More bold claims made by Blu-ray boss. Frank Simonis who is the chairman of the Blu-ray Disc Association and also the senior director of communications at Philips told Tech.co.uk that the HD DVD disc format is inferior to Blu-ray and does not offer enough capacity for modern day HD movies. He also claims that it is not possible to fit Pirates Of The Caribbean will not fit on a single HD DVD disc. He also reiterated BDA myth created by BDA that Paramount and Dreamworks backed HD DVD exclusively to undermine the company's actuall reasoning of doing so. And that "he swore" :D ( i add this one in to make it more sensationalised) that Toshiba players are HEAVILY subdised.

here is the list of interesting claims that he made

http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/high-definition/news/blu-ray-boss-hd-dvd-is-not-good-enough?articleid=80768583

"For Disney to do the movie Cars in HD including the interactivity, a 50GB disc is needed. Pirates Of The Caribbean you couldn't do on an HD DVD disc. You'd have to have multiple discs. How can that be a good thing?

"Should you stop half way and say 'let's have a pee and then continue'? No that does not work. The movie is that long. And HD DVD is simply not good enough to carry that, or it would discriminate the quality.

HD DVD too small?

"Take Disney's Cars. You look at the depth of the graphical animation in that movie and HD DVD would discriminate that part. Therefore the studio's choice was clear. HD DVD is not good enough. Blu-ray is the only format which has the 50GB.

He also went on to say that it is not true that HD DVD players are cheaper to produce than Blu-ray ones. He said that Toshiba and other HD DVD manufacturers are heavily subsidising the players to make them a more attractive proposition.

"Both format players use the same back-end decoders so the video and the audio is nearly similar. And I can't imagine that an optical mechanism for HD DVD and Blu-ray has a big spread in cost - the expensive part is the blue laser. Technology-wise, there is not a major difference.

"Now, I don't know how deep their pockets are but I hear the rumour that they spent $150m just to get one studio over. Perhaps they like to play that game, and I wish them a lot of luck.".

"Because at the end of the day we believe in fair competition between the different hardware manufacturers to make a business all based on our own model. Not on subsidised pricing in the products."

^ by the same reasoning - 100% of Universal's titles are picture quality wise inferior to BD50 movies? and that 100% of BD25 are inferior in PQ as compared to BD50 atleast for longer movies ?

You guys know how this works. If BD was trouncing HDDVD he would not have to comment with the sour grapes tone he has.

Art

Pirates Of The Caribbean you couldn't do on an HD DVD disc.
Judgeing from the lopped heads on the BD, it doesn fit on BD either. :D
There's definitely a tone of bitterness there.
J

I wonder if he gets his information from Bill Humiliationt

Disney should fix the framing problems on POTC

Judgeing from the lopped heads on the BD, it doesn fit on BD either. :D
There's definitely a tone of bitterness there.
J

ROTF . . . LMAO!

So King Kong is 181 minutes long. How long is POTC?

BD is going to continue to waste huge amounts of space on the video and particularly the audio side just so they can make these ludicrous claims. Just another BD scam.

ROTF . . . LMAO!

So King Kong is 181 minutes long. How long is POTC?

POTC is 143 minutes
King Kong is 181 minutes
Batman Begins is 140 minutes

Blu-ray boss: I just revealed how big of an uninformed idiot I am! Hooray for public stupidity!

Don't we usually hear from Andy Parsons? At least he doesn't make these outlandish claims.

Guess he didn't appreciate Ken G.'s statements about BD being an unfinished format heh?

He could've said: "To get the level of detail necessary for Pirates, it's not possible on HD DVD. You need the 50gb and the extra bandwidth of Blu-ray." The entire bit about Pirates being too long for HD DVD sounds stupid, as someone probably probably would've already pointed out the longer movies already out on HD DVD.

The BDA would be much further ahead if they simply concentrated on improving their product and getting their prices down. Negativity doesn't take you anywhere. This guy is bitter about bribes? Sony doesn't subsidize any of their products (PS3) or play hardball?

My advice to the BDA would be to ignore HD DVD and let their product speak for itself. If it's better for the consumer then the consumer will gravitate towards it. Throwing mud is a real trunoff.

He sould have said, "Good one HD DVD, but stay alert because we've got you in our sites!"

Cheers,

Grant

Kink Kong looks and sounds amazing - it's a 3+ hour flick - he can go stuff himself...he's just bitter because HD DVD is here to stay and that has fiannly sunk in with him. =/

ROTF . . . LMAO!

So King Kong is 181 minutes long. How long is POTC?

How's that lossless audio on King Kong? Oh wait, I guess it didn't fit.

UH, PotC is two discs on BD. I have a version of Cars that is just over 10gb and looks great. Seems like it would fit on a HDDVD to me.

How's that lossless audio on King Kong? Oh wait, I guess it didn't fit.

Which BD players (other than the no-IR Sony PS3) can play Dolby TrueHD? I'm looking for a player, but can't seem to find one that can handle Dolby TrueHD.

^ by the same reasoning - 100% of Universal's titles are picture quality wise inferior <snip>

That's how I see it when I look at the reviews of the 4 exclusive major studios:

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.73 Universal

Which BD players (other than the no-IR Sony PS3) can play Dolby TrueHD? I'm looking for a player, but can't seem to find one that can handle Dolby TrueHD.

The S1, both Pioneers, the upcoming Samsungs and the new Panny.

UH, PotC is two discs on BD. I have a version of Cars that is just over 10gb and looks great. Seems like it would fit on a HDDVD to me.

The movie(s) is one disc. The 2nd disc is for the BS bonus material I've never played. But just for grins, maybe I should try out the "Liars dice" game.

The S1, both Pioneers, the upcoming Samsungs and the new Panny.

What new Panny?

^ by the same reasoning - 100% of Universal's titles are picture quality wise inferior to BD50 movies? and that 100% of BD25 are inferior in PQ as compared to BD50 atleast for longer movies ?

your logic is flawed, by this reasoning pq flows like this:

BD 50 > HD DVD 30 > BD 25 > HD DVD 15

Of course he did not account for how King Kong looks at least as good as pirates and was only a 30 gig disc, and please do not use the DD+ versus PCM argument. yes PCM sounds better, however DD+ still rocks the house.

Which BD players (other than the no-IR Sony PS3) can play Dolby TrueHD? I'm looking for a player, but can't seem to find one that can handle Dolby TrueHD.

The Pioneer BDP-94HD ($739 http://www.bwayphoto.com/product.asp?id=pibdp94hd) and the Panasonic DMP-BD10AK ($599 http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4187992) will both handle decoding of TrueHD if you don't like the PS3 option.

Several players will be joining those two with TrueHD capabilities within the next few months if you don't like Pioneer or Panasonic products.

What new Panny?
The one that came out in June.

That's how I see it when I look at the reviews of the 4 exclusive major studios:

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.73 Universal

Gee surprise, surprise...:rolleyes:

That's how I see it when I look at the reviews of the 4 exclusive major studios:

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.73 Universal

Paramount's a major exclusive studio

your logic is flawed, by this reasoning pq flows like this:

BD 50 > HD DVD 30 > BD 25 > HD DVD 15

Of course he did not account for how King Kong looks at least as good as pirates and was only a 30 gig disc, and please do not use the DD+ versus PCM argument. yes PCM sounds better, however DD+ still rocks the house.

Agree. DD+ rocks but I still cant wait for a PCM receiver... soon soon :)

I think the comment by the BD dude was a long way of saying that BD has more capacity and the extra capacity can make a difference to the experience, sometimes.

He instantiated it with an example to make it relevant to the J6P readers. It is a good bit of marketing. Instead of just specs, give examples from popular movies.

Agree. DD+ rocks but I still cant wait for a PCM receiver... soon soon :)

If your receiver supports DD+ then it also supports PCM.

Potentially libelous statements removed. Full quote added to initial post for clarity.

Paramount's a major exclusive studio

The ONE exclusive movie they've released is not in the tallies yet.
Those numbers are from August 3rd, 2007.

The one that came out in June.

That was nothing more than the "old" Panny with a factory FW upgrade and 5 BD's in the box. . . . 10 . . . 10A

The ONE exclusive movie they've released is not in the tallies yet.
Those numbers are from August 3rd, 2007.

ah I see. We're taking the "Paramount doesn't count yet" approach. Whatever makes you blu-boys feel happy

That was nothing more than the "old" Panny with a factory FW upgrade and 5 BD's in the box. . . . 10 . . . 10A

That happens to support TrueHD, which was the question. If you want to pick at "new" and "newer" that's on you.

That happens to support TrueHD, which was the question. If you want to pick at "new" and "newer" that's on you.

So does it support DTS-MA? Did the FW UP fix that?

Here is the SoC used in the Panny:

http://www.sigmadesigns.com/public/Products/SMP8630/pdf_files/bluray8634_br.pdf

ah I see. We're taking the "Paramount doesn't count yet" approach. Whatever makes you blu-boys feel happy

No you must have not been following.

What was said was "^ by the same reasoning - 100% of Universal's titles are picture quality wise inferior"

I have shown the reviews of the four major studios who have exclusive releases.

If you would like me to insert Blades of Glory and reasess those numbers you can wait a fortnight by which time I'll probably have updated them.

If you want all the numbers you need only look back through my posts and search for "reviews" and you'll probably find one where I've listed all the studios.

Here are the full numbers just for you MichaelHDDVD.

Picture

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
4.02 Paramount
3.95 Warner
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.80 Weinstein
3.73 Universal
3.66 Lionsgate


Sound

SQ Studio
4.38 Buena Vista
4.12 Sony
4.08 Fox
3.81 Lionsgate
3.81 Paramount
3.63 Warner
3.63 Universal
3.63 Weinstein


In both cases Universal is second to last.

So does it support DTS-MA? Did the FW UP fix that?

Here is the SoC used in the Panny:

http://www.sigmadesigns.com/public/Products/SMP8630/pdf_files/bluray8634_br.pdf

The person that asked the question was looking for a BD player that supports Dolby TrueHD.

The question was answered. Why are you asking irrelevant questions that you already have the answers to? Trolling? Baiting?

Let me help:

Which BD players (other than the no-IR Sony PS3) can play Dolby TrueHD? I'm looking for a player, but can't seem to find one that can handle Dolby TrueHD.

I've lost count of the number of times I've read high def reviews (of both formats) that start off with something like "What a shame there's no lossy soundtrack...", but end up with "...this soundtrack sounds great!"

Often, if there are 2 versions, they only way they appear to be able to tell the difference is with side-by-side A/B switching, which to me means no real difference at all.

'King Kong' looks and sounds as good as anyone would ever want it to.

Everything else is a smokescreen.

