Compliance (as of Aug. 2007). What are the other players being sold right now and why are they not listed?

Interesting. However, the different performance levels will not affect how studios author their disks. All levels meet HD-DVD spec. It seems like the extra levels are an attempt to define an optimum performance level that newer players should aspire to. External memory capability can give the user the ability to download more trailers and content. 24p output is a good idea -- to negate BD talking points if nothing else (and is something I want). But, there is nothing that changes how an authored disk will be experienced. That isn't the case with the BD profiles.
Seems apologistic to me and perhaps tryin' to head 'em off at the pass. Certainly, 5.1 ch. audio output for all mandatory codecs being optional in PL1 would cause studios to author their discs differently and cater to the lowest common denominator of player "out there," wouldn't it? Re BD profiles and this, IMO, you make a distinction without a difference.

You should ask him if he has dithered the 16-bit with the dither algorithm suggested by John Dawson.

Dear Amir,

...not to beat a dead bitdepth horse here, but...

One could read what your saying as simply justifying the need for smaller file size/bitrate for the TrueHD encodes. Granted that the noise causes larger file sizes when losslessly compressing 24-bit soundtracks, but if size weren't an issue, would there not be -some- difference in reproduction?

Or is the real advantage of 24 bit at the mixing stage, while a mastered and properly dithered 16-bit extracted from the completed mix and then True-HD'd would be actually preferable to worry about compressing the extra headroom kept in to prevent problems when combining sounds from different sources, using compressors/limiters, etc., etc.

From another workflow analogy, where you load your RAW photograph as 16 bit in Photoshop, do the levels and hue/sat adjustments, and then convert to 8bit for actual application. Basically using the floating point, outside-the-margins stuff when actually processing and mucking around, but keeping it at 16 bit for final reproduction.

Does this make sense?

Ahhh ... but once the consumer is required to add his/her own space, doesn't the benefit of a mandatory Network Interface really shine? After all, that user doesn't have to go and buy a Flash Card, they can just attach to local network storage. Or, if we're going to put the onus on the consumer, attach a 250GB USB drive to their player and have it download all sorts of goodies via the internet and in the background. They could download TrueHD soundtracks of the movie in 27 different languages and still have space left over.

It just doesn't make sense. If it costs a consumer $10 for a packaged retail 1GB Flash Card, how many pennies did CE's save by not including the embedded storage? You seemed to indicate that Studios would not care about a .20 or .30 difference on discs that could sell in the billions, but suddenly a CE that might sell a few hundred thousand players is worried about pennies? :confused:

Could it be that BDA can say some of the current players are upgradeable to the new standards?

Dear Amir,

...not to beat a dead bitdepth horse here, but...

One could read what your saying as simply justifying the need for smaller file size/bitrate for the TrueHD encodes. Granted that the noise causes larger file sizes when losslessly compressing 24-bit soundtracks, but if size weren't an issue, would there not be -some- difference in reproduction?

Or is the real advantage of 24 bit at the mixing stage, while a mastered and properly dithered 16-bit extracted from the completed mix and then True-HD'd would be actually preferable to worry about compressing the extra headroom kept in to prevent problems when combining sounds from different sources, using compressors/limiters, etc., etc.
The second point is right on. There is no question that if you want to have real 16-bits of accuracy, you better mix in 24-bits (or even more as we do in Vista with floating point math). This allows you to do a ton of manipulation without affecting the true samples.

Should you have the 24-bit version if there is no additional cost to you? Sure. But there are cost. Even putting aside the forward war for a second, one day you want to put copies of those discs on your home server and play a movie instantly, pause and rewind through it at full speed, and allow simultaneous playback of the same movie at different spots on different TVs in the house. On that day, you will curse yourself for encoding noise as signal, for maxing out the video bandwidth when lower would have produced the same quality and for loving PCM audio even though 10 seconds of silence takes the same amount of space and bandwidth as 10 seconds of explosions.

When that day comes, you then appreciate compressionists who don’t stop optimizing until they achieve the best quality at the lowest rate possible. You will be happier when something fits on BD-25 not BD-50. Celebrate when the codec is anything but MPEG-2.

Because when the time comes, you will realize that you can put twice as many movies on your home server. And have a prayer of moving those bits wirelessly in your house. This is why we keep making VC-1 more efficient and will never stop. Because efficiency always matters. Always.

From another workflow analogy, where you load your RAW photograph as 16 bit in Photoshop, do the levels and hue/sat adjustments, and then convert to 8bit for actual application. Basically using the floating point, outside-the-margins stuff when actually processing and mucking around, but keeping it at 16 bit for final reproduction.

Does this make sense?
It definitely makes sense and that is precisely what I do. I operating in 48-bit domain in Photoshop (after raw conversion) but when I am ready to publish, it goes down to JPEG and 8-bits.

Amir,
Has Microsoft answered the invitation from Sony to join BDA? :D
When can we except more information about Toshiba's 3rd Gen. players?

Amir,
Has Microsoft answered the invitation from Sony to join BDA? :D
We file it with the other 10 invitations they have sent us already :D.

Funny thing is reading the person making the invite ;). You would think he would want to have nothing to do with me!

I think most posters simply point out that it is easier to do lossless audio with Blu-ray than it is with HD DVD. One of the most common counter arguments is to claim that 1.5 Mbps DD+ is just as good as lossless. Personally speaking I would want to see all the lossy audio codecs tested against lossless audio at different bit depths and sampling rates. In other words a truly objective test of both lossy and lossless audio in which the testers have no stake in the outcome. Personally I prefer lossless audio to be used if only because I know it does not have any lossy compression artifacts.


This is what I would like to see as well. A publication like Stereophile could publish an article addressing these issues. However, I would much rather see the study published in a peer-reviewed professional journal. It's prone to less bias on a fundamental level. The perception of potential bias would be more limited as well.

It's all going to HDMI 1.3, which renders receiver decoding useless AFAIK.
We could have stayed at 1.2 for that.

Question from the other thread. Currently, there are two performance levels. Here's a rundown:

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11631#iii

It will be interesting to see how/if the HD DVD folks communicate these to the consumer.Usually by bulletpoints on the box:

1080p/24 output!
Supports Dolby TrueHD 5.1!
Expandable storage!

Very similarly to how all optical disc players differentiate themselves.
Seems apologistic to me and perhaps tryin' to head 'em off at the pass. Certainly, 5.1 ch. audio output for all mandatory codecs being optional in PL1 would cause studios to author their discs differently and cater to the lowest common denominator of player "out there," wouldn't it? Re BD profiles and this, IMO, you make a distinction without a difference.Not at all. Currently the only required output for dolby TrueHD is 2.0, however, studios have put a 5.1 TrueHD track on all TrueHD releases.

We could have stayed at 1.2 for that.

That was a poorly worded answer, my apologies. I offer this link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789994) to appease you.;)

Should you have the 24-bit version if there is no additional cost to you? Sure. But there are cost. Even putting aside the forward war for a second, one day you want to put copies of those discs on your home server and play a movie instantly, pause and rewind through it at full speed, and allow simultaneous playback of the same movie at different spots on different TVs in the house. On that day, you will curse yourself for encoding noise as signal, for maxing out the video bandwidth when lower would have produced the same quality and for loving PCM audio even though 10 seconds of silence takes the same amount of space and bandwidth as 10 seconds of explosions.
What would be the choke-point in your scenario - Fast/Gigabit Ethernet, HDD r/w operations/data rate, not enough CPU cycles?

What would be the choke-point in your scenario - Fast/Gigabit Ethernet, HDD r/w operations/data rate, not enough CPU cycles?
That's easy. The choke-point is the speed of your network connection with modern day computers. With wired Gigabit connection on my media server and HTPC, I can stream full HD recorded contents throughout my house. However, it's currently no go with even the fastest wireless connection. Once we have fast enough wireless network protocol, I would imagine the next choke-point is having fast enough CPU. With 1080 contents, I get smooth video playback with 2.4G+ Core2 and 4000+ AMD 64 X2, but not with single core Intel P4 or AMD 64.

I'm sure players will clearly advertise that they support 1.1 or 2.0 profiles.
The 2400 will have USB, so it could in theory support off-board local storage.

Thanks for getting back to me! It's unfortunate that Samsung takes the official position that they only provide defect correction updates, not upgrade updates. With the BD-P2400, they appear to be committing to firmware upgrade to DTS-HD MA, but at least on the surface, the player looks like a good candidate for ultimate Profile 2.0 capability (just not sure about the number of decoders yet :))! This stuff get's positively nervewracking at times :)!

That's easy. The choke-point is the speed of your network connection with modern day computers. With wired Gigabit connection on my media server and HTPC, I can stream full HD recorded contents throughout my house. However, it's currently no go with even the fastest wireless connection.
Correct. Except that you have it easy :). With BD's peak being much higher than broadcast, networks that can handle HD, will fail for copies of such content. HD DVD is not a walk in the park either but it is more manageable relatively speaking.


Once we have fast enough wireless network protocol, I would imagine the next choke-point is having fast enough CPU. With 1080 contents, I get smooth video playback with 2.4G+ Core2 and 4000+ AMD 64 X2, but not with single core Intel P4 or AMD 64.
If the target is an HD DVD/BD type appliance, there is really no other bottleneck. Your PC should stream such rates in its sleep even if it is a couple of years old. NAS boxes though, used to be quite slow and probably could not keep up. The new Windows Home Server though should work much better (sorry for the plug :)).

That's easy. The choke-point is the speed of your network connection with modern day computers. With wired Gigabit connection on my media server and HTPC, I can stream full HD recorded contents throughout my house. However, it's currently no go with even the fastest wireless connection. Once we have fast enough wireless network protocol, I would imagine the next choke-point is having fast enough CPU. With 1080 contents, I get smooth video playback with 2.4G+ Core2 and 4000+ AMD 64 X2, but not with single core Intel P4 or AMD 64.
If I'd have read a bit more of Amir's post before hitting the "quote" button, I would have seen that he was envisioning wireless networking.

Put another way, once you sign up for user adding storage to make the system complete, HD DVD with mandatory networking gets incredible capabilities here to limitless capacity.

Which appears to be an ultimately unavoidable need for both format players, not a differentiator. I would just like to know when it is we might start to see such capabilities.

Truly amazing. After benwaggoner has spent months beating BD supporters over the head with the "we have mandatory TrueHD" crap, Amir and FilmMixer:
Shows you power of marketing over science.
...get caught up in the marketing departments buzzwords....Do you hear that Dolby? Do you hear that Roger Dressler? Your technology is completely worthless! So says Microsoft VP Amir. It's just marketing nonsense that Dolby is using to sell unknowing customers useless technology!

Question from the other thread. Currently, there are two performance levels. Here's a rundown:

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11631#iii

It will be interesting to see how/if the HD DVD folks communicate these to the consumer.

This was answered ... details on 0-3 including which were part of the spec and which were still not final. ;)

Which appears to be an ultimately unavoidable need for both format players, not a differentiator.
Well you see, Talk used to fight me tooth and nail on who would want to add storage to their player when I talked about extending disc storage. But it seems that he is all of a sudden, my best friend here :D.


I would just like to know when it is we might start to see such capabilities.
First, we have to exhaust what comes on disc. Contrary to popular belief, it is not free to fill a disc with content. And filling it beyond that, is even more costly. So some of this depends on the market growing. And another is people adding the storage. But rest assured, we will be pushing forward to showcase these features in advance of that...

I think most posters simply point out that it is easier to do lossless audio with Blu-ray than it is with HD DVD. One of the most common counter arguments is to claim that 1.5 Mbps DD+ is just as good as lossless. Personally speaking I would want to see all the lossy audio codecs tested against lossless audio at different bit depths and sampling rates. In other words a truly objective test of both lossy and lossless audio in which the testers have no stake in the outcome. Personally I prefer lossless audio to be used if only because I know it does not have any lossy compression artifacts.

Check this post from FilmMixer here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11532069&postcount=480


But I would be a fool and a liar if I told you that I could discern the difference between the master, a lossless THD encode and a 1.5 DD+ encode 9 times out of 10, even with my own tracks. That's why "just good enough" does it for me and I spend my energy on more important issues (like trying to save theatrical presentation from getting any worse than it is.)


I would say that's a pretty decorated tester with no stake in the outcome, wouldn't you? ;)

Seems apologistic to me and perhaps tryin' to head 'em off at the pass. Certainly, 5.1 ch. audio output for all mandatory codecs being optional in PL1 would cause studios to author their discs differently and cater to the lowest common denominator of player "out there," wouldn't it? Re BD profiles and this, IMO, you make a distinction without a difference.

Why would they author the disc differently? The player is handling the decoding, no? As long as they put high bitrate DD+ or TrueHD on the disc, it would be fine. And that's been the case, no?

Could it be that BDA can say some of the current players are upgradeable to the new standards?

Actually, I was thinking just that ... What if, due to some of the negative publicity these profiles have been getting, they decided to modify the spec so that the memory requirement is only a requirement to access, and does not require actual hardware. They can't add memory to a player, so they had to 'fix' that part of the spec. However, they might be able to tweak the firmware to get them a 'Good Enough' scenario for something like PiP.

I think most posters simply point out that it is easier to do lossless audio with Blu-ray than it is with HD DVD. One of the most common counter arguments is to claim that 1.5 Mbps DD+ is just as good as lossless. Personally speaking I would want to see all the lossy audio codecs tested against lossless audio at different bit depths and sampling rates. In other words a truly objective test of both lossy and lossless audio in which the testers have no stake in the outcome. Personally I prefer lossless audio to be used if only because I know it does not have any lossy compression artifacts.
You don't someone else to do this. You can get a close approximation yourself.

Take your favorite music player and rip some music different ways:

1. At 128kbps.
2. At 256kbps.
3. At 384kbps.
4. Lossless

Then have someone play #1 through #3 against lossless track and see if you can tell the difference.

Then consider this. At 1.5 mbit/sec, each channel has 300 kbps per channel! In other words, for stereo content, it would be clocking at 600 kbps. So if you have trouble telling #3 apart from lossless, you have your work cut out for you with DD+ at 1.5mbit/sec.

Then keep in mind that movies are more forgiving than music. And surround sound is even more forgiving than stereo music because the codec can share bits between all the channels (so if only the fronts are going, they could get 500 kbps per speaker!).

I suggest people who are shouting really loud about lossless audio, avoid the above test as it will be highly sobering :).

Minimum storage almost always becomes the standard for development when it comes to consumer electronics.

Sony or MS could come out with an expansion memory module for the PS3 or 360 for game developers to take advantage of. But I'd wager it would get little or no support. I don't see why it's any different for a movie disc player.

Sure, storage for just storing content is a bit different. But studios are much less likely to be pro-active about developing for such, when such a useless "bare-minimum" is owned by the majority of consumers. Unless you want to argue that Studios have true faith in J6P to buy expandable storage to take advantage of upcoming features.

Don't be too negative on this. What Talk has said is that the BD Profiles have certain required persistent storage amounts that the studios should be able to use as design expectations -- recognizing that in reality that space would be shared among titles (previous allocations persist). As long as there is a mechanism by which a particular title application can cleanly discover and report an available memory deficiency, the problem is covered for any internal memory storage situation (be it 64KB or 2GB).

He says he expects the manufacturers to physically include the official minimums, but the key issue to me is that the required minimum DOES NOT have to be present in order for a given player to support a given Profile. Example being if a BD 1.0 64Kb player happens to otherwise include all the resources needed to support BD 2.0, then it would be potentially possible for it to be so upgraded via firmware and meet the memory requirements via external memory.

As far as I'm concerned -- that's BIG, and it places no further limitations on the developers than they would normally have to face anyway! All the developer has to do is assume the standard Profile spec and be able to handle the always possible error condition.

Truly amazing. After benwaggoner has spent months beating BD supporters over the head with the "we have mandatory TrueHD" crap, Amir and FilmMixer:
I think he said it was good "crap," not bad. :D

Do you hear that Dolby? Do you hear that Roger Dressler? Your technology is completely worthless! So says Microsoft VP Amir. It's just marketing nonsense that Dolby is using to sell unknowing customers useless technology!
Roger would agree I am sure. But let's put that aside. Filmmixer has mixed a number of top movies you all cherish. If he thinks with his own material DD sounds great, then that better be good for many of you. If it is not, please read the parts you quoted. :D

Truly amazing. After benwaggoner has spent months beating BD supporters over the head with the "we have mandatory TrueHD" crap, Amir and FilmMixer:

Do you hear that Dolby? Do you hear that Roger Dressler? Your technology is completely worthless! So says Microsoft VP Amir. It's just marketing nonsense that Dolby is using to sell unknowing customers useless technology!

Wow ... I'm guessing most people have you on ignore by now ...

Just so you know though, posts like this ... they don't make you look very good. I'm sure some of the BDA Supporters themselves would agree.

Perhaps you get points next door for some kind of contest? I dunno.

But, hey, if you want to continue to ruin your credibility and reputation ... by all means ... ;)

Then keep in mind that movies are more forgiving than music. And surround sound is even more forgiving than stereo music because the codec can share bits between all the channels (so if only the fronts are going, they could get 500 kbps per speaker!).


Hadn't thought of it this way, but it makes sense. So far the biggest difference I've heard from a TrueHD track is on the NiN disc. The differences in movie tracks seem to be more subtle, there's definitely something to it but I'm never quite sure I can say it's definitively better or superior to the better DD+ mixes.

I’ve received a lot of flack the past few days from people wanting me to reveal my sources in regard to the yield rates on both BD50’s and BD25’s. I will NOT list the company in order to protect the employee.