Steve W

The person that asked the question was looking for a BD player that supports Dolby TrueHD.

The question was answered. Why are you asking irrelevant questions that you already have the answers to? Trolling? Baiting?

Let me help:

Just doing the same thing that you do - moving the goal posts.

Did you change your name AGAIN? I could have sworn my comment was directed to Slim Goodbooty

No you must have not been following.

What was said was "^ by the same reasoning - 100% of Universal's titles are picture quality wise inferior"

I have shown the reviews of the four major studios who have exclusive releases.

If you would like me to insert Blades of Glory and reasess those numbers you can wait a fortnight by which time I'll probably have updated them.

If you want all the numbers you need only look back through my posts and search for "reviews" and you'll probably find one where I've listed all the studios.

Here are the full numbers just for you MichaelHDDVD.

Picture

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
4.02 Paramount
3.95 Warner
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.80 Weinstein
3.73 Universal
3.66 Lionsgate


Sound

SQ Studio
4.38 Buena Vista
4.12 Sony
4.08 Fox
3.81 Lionsgate
3.81 Paramount
3.63 Warner
3.63 Universal
3.63 Weinstein


In both cases Universal is second to last.

Another nail in HD DVD's coffin :rolleyes:

You guys know how this works. If BD was trouncing HDDVD he would not have to comment with the sour grapes tone he has.

Basically. If you are truly winning, why not point out actual advantages? When you spend all your time talking trash about the competition it probably means you're pretty weak (or at the very least insecure). A good product should sell itself.

Doby, can I ask which review sites your stats are collated from? Also, is there any way of relating those scores to the average ages of the respective movies? In other words, wouldn't it be easier for a studio whose releases are mainly from recent movies to rack up higher scores than one who is releasing older catalogue titles? Casablanca and Grand Prix show that with necessary care the quality of an HD release can still be top notch, but I guess that such titles require a commensurate amount of time and capital investment in order to achieve such quality.

The person that asked the question was looking for a BD player that supports Dolby TrueHD.

The question was answered. Why are you asking irrelevant questions that you already have the answers to? Trolling? Baiting?

Let me help:
Why are you involved at all? I believe he was quoting me.

Why are you involved at all? I believe he was quoting me.

He is just mad at me because when he showed his PQ charts at HDF, after over 900 reviews there was a 7% difference in the PQ between BD and HD DVD. He thought it was huge while I just laughed.

He is just mad at me because when he showed his PQ charts at HDF, after over 900 reviews there was a 7% difference in the PQ between BD and HD DVD. He thought it was huge while I just laughed.

If there ever was a guy that every post was an attempt to flame, he is it. I wonder why he's still around.

If there ever was a guy that every post was an attempt to flame, he is it. I wonder why he's still around.

He works for Panasonic Canada (POS Division). He is one of the "core" BD Fanboys. And I agree with you - that his posts are meant to incite and flame. Speaking of flames - he just got shot down IN flames on the issue of Dragon's Lair and the PS3 being able to do real DS PIP as opposed to Fake PIP . . .

"Live by the sword . . . die by the sword."

The Pioneer BDP-94HD ($739 http://www.bwayphoto.com/product.asp?id=pibdp94hd) and the Panasonic DMP-BD10AK ($599 http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4187992) will both handle decoding of TrueHD if you don't like the PS3 option.

Several players will be joining those two with TrueHD capabilities within the next few months if you don't like Pioneer or Panasonic products.

Thanks, still too rich for my blood, I'll wait for the $250 mark (non-Sony, of course...I've had nothing but problems with their products)

Basically. If you are truly winning, why not point out actual advantages? When you spend all your time talking trash about the competition it probably means you're pretty weak (or at the very least insecure). A good product should sell itself.
Are we referring to Amir ?:confused:

Basically. If you are truly winning, why not point out actual advantages? When you spend all your time talking trash about the competition it probably means you're pretty weak (or at the very least insecure). A good product should sell itself.

I completely agree. Every time an official representative from either side publically denigrates the competition, they're simply reinforcing the natural reluctance of consumers to buy into either format. IMO, someone inside these respective camps had better be thinking of how HD DVD and Blu-ray can best coexist.

Each format has strengths and weaknesses which could complement the other in a world of dual format players, and the constant dissemination of FUD merely serves to alienate consumers they should be attracting. Universal studio neutrality, and release packages tailored to exploit the specific advantages each format can bring to the table, could potentially end up being more lucrative for both sides than the current circumstance of exclusive back-door deal-making, driven by myopic greed.

He is just mad at me because when he showed his PQ charts at HDF, after over 900 reviews there was a 7% difference in the PQ between BD and HD DVD. He thought it was huge while I just laughed.
IIRC, if you threw out the outriders it was like 0.6%

Marketing/Sales 101 - RULE #1 - NEVER knock the competition

Format War Marketing 101 - RULE #1 - ALWAYS knock the competition.

:confused:.:confused:.:confused:

Just doing the same thing that you do - moving the goal posts.

Did you change your name AGAIN? I could have sworn my comment was directed to Slim Goodbooty

On a forum, if you don't want people to respond to any post as they want to or see fit, use the PM function.

Otherwise, again, you're in a forum.

He is just mad at me because when he showed his PQ charts at HDF, after over 900 reviews there was a 7% difference in the PQ between BD and HD DVD. He thought it was huge while I just laughed.

Actually what it showed was a 20% swing difference between this time last year and now, but leave out that important part if it makes you feel better.

:rolleyes:

Actually what it showed was a 20% swing difference between this time last year and now, but leave out that important part if it makes you feel better.

:rolleyes:

Well I HOPE so. Those first titles were really poor in PQ. And of course TFE headed that list. Caused Sony to do something never done before in 10 years - replace a poor transfer for free. TFE must have been a -5.00 on your scale for them to do that.

No you must have not been following.

What was said was "^ by the same reasoning - 100% of Universal's titles are picture quality wise inferior"

I have shown the reviews of the four major studios who have exclusive releases.

If you would like me to insert Blades of Glory and reasess those numbers you can wait a fortnight by which time I'll probably have updated them.

If you want all the numbers you need only look back through my posts and search for "reviews" and you'll probably find one where I've listed all the studios.

Here are the full numbers just for you MichaelHDDVD.

Picture

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
4.02 Paramount
3.95 Warner
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.80 Weinstein
3.73 Universal
3.66 Lionsgate


Sound

SQ Studio
4.38 Buena Vista
4.12 Sony
4.08 Fox
3.81 Lionsgate
3.81 Paramount
3.63 Warner
3.63 Universal
3.63 Weinstein


In both cases Universal is second to last.

Interesting how Warner is above both Sony and Fox, yet all the Blu-Boys whine about Warner making a single encode for both formats. I guess that will stop now, right?

Interesting how Warner is above both Sony and Fox, yet all the Blu-Boys whine about Warner making a single encode for both formats. I guess that will stop now, right?

maybe that would put an end to all of the "warner mediocrity" threads.

No you must have not been following.

What was said was "^ by the same reasoning - 100% of Universal's titles are picture quality wise inferior"

I have shown the reviews of the four major studios who have exclusive releases.

If you would like me to insert Blades of Glory and reasess those numbers you can wait a fortnight by which time I'll probably have updated them.

If you want all the numbers you need only look back through my posts and search for "reviews" and you'll probably find one where I've listed all the studios.

Here are the full numbers just for you MichaelHDDVD.

Picture

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
4.02 Paramount
3.95 Warner
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.80 Weinstein
3.73 Universal
3.66 Lionsgate


Sound

SQ Studio
4.38 Buena Vista
4.12 Sony
4.08 Fox
3.81 Lionsgate
3.81 Paramount
3.63 Warner
3.63 Universal
3.63 Weinstein


In both cases Universal is second to last.

And yet Paramount and Dreamworks still dumped Blu-ray? :eek:

The horror!!!:D

Marketing/Sales 101 - RULE #1 - NEVER knock the competition

Format War Marketing 101 - RULE #1 - ALWAYS knock the competition.

:confused:.:confused:.:confused:

I prefer it when the hate-HD DVD/pro-DRM/anti-consumer crowd speaks up. The BDA, Dobyblue, Supermans, thebland, beatboy77, etc. The things they say are so far out there it makes people look up the facts for themselves. And then all the lies are smacked down by the facts.

Lie: HD DVD isn't 1080p
Truth: HD DVD is 1080p

Lie: HD DVD has no major studio support
Truth: HD DVD has many major studios supporting the format

Lie: Blu-Ray has next gen interactivity
Truth: HD DVD has superior interactivity

Lie: A 143 minute movie can't fit on a HD30 disc
Truth: Many HD DVD movies are longer and are on a single HD DVD

The amount of Blu-Spin here is ridiculous. I thought the phase Hydra thing was a good joke when I first heard about it. But based on the zealotry of some of the Blu-Ray supporters it wouldn't surprise me if the BDA was cutting checks to these people.

Because at the end of the day we believe in fair competition between the different hardware manufacturers to make a business all based on our own model. Not on subsidised pricing in the products."

Too bad the HD DVD guys won't play fair and base their strategy on your business model.

Interesting how Warner is above both Sony and Fox, yet all the Blu-Boys whine about Warner making a single encode for both formats. I guess that will stop now, right?
And by definition then, Warner HD DVDs outpeform Sony and Fox BDs! :p

Maybe we can be done with averages after these posts.....

Amir, you shock by venturing outside the insiders forum.

Welcome.

I prefer it when the hate-HD DVD/pro-DRM/anti-consumer crowd speaks up. The BDA, Dobyblue, Supermans, thebland, beatboy77, etc. The things they say are so far out there it makes people look up the facts for themselves. And then all the lies are smacked down by the facts.

Lie: HD DVD isn't 1080p
Truth: HD DVD is 1080p

Lie: HD DVD has no major studio support
Truth: HD DVD has many major studios supporting the format

Lie: Blu-Ray has next gen interactivity
Truth: HD DVD has superior interactivity

Lie: A 143 minute movie can't fit on a HD30 disc
Truth: Many HD DVD movies are longer and are on a single HD DVD

The amount of Blu-Spin here is ridiculous. I thought the phase Hydra thing was a good joke when I first heard about it. But based on the zealotry of some of the Blu-Ray supporters it wouldn't surprise me if the BDA was cutting checks to these people.

Amen. ;)

Amir, you shock by venturing outside the insiders forum.

Welcome.
Oops. Didn't realize what thread I was in :p.

Too bad the HD DVD guys won't play fair and base their strategy on your business model.

Quote:
Because at the end of the day we believe in fair competition between the different hardware manufacturers to make a business all based on our own model. Not on subsidised pricing in the products."

This is a joke right? Are we forgetting the king of subsidies? The PS3! The player that put BD out in front - at a cost of $2.25 BILLION.

I've asked several times, Dobyblue, why don't you announce who you work for (a BDA company)? Your bias is overwhelming and is getting tiring. Phase hydra, indeed.

How about you break down those scores to account for the huge number of older movies that Universal has released as opposed to the day/date movies mostly that Sony and Fox have released?

Look how good Warner looks. Interesting.

The BDA opens its mouth again only to insert foot. It is becoming a reflex with them.

And by definition then, Warner HD DVDs outpeform Sony and Fox BDs! :p

Maybe we can be done with averages after these posts.....

Yes throw out those pesky averages - I'm sure you'd love to bury this and any other means that don't show HD DVD and VC-1 to be the end all and be all of HD DVD

First 80 reviews

HD DVD PQ 4.03
Blu-ray PQ 3.51

Last 80 reviews

HD DVD PQ 3.78
Blu-ray PQ 4.13

First 80 reviews

HD DVD SQ 3.73
Blu-ray SQ 3.71

Last 80 reviews

HD DVD SQ 3.63
Blu-ray SQ 4.13

Oh those awful averages! :rolleyes:

I've asked several times, Dobyblue, why don't you announce who you work for (a BDA company)? Your bias is overwhelming and is getting tiring. Phase hydra, indeed.

How about you break down those scores to account for the huge number of older movies that Universal has released as opposed to the day/date movies mostly that Sony and Fox have released?

Look how good Warner looks. Interesting.

Are you really that blind? Go and look at every time you've asked me where I've answered you. Lee even answered that question in this very thread. Man, if you're going to ask questions, at least look at the responses. Your inability to follow through on your posts is getting tiring!

I program Panasonic POS equipment for restaurants and fast food establishments. Please show me how that's in some way working for the BDA! Your insistence on this matter is ridiculous as I answer you everytime. In about an hour, if you still feel like I'm somehow dodging your questions, I'll dig them up for you and show you my responses.

Older movies? Like Rio Bravo, Casablanca, The Cowboys? Oh wait, you're probably not talking about that old right?

IF Warner can do it, so too should Universal. That excuse is garbage.

Yes throw out those pesky averages - I'm sure you'd love to bury this and any other means that don't show HD DVD and VC-1 to be the end all and be all of HD DVD
You want stats, check out these stats. Codec usage in both BD+HD DVD combined:

VC-1: 53%
MPEG-2: 27%
AVC: 20%

Seems like people like our choice of technology :).

Judgeing from the lopped heads on the BD, it doesn fit on BD either. :D


haha! I was thinking the exact same thing.

I prefer it when the hate-HD DVD/pro-DRM/anti-consumer crowd speaks up. The BDA, Dobyblue, Supermans, thebland, beatboy77, etc. The things they say are so far out there it makes people look up the facts for themselves. And then all the lies are smacked down by the facts.

Lie: HD DVD isn't 1080p
Truth: HD DVD is 1080p

Lie: HD DVD has no major studio support
Truth: HD DVD has many major studios supporting the format

Lie: Blu-Ray has next gen interactivity
Truth: HD DVD has superior interactivity

Lie: A 143 minute movie can't fit on a HD30 disc
Truth: Many HD DVD movies are longer and are on a single HD DVD

The amount of Blu-Spin here is ridiculous. I thought the phase Hydra thing was a good joke when I first heard about it. But based on the zealotry of some of the Blu-Ray supporters it wouldn't surprise me if the BDA was cutting checks to these people.

well done.
i own both formats,but the bda really needs to stop the lies. i never understood how blueboys can say bd is better then hd dvd.
also paramount made it clear bd 50s are over rated,and hd 30 will do just find.
paramount also said if they need the room,they will do 2 discs,since jp6 is buying dvds the same way now.

You want stats, check out these stats. Codec usage in both BD+HD DVD combined:

VC-1: 53%
MPEG-2: 27%
AVC: 20%

Seems like people like our choice of technology :).

Just you wait amir, he will soon have stats on how vc-1 average pq is worse than the rest :p Maybe you can counter by asking him to provide some stats on interactive features.

"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."

You want stats, check out these stats. Codec usage in both BD+HD DVD combined:

VC-1: 53%
MPEG-2: 27%
AVC: 20%

Seems like people like our choice of technology :).

Here's some more stats - average PQ rating by codec

Of 680 Blu-ray reviews: 431 MPEG-2, 125 AVC/MPEG-4, 124 VC-1
Average star rating

1) 4.22 stars AVC/MPEG-4 :eek:
2) 3.94 stars VC-1
3) 3.78 stars MPEG-2

When you use BD+HD combined it is only 53% VC-1 because HD DVD's inferior 29 Mbps video bandwidth can't utilize MPEG-2 with the kind of results that Blu-ray's 40 Mbps video bandwidth can.

Just you wait amir, he will soon have stats on how vc-1 average pq is worse than the rest :p

Nope, the stats show that VC-1 gets better average reviews than MPEG-2.
Sorry to disappoint you, I don't make the numbers up, I just post them.

Here's some more stats - average PQ rating by codec

Of 680 Blu-ray reviews: 431 MPEG-2, 125 AVC/MPEG-4, 124 VC-1
Average star rating

1) 4.22 stars AVC/MPEG-4 :eek:
2) 3.94 stars VC-1
3) 3.78 stars MPEG-2

When you use BD+HD combined it is only 53% VC-1 because HD DVD's inferior 29 Mbps video bandwidth can't utilize MPEG-2 with the kind of results that Blu-ray's 40 Mbps video bandwidth can.

Wow you're working overtime today! I still can't get a simple question answered by any Blueray fanboy:

Since BD is so superior with its l33t bandwidth, can you point me at a BD that blows away the best HD DVD PQ/AQ out there? I can't seem to find one. Going by the review sites you love to quote as gospel, Hot Fuzz is the #1 HDM movie released to date.

^ by the same reasoning - 100% of Universal's titles are picture quality wise inferior to BD50 movies? and that 100% of BD25 are inferior in PQ as compared to BD50 atleast for longer movies ?

I think it is quite obvious your statement makes no sense. But to address your first part with only 7.76% of Uni's HDDVD's having lossless/uncompressed audio I'd say yes for the most part Uni's titles are in fact inferior to BD50 titles.

I mean how dare they release U-571 without Lossless/uncompressed audio!!!


ROTF . . . LMAO!

So King Kong is 181 minutes long. How long is POTC?

Sadly again inferior audio. In fact they most likely could not fit this on a HDDVD30 with Lossles/uncompressed audio, so thanks for the great example!

I'm in the blu camp and that article even pisses me off, I need action not words.

I prefer it when the hate-HD DVD/pro-DRM/anti-consumer crowd speaks up. The BDA, Dobyblue, Supermans, thebland, beatboy77, etc. The things they say are so far out there it makes people look up the facts for themselves. And then all the lies are smacked down by the facts.

Lie: HD DVD isn't 1080p
Truth: HD DVD is 1080p

Lie: HD DVD has no major studio support
Truth: HD DVD has many major studios supporting the format

Lie: Blu-Ray has next gen interactivity
Truth: HD DVD has superior interactivity

Lie: A 143 minute movie can't fit on a HD30 disc
Truth: Many HD DVD movies are longer and are on a single HD DVD

The amount of Blu-Spin here is ridiculous. I thought the phase Hydra thing was a good joke when I first heard about it. But based on the zealotry of some of the Blu-Ray supporters it wouldn't surprise me if the BDA was cutting checks to these people.

Very well said. It about sums up Sony's disgraceful PR. You'll never get this kinda bullsh!t coming from HD DVD.

Here's some more stats - average PQ rating by codec

Of 680 Blu-ray reviews: 431 MPEG-2, 125 AVC/MPEG-4, 124 VC-1
Average star rating

1) 4.22 stars AVC/MPEG-4 :eek:
2) 3.94 stars VC-1
3) 3.78 stars MPEG-2

When you use BD+HD combined it is only 53% VC-1 because HD DVD's inferior 29 Mbps video bandwidth can't utilize MPEG-2 with the kind of results that Blu-ray's 40 Mbps video bandwidth can.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the above statement's construction and logic an outrageous attack on the mind? I'm trying to discern some point or argument there, but am having just about as much success as trying to understand Miss South Carolina 2007 a few days ago.

Aren't all these stats very subjective in the first place? I mean....are these the end all ratings that everyone agrees on? I do not think so. I have movies that are rated far below the 4-5 PQ rating they deserve, but I also have movies that get a 4-5 that deserve no more than a 3.

Please, drop this average PQ/SQ nonsense and the bit-rate nonsense. Now I need to go watch Hot Fuzz and King Kong.

Sadly again inferior audio. In fact they most likely could not fit this on a HDDVD30 with Lossles/uncompressed audio, so thanks for the great example!

Inferior? To who? You? Who died and made you Queen of the AQ standards?

DD+ sounds great on my system. Are you an AQ snob?

Sadly again inferior audio. In fact they most likely could not fit this on a HDDVD30 with Lossles/uncompressed audio, so thanks for the great example!

Someone threw me this hint once so I feel it's only fair to pass it along. Just for giggles go check out the European release of King Kong, I think you'll find there are quite a few audio tracks on it... count em all up and figure out their total size, then estimate how big a TrueHD track would be for the same title...

Amir,

We love ya man! But just a bit of warning, this ain't the Insider thread. This is the trenches, all gloves are off, and there are a lot of mud balls being thrown around. Just keep that in mind. There are also plenty of very knowledgeable and logical-thinking HD DVD supporters here that are more than willing to do the dirty work.

Aren't all these stats very subjective in the first place? I mean....are these the end all ratings that everyone agrees on? I do not think so. I have movies that are rated far below the 4-5 PQ rating they deserve, but I also have movies that get a 4-5 that deserve no more than a 3.

Please, drop this average PQ/SQ nonsense and the bit-rate nonsense. Now I need to go watch Hot Fuzz and King Kong.

dobyblueray needs other people to make up his mind for him, like Sony choosing BD for him in the form of the PS3.

Here's some more stats - average PQ rating by codec

Of 680 Blu-ray reviews: 431 MPEG-2, 125 AVC/MPEG-4, 124 VC-1
Average star rating

1) 4.22 stars AVC/MPEG-4 :eek:
2) 3.94 stars VC-1
3) 3.78 stars MPEG-2

When you use BD+HD combined it is only 53% VC-1 because HD DVD's inferior 29 Mbps video bandwidth can't utilize MPEG-2 with the kind of results that Blu-ray's 40 Mbps video bandwidth can.

Wait a minute! Is this more of your FUD? You said there were over 900 BD reviews in your charts. Did you cherry pick the ones you want to show and forget the others?

What happened to the other 220+

How is DD+ inferior? Shouldn't you judge the audio track by the track itself and not the name?