Here is where it all started. In doing HD DVD and BD reviews, talking to encoders helps A LOT in understanding how the process works. I have two such people that I have spoken to who have provided me with technical advice for quite some time. They are:

Independent DVD/HD DVD/BD Encoder who does work for both BD and HD DVD studios
Independent DVD/BD Encoder who does work for two BD studios
Also, a third source in this is a Studio Employee

The studio employee tipped me off that yields weren’t up to what was being published so I asked the encoders if they had heard the same and they concurred. Both stated that when they were doing encodes on BD disc (single layer), they had to try and keep the total file system to under 23 GB because when they went over that data amount, yields dropped precipitously. So essentially a 25 GB disc was really only a 22-23 GB disc for it to be manufactured with any efficiency.

As for BD50 yields, the same applies with them as well when it comes to the data on the disc. They try and keep the data 10-15% below the max space (42-45 GB) for the same reasons, but the overall yields on the BD50’s weren’t that good, but they couldn’t supply actual numbers to me. So as with BD25’s, the actual space on BD50’s is in the neighborhood of 42-45GB, which is still a ton of data, but also isn’t 50GB either.

In discussions with one of these encoders, they stated that Sony was originally doing all of the manufacturing of the BD discs for them because their normal supplier couldn’t get yields above 10% on BD50’s since installing their lines.

So, with this information, I started to ask some more questions such as who is doing your manufacturing for you, do you know anyone I can talk to etc. Well, it turns out that one of the people was able to get me in contact with someone at a replication facility, so here is my next contact:

Employee at Independent replication facility

What he told me is that his company couldn’t do the BD50’s above a 10% yield so all of their work was sent out to a third party company (independent as well) who could do the work. He let me know who this company was and it turned out that I was able to get a contact there. Which leads to my next contact:

Another Employee at separate Independent replication facility

This person goes on to tell me much of the same things that I have been hearing from those above, that yields are very low when a lot of data is on the disc (both BD25’s and BD50’s), but the average yields on BD25’s are in the 60-70% range, and at 50% for BD50’s. He then told me that Sony had helped them in their processing and that their yields were consistent with what Sony was getting in their facilities. He also stated that he knows that other facilities are having some serious issues because they receive BD images from other fabricators all the time to do their manufacturing of these discs for them.

Some new news to report on this though is that I was contacted last night by someone that just happens to work at the same facility as my last source above and that the BD25 numbers that were given to me were a bit low, and that 80% was more in line to what they are seeing today, but the BD50 number was accurate. He also confirmed that my information was correct when the disc is close to capacity that the yields drop fast because of the way the clear coat reacts around the edges of the discs.

Examining all of this in hindsight, I guess the only thing I would change would be stating the numbers given to me about Sony’s plants, since it came from only one person (second hand at that). But in light of what was sent to me last night, I think it is fair to say that if Sony states that are getting in the neighborhood of 85% yields, then I can take them at their word on that, at least on BD25’s. But based upon what my sources are telling me, they aren’t 25 GB discs, they are more along the lines of 23GB discs.

Hopefully this placates any doubters out there as to the legitimacy of my sources.

Wow, Dave. Lots of great info in this post!

I have one followup question:

Are these yield numbers calculated from start to stop, or at "peak" production levels? I don't really know how yields are generally calculated, but are these numbers calculated the same way HD DVD yields are?

Thanks!

Hadn't thought of it this way, but it makes sense. So far the biggest difference I've heard from a TrueHD track is on the NiN disc. The differences in movie tracks seem to be more subtle, there's definitely something to it but I'm never quite sure I can say it's definitively better or superior to the better DD+ mixes.

+1 on the NIN disc.

Truly amazing. After benwaggoner has spent months beating BD supporters over the head with the "we have mandatory TrueHD" crap, Amir and FilmMixer:

Do you hear that Dolby? Do you hear that Roger Dressler? Your technology is completely worthless! So says Microsoft VP Amir. It's just marketing nonsense that Dolby is using to sell unknowing customers useless technology!

You have reading comprehension problems. Your first Amir quote was a response to my tongue-in-cheek comment asking when DD+ stopped being high-resolution, at least according to one website's commentary on Transformers' lacking "any high-resolution" audio format.

The rest of your rant, frankly, is a mystery to me...:confused:

You don't someone else to do this. You can get a close approximation yourself.

Take your favorite music player and rip some music different ways:

1. At 128kbps.
2. At 256kbps.
3. At 384kbps.
4. Lossless

Then have someone play #1 through #3 against lossless track and see if you can tell the difference.

Then consider this. At 1.5 mbit/sec, each channel has 300 kbps per channel! In other words, for stereo content, it would be clocking at 600 kbps. So if you have trouble telling #3 apart from lossless, you have your work cut out for you with DD+ at 1.5mbit/sec.

Then keep in mind that movies are more forgiving than music. And surround sound is even more forgiving than stereo music because the codec can share bits between all the channels (so if only the fronts are going, they could get 500 kbps per speaker!).

I suggest people who are shouting really loud about lossless audio, avoid the above test as it will be highly sobering :).

Hasn't Maximum PC done this test a couple of times in the past now?

No, I think that is still wasteful. Because the low order bits are essentially noise, the TrueHD efficiency goes down when you encode at > 16-bits. So you not only carry more noise, but also reduce how well you are able to encode. And with no audible improvement per above.

You consider 20bit DD-THD wasteful, but you admit the studios don't properly dither for 16 bit encoding. What it comes down to is it's probably a lot easier to get the studio to do 20bit DD-THD than it is to get them to properly dither 16bit, and so I'm in favor of 20bit DD-THD since there have been various blind tests in the past that indicate 20bit is audibly superior to typical 16bit. I expect that is where Film Mixer is coming from as well (though just guessing.)

One would have thought but even the press release doesn't mention THD.

It HAS to support at least DD-THD 2.0!

Hasn't Maximum PC done this test a couple of times in the past now?
Oh, and many other outfits. But seems like the results haven't been good enough so I suggested people do their own testing :).

So all in all, the article shines good light on the subject at hand. And makes people ponder even more, whether there is anything but marketing in “24-bit” audio even in audiophile recordings. I hope everyone agrees that we want to only use up disc storage/bandwidth that the source signal requires and not a bit more. As doing otherwise, simply wastes resources and doesn’t gain us anything.

When it comes to music, I've never heard an "audiophile" quality CD recording that sounded good to me. In fact I've rarely heard ANY CD that sounded good to me. However, the absolute best quality CD recordings I've ever heard were recorded and mastered by Mapleshade. If it's so hard to get a 16 bit CD that sounds any good -- what are the chances that a studio is going to accomplish it?

You consider 20bit DD-THD wasteful, but you admit the studios don't properly dither for 16 bit encoding.
And I also know that most of their soundtracks don't have 16-bits of resolution let alone more. And pre recently posted article, if the original has sufficient amount of noise in low order bits, maybe you don't need to dither it further.


What it comes down to is it's probably a lot easier to get the studio to do 20bit DD-THD than it is to get them to properly dither 16bit, and so I'm in favor of 20bit DD-THD since there have been various blind tests in the past that indicate 20bit is audibly superior to typical 16bit.
Well consider this. Your AVR cannot reproduce 20-bits. It simply cannot. Linear performance of this resolution is exceptionally difficult. My $8K dedicated Mark Levinson DAC only reaches to 19 bits. Tests of consumer equipment that I have seen shows linearity around 15 bits. And cheaper stuff is around 13-14 bits.

So I ask you this. How many of the poeple screaming for 20-bit/24-bit audio, have the kind of I equipment I have forgetting about the ears to hear the difference?

If they all mean to include TrueHD, why did they make it optional in the format? We know there is no royalty cost for it....

Perhaps they are learning there may be better ways to spend the bit budget than on PCM. After all, interactivity does take resources and the BD participating studios are declaring a commitment to interactivity!

Actually, I was thinking just that ... What if, due to some of the negative publicity these profiles have been getting, they decided to modify the spec so that the memory requirement is only a requirement to access, and does not require actual hardware. They can't add memory to a player, so they had to 'fix' that part of the spec. However, they might be able to tweak the firmware to get them a 'Good Enough' scenario for something like PiP.
Can't add an RG45 (or second tuner) with firmware, though, even if the heat is unbearable.

Truly amazing. After benwaggoner has spent months beating BD supporters over the head with the "we have mandatory TrueHD" crap, Amir and FilmMixer:

Do you hear that Dolby? Do you hear that Roger Dressler? Your technology is completely worthless! So says Microsoft VP Amir. It's just marketing nonsense that Dolby is using to sell unknowing customers useless technology!

Please.

You did this (on purpose, IMO), in Mark Rubin's "state of AVS" thread a couple of months ago, now you are doing it again.

Wow ... I'm guessing most people have you on ignore by now ...

Just so you know though, posts like this ... they don't make you look very good. I'm sure some of the BDA Supporters themselves would agree.

Perhaps you get points next door for some kind of contest? I dunno.

But, hey, if you want to continue to ruin your credibility and reputation ... by all means ... ;)
Hey, it's not easy being blue around here. ;)

I’ve received a lot of flack the past few days from people wanting me to reveal my sources in regard to the yield rates on both BD50’s and BD25’s. I will NOT list the company in order to protect the employee.

<snip>

Hopefully this placates any doubters out there as to the legitimacy of my sources.

Thanks very much for all the trouble Dave -- you're absolutely champion :)!

Hasn't Maximum PC done this test a couple of times in the past now?
You can find a LOT of this kind of info on Hydrogen Audio Forums. And they've done tests with different (audio) codecs as well.

Perhaps they are learning there may be better ways to spend the bit budget than on PCM. After all, interactivity does take resources and the BD participating studios are declaring a commitment to interactivity!

Or perhaps the #1 goal was to save money. Save money on ethernet port. Save money on persistent storage. And save money (so they thought until DTS/Dolby changed pricing) on lossless codecs.

Just to find out that the competition didn't go there. Instead, they listened to the studios, put in the features they asked to entice them to publish on the new format. Features that would give them a chance, just a chance, to convince people to re-buy some of their library. Maybe :).

Amir (or any insider who may have insight),

Sony and the BDA have played with the number of the PS3s/Blu-ray players and turned them into talking points when they're actually distorting the presentation of information in an attempt to skew facts. (As in the revenue vs. units and now with the BDA presentation stating that Blu-ray achieved a 63% market share (http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20070901/ifa03_08.jpg).) As a business analyst where I have to be clear on the context of the information, things like this really bug me, especially when they harp on it. So the question, is there sources that you know or that can be made public which clearly show the situation of the high-def marketplace in an unbiased format similar to the NPD raw reports or the reports themselves? The BDA released the unit sales of media from NPD ages ago, seeing something similar on the player side, especially to refute poor claims, would be interesting. Thanks!

I own neither. Does that have any significance or relevance?

It demonstrates to me that you’re willing to pigeon-hole someone who doesn’t agree with your position. I own and use both formats so don’t paint me into some preconceived box you may have for “fanboys”. I’m not without my biases. I have acknowledged by bias towards HD DVD on this forum before. Again, I own and use both HDM formats though. That you having not picked a format(s) yet doesn’t mean you are immune to bias anymore than myself or someone else.


I was trying to let it drop by refraining from replying to you. I do not/did not see it as debate. Otherwise, I'd be all for it.


I mean no ill will towards you pepar, (I like your HT page) but I won’t be treated unkindly without retort. Furthermore, if you didn’t see it as a debate than my post a one line quip which basically says nothing except that you think I’m a fanboy? Anyway, refrain away we shall, because this exchange isn’t offering anything to the thread at this point. I apologize to the other AVS forumites for carrying it on this long.

That’s all

Talk or Amir,

Is persistant storage made up of NAND or NOR Flash memory?

I can't figure out how you can source 64K chips, especially if it is NAND Flash. Higher density chips (into MBs) are only a few dollars. I can't believe that CE manufacturers must cut down these few dollars and eliminate the persistant storage....

Compared to NAND technology, NOR technology tends to have superior access-times and endurance (write/cycles before failure.) The BDA may have been looking beyond size.:D

And I also know that most of their soundtracks don't have 16-bits of resolution let alone more. And pre recently posted article, if the original has sufficient amount of noise in low order bits, maybe you don't need to dither it further.

I'm a little baffled by that reference since I've always read that correct dither was critical to getting a recording to sound right. Thinking of the Stereophile CD's for example. They would go to a great deal of trouble to achieve exceptional recordings, and carefully dither to create the final master, and finally send it off to be pressed. Whereupon all their work would be destroyed by the "engineers" fooling around with the provided master before pressing.

You are suggesting the original dithering wasn't necessary, but the Stereophile person seemed to feel it was very much necessary. He was listening at each step of the process -- including the eventually received check disk :(!

Well consider this. Your AVR cannot reproduce 20-bits. It simply cannot. Linear performance of this resolution is exceptionally difficult. My $8K dedicated Mark Levinson DAC only reaches to 19 bits. Tests of consumer equipment that I have seen shows linearity around 15 bits. And cheaper stuff is around 13-14 bits.

So I ask you this. How many of the poeple screaming for 20-bit/24-bit audio, have the kind of I equipment I have forgetting about the ears to hear the difference?

I don't question that in the slightest. I'm a firm believer in the value of 1.5Mbps DTS Surround/DTS-HD HR/DD+/high-bitrate-lossy, and I share your relative discomfort regarding 640Kbps DD+ (unless it's merely accompanying a TrueHD track, or is being used with a more sonically relaxed film -- Casablanca, Smokey And The Bandit, etc.). I was just thinking in terms of IF a decision is made to include a DD-THD track, then does 16bit really make more sense than 20bit. My experience with CD listening leaves me with little confidence in 16bit that is not properly finessed -- and so I'm viewing 20bit as more credible.

Well you see, Talk used to fight me tooth and nail on who would want to add storage to their player when I talked about extending disc storage. But it seems that he is all of a sudden, my best friend here :D.

OK, I get the idea :)!

First, we have to exhaust what comes on disc. Contrary to popular belief, it is not free to fill a disc with content. And filling it beyond that, is even more costly. So some of this depends on the market growing. And another is people adding the storage. But rest assured, we will be pushing forward to showcase these features in advance of that...

A more current example could be the studio website that was recently opened -- it allows one to register and then download and play content via an HD DVD player. A specific issue was raised regarding the download being SD rather than HD resolution, and the observation was that anything more than SD wouldn't fit in the available 128MB persistent memory (or whatever portion might still be available.) With the availability of memory expansion, that consideration could cease to be an issue for such websites, or else there could be a choice between HD or SD downloads (trailers and interviews and whatever.)

Well consider this. Your AVR cannot reproduce 20-bits. It simply cannot. Linear performance of this resolution is exceptionally difficult. My $8K dedicated Mark Levinson DAC only reaches to 19 bits. Tests of consumer equipment that I have seen shows linearity around 15 bits. And cheaper stuff is around 13-14 bits.

To further amplify on this, in my experience even the best studio gear can barely achieve 21 bit linearity with an ADC under very ideal conditions, such as a sample rate of 48 kHz (not 96). I can't recall any professional DACs with a linearity much in excess of 20 bits.

A few microphones can approach this level, but in practical environments they don't. The inherent noise of the quietest mics is invariably overwhelmed by studio background noise, musicians breathing, etc; studios are not anechoic chambers. Other mics of substantial linearity range can handle very high SPL figures, but these are not particularly meaningful as those SPLs are only achieved by close mic'ing drum kits, cannons, et al (unless you want to reproduce the perspective of listening to a snare drum within a few inches of the drum head).

Once real world conditions are factored in, even a minimalist music recording rarely exceeds 18-19 bits. Mix a lot of tracks together and it will drop further. The only exception that comes to mind is completely synthesized sound.

In terms of acoustic reproduction, the limits of human hearing make matching a 20 bit dynamic range to a listening environment next to impossible. Even with noise weighting. Find a room with a human inside that approaches a 0 dB (SPL) background noise; again short of an anechoic chamber, I never have. Now find a speaker/amplifier system that can hit 120 dB (SPL) over a broad frequency range with tolerable distortion. They exist and I own several, but I don't think any would fit inside my house.

The use of dithering is critical, but its benefits tend to be overemphasized. In practice the resolution below the noise floor is limited and restricted to longer and relatively well-correlated signals. Shorter and less-correlated data cannot be statistically averaged by dithering and are effectively lost. These effects are audible to some. Subjecting even a properly dithered recording to even a high-end consumer system with fewer effective bits will toss meaningful resolution out the window.

I'm a little baffled by that refrence since I've always read that correct dither was critical to getting a recording to sound right. Thinking of the Stereophile CD's for example. They would go to a great deal of trouble to achieve exceptional recordings and carefully dither to create the final master and send it of to be pressed. Whereupon all their work would be destroyed by the "engineers" fooling around with the provided master before pressing.

Yu are suggesting the original dithering wasn't necessary, but the Stereophile person seemed to feel it was very much necessary. He was listening ayt each step of the process -- icluding the eventually received check disk :(!

I'm not sure to which reference Amir refers, but when background noise present in the original recording is statistically sufficient for the desired bit depth end result, there is no need for additional dithering. In that case the background noise 'is' the dithering signal and the number of effective bits in the original recording is less than the sample bit size. The least significant bits are random and convey no information. Of course if the background noise is low enough or highly correlated (such as the rumble and whine of an air conditioner), one does need dithering.

Quite often however there are a fair amount of thermal noise and other well-behaved noise source components that build up during the mixing process. If this noise level is high enough, it can do as well as injecting dither after the fact. Sometimes even better, because the background noise may approach a Gaussian probability distribution function and unnecessary dithering detrimentally increases noise. A Gaussian distribution is a wee bit harder to generate than what is found in many dithering systems, but sounds more natural in my experience.