I mean, there are limitations for everything, but when i'm watching an HD movie, I don't automatically write it off because it was encoded in MPEG-2.

Sadly again inferior audio. In fact they most likely could not fit this on a HDDVD30 with Lossles/uncompressed audio, so thanks for the great example!

I love how everyone brings King Kong up. Out of curiousity, have you heard King Kong in lossless/uncompressed? If not, then how can you be so sure that the audio on the HD DVD is inferior without having a point of reference?

Let me put it another way, if the specs of the disc were hidden from you, and there was no way for you to find out what type of track was playing, are you saying your ears would be able to discern the imperfections in non lossless KK?

Personally, if every HD DVD released from now till eternity looked and sounded like King Kong / HFuzz , I will be one very happy camper.

I've asked several times, Dobyblue, why don't you announce who you work for (a BDA company)? Your bias is overwhelming and is getting tiring. Phase hydra, indeed.

How about you break down those scores to account for the huge number of older movies that Universal has released as opposed to the day/date movies mostly that Sony and Fox have released?

Look how good Warner looks. Interesting.

Just a friendly warning. I made a similar claim against a certain pro-HD DVD poster on this site who does not even use any factual evidence to back his claims (at least Doby has substance to his arguments and accusations) and I received an infraction.

When you use BD+HD combined it is only 53% VC-1 because HD DVD's inferior 29 Mbps video bandwidth can't utilize MPEG-2 with the kind of results that Blu-ray's 40 Mbps video bandwidth can.

Why would it want or need to? However, Mpeg2 can look quite good at bitrates far below 29Mbps. I have cable rips in the 9s that look just about as good as any BD or HDDVD I have.

ehm...what again is wrong with this statement? All what he said is TRUE, so why you complain ? :confused:

When you use BD+HD combined it is only 53% VC-1 because HD DVD's inferior 29 Mbps video bandwidth can't utilize MPEG-2 with the kind of results that Blu-ray's 40 Mbps video bandwidth can.The few MPEG-2 tracks I have on BD never seem to even come close to 30Mbps, the PS3 has this nifty little bar that shows you the current bitrate, and it seems to me the average bitrate is around 20Mbps.

So I am not quite sure out of what opening you pulled that statement.

Inferior? To who? You? Who died and made you Queen of the AQ standards?

DD+ sounds great on my system. Are you an AQ snob?


Listen to yourself, said like a true fanboy "sounds great on my system" sure but have you heard lossless/uncmpressed? They are both CLEARLY BETTER and we ARE talking about the new, awesome, next gen technology not the sorta O.K. here today technology right?
This is HUGE!! A REAL QUALITY difference between the two formats and you think HDDVD is better because of special features?!? C'mon WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!

I love it when these BDA fools talk like this. It means their scared as hell and don't have anything of their own to counter with. This kind of tactic always comes back and bites you in the ass. What I don't get is that some folks here, that know better, actually support this kind of bs.

ehm...what again is wrong with this statement? All what he said is TRUE, so why you complain ? :confused:

143 is more than 181 in your neck of the woods?

I love it when these BDA fools talk like this. It means their scared as hell and don't have anything of their own to counter with. This kind of tactic always comes back and bites you in the ass. What I don't get is that some folks here, that know better, actually support this kind of bs.


I certainly hope you where not referring to my last statement. Check my sig the stats are right there. So no BS.

Listen to yourself, said like a true fanboy "sounds great on my system" sure but have you heard lossless/uncmpressed? They are both CLEARLY BETTER and we ARE talking about the new, awesome, next gen technology not the sorta O.K. here today technology right?
This is HUGE!! A REAL QUALITY difference between the two formats and you think HDDVD is better because of special features?!? C'mon WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!

The point is that your argument that the difference between lossless and DD+ 1.5 is "HUGE" and "A REAL QUALITY" difference is utterly devoid of intellectual honesty. Have you ever been submitted in a valid double blind test comparing DD+ and lossless? If the difference is huge, then are you honestly asserting that you would be able to tell the difference all the time?

Until then, I'm sorry for being a sheeple and thinking that highly tangible and perceptible features like interactivity are slightly more useful.

What is the source of these numbers posted for PQ/AQ ratings?

ya'll should ignore doby's numbers because as they are presented they aren't very meaningful.

first, there is no indication of variability (E.G. SE) and so there is no way to tell if the difference is meaningful or just due to noise.

second, because these are rankings, and not interval data, he should be presenting medians and not means.

Listen to yourself, said like a true fanboy "sounds great on my system" sure but have you heard lossless/uncmpressed? They are both CLEARLY BETTER and we ARE talking about the new, awesome, next gen technology not the sorta O.K. here today technology right?
This is HUGE!! A REAL QUALITY difference between the two formats and you think HDDVD is better because of special features?!? C'mon WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!

All the underlines, caps, and 18pt type doesn't make your bloated exaggerations any more credible, or you any less a "fanboy"

Go peddle this nonsense to greener ears. :rolleyes:

C'mon WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!


Pot meet Kettle.

Seriously, Sheeple? I've heard both TrueHD, DD+, and PCM, and guess what, I like them all. I don't feel like i'm getting ripped off after getting a DD+ track. Nor can I tell a huge difference between them all, if any difference at all.

The point is that your argument that the difference between lossless and DD+ 1.5 is "HUGE" and "A REAL QUALITY" difference is utterly devoid of intellectual honesty. Have you ever been submitted in a valid double blind test comparing DD+ and lossless? If the difference is huge, then are you honestly asserting that you would be able to tell the difference all the time?

Until then, I'm sorry for being a sheeple and thinking that highly tangible and perceptible features like interactivity are slightly more useful.

First off yes I think most of the time I could definitely tell the two apart.

OK so lets pretend you are actually watching a movie what is the biggest deal? I propose it is the sound and the picture (you can switch those two but I think many many people would say that the sound is 60-70% of the experience). So you think a lossy format vs. a lossless/uncompressed will yeild the same sound quality? If so good for you, you can settle for that.

So when I've watched a movie with DD+ I generally think "that sounded nice, but I sure wish it was better." When I watch a movie with lossless/uncompressed I think "Damn that was fantastic, I really felt like I was there!"

Inferior? To who? You? Who died and made you Queen of the AQ standards?



Oh yeah forgot to mention thanks for the second grader response. Good job, you get a cookie!:rolleyes:

First off yes I think most of the time I could definitely tell the two apart.

OK so lets pretend you are actually watching a movie what is the biggest deal? I propose it is the sound and the picture (you can switch those two but I think many many people would say that the sound is 60-70% of the experience). So you think a lossy format vs. a lossless/uncompressed will yeild the same sound quality? If so good for you, you can settle for that.

So when I've watched a movie with DD+ I generally think "that sounded nice, but I sure wish it was better." When I watch a movie with lossless/uncompressed I think "Damn that was fantastic, I really felt like I was there!"

You do realize that that statement is pretty much the antithesis of a double blind test? ....

Yes throw out those pesky averages - I'm sure you'd love to bury this and any other means that don't show HD DVD and VC-1 to be the end all and be all of HD DVD

First 80 reviews

HD DVD PQ 4.03
Blu-ray PQ 3.51

Last 80 reviews

HD DVD PQ 3.78
Blu-ray PQ 4.13

First 80 reviews

HD DVD SQ 3.73
Blu-ray SQ 3.71

Last 80 reviews

HD DVD SQ 3.63
Blu-ray SQ 4.13

Oh those awful averages! :rolleyes:

Well, read this review: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/hotfuzz.html

They review BOTH formats at High-Def Digest--and this HD-DVD release is their ONLY 5-star review.

"Simply put, in my opinion, this is currently the best overall high-def release on the market..."-Kenneth S. Brown, Hi-Def Digest

Well, read this review: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/hotfuzz.html

They review BOTH formats at High-Def Digest--and this HD-DVD release is their ONLY 5-star review.

"Simply put, in my opinion, this is currently the best overall high-def release on the market..."-Kenneth S. Brown, Hi-Def Digest

Just you wait for the BD version ddelrio! The amazing bit rate peaks will propel the release into the stratosphere.

Yes throw out those pesky averages - I'm sure you'd love to bury this and any other means that don't show HD DVD and VC-1 to be the end all and be all of HD DVD

First 80 reviews

HD DVD PQ 4.03
Blu-ray PQ 3.51

Last 80 reviews

HD DVD PQ 3.78
Blu-ray PQ 4.13

First 80 reviews

HD DVD SQ 3.73
Blu-ray SQ 3.71

Last 80 reviews

HD DVD SQ 3.63
Blu-ray SQ 4.13

Oh those awful averages! :rolleyes:I liked it better when you listed the stats by the review sites. 3 of them agreed and the other 2 were way over on the BD side. They can be thrown out.

All the underlines, caps, and 18pt type doesn't make your bloated exaggerations any more credible, or you any less a "fanboy"

Go peddle this nonsense to greener ears. :rolleyes:

you can feel free to go back to your Red forum. This forum is for both so here I post. I never said I myself am not more or less a fanboy but at least I have both so I can make far more educated decisions, which is a lot more than I can say about most posting the HDDVD party line here.

Here's some more stats - average PQ rating by codec

Of 680 Blu-ray reviews: 431 MPEG-2, 125 AVC/MPEG-4, 124 VC-1
Average star rating

1) 4.22 stars AVC/MPEG-4 :eek:
2) 3.94 stars VC-1
3) 3.78 stars MPEG-2

When you use BD+HD combined it is only 53% VC-1 because HD DVD's inferior 29 Mbps video bandwidth can't utilize MPEG-2 with the kind of results that Blu-ray's 40 Mbps video bandwidth can.

In this jibberish that you have here, are excellent PQ BD movies like "The House Of Flying Daggers" and a lot of othere great BD PQ movies factored in? :D

So how did King Kong fit buddy?

Huh? huh? Yea, that's what I thought. (celebratory pelvic thrusts ensue)

I certainly hope you where not referring to my last statement. Check my sig the stats are right there. So no BS.

Just out of curiosity, have you heard the master from which the audio is derived from to come to your conclusion? It's kind of like saying that a Corvette drives just like a Ferrari yet the Ferrari hasn't yet been driven by the one making the claim.

And yes I have both also to make the claim that I can barely hear the difference yet still enjoy the movies.

you can feel free to go back to your Red forum. This forum is for both so here I post. I never said I myself am not more or less a fanboy but at least I have both so I can make far more educated decisions, which is a lot more than I can say about most posting the HDDVD party line here.

By "greener ears" I believe he meant someone with less knowledge, not that you should go to the BD forum...that color would be 'blue' if I am correct. ;)

So how did King Kong fit buddy?