Or perhaps the #1 goal was to save money. Save money on ethernet port. Save money on persistent storage. And save money (so they thought until DTS/Dolby changed pricing) on lossless codecs.

Just to find out that the competition didn't go there. Instead, they listened to the studios, put in the features they asked to entice them to publish on the new format. Features that would give them a chance, just a chance, to convince people to re-buy some of their library. Maybe :).

Oh, I entirely believe the original decisions were all about minimal cost and maximal profit (probably still are :(.) An obvious example is no Sony AVC releases until Sony had their own AVC encoder online. They already had their own MPEG2 encoder and PCM was obviously not an issue. They pretty much had to support DD, but as you point out, until licensing made it basically a freebie, DD-THD was out of consideration.

But adopting DD-THD now creates complications simply BECAUSE it is non-standard, and yet it's clear Sony is moving away from PCM and to TrueHD. Why would they do that? I can only presume it's because of a need to refocus disc resources -- bits can't simply be thrown away anymore. What used to be a bragging point becomes a liability.

Personally, I find pretty much everything associated with BR somewhat baffling. I really don't see the attraction for either studios or consumers (though I suppose if Fox can maintain a BD+ lock on their films, then they could charge even more than $40 per title :).) I can understand why the CE's including Sony like it -- or at least used to like it. I do see the needed feature convergence happening, though far too slow to make sense from an aware consumer viewpoint (I suspect most consumers are simply unaware) -- the price convergence is even slower, and between the two they make BR an extremely difficult choice in my opinion -- even for dual adoption.

My read was that you would be happy with the original answer as well as the easier one you put here. Seeing your frustrations with my follow up, I went back and tried to address the original question as best as I could.

Well, would much rather have preferred you addressed the question I actually asked rather than the question you perceived me to have asked. ;)

I am curious though. Why?

Because we have yet to see any numerical figure associated with combo replication.

I am sorry but I have done that. Here is what I said just recently: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11507382&postcount=269

...So in the future, kindly search for answers like this instead of asking them again :).

Not sure I'd consider that an answer so much as a pre-existing statement as to your preference not to discuss it.

And it shall have to be after the grief I am getting in answering your question. It is hard for me to read your questions from here on with all the blood pouring out of my nose :D.

Yeah but Amir, that's the problem. You don't have to answer if you don't want of course, but the fact comes down to this as an issue for HD DVD. I wasn't around the Insiders thread the last couple of weeks or whatever when it was a free-zone... I wasn't even aware of that change... and it's a shame because I was requesting that for a long time. In fact this thread here it should be noted was another suggestion originally made by me, and this time I'm aware of it thankfully.

If this were a BD issue Amir, I'd expect to be reading a post like this from you:

Looks like the BDA doesn't want to discuss the combo issue. I wonder why!? :D / :eek: / :p (choose from standard Amir smiley choices)

And, frankly - knowing that... yeah, I'm going to ask about the combo thing. Is your not answering it then any different from the BD-related dodges that would normally elicit a "flag this issue" post from you, emulated by that provided above?

I frankly only partially get this point...I suppose it'd be interesting to see the numbers, but it obviously must be somewhat realistic financially to make HD-DVD combo discs, versus too cost-prohibitive/technically unfeasible to do with BD.

The evidence we have of this is that one exists and the other not...that's largely sufficient to me.

Amir stated:

So what you can discuss is relative difficulty of creating the product. And whether there are fundamental issues involved in achieving high efficiency and yield. If I were to rank the products in increasing cost, this is how I would put them:

1. DVD-9
2. HD DVD-15
3. HD DVD-30
4. HD DVD-30+DVD-9
5. BD-25
6. BD-50
999999. BD-50 combo

--------------------------------------

That's golden :p

I frankly only partially get this point...I suppose it'd be interesting to see the numbers, but it obviously must be somewhat realistic financially to make HD-DVD combo discs, versus too cost-prohibitive/technically unfeasible to do with BD.

The evidence we have of this is that one exists and the other not...that's largely sufficient to me.

Well, as you said - you're only partially understanding the point. No one except Amir wants to discuss BD combo discs... mainly because they don't exist. What some would like to discuss are HD DVD combo discs. Now whether Amir is willing to spend as much time on that topic as he is willing to spend discussing BD yields though, is another matter entirely. Questions have been asked, and the ball is in his court.

If the rules weren't changed, he wouldn't be able to post here anymore.

:confused:Oy Vay, you went completely XBOX 360 on that one.

Well, as you said - you're only partially understanding the point. No one except Amir wants to discuss BD combo discs... mainly because they don't exist. What some would like to discuss are HD DVD combo discs. Now whether Amir is willing to spend as much time on that topic as he is willing to spend discussing BD yields though, is another matter entirely. Questions have been asked, and the ball is in his court.

If it's privileged information he can't divulge (unlike BD yields), what difference does it make? They're obviously affordable enough to make! Ask the replicator insiders here instead, you might be more likely to get an answer.

One thing's for certain though: BD-50 Combo = unobtainium.

To further amplify on this, in my experience even the best studio gear can barely achieve 21 bit linearity with an ADC under very ideal conditions, such as a sample rate of 48 kHz (not 96). I can't recall any professional DACs with a linearity much in excess of 20 bits.
...


In video this can be helped by sampling at the audio equivalent of 96khz and downsampling to 48khz, removing the high frequency noise somewhat while leaving more information about the real signal below the nyquist frequency.

Does this not also apply to audio?

- Tom

Actually, I was thinking just that ... What if, due to some of the negative publicity these profiles have been getting, they decided to modify the spec so that the memory requirement is only a requirement to access, and does not require actual hardware. They can't add memory to a player, so they had to 'fix' that part of the spec. However, they might be able to tweak the firmware to get them a 'Good Enough' scenario for something like PiP.

Bingo!

Wow, Dave. Lots of great info in this post!

I have one followup question:

Are these yield numbers calculated from start to stop, or at "peak" production levels? I don't really know how yields are generally calculated, but are these numbers calculated the same way HD DVD yields are?

Thanks!

I don't know, to be completely honest. BUT, the yields they have given me for HD DVD are calculated the same way, so it is an apples to apples comparison.

but why wouldn't they just release them anyhow since the current players will still be able to play the titles? it would be like the numerous releases of titles employing D-THD and DTS-MA soundtracks which most if not all at one time couldn't decode?

Because without any players to test those features on they couldn't guarantee they would work on final hardware. There could be glitches or other problems that would need to be worked out. Using emulators can only take you so far, especially when you're talking about streaming two data streams off of optical media where you need to take bitrate and buffer sizes etc into account. It's a lot more complex than D-THD and DTS-MA, which are essentially just the audio equivalent of zip compression.

Instead they'll release them later now that we're starting to see more 1.1 hardware available, and they won't have lost any sales as a result - with a delayed launch there's even a possibility that they'll sell even more because of a larger and more stable market. Consumers are very much about instant gratification, whereas to a studio it doesn't matter if you release a specific catalog title this year or the next - they have plenty of others to fill their production schedule. The timing is much more critical for new releases like 300, which is why the BD in this case doesn't have PiP while the HD DVD does. Had it been a catalog title they would probably have delayed the BD like they've done with their other releases.

In video this can be helped by sampling at the audio equivalent of 96khz and downsampling to 48khz, removing the high frequency noise somewhat while leaving more information about the real signal below the nyquist frequency.

Does this not also apply to audio?

It depends on what you want to optimize. Performance at these levels stretches the current limits of component and cicuit design. Higher clock rates are more stressful and generate, among others, more spurious responses and clocking artifacts. These increase in-band noise and decrease linearity. Downsampling cannot reduce in-band noise or restore lost linearity. However sampling at a higher rate obviates the need for aggressive anti-aliasing filters, which can cause in-band response effects that some believe are audible. So pick your poison: noise and linearity vs. impulse response. To my ear, high-end ADCs tend to sound slightly more accurate at lower clocking rates, but marketing demands invariably drive the use of the higher rates. Maybe my ears are just getting old.

In reality the lack of true 24 bit ADCs is never the limiting factor in the ultimate sound quality of a finished product; 20-21 bits is way more than enough. I can't comment on video samplers because I don't use them, but the effects described above are at least as pronounced when one gets into ADCs running in the multi-GHz regime (my job that "pays the mortgage").

If it's privileged information he can't divulge (unlike BD yields), what difference does it make? They're obviously affordable enough to make! Ask the replicator insiders here instead, you might be more likely to get an answer.

One thing's for certain though: BD-50 Combo = unobtainium.

And that is where I have a problem. Folks around here were calling out Paidgeek for the same type of information from Sony and he simply cannot share it (even though he did come back and say that yields current yields are 80% or more for Sony with regards to BD50 over at another forum).

I completely understand why Amir cannot share this information. It is very sensitive to their business and he could be in trouble for revealing company confidential information.

This whole topic of yields seems like we are chasing our tails. We have different numbers from different people and a lot of accusations with little to no actual facts. While some people on this thread seem to care a lot about yields, I suspect the folks that are out there buying HDTV's and are considering Blu-Ray or HD DVD have no clue what we are talking about, nor do they care.

If the price of HD DVD discs for the consumer were $5-10 cheaper than the BD prices, then I think this would matter big time. Right now, prices are basically equal.

I hope we can simply move on and talk about something else as the talk of yields is really getting us nowhere.

I hope we can simply move on and talk about something else as the talk of yields is really getting us nowhere.

I thought the topic had turned to audio? ;)

I thought the topic had turned to audio? ;)

For some maybe. For others, the topic is the replication costs and quality control issues surrounding HD DVD combo media.

There is clearly something with the physical structure of such discs that cause these issues - otherwise nonsense like boiling them wouldn't factor in at all. BD discs that have problems, don't have problems related to the physical structure of the disc outside of isolated incidents. And that's the topic at hand; quality control and spec adherence to the standards set forth at replication. The issue with combos isn't isolated in the least; it is widespread and endemic.

Dave or Replication Insiders,

What were DVD5/9/18 yields like in the first few years? Just to put the Blu-ray numbers into context.

Dave or Replication Insiders,

What were DVD5/9/18 yields like in the first few years? Just to put the Blu-ray numbers into context.

Those numbers are irrelevant. Why? Because they didn't have a protective coating on them, which is a new process and is the main issue with the yields. I'm sure before the protective layer goes on BD discs that their yields are pretty good, but with this extra step to insure that the data is protected (since it is so close to the surface) is where the yield rates fall.

Those numbers are irrelevant. Why? Because they didn't have a protective coating on them, which is a new process and is the main issue with the yields. I'm sure before the protective layer goes on BD discs that their yields are pretty good, but with this extra step to insure that the data is protected (since it is so close to the surface) is where the yield rates fall.

It would be absurd though to think that the yields on Blu-ray discs will not increase greatly as the years go by and the process matures, whether or not the previous process ramp with the original DVD plants proves a direct corollary or not.

Those numbers are irrelevant. Why? Because they didn't have a protective coating on them, which is a new process and is the main issue with the yields. I'm sure before the protective layer goes on BD discs that their yields are pretty good, but with this extra step to insure that the data is protected (since it is so close to the surface) is where the yield rates fall.

Is it possible to find out the impact that the protective layer itself has? i.e. Yields before and after application? By Amir's description of the spin coating process it made it seem like it only seriously affected the outer rim of data (which is significant in comparing capacity).

And the DVD numbers are significant in that if they were low like Blu-ray is now, it shows that studios are willing to tolerate it to a point.

I don't think I would be too anxious to draw that parallel. Amirm's comments on the process seem to indicate to me they don't ever think the yields can be brought to a commercial level, hence their opposition to DB.

I've misstated anything I am certain, someone will try to pound me into the ground for it.

It would be absurd though to think that the yields on Blu-ray discs will not increase greatly as the years go by and the process matures, whether or not the previous process ramp with the original DVD plants proves a direct corollary or not.
It may also be absurd to think that all this great expense in BD production will not keep BD prices higher for longer. Sony needs to recoup all this money from expensive lines, idle lines (can't make DVDs), bad yields, and the longer production time and material costs.

If they didn't subsidize these things they'd have no workable business model today.

It may also be absurd to think that all this great expense in BD production will not keep BD prices higher for longer. Sony needs to recoup all this money from expensive lines, idle lines (can't make DVDs), bad yields, and the longer production time and material costs.

If they didn't subsidize these things they'd have no workable business model today.

I'm not making a case against subsidization; the fact remains though - the conclusion is forgone that yields will improve moving forward and that was the introspection I was replying to.

Obviously Sony sees a business ecosystem built on BD as extending beyond the royalties to include both replication services and equipment/infrastructure-derived revenues. I don't debate at all that the practical floor for BD costs is higher than for HD DVD, but then again oftentimes the floor doesn't end up mattering to the consumer - the studios will charge what they feel represents the 'fair price' for media, and we've seen that for high def, HD DVD offers no advantage in that respect.

It may just be that by the time these things are under control it will be too late. Kinda' like SED - whose only drawback it seems was that it was too expensive to manufacture.

It would be absurd though to think that the yields on Blu-ray discs will not increase greatly as the years go by and the process matures, whether or not the previous process ramp with the original DVD plants proves a direct corollary or not.


I didn't say they BD yields wouldn't increase. All I said was that it is a completely different process, so comparing one to the other is apples and oranges.

It would be absurd though to think that the yields on Blu-ray discs will not increase greatly as the years go by and the process matures, whether or not the previous process ramp with the original DVD plants proves a direct corollary or not.
Sure, given enough years,anything is possible. The question is how many? Can they get good yields in a year or two, or will it take 10?

It may just be that by the time these things are under control it will be too late. Kinda' like SED - whose only drawback it seems was that it was too expensive to manufacture.
Bingo.
J

All I said was that it is a completely different process, so comparing one to the other is apples and oranges.

I never implied you meant otherwise. The quotation was made to provide context to the vein of conversation my own post was in response to.

I never implied you meant otherwise. The quotation was made to provide context to the vein of conversation my own post was in response to.


OK...no worries. Sometimes the written word can be misconstrued.

Sure, given enough years,anything is possible. The question is how many? Can they get good yields in a year or two, or will it take 10?

Well, I would venture much closer to two than ten. They certainly seem to have made great progress in the last year relative to last year's BD50 estimates for example, eh?

As to SED - SED died due to legal action, rather than expense. Though that might have killed it later anyway.

OK...no worries. Sometimes the written word can be misconstrued.

I think we all fall victim to it now and then; I see why you would have thought what you did, so my pleasure to clarify what I meant. :)

and for loving PCM audio even though 10 seconds of silence takes the same amount of space and bandwidth as 10 seconds of explosions.
Well, that's a good argument - but it's also valid for AC3, E-AC3 and DTS!!

Your chair will rattle just the same whether it is DD+ or TrueHD .

To be fair though, I do not think 640kbps and lower is enough for a lossy codec to achieve the proper level of fidelity. I like to see > 1 mbit/sec to feel good about lossy performance.
You say 16bit is enough. And you advertise lossy encodes with > 1 mbps. But that doesn't add up for me because:

Lossless compression of 16bit tracks often does not consume more space than lossy compression with 1.5Mbps!!!

E.g. I've taken the 16bit PCM track from "Deja Vu" and compressed it in DTS 1.5Mbps and also in FLAC. The DTS file is 700MB bigger than the FLAC file... :)

So what arguments are left for lossy encodes if 16bit is enough and if lossless compression of 16bit tracks doesn't consume more space than lossy compression with 1.5Mbps?

First, let me explain in layman terms what Keith is saying and experimenting with in this article. He starts off by articulating the fact that dithered simply raises the noise floor but is the proper means to get rid of quantization noise (conversion of 24-bit to 16-bit). In actual experimentation though, he finds that he likes the dithered 16-bit signal less than undithered 16-bit. He then goes on to figure out why.

His finding is that the signal itself, is pre-dithred with noise! That is, the source material possesses enough noise as not require further dithering. And that doing so, brings up the noise floor more and potentially changes the sound because you are summing two dither functions.

In simpler terms, he is saying and correctly so, that his sources were not really 24-bits and that much of the extra resolution there was noise. And since the signal was already noisy, you didn’t need to add more noise to it to get rid of the distortion in going from 24-bits to 16-bits. Here is the key sentence repeated twice in the article:

“Although it is understandable, given typical levels of microphone self-noise, it is still disconcerting to find that many commercial audiophile 24-bit recordings achieve no better than 16-bit noise performance.”

Quite amazing isn’t it? His experiment shows that his super high-end recordings have no more resolution than 16-bits! He proves this by analyzing the source and extracting its inherent noise level. Such tools have been run on movie soundtracks. Do you know what they show? That many soundtracks have no more than 11-bits of true resolution! No, I am not saying every movie is like this. But if audiophile recordings don’t have more than 16-bits of resolution, what hope is there for movie tracks?

Keep in mind that even a simple mix of two signals requires dither if you are to do the job well. So by the time you are doing with mixing many elements of a movie, you have applied dithered and other types of noise processing in the production chain. As such, even if the original sound was of highest quality and had > 16-bits of resolution, chances of any of that resolution reaching the output is next to nil.
Thank you for the explanation.

But I'm still scratching my head now about whether I should use dithering when converting 24bit PCM tracks to a lesser bitdepth or not... Hmmmmm...

http://madshi.net/icon_confused.gif

Overall I definitely think there's a case for more than 16 bits in audio at the point of delivery, but the last 4 or 5 bits of those 24-bit signals are always going to be noise....there's no point in encoding that in real life, whether or not storage space is constrained. And this does mean that compression algorithms such as DTS or DD+ running at say 1.5 Mbits/sec are for the most part going to be very hard to distinguish from lossless audio.