Huh? huh? Yea, that's what I thought. (celebratory pelvic thrusts ensue)

About as well as "Transformers" will. But wait, you can't get either on Blu-ray. :p

Dobyblue,

Your response was both insulting and childish. I am sorry that I missed your previous response as it fell off the page pretty quickly.
For you to insult me by calling me "blind" and to insult my movie choices is both uncalled for and is not needed here at AVS. Your post has been reported.

The reason I challenge your "stats" is because you simply picked the review numbers from review sites and averaged them. You simply cannot analyze data in such a manner as it provides you absolutely no scientific results. I suggest you do some reading on numerical analysis -- it will help you.

So how did King Kong fit buddy?

Huh? huh? Yea, that's what I thought. (celebratory pelvic thrusts ensue)

Considering that Universal wasn't using ANY lossless formats at the time...it is a moot point.

Please grow up a little bit. This isn't a videogame forum.

About as well as "Transformers" will. But wait, you can't get either on Blu-ray. :p
This is why I have both. And I know what greener ears means. I'd be willing to bet I have far more A/V experience than that poster does so there is a big big difference between falling on a green ear and a deaf one(yes for the cheap seats I mean he won't listen to something other than the HDDVD gospel not actually deaf)

You do realize that that statement is pretty much the antithesis of a double blind test? ....


Oh no, don't bring science into a discussion on AVS! ;)

This is why I have both. And I know what greener ears means. I'd be willing to bet I have far more A/V experience than that poster does so there is a big big difference between falling on a green ear and a deaf one(yes for the cheap seats I mean he won't listen to something other than the HDDVD gospel not actually deaf)

Oh, let's hear about your vast wealth of AV experience. As you appear to blithely accept subjective, anecdotal evidence and personal experience, I'm sure we're all anxious to learn about your extensive technical, ( presumably professional ) background in the AV industry.

Oh, let's hear about your vast wealth of AV experience. As you appear to blithely accept subjective, anecdotal evidence and personal experience, I'm sure we're all anxious to learn about your extensive technical, ( presumably professional ) background in the AV industry.

Always has to come back to an insult with you guys huh? reread my post I said "I'd be willing to bet I have far more A/V experience than that poster" I said nothing of anyone else's fragile ego.
And experience is experience. It does not have to have anything to do with being in the industry but experience with audio and video. I've owned many pieces of gear over the years as technology has progressed. You are not going to make me look like a idiot braggart by listing my experiences but just as a point of time reference I owned more than one Laser Disc player well before DVD was around and had Dolby Digital two months after the first AC-3 LD (Clear and Present Danger) was released. So I've been doing this for a while hence experience.

You can take all your stats, charts, graphs, bit rates, specs, blah blah blah and go wipe your a$$es with them (either format), the end results on the screen and through your speakers is what matters to the average consumer, and both formats deliver that in spades, P-E-R-I-O-D. Both sides have stellar examples of long movies looking and sounding incredible on a single 5" disc...there will always be something coming along better, regardless of which one you own/prefer. This battle for format supremacy is NOT FOR YOU number crunching, spec reading nerds - it's all about the masses, the folks who just wanna sit back and enjoy a movie, and the majority of them WILL love what they see - they're simply waiting for the prices to hit their range and a clear winner to emerge, they've already made that clear in polls, tell me that's wrong so I can laugh at you...the rest of this technical stuff only matters to yooze guys, the ones looking for bragging rights. The studios have PROVEN they can get it done effeciently on both formats, so save that talk as well. The life expectancy of EITHER of these two formats is already gonna be short enough as it is. This isn't about forum jocekys on message boards whinning about specs to each other - that WON'T matter in the end and you all know this, both red and blu deliver the goods...it's about getting movies available and price now, not specs - whichever side does that, will win...the Blu Ray "boss" knows this too well I think.

One side hopefully will step up in the end and get HiDef out there to the people addidcted to DVD right now and lure them away from it...face facts, if *DVD* was/is good enough for them now, as many have said they don't even see enough of a reason to upgrade to either format as it is, then you're kidding yourselves if you believe they'd care about these finer details. If the masses were/are happy with DVD now, they'll be tickled to death with HD DVD OR Blu Ray, especially if they're not paying anything different to get it, believe that!

/rant

Always has to come back to an insult with you guys huh? reread my post I said "I'd be willing to bet I have far more A/V experience than that poster" I said nothing of anyone else's fragile ego.
And experience is experience. It does not have to have anything to do with being in the industry but experience with audio and video. I've owned many pieces of gear over the years as technology has progressed. You are not going to make me look like a idiot braggart by listing my experiences but just as a point of time reference I owned more than one Laser Disc player well before DVD was around and had Dolby Digital two months after the first AC-3 LD (Clear and Present Danger) was released. So I've been doing this for a while hence experience.

IMO, it's foolish to "bet" that you have more AV experience than other members in this venue, but I've seen industry professionals make apparently definitive statements about audible superiority that are based on nothing but personal opinion. Without some standard of objective evidence, there's really nothing to distinguish such claims from those made by manufacturers of exotic cables, light pens, etc.

I've seen a list of how much space several BD titles use in the disc and I was surprised that most of them use more than 25GB.
The whole argument of what looks better, is kinda dumb. Blu-ray can deliver the same quality HD-DVD does, and if doesn't, it's because studios are dumb enough to not take advantage of it, and not because blu-ray sucks.
And Im amazed by people defending compressed/lossy codecs versus PCM.
- Blu ray fan: BD50 have more space for PCM and that totally kicks ass
- HD-DVD fan: Who cares? DD+ still rocks and most people won't notice the quality


- HD-DVD fan: HD-DVD has PiP! The technology of the future! And it has online content ! yahoo!
- Blu ray fan: Who cares? Nobody watches the extras, and I doubt the online content will be available for eternity. What are the odds of studios updating the online contests for EVERY single title out there?


If every good thing that both formats have are going to be trashed with a "who cares", this is going no where. Both have good and bad things, and if one was definitely superior than the other, there would be no war.

And Im amazed by people defending compressed/lossy codecs versus PCM.I am not, all of my audio on my computer is losslessly compressed as well, why would I not want to do this?

It is stupid from the BD side to constanty harp on the "better sound" of LPCM when DolbyTrueHD exists and is used by more and more productions.

Then there is the fact that there are quite a few people out there who live and breath audio and even THEY don't diss DD+ because for most people / equipment it IS transparent.

If you specifically mix for a DD+ track I am sure it can be transparent, lossless (uncompressed specifically) is not always the only way to go.

As they say in the workout field: "Train smart, not hard", same applies for other areas (e.g. audio / video compression) as well.

By "greener ears" I believe he meant someone with less knowledge, not that you should go to the BD forum...that color would be 'blue' if I am correct. ;)

Yup. How "green" do you have to be to not know what being green even means?!;)

Really, when posts are full of hyperbole, arch exaggeration's, and then gussied up with a dozen graphic flourishes, how does the writer expect to be seem as credible?

Legitimate claims don't need that kinda showmanship. The real-word advantages of lossless have been debated here over, and over again to no avail, it amazes me when it's presented as some show-stopper that gonna bring the house down

Yes throw out those pesky averages - I'm sure you'd love to bury this and any other means that don't show HD DVD and VC-1 to be the end all and be all of HD DVD

First 80 reviews

HD DVD PQ 4.03
Blu-ray PQ 3.51

Last 80 reviews

HD DVD PQ 3.78
Blu-ray PQ 4.13

First 80 reviews

HD DVD SQ 3.73
Blu-ray SQ 3.71

Last 80 reviews

HD DVD SQ 3.63
Blu-ray SQ 4.13

Oh those awful averages! :rolleyes:

First of all, these "pesky averages", as you claim, are nothing more than a bunch of numbers you've posted. Let's see you display all these 160 titles on each side, complete with ratings and every review site in which they're taken from. Then I'll give it at least a little credence.

Secondly, Universal has churned out many more catalog titles than any other studio. While Sony, Disney and Lions Gate have been releasing mainly films from 2006 and 2007, Universal has been releasing older films that obviously don't look as good! Similarly, let's take a look at Universal's offerings from current films, like Hot Fuzz which gained 5-star ratings everywhere and includes 18 hours of supplemental material! Or Breach & Children Of Men, which both received a 4-star rating and were packed with features. Compare Universal's older catalog titles like Scent Of a Woman or Erin Brockovich, and they rank the same as Sony catalog titles like Wild Things or Flatliners.

Your rankings are absolutely worthless! Comparing 2007 films with 1998 films is a pointless endeavor. The format's capabilites are not lessened because of numerous catalog title releases...Hot Fuzz is simply one Universal title that proves that HD DVD has the exact same quality as Blu-Ray. HD DVD has many, many 5-star rated discs, like King Kong, Hulk, Matrix, Black Snake Moan, Matrix trilogy, Dreamgirls, Casablanca, The Prestige, etc. Just because BD started with a thud and has improved doesn't mean they are superior to HD DVD. HD DVD simply didn't take 4 months to release a worthwhile disc like the other format!

The last 18 releases average 1998 in release year for Universal: The Hurricane (2000), Dawn of the Dead (2004), Notting Hill (1999), Mercury Rising (1998), What Dreams May Come (1994), Erin Brockovich (2000), Meet the Fockers (2004), Sea Of Love (1989), Shaun Of the Dead (2004), Hot Fuzz (2007), Darkman (1990), In Good Company (2005), Scent Of a Woman (1990), Nutty Professor 2 (2000), Bourne Identity (2001), The War (1994), American Me (1992), Billy Madison (1995)

Since you seem to relish whipping up useless averages, why don't you take the last 18 releases or so from every studio and come up with a comparison. Then maybe you'll offer something useful rather than the usual garbage you spout.

Wait a minute! Is this more of your FUD? You said there were over 900 BD reviews in your charts. Did you cherry pick the ones you want to show and forget the others?

What happened to the other 220+

Nice try Lee, but I keep track of the PQ and SQ scores by each of the five sites and by studio, I do not maintain codec figures too.

When rdjam started his thread about how much better VC-1 is than everything else I decided to tally up the total number of Blu-ray releases at that point, which I think was as of April 25th, 2007.

Here's the post: #161 onwards

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=843288&page=6

If you would like to tally up the additional numbers I can list them for you and you can be my guest, but I don't have that sort of time.

I don't think too many people are foolish enough to believe rdjam's assertions on VC-1 anyway.

Nice try Lee, but I keep track of the PQ and SQ scores by each of the five sites and by studio, I do not maintain codec figures too.

When rdjam started his thread about how much better VC-1 is than everything else I decided to tally up the total number of Blu-ray releases at that point, which I think was as of April 25th, 2007.