Food for thought :-)

John Dawson (Arcam)
Industry Insider
Thanks much!! :)

So what would be your personal vote about which bitdepth to use for movie soundtracks, if the most important thing is to keep all audio quality intact while not wasting space at the same time? Maybe 18bit? Or 20bit?

I thought the topic had turned to audio? ;)

Good point :) Okay, I scoured the net looking for a good paper or article on TrueHD versus DD+/DTS-HD. There are some decent white papers on DD+ and TrueHD from Dolby but not a really good comparison article.

Does anybody know of one? I had previously compared several HD DVD titles via DD+/DTS on my add-on to TrueHD on my A2 and I walked away thinking that TrueHD sounded better on the A2. Not by a "slap you in the face" difference, but certainly an improvement.

If there is little to no difference in TrueHD versus DD+/DTS-HD I am wondering why even bother for most movies? Why are all the studios (for both formats) including more and more lossless tracks if lossy is equal 9 times out of 10?

I don't know how many people here have manufacturing backgrounds . . . but from a lot of the commentary, it's apparent to me that the answer is: not many.

Many if not most manufacturing processes can be improved (from a yield perspective) given time, attention to detail and . . . . willingness to invest capital (either in the form of R&D or equipment). Only a very small subset of manufacturing processes can be economically improved, however. If I had a nickle for every "cool product" I've been around that just couldn't scale the wall of economic manufacture, I'd be a pretty well-off guy.

Yes, many problems are solvable, but what typically weeds out "production-ready" from "concept forever" are the costs associated with large-scale manufacture-ability.

If there is little to no difference in TrueHD versus DD+/DTS-HD I am wondering why even bother for most movies? Why are all the studios (for both formats) including more and more lossless tracks if lossy is equal 9 times out of 10?

The cynic in me says it is to sell HDMI 1.3 equipped receivers ;)

The cynic in me says it is to sell HDMI 1.3 equipped receivers ;)

Well, it worked on me as I recently purchased a 1.3 Onkyo receiver :)

Dave, I do have a question though with regards to this that I think you can help answer. I don't want to put you on the spot or make you uncomfortable by naming names or specific sites, but I notice that the majority of HD movie reviews place a lot of emphasis on lossless codecs. In fact, I am not aware of a DD+ track getting a perfect score from the majority of sites I visit for reviews (that said there may be a few). I must admit, I catch myself looking at the specs before a movie is released and getting either excited or a little disappointed if a title has a DD+ or DTS-HD track versus a lossless track. Do you think we are all (reviewers and HD enthusiasts alike) getting a little too caught up on the specs, or do you feel that lossless should become a given standard on most formats with regards to the majority of titles (especially day and date releases)?

Thanks Dave.

Hasn't Maximum PC done this test a couple of times in the past now?

Do you have a link to the results?

The cynic in me says it is to sell HDMI 1.3 equipped receivers ;)
Wouldn't *we* all think that we're the one in ten?

I don't know how many people here have manufacturing backgrounds . . . but from a lot of the commentary, it's apparent to me that the answer is: not many.

Many if not most manufacturing processes can be improved (from a yield perspective) given time, attention to detail and . . . . willingness to invest capital (either in the form of R&D or equipment). Only a very small subset of manufacturing processes can be economically improved, however. If I had a nickle for every "cool product" I've been around that just couldn't scale the wall of economic manufacture, I'd be a pretty well-off guy.

Yes, many problems are solvable, but what typically weeds out "production-ready" from "concept forever" are the costs associated with large-scale manufacture-ability.

It's a guessing game. There are some hints in the surfaced info that allow for an educated guess.

My guess:

Blu ray production using spin coating hit a serious obstacle: Laws of physics.
The centrifugal forces at the edge of the disc are the largest. That's where the coating builds up and becomes to thick or the angle of the surface slopes up to much. The coating layer is an optical layer and needs te be within strict tolerances if not within the limits it's a reject. This seems to affect br25 as well as br50. (In car players will be a headache too.)

Losing nearly 10% or more of capacity to get yields between 50 and 85% suggest that the affected surface area is considerable.

This process needs a serious rethink.
Ir br insider can mail me a cheque for a couplle of hints that might do the trick :D

The cynic in me says it is to sell HDMI 1.3 equipped receivers ;)

They sucked me in!

Er... sorta. The difference would be that with a CPU, you build it and then test it so see where it bins. If it doesn't hit your target bin, you can sell it downbinned. With a BD-ROM, you build it and if it's not a BD50... it's a coaster. You can't sell it as a BD45 or BD40.
are we certain that optical media cannot be binned by the manufacturer? I can't see a reason why that would necessarily be the case...

are we certain that optical media cannot be binned by the manufacturer? I can't see a reason why that would necessarily be the case...
They can definitely focus the content to the more obtainable sizes. Say a 37GB disc has a higher percentage than a 50gb. You just focus the content for the 37gb target.

Well, it worked on me as I recently purchased a 1.3 Onkyo receiver :)

Dave, I do have a question though with regards to this that I think you can help answer. I don't want to put you on the spot or make you uncomfortable by naming names or specific sites, but I notice that the majority of HD movie reviews place a lot of emphasis on lossless codecs. In fact, I am not aware of a DD+ track getting a perfect score from the majority of sites I visit for reviews (that said there may be a few). I must admit, I catch myself looking at the specs before a movie is released and getting either excited or a little disappointed if a title has a DD+ or DTS-HD track versus a lossless track. Do you think we are all (reviewers and HD enthusiasts alike) getting a little too caught up on the specs, or do you feel that lossless should become a given standard on most formats with regards to the majority of titles (especially day and date releases)?

Thanks Dave.

Would I prefer to see lossless tracks on every release? Yes I would. For two reasons, one is for marketing and the other to "know" you aren't losing bits.

I have given perfect scores for lossy mixes though and when I get the time, I will go back through and look them up. I have also given less than perfect scores for lossless mixes as well! So you can't judge a given title by just specs alone without taking a listen to it. That is one thing that is bugging me about The Transformers...people are judging it before they can even hear the damn thing, which is just plain wrong!

Would I prefer to see lossless tracks on every release? Yes I would. For two reasons, one is for marketing and the other to "know" you aren't losing bits.

I have given perfect scores for lossy mixes though and when I get the time, I will go back through and look them up. I have also given less than perfect scores for lossless mixes as well! So you can't judge a given title by just specs alone without taking a listen to it. That is one thing that is bugging me about The Transformers...people are judging it before they can even hear the damn thing, which is just plain wrong!
your scores i imagine are not based on whether the sound is faithfully reproduced from the original (which i guess would have to be the experience in a movie theater ... uggh) but instead on what you subjectively think about the "mix", correct?

Yes...frankly, anyones perception is this way because we DON'T have access to the masters. That is why I take FilmMixer's word when he says that We Were Soldiers is faithful to the master, since he is the one who mixed it! In fact, I gave both the BD and the HD DVD perfect scores, even though the HD DVD used a higher bitrate encoding. Both sounded excellent and I use it as a demo piece when someone wants to hear an awsome mix. The helicopter effects of "hovering" over my room are simply amazing!

Here is the audio text from my review:

On HD DVD, this was one of the best sounding discs that I have listened to this year, and the release on BD is just as impressive. The audio is presented in two flavors, one is Dolby Digital 5.1 EX (640 kbps) and the other is DTS ES 6.1 (1.5 Mbps). I sampled both and they were each equally impressive and very realistic. One of the reasons that the soundtrack sounds so lifelike is that it was the only film ever mixed with an overhead channel, in a format dubbed "Dolby Digital Surround EX Sonic Whole Overhead Sound." How do I know this? Well, I was able to have a text conversation with the lead sound designer who mixed the movie! He also noted that none of the video sound tracks came from that special one off printmaster, but from the original theatrical 6 track EX digital printmaster. The result of this is one of the finest audio presentations that I have ever heard in my home theater. Last night, it sounded like "The Valley of Death" was located in my house with helicopters flying overhead, exploding mortar rounds, and the pop, pop, pop of an M16 coming from all directions.

One thing to note is that in using the PS3, the audio is being mixed within the player and output over HDMI as PCM and the rear channel is lost in the transition. This didn't necessarily ruin the audio experience for me though because my AVR can apply PLIIx to the HDMI input and the sound was fantastic. I plan on doing some comparisons with the optical out as well to see if the PS3 is having a detrimental effect on the audio.

A special thanks to Filmmixer for giving me the inside scoop on the mixing of this title!

http://www.***************.com/fusionbb/dvd-review.php?sequence=1805

Here is the audio text from my review:



A special thanks to Filmmixer for giving me the inside scoop on the mixing of this title!

"Dolby Digital Surround EX Sonic Whole Overhead Sound"

http://www.***************.com/fusionbb/dvd-review.php?sequence=1805
Is this matrixed in and if so, across which two channels? Is it extracted like the old Dolby Surround surround channel was extracted?

are we certain that optical media cannot be binned by the manufacturer? I can't see a reason why that would necessarily be the case...

If the issue is the spincoat, then nope. The bits are already on the disc ... if the spincoat takes it out of tolerance at the edges, then you'll be missing bits.

The reason that yields go up with less data is not because the spincoat doesn't take it out of tolerance at the edges -- this still occurs. There's just no data there to 'cover up'.

The further out to the edge you put data (ie: the more you fill the disc), the 'thicker' the accumulation of spincoat.

Of course, all of this is imo ... none of this was told to me by tweety.

If the issue is the spincoat, then nope. The bits are already on the disc ... if the spincoat takes it out of tolerance at the edges, then you'll be missing bits.

The reason that yields go up with less data is not because the spincoat doesn't take it out of tolerance at the edges -- this still occurs. There's just no data there to 'cover up'.

The further out to the edge you put data (ie: the more you fill the disc), the 'thicker' the accumulation of spincoat.

Of course, all of this is imo ... none of this was told to me by tweety.No problemo - all BD has to do is standardize the non-uniformity of spin-coat thickness and modify the BD laser firmware to change the depth of the focus point by radius. Hmm - could be tough for random track access, but there's where BD's higher bit rate is of some use.

The past week or so have been illuminating on several important issues. These should be memorialized in FAQ's or as the case may be, Frequent Audio Questions and Answers (FAQA) or Frequently Addressed BD Statements (FA--) :p

Do you have a link to the results?

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

And remember, this is music that a least one of the participants is always familiar with not a movie that has wildly inconsistent sound, is 2 hours long and no one can really be familiar with a particular way it sounds. I would love to have 24/96 audio on every movie, but in the end I doubt that it makes a huge difference after a lossy track gets to a certain point.

No problemo - all BD has to do is standardize the non-uniformity of spin-coat thickness and modify the BD laser firmware to change the depth of the focus point by radius. Hmm - could be tough for random track access, but there's where BD's higher bit rate is of some use.
i don't thick the variable thickness is as big a problem as other optical/physical tolerances associated with the disc and optical pickup...even if they would somehow figure out a way to do this, it would require that the variability be constant (somewhat of an oxymoron, i know :))...

If the price of HD DVD discs for the consumer were $5-10 cheaper than the BD prices, then I think this would matter big time. Right now, prices are basically equal.

I hope we can simply move on and talk about something else as the talk of yields is really getting us nowhere.
We keep on hearing this argument. IMO, at this stage of HDM, disk fab cost is marginal to the consumer price. If it doesn't scale though, it becomes a huge factor. BDA has been strangely silent if the info we are getting is wrong.

We keep on hearing this argument. IMO, at this stage of HDM, disk fab cost is marginal to the consumer price. If it doesn't scale though, it becomes a huge factor. BDA has been strangely silent if the info we are getting is wrong.

Paidgeek already stated that he was told Sony was getting 80% yields for BD50 I thought? Aside from that not many BD Insiders are posting here any more (if any at all on a regular basis).

I really don't think he said they were getting 80% on BD50. I think he said they were getting 80 on the BD25. I have heard 80 but its from this absurd article that basically states the BD50 line will "be up to speed soon". Its a laugher of an article that BD fans like to quote without recognizing the absurd statements from an 11 month old Sony press release:

But DADC was slightly behind schedule getting 50-GB replication up and running, though dual-layer production has begun and the plant soon will be up to speed

So we are quoting theoretical yields before production starts?

Yields are “ever so slightly less" on dual-layer, he said. The 80% yield rate is "still a good figure," Mitchell said. "But we've been so focused on adding new equipment, bringing it up and qualifying it that there hasn't been the type of [yields] emphasis allowed

translation: We haven't been allowed to track the yields as we are trying to get production started since we are so far behind (and we don't want to know)

full article:
http://www.sonydadc.com/americas/files/CE10.25.06.pdf

Paidgeek already stated that he was told Sony was getting 80% yields for BD50 I thought? Aside from that not many BD Insiders are posting here any more (if any at all on a regular basis).

They probably get yields of 80% for BD44 discs. :D

They probably get yields of 80% for BD44 discs. :D

Well if you want to be snarky, that's still 14GB more than HD-30. :D

Truly amazing. After benwaggoner has spent months beating BD supporters over the head with the "we have mandatory TrueHD" crap, Amir and FilmMixer:

Do you hear that Dolby? Do you hear that Roger Dressler? Your technology is completely worthless! So says Microsoft VP Amir. It's just marketing nonsense that Dolby is using to sell unknowing customers useless technology!

We've had some great posts from Insiders here recently about audio. People who build the codecs, implement them, and provide source material utilizing them.

Yet there are a number of replies such as this one that simply dismiss or deride those viewpoints, yet offer no counter evidence.

Well... the time for such discriminating users to take their stand is NOW! I've built a little test that will allow you to easily demonstrate your your listening acumen.

Please visit my test thread HERE (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11554128#post11554128) and make your point once and for all!

;)

We've had some great posts from Insiders here recently about audio. People who build the codecs, implement them, and provide source material utilizing them.

Yet there are a number of replies such as this one that simply dismiss or deride those viewpoints, yet offer no counter evidence.

Well... the time for such discriminating users to take their stand is NOW! I've built a little test that will allow you to easily demonstrate your your listening acumen.

Please visit my test thread HERE (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11554128#post11554128) and make your point once and for all!

;)
I've got a 10Mb connection, but I'm only getting ~60KB/s download speed. Nonetheless, I've been one of those who is "sure" that they can hear the difference, so I'm going to let it download to completion and then give it a try. Thanks for taking the time to pull this together.

Hey, it's up to 10% just in the time it took me to type my post . . .

But the design of BD format clearly impacts player costs.Everything you quoted has to with the optical pickup, the price of which has dropped exponentially and certainly doesn't account for the price difference between low-end players of each format.

Everything you quoted has to with the optical pickup, the price of which has dropped exponentially and certainly doesn't account for the price difference between low-end players of each format.So then is Sony offering a low cost OPU design (PS3 based) for low royalities to other CE's? Are Chinese manufacturers building blue laser HD players able to benefit from a low cost BD OPU implementation?

Because with DVD selling well over 100x what HD DVD is the cost of producing all those combo discs would be out of the question. Besides, since doing a combo disc presumably requires equipment which all lines don't have, there might not be sufficient production capacity.

omg - i find this hilarious - when BD50 is much more expensive than Combo LMAO !! :D

omg - i find this hilarious - when BD50 is much more expensive than Combo LMAO !! :D

:confused:

omg - i find this hilarious - when BD50 is much more expensive than Combo LMAO !! :DClearly you don't get the point. When you are selling 50x more of a product, and are not commanding a premium for the additional costs, then how can that not have an effect on profitability of a combo vs. DVD? A small quantity of BD or HD DVD sold to a niche market for an increased price is completely unrelated to the theory of replacing your money-making, cheap to produce DVD with an expensive disc of no value to 95% of the public.

Clearly you don't get the point. When you are selling 50x more of a product, and are not commanding a premium for the additional costs, then how can that not have an effect on profitability of a combo vs. DVD? A small quantity of BD or HD DVD sold to a niche market for an increased price is completely unrelated to the theory of replacing your money-making, cheap to produce DVD with an expensive disc of no value to 95% of the public.

was referring to the highlighted part . sorry :D

was referring to the highlighted part . sorry :DOIC. Well, the point still applies in that there may not be enough HD DVD lines (esp capable of combos) at this point in time that could crank out 50x or more copies of a disc. BD would obviously be in big trouble if all of the sudden the demand for their discs went up 50x or more; and they intend to address this by growing capacity as demand increases. By publishing only combo discs and no DVD's you'd be creating a "fake" demand; a demand for regular DVDs which would suddenly require you to supply with HD DVD combos. I know DVD lines can be modified at less cost, esp newer ones; I don't know if combos are being done at all of these (I know it's based on a fairly proven process, I believe the one used to create elusive DVD18's); but right now, at this point in time, I don't think HD DVD could come anywhere near meeting the demand of pressing a top selling DVD (BD would be even further away from this capability, but this is not a goal of theirs at this point in time).

Paidgeek already stated that he was told Sony was getting 80% yields for BD50 I thought? Aside from that not many BD Insiders are posting here any more (if any at all on a regular basis).

I think if you look at his wording you will see that he never directly stated the yield for BD50 discs was 80%. At least in the same sentence of both BD50 and Yield of 80%.