Here's the post: #161 onwards

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=843288&page=6

If you would like to tally up the additional numbers I can list them for you and you can be my guest, but I don't have that sort of time.

I don't think too many people are foolish enough to believe rdjam's assertions on VC-1 anyway.
You have run out of time for flaming and posting useless figures? Oh, the humanatee!

Similarly, let's take a look at Universal's offerings from current films, like Hot Fuzz which gained 5-star ratings everywhere

It did?

PQ then SQ

Each one of these can be found obviously from one of the five sites, which is why there are five reviews.

Hot Fuzz 5.00 4.50
Hot Fuzz 5.00 4.50
Hot Fuzz 5.00 4.50
Hot Fuzz 4.50 4.50
Hot Fuzz 4.50 5.00


Since you seem to relish whipping up useless averages, why don't you take the last 18 releases or so from every studio and come up with a comparison. Then maybe you'll offer something useful rather than the usual garbage you spout.

Like I've offered countless times, I would be happy to e-mail the spreadsheet to anyone who wants a copy so they can do with it what they want.

Unfortunately for you I believe you'll find that the average year of release is earliest for Warner Bros and they seem to have a much higher average than Universal.

What is the source of these numbers posted for PQ/AQ ratings?

High Def Digest
Home Theater Spot
Upcoming Discs
DVD Talk
Home Theater Forum

PQ SQ TOTAL HD DVD
3.89 3.61 3.75 HighDef
3.93 3.84 3.88 HTSpot
3.64 3.49 3.56 DVDTalk
3.98 3.81 3.89 Upcoming Discs
3.93 3.70 3.81 Home Theater Forum
3.84 3.67 3.76 Totals


PQ SQ TOTAL Blu-ray
3.97 3.82 3.90 HighDef
4.06 4.26 4.16 HTSpot
3.67 3.72 3.69 DVDTalk
4.03 4.13 4.08 Upcoming Discs
4.31 4.09 4.20 Home Theater Forum
3.95 3.96 3.95 Totals


Includes all scored reviews from those five sites. Last update 08.25.07

What is the argument here? HD DVD does not have enough capacity or bandwidth to offer the same level of audio and video quality.

If lossless or uncompressed audio not important to you, then I guess HD DVD is perfectly acceptable for every title but Disney does not seem to think so.

We are talking about the complete package here people. Many HD DVD titles do have a good PQ but the audio options are usually limited due to space and bandwidth limitations.

Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

It's a simple matter of facts and figures people.

You have run out of time for flaming and posting useless figures? Oh, the humanatee!

Really, I didn't know there was a timelimit?

What sort of foolishness are you going on about?

Really, I didn't know there was a timelimit?

What sort of foolishness are you going on about?

Guess you missed the question mark. It's what we english speakers use when we are asking a question.

Nice try Lee, but I keep track of the PQ and SQ scores by each of the five sites and by studio, I do not maintain codec figures too.

When rdjam started his thread about how much better VC-1 is than everything else I decided to tally up the total number of Blu-ray releases at that point, which I think was as of April 25th, 2007.

Here's the post: #161 onwards

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=843288&page=6

If you would like to tally up the additional numbers I can list them for you and you can be my guest, but I don't have that sort of time.

I don't think too many people are foolish enough to believe rdjam's assertions on VC-1 anyway.

Hey dolby, how many BD discs use the VC-1 codec for their encodes?

Hey dolby, how many BD discs use the VC-1 codec for their encodes?

65 . . . .

http://blu-raystats.com/

239 for HD DVD . . .

http://hddvdstats.com/index.php

Oh and Doby - you said over 900 reviews total for each format. Nothing to do with the Codec. Remember that thread we were involved in at HDF. I think BD had 27 more reviews than HD DVD did (900/927). I wouldn't trust you to tell the truth about anything that was going to hurt BD in any way. You have yet to do this - why start now?

He is wrong, BTW.

PQ SQ TOTAL HD DVD
3.89 3.61 3.75 HighDef
3.93 3.84 3.88 HTSpot
3.64 3.49 3.56 DVDTalk
3.98 3.81 3.89 Upcoming Discs
3.93 3.70 3.81 Home Theater Forum
3.84 3.67 3.76 Totals


PQ SQ TOTAL Blu-ray
3.97 3.82 3.90 HighDef
4.06 4.26 4.16 HTSpot
3.67 3.72 3.69 DVDTalk
4.03 4.13 4.08 Upcoming Discs
4.31 4.09 4.20 Home Theater Forum
3.95 3.96 3.95 Totals


Includes all scored reviews from those five sites. Last update 08.25.07

This is EXACTLY the type of evidence I like to see. Plain ol' data (POD)!

We must also keep in mind that HTF gives Traffic a 4/5, then gives Hot Fuzz a 5/5. Wasn't Traffic a 480P upconverted master? Seems the range of reviews isn't quite calibrated.

And even given those biases... BD still wins? *Shrugs*

This thread has turned in to complete insanity. The Blu-ray boss made some ridiculous claims about Cars and PotC not being able to fit on HD DVD. Of course those movies could be mastered for HD. There are titles that are just as challenging or more challenging than those on the format.

Now we're down to posting review averages for PQ and AQ? The degrees of difference in a 4 or a 5 and the subjectivity involved in deriving the numbers makes them pretty useless. How about we just say this: Most HD media discs look very good, some are great, and some are noticeably inferior. And this would go for both sides.

Arguing sensory evaluation by pointing to specifications (bandwidth, capacity, lossless vs. DD+) really misses the point. It's all about whether we are enjoying the media.

I am a supporter of lossless audio because lossless, by definition, gives you all of the data. However, without a true, double-blind test with a reasonable level of accuracy (75%?), I will not be convinced that the strong majority of enthusiasts could tell the difference if they had no idea of how the source was being presented.

The bottom line is that the Blu-ray boss quoted in the article comes across like an uninformed, confused individual.

This is EXACTLY the type of evidence I like to see. Plain ol' data (POD)! *Shrugs*

Plain ol' data. Doesn't matter if it has validity or statistical accuracy. Give it to us plain so we can dance and cheer.

First off yes I think most of the time I could definitely tell the two apart.

Have you ever tried to tell the difference without any knowledge of the source while watching a movie?

Have you ever tried to tell the difference without any knowledge of the source while watching a movie?

Kinda gives the term double blind a whole new meaning.:D

Art

If lossless or uncompressed audio not important to you, then I guess HD DVD is perfectly acceptable for every title but Disney does not seem to think so.What is it with you Blu-Boys and the hate for compressed audio? By your logic this pesky new fangled h.264, AVC and VC-1 as well as the older MPEG2 are the devil. They should just put the raw video coming from the camera / scanner onto the disc.

*shakes head*.

So desperate in finding justification for all the space on the BD50s? Sony realy is trying to find a problem for their solution.

ROTF . . . LMAO!

So King Kong is 181 minutes long. How long is POTC?

And a shining example of the merits of 50gb. 30gb VC-1 Kong has, no lossless audio, no HD special features and isn't the extended cut. That could all be acheived on a BD50.

Listening Universal?

What is it with you Blu-Boys and the hate for compressed audio? By your logic this pesky new fangled h.264, AVC and VC-1 as well as the older MPEG2 are the devil. They should just put the raw video coming from the camera / scanner onto the disc.

*shakes head*.

So desperate in finding justification for all the space on the BD50s? Sony realy is trying to find a problem for their solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats#Technical _Details

Look at the peak rates and capacity. If you have Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio track (lossless), you are left with only 12.24 Mbits/s available bandwidth for video on HD DVD compared with 30Mbits/s on Blu-ray.

A two hour movie with master audio and 12.24Mbits/s video on HD DVD will take up ~21.8 GB while the Blu-ray with 30 Mbits/s would take up ~34.6 GB.

This is an extreme example with the peak bandwidth of both format with only one audio tracks. If you add French and Spanish along with a commentary, the space disappears and you either have to drop one of the audio tracks, go with Dolby Digital+ or reduce the video quality to an unacceptable level.

Now imagine trying to fit Ben Hur with decent audio.

And a shining example of the merits of 50gb. 30gb VC-1 Kong has, no lossless audio, no HD special features and isn't the extended cut. That could all be acheived on a BD50.

Listening Universal?

I keep asking this and never get an answer. Why is it that 30 GB is perfect and 25 GB isn't enough? But suddenly 50 GB is too much?

The illogical justifications used seems so counter-intuitive. You either need and use the space or you don't.

People delude themselves into believing that 30 GB is enough for all movies just because you bought into a particular format. In the future when even higher quality displays are available... you will WISH you had the extra space and bandwidth! BD is more future proof in that regard.

Guess you missed the question mark. It's what we english speakers use when we are asking a question.

So English speaker, what does humanatee mean? :p
Hey dolby, how many BD discs use the VC-1 codec for their encodes?

It's doby not dolby and you can go and count them yourself.
When I used the April 25th, 2007 review count the numbers I posted were accurate.

Of 680 reviews: 431 MPEG-2, 125 AVC/MPEG-4, 124 VC-1

That's reviews keep in mind, not discs.

Oh and Doby - you said over 900 reviews total for each format. Nothing to do with the Codec. Remember that thread we were involved in at HDF. I think BD had 27 more reviews than HD DVD did (900/927). I wouldn't trust you to tell the truth about anything that was going to hurt BD in any way. You have yet to do this - why start now?

Lee again you're not making much sense.

The codecs I looked at one time when there were 680 reviews as noted above.

The reviews as of August 25th, 2007 are 972 Blu-ray reviews and 951 HD DVD reviews. I've offered to e-mail you and others the spreadsheet several times, so I guess I must be missing whatever point you're trying to make here.

I liked it better when you listed the stats by the review sites. 3 of them agreed and the other 2 were way over on the BD side. They can be thrown out.

Umm, when did I stop? The 08.25.07 update was posted within the last few pages.

In terms of SQ they are ALL way over on the BD side.

High Def Digest
PQ BD +0.08
SQ BD +0.21

Home Theater Spot
PQ BD +0.13
SQ BD +0.42

Upcoming Discs
PQ BD +0.05
SQ BD +0.32

Home Theater Forum
PQ BD +0.38
SQ BD +0.39

DVD Talk
PQ BD +0.03
SQ BD +0.23

The only one that's really out there for Blu-ray in picture quality is Home Theater Forum.

As I have readily admitted several times on this and other forums the spreadsheet was only put together back in November because of how much "HD DVD has better PQ than Blu-ray" posts were all over the place. This was a pretty good measure of stamping out that sort of foolishness.

I do believe that with the right people working on it HD DVD can look just as good as Blu-ray, but I do also believe that Blu-ray can get that picture quality with less effort, because the picture requires less compression and in almost all "busy" scenes you will see the PQ on the majority of Blu-ray discs jumping up way past 30 Mbps.

Again, these numbers were only put together to silence the November ******** which was vaild in June, but stopped being valid shortly thereafter. Now they are just maintained for fun as it doesn't involve much of my time, but to start dividing them up past the review site and releasing studio into lets say by decade and by codec is not something I have the time to look after. I'm sure it would be interesting to see and maybe on another long weekend I'll give it a tackle.

A lot of people who attack me over these numbers seem to forget that I was posting these numbers when Blu-ray was BEHIND in PQ from ALL sites.

Look at the numbers from January shortly after High Def Digest had seen Blu-ray slip ahead:

HD DVD PQ Blu-ray PQ
HighDef 3.90 HighDef 3.94
HTSpot 4.02 HTSpot 3.83
DVDTalk 3.66 DVDTalk 3.48
Totals 3.84 Totals 3.72

It's a shame that this drives some of the more unreasonable fanboys here nuts trying to write it off as being completely irrelevant and unresponsible, but at the end of the day it is simply a comparison of the PQ and SQ ratings from those 5 sites, nothing more, nothing less.

First of all, these "pesky averages", as you claim, are nothing more than a bunch of numbers you've posted. Let's see you display all these 160 titles on each side, complete with ratings and every review site in which they're taken from. Then I'll give it at least a little credence.

I honestly don't mind posting them all if you'd like, but that's quite a waste of bandwidth. If you pm me your e-mail I'd be glad to send you the Excel sheet and you can look at it yourself.

In this jibberish that you have here, are excellent PQ BD movies like "The House Of Flying Daggers" and a lot of othere great BD PQ movies factored in? :D

Not only House of Flying Daggers, but two separate reviews of The Fifth Element from DVD Talk alone AND the unreleased 1.0 star review of Robocop that they did.

DVD Talk's first 19 Blu-ray reviews:

PQ SQ TOTAL Blu-ray Title
3.50 3.50 3.50 Terminator 2
3.50 2.00 2.75 Terminator
3.00 2.50 2.75 Terminator
2.50 5.00 3.75 House of Flying Daggers
2.00 4.50 3.25 House of Flying Daggers
2.50 3.00 2.75 Hitch
2.50 4.00 3.25 Fifth Element
2.50 3.50 3.00 Fifth Element
2.50 3.00 2.75 50 First Dates
3.50 3.50 3.50 Ultraviolet
1.00 2.50 1.75 Basic Instict 2
3.50 3.50 3.50 Underworld Evolution
3.00 2.50 2.75 Benchwarmers
4.00 4.50 4.25 Stealth
2.50 3.00 2.75 The Punisher
3.50 4.00 3.75 SWAT
3.00 2.50 2.75 Species
2.50 3.00 2.75 Saw
1.00 2.50 1.75 Robocop



They're all there 5th Dan, sorry to disappoint you!!
(All scored reviews - I know that looks like jibberish, but I'm sure you can understand what it means)

Dobyblue,

Your response was both insulting and childish. I am sorry that I missed your previous response as it fell off the page pretty quickly.
For you to insult me by calling me "blind" and to insult my movie choices is both uncalled for and is not needed here at AVS. Your post has been reported.


Read the tone of the several times you've accosted me to ask me to admit where I work despite my having freely admitting it to other people several times and guess whether or not I give a toss whether your tender sensibilities were offended.

:rolleyes:

Read the tone of the several times you've accosted me to ask me to admit where I work despite my having freely admitting it to other people several times and guess whether or not I give a toss whether your tender sensibilities were offended.

:rolleyes:

When have I accosted you? I've asked several times who you worked for and I already apologized for not seeing your answer before. I was never rude, insulting, or name-calling.

"Tender sensibilities," huh? I treated you respectfully and even apologized and you insult me and then insult me again.

I think you need to think before you type. You may get away with acting like this on other forums, but not on this one...at least for a long, meaningful existence on AVS, anyway. You may also want to read the U/A for pointers on interacting here.

Potentially libelous statements removed. Full quote added to initial post for clarity.

thank you for the editing. please edit my posts or threads that moderators deem fit. sorry if the thread or posts create trouble for AVS. thanks for the PM too :)

Not only House of Flying Daggers, but two separate reviews of The Fifth Element from DVD Talk alone AND the unreleased 1.0 star review of Robocop that they did.

DVD Talk's first 19 Blu-ray reviews:




They're all there 5th Dan, sorry to disappoint you!!
(All scored reviews - I know that looks like jibberish, but I'm sure you can understand what it means)

So sorry, no habla jibberish. :confused::D

your logic is flawed, by this reasoning pq flows like this:

BD 50 > HD DVD 30 > BD 25 > HD DVD 15

Of course he did not account for how King Kong looks at least as good as pirates and was only a 30 gig disc, and please do not use the DD+ versus PCM argument. yes PCM sounds better, however DD+ still rocks the house.

This line I highlighted is debatable. I did not detect the same beating/pulsing in PotC that I saw in KK. Just single step through the segment where Kong walks to the ice pond and look what happens to the clouds on the right and the snow on the ground. The I pictures are very detailed but noisy/grainy, but subsequent P are a little softer, while the B's are much softer. The overlap smoothing and inloop filter in VC-1 had to work really hard for those B pictures.

This is easiest to see if you get the two Main Feature files on a HDD, demux down to ES and look at the 2nd of two main feature files on a 1920x1200 LCD real close. If your TV is not a 1080P, you may not see this. On a PC monitor or a decent large 1080P monitor, you can see the pulsing effect.

wow this thread is retarded. you'd think after over a year you guys would get bored arguing over the same ****, but i guess not.

well im gonna go watch a movie now, you fanboys take care

bwaaaah!...the 'Annointed' Format isn't winning. If Sony had spent half their effort in actually trying to make a better format rather than proclaiming they had one HD-DVD never would have gotten off the Ground. Too late...BluRay will go down in business school case history as one of the biggest corporate blunders of all time.

wow this thread is retarded. you'd think after over a year you guys would get bored arguing over the same ****, but i guess not.

well im gonna go watch a movie now, you fanboys take care
Ditto to my Nizzle, Bdizzle...lol

Not only House of Flying Daggers, but two separate reviews of The Fifth Element from DVD Talk alone AND the unreleased 1.0 star review of Robocop that they did.

DVD Talk's first 19 Blu-ray reviews:




They're all there 5th Dan, sorry to disappoint you!!
(All scored reviews - I know that looks like jibberish, but I'm sure you can understand what it means)

Try putting that in the code tag, not the quote tag. Might look better.

I'll concede HD DVD and Blu-Ray PQ/SQ probably makes no difference on Bose HTIB and 30" HDTV-wannabes. However, anyone with a decent HT system should be able to discriminate between loss and lossless audio tracks.

It's too bad we can't A/B a series of movies with encodes maximized to support both formats. All the Warners movies are identical video encodes so there won't be any difference. The only example I know of for comparison's sake is "Flags of Our Father" which is thought to be "sharper" on the Blu-Ray disc or "more natural" (Ha!) on the HD DVD version.

What is evident is the lack of HD DVDs with both superlative PQ AND lossless audio tracks. This is highly suggestive of both storage capacity and bandwidth limitation issues with HD DVD.

When have I accosted you? I've asked several times who you worked for and I already apologized for not seeing your answer before. I was never rude, insulting, or name-calling.

"Tender sensibilities," huh? I treated you respectfully and even apologized and you insult me and then insult me again.

I think you need to think before you type. You may get away with acting like this on other forums, but not on this one...at least for a long, meaningful existence on AVS, anyway. You may also want to read the U/A for pointers on interacting here.

Sure thing buddy, sure thing.

:rolleyes:

I've asked several times, Dobyblue, why don't you announce who you work for (a BDA company)? Your bias is overwhelming and is getting tiring. Phase hydra, indeed.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11470670#post11470670

Why don't you announce/advertise that you are employed by the BDA, specifically Panasonic Canada? Or do you not want people to know that you have an agenda and bias?

You are no saint, so quit preaching.

What is it with you Blu-Boys and the hate for compressed audio? By your logic this pesky new fangled h.264, AVC and VC-1 as well as the older MPEG2 are the devil.

If there was a consumer format with 12 bit 4:4:4 lossless video, but there isn't.

At the moment AVC/VC-1 is the best achievable in video.

Lossless at the master bit depth is the best achievable in audio.

Its not that a 1.5 Mbps DD+ is bad but just because most people won't be able to hear the difference is sort of like saying all films should be encoded at 30p or 720p because most people don't have 1080 displays and even less people have displays capable of displaying 24 fps natively.

The success of DVD was largely due to its ability to scale - the format could go from connecting to a tv with only composite out and analog audio out right through to high end systems with component and optical out.

HDM is all about transitioning to a new format and it should be about getting the best possible format for the next 10 or so years, not lumping everyone with something that "will do" because thats what the specs allow.

Part of the problem is that neither format can actually be called the best possible at the moment - blu-ray can take SQ, HD-DVD can take additional functionality and PQ is just about square.

If there was a consumer format with 12 bit 4:4:4 lossless video, but there isn't.

At the moment AVC/VC-1 is the best achievable in video.

Lossless at the master bit depth is the best achievable in audio.

Its not that a 1.5 Mbps DD+ is bad but just because most people won't be able to hear the difference is sort of like saying all films should be encoded at 30p or 720p because most people don't have 1080 displays and even less people have displays capable of displaying 24 fps natively.

The success of DVD was largely due to its ability to scale - the format could go from connecting to a tv with only composite out and analog audio out right through to high end systems with component and optical out.

HDM is all about transitioning to a new format and it should be about getting the best possible format for the next 10 or so years, not lumping everyone with something that "will do" because thats what the specs allow.

Part of the problem is that neither format can actually be called the best possible at the moment - blu-ray can take SQ, HD-DVD can take additional functionality and PQ is just about square.


+1 agreed!

Which BD players (other than the no-IR Sony PS3) can play Dolby TrueHD? I'm looking for a player, but can't seem to find one that can handle Dolby TrueHD.

LMAO! Take that..:D

Which BD players (other than the no-IR Sony PS3) can play Dolby TrueHD? I'm looking for a player, but can't seem to find one that can handle Dolby TrueHD.

The LG BH100 will play 5.1 Dolby TrueHD on Blu-ray. It took me a while to figure this out, but when I did, it changed my "procurement priorities" a bit. it will only play 2.0 TrueHD with HD DVD though (don't ask me why), but I expected a few quirks with a first generation Blu-Ray player. No biggie, there's maybe only 10 Blu-Ray and 40ish HD DVD disks with TrueHD soundtracks. (Contrast that with 125+ title with uncompressed PCM on Blu-Ray vs. 3 for HD DVD).