Maybe he said something later that stated this exactly, but I would like to see a link if he did. ;)_

My question has to do with your comment above. Can you speak to the rationale of players clearly advertising their profile compliance for 1.1/2.0 decks when previous decks have had anything but "clear" marking thereof?It's a feature which some consumers are looking for, and it's an obvious differentiator relative to existing models. Besides, how often do players advertise features they don't have? I don't see the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on with "Now - no support for lossless output!" in the advertising...
Manufacturers are comfortable now advertising 1.1 decks even though the 2.0 profile exists. This implies that: A) 2.0 is so far off that they aren't afraid of freezing the market now, or B) They really don't plan on mentioning that 2.0 is coming, or C) just about every 1.1 deck is 2.0-ready as well.Any 1.1-capable deck with an ethernet port is almost certainly 2.0 capable as well. I'd be surprised to see a player with an ethernet port advertised as 1.1 but not 2.0...

Well you see, Talk used to fight me tooth and nail on who would want to add storage to their player when I talked about extending disc storage. But it seems that he is all of a sudden, my best friend hereYou're distorting history, Amir. My point was that putting the storage on the disc (BD's extra 20GB) will address 100% of the userbase, while expecting consumers to download and store content will probably reduce you to 10% of the total userbase (rising over time, but clearly a minority for the next few years).

It's a feature which some consumers are looking for, and it's an obvious differentiator relative to existing models. Besides, how often do players advertise features they don't have? I don't see the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on with "Now - no support for lossless output!" in the advertising...
Any 1.1-capable deck with an ethernet port is almost certainly 2.0 capable as well. I'd be surprised to see a player with an ethernet port advertised as 1.1 but not 2.0...

I am not trying to be disrespectful here and I think we all value ALL the insiders' input, but I thought there was a new rule about not going out of your way to intentionally bash the opposing sides format, and that it was the BD insiders that wanted this? :confused:

Does this not seem right that you are doing this still?

Again, I do not want you to feel I am attacking or being disrespectful but I think this rule should be honored by all insiders if Amir should be held to honor it. Am I wrong for thinking this way?

I am not trying to be disrespectful here and I think we all value ALL the insiders' input, but I thought there was a new rule about not going out of your way to intentionally bash the opposing sides format, and that it was the BD insiders that wanted this?
Check the thread you're posting in; this one allows members more latitude to express themselves.

Check the thread you're posting in; this one allows members more latitude to express themselves.

But I thought the insiders needed to not "bash" the opposing format?

Is that allowed now? It is hard to keep track with all the rule changes. :p

But I thought the insiders needed to not "bash" the opposing format?

Is that allowed now? It is hard to keep track with all the rule changes. :p
In my book, bashing reads entirely different than a good-natured jab at an opponent's weakness. Do you own HD-DVD? ;)

You're distorting history, Amir.
Quite possible. I have never claimed to have lossless memory :p.

My point was that putting the storage on the disc (BD's extra 20GB) will address 100% of the userbase, while expecting consumers to download and store content will probably reduce you to 10% of the total userbase (rising over time, but clearly a minority for the next few years).
I guess I am confused over what point you have made in the past, and what point you are now making. This is from one of your posts: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10248967&postcount=3595

Just because BD gives manufacturers and consumers the ability to choose the featureset they desire (i.e. networking support) doesn't in any way suggest it is a less "forward looking" format. For my money mandating far higher capacity and bandwidth buys much more flexibility than does mandating network support. Blu-ray supports the same "open-ended capacity and bandwidth" you attribute to HD DVD for anyone who chooses to buy a network-enabled player. Meanwhile Blu-ray took the necessary companion step of mandating 1GB of local storage capability for all network-connected players. The feature you describe would be useless without sufficient local storage.
So if not having mandatory storage the player makes a feature "useless," tell me again how BD profile 1.1 and 2.0 are not useless without mandatory storage in the customer's player? Has your arugment changed now that the above memory is no longer mandatory in BD players? This was the point I was making in my post.

Without this companion requirement to mandatory network support a given HD DVD consumer is no more guaranteed to be able to access network-delivered audio than would be a given Blu-ray Disc consumer who may or may not have a network-enabled player.
As if I didn't get the message right above, here you repeat it again :).

It's a feature which some consumers are looking for, and it's an obvious differentiator relative to existing models. Besides, how often do players advertise features they don't have? I don't see the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on with "Now - no support for lossless output!" in the advertising...


well of course they're not going to advertise something that's not true

just imagine all the customers up in arms and demanding their money back when they find out that it DOES support lossless output!

It's a feature which some consumers are looking for, and it's an obvious differentiator relative to existing models. Besides, how often do players advertise features they don't have? I don't see the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on with "Now - no support for lossless output!" in the advertising...

Why? Seriously... before the first 1.1 deck announcement (Denon?) why would cutomers have been "looking for it"?

The Xbox comparison doesn't work, and you know it.


Any 1.1-capable deck with an ethernet port is almost certainly 2.0 capable as well. I'd be surprised to see a player with an ethernet port advertised as 1.1 but not 2.0...


OK, but that's not what I asked, unless you suggest that all 1.1 players also have an ethernet port. Are you saying that's the case? If not, are people going to think that their new $1200 Final Standard Profile player is really... well... "Final"?

Or are we going to go thru the same game until the first real "Live" profile player, and then it will be revealed that this second round of customers were never told about "Final Advanced Profile"?

I am not trying to be disrespectful here and I think we all value ALL the insiders' input, but I thought there was a new rule about not going out of your way to intentionally bash the opposing sides format, and that it was the BD insiders that wanted this? :confused:

Does this not seem right that you are doing this still?

Again, I do not want you to feel I am attacking or being disrespectful but I think this rule should be honored by all insiders if Amir should be held to honor it. Am I wrong for thinking this way?


Where's the bashing I just see the truthfullness!!! :confused:

:D

I guess I am confused over what point you have made in the past, and what point you are now making.My primary point is that having 20GB of extra guaranteed-available space on the disc and the bandwidth to effectively make use of it accessible by all consumers greatly reduces the need to deliver extra content via a network connection which inherently drastically reduces the audience available to consume this content.
So if not having mandatory storage the player makes a feature "useless," tell me again how BD profile 1.1 and 2.0 are not useless without mandatory storage in the customer's player? Has your arugment changed now that the above memory is no longer mandatory in BD players?The capability to support 1GB is still mandatory; for any players which might ship without this memory onboard, 1GB via memory card or USB stick is about a $10 investement today which I would consider far less of an impediment than actually providing network connectivity to the player in the first place.

OK, but that's not what I asked, unless you suggest that all 1.1 players also have an ethernet port. Are you saying that's the case? If not, are people going to think that their new $1200 Final Standard Profile player is really... well... "Final"?

Or are we going to go thru the same game until the first real "Live" profile player, and then it will be revealed that this second round of customers were never told about "Final Advanced Profile"?Don't you think whether a player has a network connection is at least as conspicuous a feature as 5.1/7.1 analog output support or built-in TrueHD decoding or HDMI 1.3 support? Why do you not trust the consumer to know that a title with network-connected features would require both a player that supports connectivity and actually providing connectivity to it, as opposed to assuming that this is a feature which "just works"?

The capability to support 1GB is still mandatory; for any players which might ship without this memory onboard, 1GB via memory card or USB stick is about a $10 investement today which I would consider far less of an impediment than actually providing network connectivity to the player in the first place.
Now this is starting to make sense:

"both the DVD-3800BDCI and DVD-2500BTCI feature SD card readers that offer users a new level of full interactivity with multiple opportunities for content providers to add enhanced content such as movie trailers, games and more.

Additional information (subtitles, audio streams, camera angles, trailers, games, etc.) can be downloaded from the Internet via computer and stored on a SD card that either player will accept. This content can be played with the original content of Blu-ray Discs."

My primary point is that having 20GB of extra guaranteed-available space on the disc and the bandwidth to effectively make use of it accessible by all consumers greatly reduces the need to deliver extra content via a network connection which inherently drastically reduces the audience available to consume this content.
The capability to support 1GB is still mandatory;
Well, in that sense then, the "capability" to have unlimited storage in HD DVD is mandatory too because we have an Ethernet port.

for any players which might ship without this memory onboard, 1GB via memory card or USB stick is about a $10 investement today which I would consider far less of an impediment than actually providing network connectivity to the player in the first place.
Hey, you got me thinking :p. I just did a quick price check and you can get a 500 gigabyte hard disc for $120. So then, with the price difference between cheapest BD player and cheapest HD DVD player, I can buy two of these and get 1 Terabyte of storage.

With that much storage, I can download 600 lossless tracks for my movies and still break even with BD format. I can also download a ton of interactive extras which get to have their bandwidth. I can use managed copy in the future and use the network jack to get to them without spending another cent.

So as you see, my point is well made in that you are now arguing the same points I used to make. So you can call me your “friend” and truly mean it this time :D.

Now this is starting to make sense:

"both the DVD-3800BDCI and DVD-2500BTCI feature SD card readers that offer users a new level of full interactivity with multiple opportunities for content providers to add enhanced content such as movie trailers, games and more.

Additional information (subtitles, audio streams, camera angles, trailers, games, etc.) can be downloaded from the Internet via computer and stored on a SD card that either player will accept. This content can be played with the original content of Blu-ray Discs."

Far too convoluted compared to Ethernet connectivity based on the target audience of this feature. If you're asking people to get content on the Internet, and then 'sneaker-net' it over to the player, why not just simplify an error-prone human operation and hook the player up to the Internet in the first place?

Why place the burden on the user to provide a low-cost portable storage medium, when the easier solution could've been accomplished (NIC + 1GB RAM) in the player at probably the same price?

Ethernet connectivity is commonplace with many of the receivers these very units will be hooked up to.

Definitely not well thought-out at all. :confused:

Amir and Talkstr8t are so cute when they get like this... :)

I have a question though. I believe Amir has said in the past that he actually does own a BD standalone. Talk, do you own an HD DVD player?

Far too convoluted compared to Ethernet connectivity based on the target audience of this feature. If you're asking people to get content on the Internet, and then 'sneaker-net' it over to the player, why not just simplify an error-prone human operation and hook the player up to the Internet in the first place?

Why place the burden on the user to provide a low-cost portable storage medium, when the easier solution could've been accomplished (NIC + 1GB RAM) in the player at probably the same price?

Ethernet connectivity is commonplace with many of the receivers these very units will be hooked up to.

Definitely not well thought-out at all. :confused:
I wasn't saying that the design itself necessarily makes sense, just the purpose for the SD slot. But to take issue with your comment, while ethernet connectivity on AVRs/pre-pros may be "commonplace" (in quotes because I haven't seen data), a home network is not commonplace among the people who do NOT frequent AVS.

Don't you think whether a player has a network connection is at least as conspicuous a feature as 5.1/7.1 analog output support or built-in TrueHD decoding or HDMI 1.3 support? Why do you not trust the consumer to know that a title with network-connected features would require both a player that supports connectivity and actually providing connectivity to it, as opposed to assuming that this is a feature which "just works"?

I'm not sure what's getting lost here.

My question: Now that 1.1 (aka Final Standard Profile) players are starting to be announced, and J6P is finally learning such a thing exists (after having already spent his $$$), is "Live/2.0" profile going to be "on the down low" now, so as not to freeze 1.1 sales?

Your answer: I expect just about every 1.1 player with a net port to be upgradable to Live

My response: OK, does that mean you expect all 1.1 players to have net jacks? Otherwise you aren't addressing my question.

Your response: Don't you think network jacks are just as obvious as other features?


This seems like you are deflecting. There have been players since Day 1 with network jacks. And you can un-doubtedly check between a players legs to see if it has one. But those early net-enabled players AREN'T gong to be Live compliant, and there's nothing guaranteeing what percentage of 1.1. players will have net jacks, or will be compliant, other than your guess.

It's great if you feel that 100% of 1.1. players with ethernet will be upgradeable to 2.0. But that might be only 50% of the total 1.1 players sold. Or 15%.

And none of that answers the original question: now that disclosure about 1.1 has been forced by deck announcements, will 2.0 be handled just as poorly the same way?

I wasn't saying that the design itself necessarily makes sense, just the purpose for the SD slot. But to take issue with your comment, while ethernet connectivity on AVRs/pre-pros may be "commonplace" (in quotes because I haven't seen data), a home network is not commonplace among the people who do NOT frequent AVS.

I think the millions of X360 and PS3 owners out there beg to differ, along with the vast majority of Internet-connected households.

Your perception of home networking is somewhat dated, I suspect, and it certainly doesn't match Sony's and Microsoft's expectations when they designed their consoles.

Frankly, how much could it have possibly cost to add a NIC into every BD player made? $1...$2?

Why do you not trust the consumer to know that a title with network-connected features would require both a player that supports connectivity and actually providing connectivity to it, as opposed to assuming that this is a feature which "just works"?


Are we talking about the same consumers who have DVD players connected to their HDTV's through a composite cable and think they are seeing 'high definition' visuals? Shouldn't we trust them to know that a title with HD resolution would require both a player that supports HD discs and actually providing a cable that can carry the HD signal to the HDTV, as opposed to assuming that it "just works"?

I wasn't saying that the design itself necessarily makes sense, just the purpose for the SD slot. But to take issue with your comment, while ethernet connectivity on AVRs/pre-pros may be "commonplace" (in quotes because I haven't seen data), a home network is not commonplace among the people who do NOT frequent AVS.

But it probably is commonplace among the people who really care about 7.1 lossless soundtracks in multiple languages.

I think the millions of X360 and PS3 owners out there beg to differ, along with the vast majority of Internet-connected households.

Your perception of home networking is somewhat dated, I suspect, and it certainly doesn't match Sony's and Microsoft's expectations when they designed their consoles.

Frankly, how much could it have possibly cost to add a NIC into every BD player made? $1...$2?
You are certainly quick and obviously have an incredibly long Friends & Family list. Amazing that they were all there to take your poll.

Your perception of my perception is groundless. Let's not be insulting; would you walk into a room full of strangers and talk to them like this? Well, maybe you would.

Leaping from my grouping of "people who do not frequent AVS" to "millions of X360 and PS3 owners" is a head-scratcher. Do you think they're the same group? :confused:

Are we talking about the same consumers who have DVD players connected to their HDTV's through a composite cable and think they are seeing 'high definition' visuals? Shouldn't we trust them to know that a title with HD resolution would require both a player that supports HD discs and actually providing a cable that can carry the HD signal to the HDTV, as opposed to assuming that it "just works"?
More convenient leaping occurring here as well. Or are you being facetious that consumers who have DVD players connected to their HDTV's through a composite cable and think they are seeing 'high definition' visuals would know that a title with HD resolution would require both a player that supports HD discs and actually providing a cable that can carry the HD signal to the HDTV? :confused:

But it probably is commonplace among the people who really care about 7.1 lossless soundtracks in multiple languages.
Now that makes sense. But won't most of them care more about the movie and not so much about "bonus content" especially that beyond what is already on the (BD) disc?

Well, in that sense then, the "capability" to have unlimited storage in HD DVD is mandatory too because we have an Ethernet port.Which ignores my point that, by my estimate, less than 20% of standalone HD DVD console owners have them network-connected, and hence making content available only via download loses a majority of your installed base relative to putting it on a disc which has sufficient capacity and bandwidth.

I have a question though. I believe Amir has said in the past that he actually does own a BD standalone. Talk, do you own an HD DVD player?Nope.

Now that makes sense. But won't most of them care more about the movie and not so much about "bonus content" especially that beyond what is already on the (BD) disc?

Isn't that really the magic question? At what point do we start seeing diminishing returns comparing cost vs. features?

I consider enough bonus content - HD feature + >DD/DTS audio + 1 hour HD Bonus stuff. If that can fit on an HD-DVD at a reasonable cost to the studios and scale well to a mass market then why not just put the HD+ extended bonus content on the interwebs? Once it's out there, plugging a wire into the back of my player is preferable to downloading it to a jump drive and then plugging that into the player.

Which ignores my point that, by my estimate, less than 20% of standalone HD DVD console owners have them network-connected, and hence making content available only via download loses a majority of your installed base relative to putting it on a disc which has sufficient capacity and bandwidth.

Looks like there might be a market emerging for HD-DVD player wireless adapters:) I wish I had some connections in manufacturing. Sales would skyrocket if there is a cool feature on an HD-DVD and in the menu it just said "connect your player to the internet to access _______ feature".

And none of that answers the original question: now that disclosure about 1.1 has been forced by deck announcements, will 2.0 be handled the same way?I truly don't understand what you're asking for. Network connectivity (BD-Live) is an optional feature. It's up to a player manufacturer to include it or not as they see fit. I don't see why this optional feature should be handled differently than all the other optional features. BD-Live will not be a minimum platform requirement; FSP is. I appreciate and regret that the existence of FSP was not clear to the consumer until fairly recently, but don't think it's relevant to how BD-Live support is promoted.

Sales would skyrocket if there is a cool feature on an HD-DVD and in the menu it just said "connect your player to the internet to access _______ feature".

I'm not so sure about that.

Which ignores my point that, by my estimate, less than 20% of standalone HD DVD console owners have them network-connected, and hence making content available only via download loses a majority of your installed base relative to putting it on a disc which has sufficient capacity and bandwidth.
Let me ask you this. Six months prior to Apple releasing the iPod, do you think more than 20% of the people would have felt a need for such a product?

As they say, it is best to not look at your feet as you walk :p. Give people a reason to hook up their players, and they will do exactly that. Shame on both of us if we can't make interactivity so attractive that they would not do that....

Which ignores my point that, by my estimate, less than 20% of standalone HD DVD console owners have them network-connected, and hence making content available only via download loses a majority of your installed base relative to putting it on a disc which has sufficient capacity and bandwidth.
no disrespect meant, but this seems like a convenient argument when you are on the attack but when you are defending the various levels of profile players out there it is convenient for you to say, "they'll at least play the basic movie...and gracefully ignore the rest"

Let me ask you this. Six months prior to Apple releasing the iPod, do you think more than 20% of the people would have felt a need for such a product?

As they say, it is best to not look at your feet as you walk :p. Give people a reason to hook up their players, and they will do exactly that. Shame on both of us if we can't make interactivity so attractive that they would not do that....

This raises a good question. I have GIG-E wired (as well as wireless access) into my media room because I built it myself (and I am a computer security engineer). However, I cannot think of one single person that I know (outside of some 360 gamers) who has internet connectivity (wired ethernet) to their living room where their TV player and audio gear reside. I would say a decent percentage of these folks have wireless (since I helped them set it up and configure it usually).

Why don't we have more HD DVD and Blu-Ray players with dedicated wireless cards (PS3 is the only playback device that comes to mind)? Especially with HD DVD players which are using more and more web enabled features. Of course a home user could simply add a wireless bridge, but trust me, these can be a royal pain to setup and configure, especially for the average home user who is not computer savy.

Nope.
BTW, which BD player do you own?

Why don't we have more HD DVD and Blu-Ray players with dedicated wireless cards (PS3 is the only playback device that comes to mind)?
Three reasons:

1. Wireless is a moving target. Until they run out of alphabets to add to their standard, folks will use this as an excuse to not build it in.

2. Wireless cost a bit of money. Where Ethernet cost essentially nothing, wireless costs a few dollars.

3. Configuring wireless with security keys, etc. is a pain and liable to create support calls.

I personally think they should make it standard by the way.

I truly don't understand what you're asking for. Network connectivity (BD-Live) is an optional feature. It's up to a player manufacturer to include it or not as they see fit. I don't see why this optional feature should be handled differently than all the other optional features. BD-Live will not be a minimum platform requirement; FSP is. I appreciate and regret that the existence of FSP was not clear to the consumer until fairly recently, but don't think it's relevant to how BD-Live support is promoted.

OK, not trying to flog the proverbial dead equine here, but:

1) You regret how 1.1 was not disclosed in during the time that 1.0 players were being sold for a handsome price.

2) We are now in a situation where 1.1 players are being sold , and there doesn't seem to be much disclosure from the BDA that there is yet another profile that titles will be using coming down the pike. This would seem to be an analog of how #1 was handled.

3) Yet you feel there's no relevancy here? :confused:

Editorial: It would seem that the BDA Modus Operandi is to proclaim the current hardware the latest and greatest to the consumer, all the while silently planning titles that will use features from the next version. Unless of course, you want to go on record stating that no studios have any intention of using Live features.

What I'm asking for is probably that BDA guide you referenced close to a year ago that was supposedly going to put a logoing program in place so consumers had some idea what they would be getting? Or a reason why it's OK to do this again?


PS- Tsk, tsk quoting me in your reply and silently editing it...

You are certainly quick and obviously have an incredibly long Friends & Family list. Amazing that they were all there to take your poll.

Your perception of my perception is groundless. Let's not be insulting; would you walk into a room full of strangers and talk to them like this? Well, maybe you would.

Leaping from my grouping of "people who do not frequent AVS" to "millions of X360 and PS3 owners" is a head-scratcher. Do you think they're the same group? :confused:

At minimum it's disingenuous to deny that the millions of x360, Wii and PS3 buyers did know they were buying a device they could and would want to hook up to the Internet.

Your assumption that this knowledge is somehow limited to AVS is elitist and most definitely groundless.

Your characterization of life outside of AVS which you presented as fact, is dated and not supported by the evidence at hand. Evidence that points to millions of broadband users, millions of wi-fi access points sold in a multitude of electronics stores, and the marketing and engineering departments of all three major console manufacturers.

a.k.a. You are wrong.

Which ignores my point that, by my estimate, less than 20% of standalone HD DVD console owners have them network-connected, and hence making content available only via download loses a majority of your installed base relative to putting it on a disc which has sufficient capacity and bandwidth.Wasn't one of the arguments the BD folks put forward that "only a small fraction of people watch the extras anyway, just give us the movie!" (Especially when referring to titles like Batman Begins, and V for Vendetta). What percentage of people would you say care for the extra content you would put on the other 20GB?

Isn't that really the magic question? At what point do we start seeing diminishing returns comparing cost vs. features?

I consider enough bonus content - HD feature + >DD/DTS audio + 1 hour HD Bonus stuff. If that can fit on an HD-DVD at a reasonable cost to the studios and scale well to a mass market then why not just put the HD+ extended bonus content on the interwebs? Once it's out there, plugging a wire into the back of my player is preferable to downloading it to a jump drive and then plugging that into the player.
Part of the cost associated with that interweb content is the establishing and maintaining the content. How long would it be left up? I think not indefinitely, which implies a limited period. As long as ONE new disc is sold per day it's left up? How about per week? Per month? At some point, it would/will disappear. No doubt, BD "extra" content would be subject to the same limitation, but downloading and storing it on a computer hard drive would give it life beyond the window of 'net availability.

Let me ask you this. Six months prior to Apple releasing the iPod, do you think more than 20% of the people would have felt a need for such a product?

As they say, it is best to not look at your feet as you walk :p. Give people a reason to hook up their players, and they will do exactly that. Shame on both of us if we can't make interactivity so attractive that they would not do that....

Would be a great feature if i can hook up my iPod to the Toshiba's usb port and download the soundtrack....

At minimum it's disingenuous to deny that the millions of x360, Wii and PS3 buyers did know they were buying a device they could and would want to hook up to the Internet.

Your assumption that this knowledge is somehow limited to AVS is elitist and most definitely groundless.

Your characterization of life outside of AVS which you presented as fact, is dated and not supported by the evidence at hand. Evidence that points to millions of broadband users, millions of wi-fi access points sold in a multitude of electronics stores, and the marketing and engineering departments of all three major console manufacturers.

a.k.a. You are wrong.
That is your opinion, just as is everything you've stated as fact is merely your opinion. Got some links to your "evidence?" Bear in mind that "broadband users" do not necessarily have a "network." They have a cable/DSL modem connected via ethernet to their computer, as in one computer.

Looks like there might be a market emerging for HD-DVD player wireless adapters:) I wish I had some connections in manufacturing. Sales would skyrocket if there is a cool feature on an HD-DVD and in the menu it just said "connect your player to the internet to access _______ feature".

It's called a wireless bridge -- they are readily available these days. I've two HD DVD players in two setups and each has a bridge (each bridge also has three additional switch ports for adding devices -- like maybe a Profile 2.0 BD player some day:)!)

That is your opinion, just as is everything you've stated as fact is merely your opinion. Got some links to your "evidence?" Bear in mind that "broadband users" do not necessarily have a "network." They have a cable/DSL modem connected via ethernet to their computer, as in one computer.

I'm sure Amir has more current information, but as an example a simple search yielded a count of 4 Million Xbox Live subscribers as of last Thanksgiving. Surely it's safe to assume most PS3 owners have theirs on the Internet as well with their much-ballyhooed built-in wi-fi?

Are you seriously going to argue those people don't also have a computer?

It's called a wireless bridge -- they are readily available these days. I've two HD DVD players in two setups and each has a bridge (each bridge also has three additional switch ports for adding devices -- like maybe a Profile 2.0 BD player some day:)!)

I have a similar setup where my den uses a linksys wireless bridge which feeds an 8 port switch to connect my 360 elite, my xa2, my yamaha vx2700 avr and my htpc ... My media room presently uses a linksys bridge w/built in switch to feed my xa1, 360 and htpc

Works just fine

Btw, everyone I know that has broadband access also has a wireless network setup

BTW, which BD player do you own?A PS3 and a Vaio FZ190.

We are now in a situation where 1.1 players are being sold , and there doesn't seem to be much disclosure from the BDA that there is yet another profile that titles will be using coming down the pike. This would seem to be an analog of how #1 was handled.

Yet you feel there's no relevancy here?Internet connectivity is an optional feature. HDMI 1.3 is an optional feature. 5.1/7.1 analog output is an optional feature. TrueHD decoding support is an optional feature. Discs may provide content which requires one or more of these optional features. Why is connectivity different than the other features? It's up to the consumer to choose which features they desire in a player.
What I'm asking for is probably that BDA guide you referenced close to a year ago that was supposedly going to put a logoing program in place so consumers had some idea what they would be getting?There will be a BD-Live logo.
Tsk, tsk quoting me in your reply and silently editing it...I generally edit quoted text for brevity; I certainly don't do so to change the meaning or context of what's quoted. If I inadvertantly did so I apologize.

Wasn't one of the arguments the BD folks put forward that "only a small fraction of people watch the extras anyway, just give us the movie!"Perhaps some people did; it's certainly not the official opinion of the BDA.
What percentage of people would you say care for the extra content you would put on the other 20GB?Close to 100% where that extra content consists of multiple lossless audio tracks, multiple edits enabled by seamless branching, liberal use of peak video rates, etc. Judging by posts here, I'd guess that less than 1/3 of viewers (of either format) routinely spend much time viewing content beyond the primary feature.

A PS3 and a Vaio FZ190.
You should buy a stand alone of each and see how the BD side works. I won't even buy 2 of my favorite movies on BD because of how poorly they operate.

Internet connectivity is an optional feature. HDMI 1.3 is an optional feature. 5.1/7.1 analog output is an optional feature. TrueHD decoding support is an optional feature. Discs may provide content which requires one or more of these optional features. Why is connectivity different than the other features? It's up to the consumer to choose which features they desire in a player.

Because there's no understanding that there are optional features for future profiles. Today somebody can look at the RCA jacks and know there's analog options on that deck. They can see the HDMI 1.3 on a different deck, and know that it exists. IOW, there is DISCLOSURE or LOGO and VERSIONING info for every example you mentioned.

Not so for BD profiles. There is no disclosure that the machine they have won't do PiP. There is no indication that those top-of-the-line Sony's will never be enabled for Live. And now people are going to buy "FINAL Standard Profile" machines thinking they were smart to wait until this all shook out. Whoops...

And quite frankly, if the situation you describe is just fine (as your examples seem to indicate), why in the world did you just express "regret" over the way profiles have been handled thus far?


There will be a BD-Live logo.

Forgive my cynicism, but when? Right after Live decks come out?


I generally edit quoted text for brevity; I certainly don't do so to change the meaning or context of what's quoted. If I inadvertantly did so I apologize.

Ah, it was an attempt at levity. You snipped my little shot I took at this whole mess... we're square.

I have a similar setup where my den uses a linksys wireless bridge which feeds an 8 port switch to connect my 360 elite, my xa2, my yamaha vx2700 avr and my htpc ... My media room presently uses a linksys bridge w/built in switch to feed my xa1, 360 and htpc

Works just fine

Btw, everyone I know that has broadband access also has a wireless network setup

I'm hybrid -- hardwired for my PC's and wireless AP for my portable notebook and two bridges :)! My AP is normally off and it's WPA-PSK(AES) w/o SSID broadcast when it's on -- some might think me paranoid, but I just view it as careful :)!

More convenient leaping occurring here as well. Or are you being facetious that consumers who have DVD players connected to their HDTV's through a composite cable and think they are seeing 'high definition' visuals would know that a title with HD resolution would require both a player that supports HD discs and actually providing a cable that can carry the HD signal to the HDTV? :confused:

buh?

Sounded facetious to me :)

There will be a BD-Live logo. Will there be a vendor and public education program to educate them about this icon? Sort of like the iconic NO-BS icon that will be applied to 1.0 and 1.1 players?

Three reasons:

1. Wireless is a moving target. Until they run out of alphabets to add to their standard, folks will use this as an excuse to not build it in.

2. Wireless cost a bit of money. Where Ethernet cost essentially nothing, wireless costs a few dollars.

3. Configuring wireless with security keys, etc. is a pain and liable to create support calls.

I personally think they should make it standard by the way.

I don't think they do, but can the Toshiba players take USB wireless keys?

I don't think they do, but can the Toshiba players take USB wireless keys?
In theory, yes. In practice probably not because you need to have UI to program the darn thing....

It's called a wireless bridge -- they are readily available these days. I've two HD DVD players in two setups and each has a bridge (each bridge also has three additional switch ports for adding devices -- like maybe a Profile 2.0 BD player some day:)!)

Sure, that's the geek way to do it (I wired an access point in the equipment closet to extend my wireless network, and at the same time have my 360 hard wired), but I was thinking along the lines of a single purpose/user friendly plug and play device for the masses.

I wasn't saying that the design itself necessarily makes sense, just the purpose for the SD slot. But to take issue with your comment, while ethernet connectivity on AVRs/pre-pros may be "commonplace" (in quotes because I haven't seen data), a home network is not commonplace among the people who do NOT frequent AVS.

I know TONS of people who have both Ethernet wiring AND wireless access who do not even know that SD DVD is not HD. :p

Almost anyone with a laptop computer has a wireless network in their house. It almost like saying that most people who don't read PC magazine do not have internet access.

You can get a Linksys Wireless game adapter for $40.00 here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AJVBW/002-2993846-4939236?n=172282

What I THINK The Denon might be doing is POSSIBLY requiring you to supply that 1GB of memory yourself now that TalkStr8t is saying the player doesn't have to have the memory onboard. This would be ridiculous for a $2,000.00 player don't you think? :p

A PS3 and a Vaio FZ190.

Does Sony even ALLOW their people to own a HD DVD player? :D :p

TalkStr8t:

I am curious about this BD-Live logo. When will it be out and do you have a logo for 1.1 (Final standard profile) too?

For the sake of the A/V geek impaired, will there be logos put on the outside of the player boxes with the Red Circle with the line over these logos (like the international No Smoking type red circle) to easily let the consumer tell WHICH BD players do what "optional" features?

I think this more be important for your potential customers and to save a long of argry customers from calling BD studios wondering WHY they cannot play this feature listed on the back of the cases. Just a thought you might want to pass on to the powers that be. ;)

Does Sony even ALLOW their people to own a HD DVD player? :D :p

FWIW, Talk does not work for Sony.

The cheapest Samsung player was $1000 and it went up from there. So what that the BOM cost was $675? How much profit do you think they should have made? 40%+ margin is not good enough?There are more costs than just the BOM and I rather doubt you know the profit margin on the Samsung BD-P1000. Also I was simply saying that there was a logical reason for why the Blu-ray player profiles were made.


Just like discs, you should demand that they give you the full functionality, even if they had to lose money, let alone make a bit less profit.CE companies can't afford to lose money on a CE product with the few exceptions being those CE companies that can make up for it later with royalties. For instance consumers could demand that Samsung sell a full featured $100 universal player but unless Samsung can make a profit on it they aren't going to do it.


As it is, you are left defending this silly proposition of a more expensive product doing less than its competition.In my opinion both Blu-ray and HD DVD have advantages at the moment and personally I just prefer the advantages of Blu-ray.


There is no announced title for TL-51.Okay, but do you expect TL51 titles to be released?


I think what Andy means is that you have 5 profiles because from content authoring point of view, now you need to accommodate every profile of the player with and without memory. In other words, in the field, you will have:

1. BD Profile 1.0 players
2. BD Profile 1.1 players with no memory
3. BD Profile 1.1. players with memory
4. BD Profile 2.0 players with no memory
5. BD profile 2.0 players with memory.

Just what they were thinking is beyond me....Consumers can run out of free persistent memory with a HD DVD player and because of that HD DVD content has to be able to handle situations were there isn't sufficient persistent memory. HD DVD content also has to be able to handle situations were there isn't a working internet connection. As such from the content authoring point of view such situations can occur with either HD format.


Indeed, I think we can make some of the look better even at lower rates with VC-1. Titles like POTC have obvious blocking artifacts which can be easily remedied in a re-encode.Amir, both POTC 1 (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/piratesofthecaribbeancurse.html) and POTC 2 (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/piratesofthecaribbeandeadmanschest.html) were considered reference quality by many reviewers so do you really want to start making negative claims against MPEG-4 AVC? Let me show you some of the MPEG-4 AVC reviews I have read:

Fine object detail is astounding and every blade of grass and speck of grime is visible in the background.
Skin imperfections, blowing sand, rustling brush, and tiny textures on buildings are all dazzling -- popping out of the screen with perfect depth and dimension. The lines of hair falling along the necks of cattle, the creases and cracks in the aborigines' few possessions, and the thousands of tiny scales on fish and reptiles can be counted and catalogued with absolute certainty.
Presented in 1080i utilizing the AVC MPEG-4 codec, 'Italy Revealed' showcases an astounding level of fine object detail, color vibrance, and contrast stability.
...
The architecture on display is as detailed as I've ever seen, with even the tiniest windows, blocks, and stone perfectly defined.
Presented in 1080p with the AVC MPEG-4 codec, this Blu-ray release release of 'Flags of Our Fathers' boasts a stunning picture quality that captures every nuance and detail of the film. The dark shadows of the battlefield have excellent black levels and shadow delineation, adding a nice level of dimension to the picture. Contrast levels and vivid colors also inject a natural sense of depth (even when the palette is muted during the washed out battle scenes). Fine object detail is phenomenal -- bullets kick up flecks of rock and dirt, individual fingers can be clearly counted on soldiers in the distance, and the textures of uniforms, netting, and stubble are wonderful.
...
In a side by side comparison of the film between the the AVC MPEG-4 transfer on this Blu-ray version and the VC-1 transfer on the HD DVD, it does seem that the Blu-ray/AVC encode is the tiniest bit sharper, while the HD DVD/VC-1 is the slightest bit softer.
Presented in 1080p using the AVC MPEG-4 codec, 'Hellboy' looks absolutely wonderful in this Blu-ray edition. The film's colors are extraordinarily robust, and this transfer handles reds and blues with particular confidence. More importantly, the palette doesn't look artificial -- textures are very stable and fine object detail is top notch.
Presented in 1080p utilizing the AVC MPEG-4 codec, 'Freedom Writers' is a welcome treat for the eyes with a surprisingly high picture quality. Colors are vibrant, skintones are fresh and warm, and black levels add a realistic dimension to the image that looks great. I was particularly impressed with the transfer's rendering of fine object detail -- book titles are clearly visible from afar, individual blades of grass are well defined, and the texture of the desks in the classroom is convincing.
It's super-sharp, with most wide shots completely in focus, which lends it a real crayon-and-construction paper look. Many close-ups of animal fur and skins are breathtaking, and I could count the individual strands on the backside of Boog.
The superlatives of this 2.40:1 widescreen 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 transfer are many. Disney has opted, of course, for a BD-50 dual-layer disc, so there are plenty of bits to go around. The result is an image of wonderful depth and realism. 'Curse of the Black Pearl' is almost equal parts bright daylight scenes and deep, dark interiors, and I was really amazed how adroitly both are rendered. The supple contrast and rich, inky blacks give the image fantastic pop. Shadow delineation matches any reference benchmark yet set, with even the darkest blacks still revealing small, subtle details and fine textures.
Happily, when it comes to picture quality, 'Dead Man's Chest' is every bit 'Pearl's equal -- in fact, it's even a bit more impressive in some respects. Though both films share a completely consistent visual look, 'Dead Man's Chest' is filled with even more spectacular nighttime setpieces and all manner of squishy, half-rotted supernatural creatures. This transfer is more than up to the challenge, setting a new benchmark for detail and dimensionality.
Blacks and contrast are fantastic -- the image is always completely smooth and consistent across the entire grayscale. And even though the film's visual style sometimes leans towards a darker, almost Tim Burton-esque aesthetic, shadow delineation is excellent. Fine details never get lost into the murk, giving the transfer a wonderful sense of depth and true three-dimensionality. For example, there is a breathtaking overhead shot early on of a train cutting through the countryside, where the level of detail blew me away.
Fine object detail is great -- the underbrush of the African jungles is crisp, water ripples are sharply defined, and tiny floating debris is well-rendered. Skin and hair are impressive and a high level of texture detail makes every piece of clothing seem three dimensional.
Blacks are excellent -- this is one dark movie -- but detail holds up smashingly well, with excellent shadow delineation and often tremendous depth.

FWIW, Talk does not work for Sony.

I know. ;) It was a joke.

Amir,

Any idea why Planet Earth was released with a 1080i/AVC encode for the US Version when there was already a 1080p/VC-1 encode on the BBC Version? How much of the quality difference is due to 1080i vs 1080p as opposed to AVC vs. VC-1? Wasn't the original footage all 1080p?

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/planetearth_us.html

The bad news, however, is twofold. Though evident in the original BBC/Warner releases as well, this US version has a much harder time resolving fine detail in dark scenes, where video noise often runs rampant. Some nighttime sequences look a bit more blurry and flat compared to the rest of the program. Blacks can also appear a bit gray in these scenes, and contrast doesn't have nearly the same pop as the brilliant majority of 'Planet Earth.'

Even more troubling is that Discovery's US edition has more obvious noise and edginess. For example, during the penultimate episode "Earth's Forests," there is a breathtaking scene tracking a redwood all the way from trunk to tree-top. On the BBC/Warner encode, the image is generally solid, with no apparent jaggies. The Discovery version, however, has unfortunate jitter, and some slight pixelization is evident.

Simply put, this 1080i encode is clearly the inferior choice given the source material, and it's certainly enough to knock a full star off the Video rating for the US version. For the complete 'Planet Earth' video experience, the BBC edition remains unmatched.

Consumers can run out of free persistent memory with a HD DVD player and because of that HD DVD content has to be able to handle situations were there isn't sufficient persistent memory.
Yup. BD has to handle this situation in addition to the five profiles.

Amir, do you really want to start making negative claims against MPEG-4 AVC? Let me show you some of the MPEG-4 AVC reviews I have read:
I didn't say a word about AVC. I simply said it has blocking artifacts. Do you dispute that? Please say yes. Because I then get to post the timecodes for people to go and find :).

[...]
Amir, both POTC 1 (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/piratesofthecaribbeancurse.html) and POTC 2 (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/piratesofthecaribbeandeadmanschest.html) were considered reference quality by many reviewers so do you really want to start making negative claims against MPEG-4 AVC? Let me show you some of the MPEG-4 AVC reviews I have read:

You can go look at the screenshot thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10744561&postcount=649) and see for yourself how well POTC stands up to scrutiny. It's not as flawless as you think.

You can go look at the screenshot thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10744561&postcount=649) and see for yourself how well POTC stands up to scrutiny. It's not as flawless as you think.

As usual, you all are a step in front of me :). There are worse examples than one shown but hopefully Richard gets the picture. Pun intended. :D

As usual, you all are a step in front of me :). There are worse examples than one shown but hopefully Richard gets the picture. Pun intended. :D

Right. The point that seems to have been missed is that when you are dealing with over 20Mb/s on an encode with ANY advanced codecs, a difference of 19 Mb/s peak bitrate means far less than the quality of the encode itself.

I don't quite get why all the fuss is made with BD exclusive titles hovering around their peak bitrates so often. People don't seem to understand that when you encode a movie, it is a variable bitrate encode - meaning you essentially set your limits and the software encodes within those limits. I fail to see how this is often a platform for arguing that Disney etc obviously needs those bitrates for the quality they achieve.

I didn't say a word about AVC. I simply said it has blocking artifacts. Do you dispute that?No, but do you dispute what I said? For instance would you be willing to claim that all of the reference quality encodings reviewed on High-Def Digest using VC-1 are completely flawless?


You can go look at the screenshot thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10744561&postcount=649) and see for yourself how well POTC stands up to scrutiny. It's not as flawless as you think.When have I ever said that a reference quality encoding had to be completely flawless? In fact how many of the reference quality encodings reviewed on High-Def Digest do you think are completely flawless?

I think VC1 does a good balancing act to give great quality but also efficiency to fit long content in the available 30Gb

With TL51 there is more space so there is far less neccesity to lower the average bitrate to circumvent the space constraint.

Is it logical to assume that peak bitrate gets less critical with a higher average bitrate?

I don't think so. If the peak bitrate limit is the same, then artifacts caused by hitting that limit will show up in those situations. The biggest benefit of TL would be very long movies combined with non-parallel material, such as HD extras, etc.

I agree VC-1 can look fantatstic. But it seems like there are always limitations to be worked around with the peak bitrate limit (adding mulitiple lossless; or even 1 lossless + multiple high quality audio tracks (for foreign markets, mostly); plus PiP; plus seamless branching, etc. Plus most of the great VC-1 encodes I've seen or read about are of fairly easy material to encode; not many 1.85:1 movies, not many noisy or grainy transfers, etc. I'm not saying these don't exist, but the common examples of how great VC-1 looks on HD DVD are usually new, clean transfers, mostly 2:35:1, and sometimes without lossless audio (Kong).

Blazing Saddles ring a bell? Have you HEARD the soundtrack for KK? It sounds amazing no matter what it is. You must have read that exchange between FilmMixer and another poster about DD+ 24bit 1.5mbps being virtually indistinguishable from the masters right?

Maybe there are ahrd limits that they BD spec does not have but are we really just talking about something 0.02% of the people could see or hear? Ask most consumers if they are willing to pay twice the price for that small of a difference? Even better, show them the difference and ask it they would pay twice the money for the difference they saw IF any.

Blazing Saddles ring a bell?Haven't seen it on HD DVD or BD, so I can't comment. Would you characterize it as a noisy or grainy film (been a long time since I've seen it). Have you HEARD the soundtrack for KK? Yes. Today as a matter of fact. It does sound good, but that really isn't the point (one example). Having room for lossless eliminates any theorectical or audiophile type discussions and allows a marketing bullet. Wouldn't it be nice to just have it and be done with it? Move on to other topics?

Blazing Saddles ring a bell? Have you HEARD the soundtrack for KK? It sounds amazing no matter what it is. You must have read that exchange between FilmMixer and another poster about DD+ 24bit 1.5mbps being virtually indistinguishable from the masters right?

Maybe there are ahrd limits that they BD spec does not have but are we really just talking about something 0.02% of the people could see or hear? Ask most consumers if they are willing to pay twice the price for that small of a difference? Even better, show them the difference and ask it they would pay twice the money for the difference they saw IF any.

I believe any sane person accepts that both formats can given excellent results. The differences are perhaps noticable in 0.6 seconds of an entire movie. Said differences are also a draw between both formats. Sometimes br is marginally better and sometimes HD DVD is.

The value in br higher bitrate is an advantage as less compressionist time is required.

[...]When have I ever said that a reference quality encoding had to be completely flawless? In fact how many of the reference quality encodings reviewed on High-Def Digest do you think are completely flawless?

I think we all know what you meant in the context of the discussion. You were disputing Amir's assertion that he could possibly improve on POTC, calling it 'reference quality'.

I don't see any claims from Amir beyond that.

Are you disputing the fact that it can be improved? I don't see what Disney has to lose by letting him try. :confused:

CE companies can't afford to lose money on a CE product with the few exceptions being those CE companies that can make up for it later with royalties. For instance consumers could demand that Samsung sell a full featured $100 universal player but unless Samsung can make a profit on it they aren't going to do it.
Sony lost 30.9-Billion Yen in 2006 from their Consumer Electronics division. (link (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/ar/2006/qfhh7c00000aksvu-att/qfhh7c00000aksx9.pdf)) There's no way that's from Blu-ray, but that's not stopping Sony from creating more TVs, DVD players, Computers, etc. and filling them with features and pricing them competitively. The point is, and you only need to look over the next 6-weeks to prove it, CE companies are trying to release products which they know won't meet standards which are set, and have been known for months. Instead they drop out entire new lines of products and talk about all the interactivity features that these products DON'T support. They're acting with their own best interests in mind, not the consumers. And before you chime in with 'it's just business', I work in retail, I have a degree in retail management, I know that consumers ARE your business so if you're not acting with their best interests in mind, you'll only end up alienating them or upsetting them later.

Blu-ray companies are acting like used car salesmen, they sell you on all the things that a car does, but leave out that the car you're buying can't.

In theory, yes. In practice probably not because you need to have UI to program the darn thing....

I have a old wireless bridge that I used on my PS2 when I wanted to get wireless. To set it up, you had to plug it into a PC directly and run software which you could then set the keys and settings, then it used those when you plugged it into the console.

So would it be possible for Toshiba to make a USB key which uses a computer to configure the settings that they could sell to upgrade the box to wireless? Or do you think that there would be an increased demand for bridges for consumer electronics? Or do you think that more people will hardwire their home theatres?

Theoretical:

Knowing from a number of sources that have posted in the past, that graphs showing increase in PQ vs bitrate above 20-23 Mb/s are nearly vertical - Does anyone here honestly believe that if there were a new format that had a Peak bitrate of 67 Mb/s they would be able to see an improvement compared to Blu-ray's peak of 48? Oh and you aren't allowed to pause-zoom or screen-grab pixel hunt.

I realize there is a group of people on AVS that will always prefer the format that has higher numbers on paper regardless of cost, features, or anything else - even if nobody can tell a difference in normal viewing situations. But at what point does the bitrate argument finally become recognized for the last-ditch desperate BD marketing effort that it is?

I know TONS of people who have both Ethernet wiring AND wireless access who do not even know that SD DVD is not HD. :p
I think we are/were both generalizing to make our points. :)

Almost anyone with a laptop computer has a wireless network in their house. It almost like saying that most people who don't read PC magazine do not have internet access.

You can get a Linksys Wireless game adapter for $40.00 here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AJVBW/002-2993846-4939236?n=172282
If you read Amir's comments on WiFi you'll get the jist of why they're not keen on it for HD-DVD internet connections.

What I THINK The Denon might be doing is POSSIBLY requiring you to supply that 1GB of memory yourself now that TalkStr8t is saying the player doesn't have to have the memory onboard. This would be ridiculous for a $2,000.00 player don't you think? :p
Ready for my answer? . . . YES . . but it wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker for me. What *would* be is a $2k price tag. That sucka better do everything perfectly including pulling a mean shot of espresso. Reviews will be necessary, but it's got a helluva wall to climb IMO.

If you read Amir's comments on WiFi you'll get the jist of why they're not keen on it for HD-DVD internet connections.
Hey, keep me out of this argument :). I didn't say anything about HD DVD. I simply answered why CE companies in general don't include wifi in thier products.

Hey, keep me out of this argument :). I didn't say anything about HD DVD. I simply answered why CE companies in general don't include wifi in thier products.
I stand corrected then; your comments were re CE in general and not HD-DVD-specific. :)

Haven't seen it on HD DVD or BD, so I can't comment. Would you characterize it as a noisy or grainy film (been a long time since I've seen it).

Yeah, it's an older film. Not sure that was the best example to use. Still a great movie though. A Mel Brooks classic.

Yes. Today as a matter of fact. It does sound good, but that really isn't the point (one example). Having room for lossless eliminates any theorectical or audiophile type discussions and allows a marketing bullet. Wouldn't it be nice to just have it and be done with it? Move on to other topics?

Except remember we are the minority. 10 people on this forum talking about whether lossless was necessary in KK doesn't amount to anything in the eyes of a studio. If it was a matter of bitrate and this whole bandwidth thing, and it was that important for Universal to get a lossless track on it, they could have dropped the bitrate to allow for it and still got a great picture?

The real answer is who knows why they decided to do DD+. And I don't think we'll ever know.

Are there any BD partisans questioning if lossless is necessary?

Doesn't AACS limit the use of WiFi or wireless connections in general?

Almost anyone with a laptop computer has a wireless network in their house. It almost like saying that most people who don't read PC magazine do not have internet access.

You can get a Linksys Wireless game adapter for $40.00 here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AJVBW/002-2993846-4939236?n=172282



Long time Reader, first time poster.. and this is WAY off the beaten path I think..

I have an A2, my cable modem is connected to an airport express.. can I just plug my A2 ethernet port into an airport express and use it that way?

Doesn't AACS limit the use of WiFi or wireless connections in general?
I don't think anyone is sending the output of a player wirelessly to an AVR. WiFi is only being discussed as a connection to the internet for bonus content.

Long time Reader, first time poster.. and this is WAY off the beaten path I think..

I have an A2, my cable modem is connected to an airport express.. can I just plug my A2 ethernet port into an airport express and use it that way?

The Airport Express only has one Ethernet port. If your cable modem is plugged into it, how can you plug your A2 into it?

Feel free to PM me directly if you have more questions on this as I have multiple airport express routers in my house and can assist you if you have questions or need help.

....theorectical or audiophile type discussions.... Wouldn't it be nice to just .....be done with it? Move on to other topics?
*sigh* YES :(

Internet connectivity is an optional feature. HDMI 1.3 is an optional feature. 5.1/7.1 analog output is an optional feature. TrueHD decoding support is an optional feature. Discs may provide content which requires one or more of these optional features. Why is connectivity different than the other features? It's up to the consumer to choose which features they desire in a player.
There will be a BD-Live logo.
I generally edit quoted text for brevity; I certainly don't do so to change the meaning or context of what's quoted. If I inadvertantly did so I apologize.
So you are saying the consumer, while out shopping, will see rows of Blu Ray players and then have to decide which player to buy based on the features they will never want or simply can't afford? How does that work? I can't tell you what Blu Ray player supports what because its a moving target. Maybe it doesn't support a feature now but a FW update later and bingo it does. Or maybe not. Who Knows?

This ala carte feature/pricing strategy seems extremely consumer unfriendly. Isn't the real reason for it to keep player margins high? Why should the consumer have to decide which titles they have to sacrifice features they paid for in getting the movie?

This ala carte feature/pricing strategy seems extremely consumer unfriendly.I don't agree; I think more choice is good. That's one of the problems with HD DVD hardware at this point in it's life; if you don't like Tosh (for whatever reason) you're mostly out of luck. Everything available and announced (except for the even cheaper Chinese stuff) is either new Tosh, old Tosh, or based on the Tosh (except dual format players; Sammy & LG). BD offers a lot of choices, just like DVD and most other CE purchases. There are opportunities to shop for specific price points/features, etc, just like with receivers, displays etc.

I don't agree; I think more choice is good. That's one of the problems with HD DVD hardware at this point in it's life; if you don't like Tosh (for whatever reason) you're mostly out of luck. Everything available and announced (except for the even cheaper Chinese stuff) is either new Tosh, old Tosh, or based on the Tosh (except dual format players; Sammy & LG). BD offers a lot of choices, just like DVD and most other CE purchases. There are opportunities to shop for specific price points/features, etc, just like with receivers, displays etc.

more informed choice is good. which is the point.

I don't agree; I think more choice is good. That's one of the problems with HD DVD hardware at this point in it's life; if you don't like Tosh (for whatever reason) you're mostly out of luck. Everything available and announced (except for the even cheaper Chinese stuff) is either new Tosh, old Tosh, or based on the Tosh (except dual format players; Sammy & LG). BD offers a lot of choices, just like DVD and most other CE purchases. There are opportunities to shop for specific price points/features, etc, just like with receivers, displays etc.

Right. But what if you don't like spending a lot of money? What choice do you have then?

I don't agree; I think more choice is good. That's one of the problems with HD DVD hardware at this point in it's life; if you don't like Tosh (for whatever reason) you're mostly out of luck. Everything available and announced (except for the even cheaper Chinese stuff) is either new Tosh, old Tosh, or based on the Tosh (except dual format players; Sammy & LG). BD offers a lot of choices, just like DVD and most other CE purchases. There are opportunities to shop for specific price points/features, etc, just like with receivers, displays etc.

Branding is not what I'm referring to. Its what is the baseline for a Blu Ray player? Which one does everything I need? Blu Ray is putting an unnecessary burden on a consumer to learn what are the features currently available. How are they to decide what they want since most have never even seen the HD exclusive features? Which titles will I not be able to enjoy every feature I paid for because of my player selection?

Talk is putting it on the consumer to figure out what options a given Blu Ray player will support and then figure out if they might like that option enough to pay extra for it. And if they get it wrong, they miss out on great software features that differentiate HD from SD. I think you are asking way to much from the avg buyer.

Are there any BD partisans questioning if lossless is necessary?

This question is sort of apples and oranges. The BD spec doesn't mandate anything between legacy DD and uncompressed PCM. Without middle options like DD+ that may provide a transparent sound experience to the master (to the limits of your average human's hearing on equipment that people are likely to own), of course you'd advocate for lossless (in this case uncompressed) tracks.

With the option of a good lossy codec like DD+ as part of the mandatory spec, lossless becomes less important, though still desirable in theory. It is completely understandable why one camp would play it up more than the other if the alternatives aren't acceptable.

It is completely understandable why one camp would play it up more than the other if the alternatives aren't acceptable.
That is the source of every argument on this thread; one side sensing an advantage - real or imagined - and trying to ream the other with it. :)

Are there any BD partisans questioning if lossless is necessary?

I assume the point you're trying to make here is that BD 'partisans' don't even need to go down this path because they have (more) lossless audio tracks . . . and by extension that the reason this is true is that BD has higher storage and bitrate capabilities? I think you have a point, but I'm not sure how much it matters (in this particular case).

If there is little or no empirical evidence to suggest (I'll even remove the empirical qualifier here and simply say evidence since data of an empirical variety is expensive and difficult to come by) that lossless audio tracks (keeping in mind that not every PCM track is lossless if it has been 'clipped' down from 24 to 20 or 16 bits and that bit rates above 20 bits are -- if I understood some info on the Insider Thread accurately -- not practically reproducable or discernable from their 20 bit breathren) can actually be perceived by some significant percentage of listeners in a typical listening environment with typical equipment (by significant I mean 98% or 99% not 65% or 75%, and by typical I mean home A/V systems that are likely to be in place for A/V enthusiasts on a budget, not some customer $75k home theater), then the "point" of not having to worry about it, actually gets turned on its head a bit and the discussion becomes more of a mis-use of a potential advantage (as in: you filled up 10 GBs with lossless audio tracks that no one can distinguish from very good lossy tracks that take up 5 GBs . . . what a waste).

I think we all know what you meant in the context of the discussion. You were disputing Amir's assertion that he could possibly improve on POTC, calling it 'reference quality'.You assume to much and you are wrong about that. It looked to me like Amir had started smearing MPEG-4 AVC again, which I have seen him do many times over the last 2 years, and that is why I pointed out that POTC 1 and 2 were considered reference quality by many reviewers and why I posted a list of some of the better MPEG-4 AVC reviews. I never disputed that a better encoding could be made and many reference quality encodings, if not all of them, have some flaws. Also I notice that you never provided me that list of completely flawless encodings.


Are you disputing the fact that it can be improved? I don't see what Disney has to lose by letting him try. :confused:Well if Microsoft was going to do that for free without any strings attached I wouldn't see any reason to not let them do that either but was Amir offering to do that for Disney? Or was he simply making the claim that VC-1 could do a better job than MPEG-4 AVC?


Blu-ray companies are acting like used car salesmen, they sell you on all the things that a car does, but leave out that the car you're buying can't.I think that the Blu-ray companies should have been more open on the Blu-ray player profiles but I also think the HD DVD companies should have been more honest about the differences between 1080i60 output and 1080p24/60 output. After the vast majority of HDTVs can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal. Personally speaking I don't see a "good side" or a "bad side" in this format war and I support Blu-ray simply because it has several long term advantages that I consider important.

If there is little or no empirical evidence to suggest (I'll even remove the empirical qualifier here and simply say evidence since data of an empirical variety is expensive and difficult to come by) that lossless audio tracks (keeping in mind that not every PCM track is lossless if it has been 'clipped' down from 24 to 20 or 16 bits and that bit rates above 20 bits are -- if I understood some info on the Insider Thread accurately -- not practically reproducable or discernable from their 20 bit breathren) can actually be perceived by some significant percentage of listeners in a typical listening environment with typical equipment (by significant I mean 98% or 99% not 65% or 75%, and by typical I mean home A/V systems that are likely to be in place for A/V enthusiasts on a budget, not some customer $75k home theater), then the "point" of not having to worry about it, actually gets turned on its head a bit and the discussion becomes more of a mis-use of a potential advantage (as in: you filled up 10 GBs with lossless audio tracks that no one can distinguish from very good lossy tracks that take up 5 GBs . . . what a waste).
Unless it is displacing something important, why not included lossless, either compressed or uncompressed? If I read correctly elsewhere, Dolby and DTS don't charge for TrueHD and MA if the cores are licensed, so there is no additional cost to include them.

...


I think that the Blu-ray companies should have been more open on the Blu-ray player profiles but I also think the HD DVD companies should have been more honest about the differences between 1080i60 output and 1080p24/60 output. After the vast majority of HDTVs can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal. Personally speaking I don't see a "good side" or a "bad side" in this format war and I support Blu-ray simply because it has several long term advantages that I consider important.

Other than diagreeing with your premise (apples & oranges, IMO), did you mean that? Or 1080p60?

I think that the Blu-ray companies should have been more open on the Blu-ray player profiles but I also think the HD DVD companies should have been more honest about the differences between 1080i60 output and 1080p24/60 output. After the vast majority of HDTVs can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal. Personally speaking I don't see a "good side" or a "bad side" in this format war and I support Blu-ray simply because it has several long term advantages that I consider important.

All players say what level they support. I don't understand how you can be 'more honest' about 1080i, it's a broadcast standard and printed on the box. TVs are sold which only support 1080i, etc. No where on any Blu-ray box does it mention that it doesn't include an ethernet port but you get ads claiming features which rely on having that port.

You assume to much and you are wrong about that. It looked to me like Amir had started smearing MPEG-4 AVC again, which I have seen him do many times over the last 2 years, and that is why I pointed out that POTC 1 and 2 were considered reference quality by many reviewers and why I posted a list of some of the better MPEG-4 AVC reviews. I never disputed that a better encoding could be made and many reference quality encodings, if not all of them, have some flaws.

I haven't seen, nor do I care about your or Amir's past history on this site. His response was appropriate in the context of the conversation. All you did was put words in his mouth.

Also I notice that you never provided me that list of completely flawless encodings.

:rolleyes:

Well if Microsoft was going to do that for free without any strings attached I wouldn't see any reason to not let them do that either but was Amir offering to do that for Disney? Or was he simply making the claim that VC-1 could do a better job than MPEG-4 AVC?

Your feigned obtuseness fools no one.

Let's just move on.

Right. But what if you don't like spending a lot of money? What choice do you have then?

Neither format then. Have you seen the cost of the movies for either format?

[...]If I read correctly elsewhere, Dolby and DTS don't charge for TrueHD and MA if the cores are licensed, so there is no additional cost to include them.

Where? I've been looking and asking for this information, but I haven't been able to confirm it. Do you have a link?

TIA

Where? I've been looking and asking for this information, but I haven't been able to confirm it. Do you have a link?
Pierre - you may accept this as being an authoritative source, but this AVS post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10273178&postcount=27) is the first I've come up with while googling. I'm still looking . . . :)

Jeff

Pierre - you may accept this as being an authoritative source, but this AVS post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10273178&postcount=27) is the first I've come up with while googling. I'm still looking . . . :)

Jeff

It's if you get DD+ then TrueHD is free from what I remember. Same with DTS-HD and DTS-HD MA. And from comments it seemed like it was a 'for now' deal, not forever.

I support Blu-ray simply because it has several long term advantages that I consider important.In keeping with the undebatable nature of this statement I can safely state that many support the other format for the same reason.

Where? I've been looking and asking for this information, but I haven't been able to confirm it. Do you have a link?

TIA

According to amirm here, (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11456279#post11456279) the fee for DD+ or DTS allows for use of the lossless codecs without additional charge.

Neither format then. Have you seen the cost of the movies for either format?

I just heard about a great idea for a business. You go into a store or go to an internet website, select the movie you want, pay them, and either take the movie home or wait for it in the mail. After you finish, you either drop the movie off at the store or mail it back.

I don't know if anybody will take this idea and run with it, but it seems like a good idea.

Where would these sales be accurately tracked? Wasn't there some units vs. revenue the last time someone made a claim? It'd be nice to get an unbiased and accurate data source...

NPD releases numbers. The trick is getting someone to publish them.

At IFA Sony did use revenue. Perfectly valid way of presenting information. Using it at an event open to the public is, to be kind, a bit odd, to be kind, since it is of far more importance to other CE manufacturers than the public at large.

At CEDIA Sony used a week to week percentage of sales chart. More useful to the average person, but not as good as raw numbers. Of course, NPD wants more money if you are going to publish actual numbers; especially recent numbers like Sony needed to make their point. Toshiba countered this with the year to date numbers through July.

So, if you want the most accurate information, all you have to do is pony up the cash to NPD.

Here's a link to get you started. (http://www.npd.com/corpServlet?nextpage=corp_welcome.html)

:D

NPD releases numbers. The trick is getting someone to publish them.

At IFA Sony did use revenue. Perfectly valid way of presenting information. Using it at an event open to the public is, to be kind, a bit odd, to be kind, since it is of far more importance to other CE manufacturers than the public at large.

At CEDIA Sony used a week to week percentage of sales chart. More useful to the average person, but not as good as raw numbers. Of course, NPD wants more money if you are going to publish actual numbers; especially recent numbers like Sony needed to make their point. Toshiba countered this with the year to date numbers through July.

So, if you want the most accurate information, all you have to do is pony up the cash to NPD.

Here's a link to get you started. (http://www.npd.com/corpServlet?nextpage=corp_welcome.html)

:D

So you're saying they didn't have the money? I'm sure they could have taken out a loan or something. Their credit's good, right? They're Sony, after all. I'm sure they have a Platinum Visa or a Discover Card or something.

So you're saying they didn't have the money? I'm sure they could have taken out a loan or something. Their credit's good, right? They're Sony, after all. I'm sure they have a Platinum Visa or a Discover Card or something.

:D

Cost-benefit analysis. Is the gain of using raw numbers worth it? The answer is almost always going to be no. Toshiba also rarely uses real numbers other than estimates. It's amazing the money you can save by saying "We've sold about 180k units and they have sold 100k." as compared to "We have sold 178,349 and they have sold 100,234 units."

Media outlets will pay for the right to release sometimes because the benefit of getting attention and selling ads is worth the cost.

Other than diagreeing with your premise (apples & oranges, IMO), did you mean that?Well as seen in this Home Theater magazine article (http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/) the percentage of HDTVs that correctly handled a 1080i60 video signal was about 20% with 61 different 2006 model HDTVs. I believe that is the latest large scale test that has been done on the number of displays that can properly handle a 1080i60 video signal.


I haven't seen, nor do I care about your or Amir's past history on this site.I care mostly about the future and I just want to make sure that the smearing that has happened in the past against MPEG-4 AVC doesn't happen again.


All you did was put words in his mouth.I simply posted what he had done in the past and if you don't care about it why are you so angry that I mentioned it?


Your feigned obtuseness fools no one.My point was valid since it is easy to make boasts that VC-1 is superior to MPEG-4 AVC but from what I have seen both are capable of reference quality encodings.


Let's just move on.Sure, but note that I will defend MPEG-4 AVC against those that would smear it.

I just heard about a great idea for a business. You go into a store or go to an internet website, select the movie you want, pay them, and either take the movie home or wait for it in the mail. After you finish, you either drop the movie off at the store or mail it back.

I don't know if anybody will take this idea and run with it, but it seems like a good idea.

Wow. I guess stores should stop selling movies on DVD and HDM. Everybody is renting now. Nobody likes to buy movies. Now is the time to buy stock in Netflix and Blockbuster since they must be making money hand over fist.. Oh wait....

Sure, but note that I will defend MPEG-4 AVC against those that would smear it.

As president of the MPEG-4 AVC Anti-Defamation League, I can only say that the check is in the mail.

Amir, both POTC 1 (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/piratesofthecaribbeancurse.html) and POTC 2 (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/piratesofthecaribbeandeadmanschest.html) were considered reference quality by many reviewers so do you really want to start making negative claims against MPEG-4 AVC? Let me show you some of the MPEG-4 AVC reviews I have read:

impressive list of quotes. If you paid attention to the two insiders' threads, you would have known that Amir has people sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays to check on macro blockings. How many of your listed reviewers did that? Dont agree that that Amir's groups technique is MUCH MORE efficient in detecting such blockings? ;)

NPD releases numbers. The trick is getting someone to publish them.

At IFA Sony did use revenue. Perfectly valid way of presenting information. Using it at an event open to the public is, to be kind, a bit odd, to be kind, since it is of far more importance to other CE manufacturers than the public at large.

At CEDIA Sony used a week to week percentage of sales chart. More useful to the average person, but not as good as raw numbers. Of course, NPD wants more money if you are going to publish actual numbers; especially recent numbers like Sony needed to make their point. Toshiba countered this with the year to date numbers through July.

So, if you want the most accurate information, all you have to do is pony up the cash to NPD.

Here's a link to get you started. (http://www.npd.com/corpServlet?nextpage=corp_welcome.html)

:D

I agree with the bold print above, but only if the chart tells you what unit of measurement is being used to make the chart. If I recall, the chart said sales and everybody assumed that it was number of units. That was misleading. The chart should have said revenue so that we would have known it was not number of units sold.

Using Sony's method I could probably make a chart that shows Mercedes, Lexus and Infinity sells more cars than GMC and Ford here in the USA.

Well as seen in this Home Theater magazine article (http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/) the percentage of HDTVs that correctly handled a 1080i60 video signal was about 20% with 61 different 2006 model HDTVs. I believe that is the latest large scale test that has been done on the number of displays that can properly handle a 1080i60 video signal.



OK. You mentioned the concern over 1080i60 in contrast to 1080p signals:

I also think the HD DVD companies should have been more honest about the differences between 1080i60 output and 1080p24/60 output. After the vast majority of HDTVs can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal.

Do you have any numbers on the number of displays that even SUPPORT 1080p24/60? Given that practically EVERY HD display can accept a 1080i input, I think it's bit of a stretch to imply that Toshiba was dishonest about anything... especially because: A) They are technically correct about 1080i from film material, and B) it's not their fault if a display fumbles the deinterlacing.

I think it's bit of a stretch to imply that Toshiba was dishonest about anything... especially because: A) They are technically correct about 1080i from film material, and B) it's not their fault if a display fumbles the deinterlacing.
The scuttle over on the "HD-DVD gets 1080p 24fps output" thread is that the long-awaited upgrade to add 24p output to current Toshiba players does NOT pass the native 24fps, but "processes" it somehow first. My guess, based on some other players that do this - though I haven't a clue as to why, is that the 1080/24p is converted to 1080/60i before being outputted as 1080/24p. The "scuttle" starts with this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11605408&postcount=612). It's post #612 if you're heading there; the link I posted shows only the single post.

I don't think it's been definitively determined yet what the problem is, if there actually is one, but this would certainly imply to me, if true, that Toshiba is being dishonest.

I did the 24 fps update on my player last night and something is amiss for sure. There is a 5-6ms audio delay and some obvious stutter at times while watching SD DVD. I was watching the movie for a review, so I didn't mess around with things much (will do that more this evening). My XA2 is brand new, so I don't have a good grasp on what the player can do overall, but I plan on testing the 1080p output at 60 fps to see if it improves the viewing experience, but at this point, I am not all that impressed with the new "upgrade".

Yes, I suppose that does sum up the relative importance of TL-51 at this point in time.

But I still was wondering if there was going to at least be an improvement in the max bit rate cap. That one could make a difference if it was really compatible.

Willing to give any estimate on when we might get an answer on this part?

- Tom

This is the thing that really gets me. Make a difference to who? I realize the people on this forum probably care about an extra few bits per second more than the average consumer over space. But does anyone really think that J6P will notice a bitrate improvement vs what more storage can do?

I think the storage increase of TL51 can have a much more noticeable impact to 98% of consumers than a bitrate increase to match blu-ray's.

That level of bitrate increase is only possible to notice while doing mouseovers on screencaps or pause-zooming. And how many people will do that vs notice how much damn content is on their disc?

I did the 24 fps update on my player last night and something is amiss for sure. There is a 5-6ms audio delay and some obvious stutter at times while watching SD DVD. I was watching the movie for a review, so I didn't mess around with things much (will do that more this evening). My XA2 is brand new, so I don't have a good grasp on what the player can do overall, but I plan on testing the 1080p output at 60 fps to see if it improves the viewing experience, but at this point, I am not all that impressed with the new "upgrade".
There's still a bit of confusion over which has gotten "slower." Some are saying audio while others are saying video. Somebody also reported that SD-DVDs are now outputted as 24p and that somebody saw that as an indication that additional video processing was occurring - across the board. This definitely bears close watching.