There's gotta be other Blu-ray players that will do it by now. The LG is at least six (6) months "old".

BluRay will go down in business school case history as one of the biggest corporate blunders of all time.


I think this is honestly possible. i can see my kids in college one day reading about Marketing 101 and why its not good to focus on spreading negative press about your competition if its true or not. They will refer to a case study about a format Sony tried to release called Blu-Ray.

Sure thing buddy, sure thing.

/snip

You are no saint, so quit preaching.

Where did I call you names or insult you? I only said that you obviously have an agenda.

I am not preaching - I am calling you out on attacking me and you keep changing the topic, and manage to be insulting at the same time again.

Enough of this public derailing -- I'll just agree to disagree with you.

We are talking about the complete package here people. Many HD DVD titles do have a good PQ but the audio options are usually limited due to space and bandwidth limitations.


Lossless audio doesn't need to take much space at all - it's the extras and interactive that will be chopped on long movies. Audio and video quality need not suffer at all, at least with <3.5hour films.

Taking PotC at 143 mins, 30GB give you a mux rate average of 28mbit. Dolby TrueHD 24/48 lossless takes 3.4mbit, DD5.1 second track then takes 0.640, and you have 24mbit left for the video. PotC transparency level is probably around in 20mbit, maybe a little less - it's not a tough encode.

The irony here is that because most Bluray is using LPCM, most discs actually end up with lower quality 5.1 16/48 (as 5.1 24/48 takes around 7mbit, which is insane for audio). Dolby TrueHD is losslessly compressed, so takes half the bitrate but sounds the same.

Where HDDVD does suffer with movies around the 120-150 min mark is if you want all the trimmings. Say 4GB extras, 3mbit interactive, director's commentary. That would leave PoTC 24mbit total bitrate, so they'd have to drop to 16/48 lossless, leaving 18.5mbit for the video. That's hard going, although not impossible.

If the movie was 120 mins the same trimmings could be had with 24/48 audio and 21mbit video bitrate, which is fine for anything, so that's about the point where little comprimises start to be made. Personally I don't care about this, as long as they sacrifice the crappy extras before the audio or video quality.


Edit: just checked the list, and the first two PotC movies average 20mbit and 19mbit video bitrate respectively. Even with essentially unlimited space to play with, that's all that was needed. Given that, with a bit more time saving bitrate probably 15/16mbit with transparency is possible - the codecs are getting better.....

Edit: just checked the list, and the first two PotC movies average 20mbit and 19mbit video bitrate respectively. Even with essentially unlimited space to play with, that's all that was needed. Given that, with a bit more time saving bitrate probably 15/16mbit with transparency is possible - the codecs are getting better.....

Unfortunately that's average bit rate.

There are peaks of 39 Mbps in those two movies for video alone and that is what makes the difference. The 24-bit audio track, which Disney have used over 15 times, is still plodding along robustly and without affecting video quality even during those peaks.

Unfortunately that's average bit rate.

There are peaks of 39 Mbps in those two movies for video alone and that is what makes the difference. The 24-bit audio track, which Disney have used over 15 times, is still plodding along robustly and without affecting video quality even during those peaks.
Untrue. Both PotC discs have issues with compression artifacts and explosions and they are pretty much unplayable on a standalone player at this point. It hasn't been until the New Fifth Element and Hot Fuzz that most of the video issues have been dealt with.

You guys know how this works. If BD was trouncing HDDVD he would not have to comment with the sour grapes tone he has.

Art

Sour grapes? I betcha! I would expect the rest of the studios are all wondering how they could get some of that hot Toshiba/HD DVD-PRG/whomever's money ... Fox, Universal, Warner, etc. Hell, maybe even Sony might do a limited exclusivity deal for the right amount of $$$ LOL

Sour grapes? I betcha! I would expect the rest of the studios are all wondering how they could get some of that hot Toshiba/HD DVD-PRG/whomever's money ... Fox, Universal, Warner, etc. Hell, maybe even Sony might do a limited exclusivity deal for the right amount of $$$ LOL

At this point, might be a smart move by Sony to sellout BD. :D

jer

bwaaaah!...the 'Annointed' Format isn't winning. If Toshiba had spent half their effort in actually trying to make a better format rather than proclaiming they had one Blu-ray never would have gotten off the Ground. Too late... HD DVD will go down in business school case history as one of the biggest corporate blunders of all time.
Fixed
:p
I agree. Just look at these numbers.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom090207/index.php?startpage=4

68:26 BD, 67:33 BD YTD 61:39 BD since inception.

Then there is news about exciting Fox releases on Blu-ray.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom090207/index.php?startpage=48

Then there is the top 20 YTD sales numbers up to August 5th. Universal is nowhere to be found and not even Paramount or Dreamworks appear on the list.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom090207/index.php?startpage=70

Paramount switching is not going to have any real effect. I have most of the Paramount titles I want already on Blu-ray and for the old ST movies, I have them on DVD.

I think Paramount was hurting for money due to lackluster sales.

PS. If it was not for Warner, HD DVD would not even made the top 20.

Fixed
:p
I agree. Just look at these numbers.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom090207/index.php?startpage=4

68:26 BD, 67:33 BD YTD 61:39 BD since inception.

Then there is news about exciting Fox releases on Blu-ray.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom090207/index.php?startpage=48

Then there is the top 20 YTD sales numbers up to August 5th. Universal is nowhere to be found and not even Paramount or Dreamworks appear on the list.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom090207/index.php?startpage=70

Paramount switching is not going to have any real effect. I have most of the Paramount titles I want already on Blu-ray and for the old ST movies, I have them on DVD.

I think Paramount was hurting for money due to lackluster sales.

PS. If it was not for Warner, HD DVD would not even made the top 20.The official lists I have, have Shooter in the top ten for the week on both formats, and it's no transformers or Shrek.

Let me start by saying that I am a strong HD-DVD supporter. In fact I do not have BR, and I boycott all Sony products.

When I go through my HD-DVD collection, exactly 2/3 of them do not have Dolby TrueHD. IMO this is unacceptable. I don't know the reason why (space, politics, wanting to double-dip?) and I don't care. When I went from laserdiscs to DVD, I was willing to accept better PQ for significantly inferior AQ. With HD-DVD I expect them to at least restore the AQ back to what I had with laserdiscs (with more channels, of course), and that means TrueHD, not Dolby Digital+.

At this point, might be a smart move by Sony to sellout BD. :D

jer

For the right amount of coin, I'd guess they could be bought ... but that wouldn't kill the BD format, as it will exist for a decade or more to come, if nothing more than to serve the ever-increasing number of PS3s out there (just like my Nintendo gamecube that had that proprietary pseudo-mini-DVD format).

BTW, I just had an interesting thought. How many BDs (admittedly, most/if-not-all being BD-25s today) are being pressed for PS3 games vs. BD movies?

(Pedantic) Let's take a look at the numbers ... so, with 4+ million PS3s out there worlwide, with what, an average of 3-4 games apiece for each PS3, that's like 9 million game BDs produced so far.

Movies? NA is like 1.5+M or so? Worldwide, doubling it might be a stretch, but let's go with 3.0M or so.

Speculative conclusion: So, at a current run-rate of 3:1 for BD games over BD movies, Sony's not going to be abandoning the BD format any time soon (at least for games).

The official lists I have, have Shooter in the top ten for the week on both formats, and it's no transformers or Shrek.
Reread my post. I was talking about Year to date up to August 5th. The sales of Shooter would have to be amazing to break the top 20 in a week. Even so, Shooter was released Jul 31, 2007 which was a while before the format switch and sold more on BD than HD DVD IIRC.

Fixed
:p
I agree. Just look at these numbers.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom090207/index.php?startpage=4

68:26 BD, 67:33 BD YTD 61:39 BD since inception.

Then there is news about exciting Fox releases on Blu-ray.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom090207/index.php?startpage=48

Then there is the top 20 YTD sales numbers up to August 5th. Universal is nowhere to be found and not even Paramount or Dreamworks appear on the list.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom090207/index.php?startpage=70

Paramount switching is not going to have any real effect. I have most of the Paramount titles I want already on Blu-ray and for the old ST movies, I have them on DVD.

I think Paramount was hurting for money due to lackluster sales.

PS. If it was not for Warner, HD DVD would not even made the top 20.


LMAO - NO effect? Because YOU have all the Paramount titles?:rolleyes:

Spoken like the true BD fan that you are. I think you are going to have trouble getting any of your brethern to agree with you though.

I think Paramount was hurting for money due to lackluster sales.
.

8 of the top 15 grossing movies in the last year have been from Paramount.

Going back to "Size Matters"...

HD-DVD has proved that 30gigs is enough space for high quality releases that stand equally in comparison with PotC.

In my opinion, 30gigs may be enough, but having more space available is definitely an advantage. Which is one reason why the HD-DVD camp continues to keep the TL discs looming as a "forget me not" item (the other reason, is of course, marketing against BD's rightful claim on higher capacity).

8 of the top 15 grossing movies in the last year have been from Paramount.
If you can't win an argument, you move goal posts? Their Home Media division and specifically their HD Media department was hurting for money. Box office sales are a different department all together.

Going back to "Size Matters"...

HD-DVD has proved that 30gigs is enough space for high quality releases that stand equally in comparison with PotC.

In my opinion, 30gigs may be enough, but having more space available is definitely an advantage. Which is one reason why the HD-DVD camp continues to keep the TL discs looming as a "forget me not" item (the other reason, is of course, marketing against BD's rightful claim on higher capacity).
It's not capacity but bandwidth. HD DVD could expand capacity but that would not change bandwidth limitations. Look it up on wikipedia.

Unfortunately that's average bit rate.

There are peaks of 39 Mbps in those two movies for video alone and that is what makes the difference. .

It's actually higher than that (using the buffer). I noticed 45mbit at one point.

Anyway, that doesn't mean said bitrates are needed. Since peaks make no real difference to the overall size on disc, using the max available is just the easiest route. Certainly HDDVD could do with a bit more to make the encoders' job easier, but the likes of Hot Fuzz show it's not necessary.

The bandwidth limitation is a major problem though if they decide to go for interactive crap, since with 16/48 lossless audio it only leaves around 24mbit for video peaks, which really isn't enough.

It's not capacity but bandwidth. HD DVD could expand capacity but that would not change bandwidth limitations. Look it up on wikipedia.


Exactly, hd dvd 51 GB discs, assuming they ever actually get released, still would have a huge bandwidth gap that can't be made up for with wishful thinking.
There is a reason that 100 % of BD exclusives from the major studios have HD audio and less than 10% of hd dvd exclusives do.

Its called bandwidth, which is even more important than GB.

Reread my post. I was talking about Year to date up to August 5th. The sales of Shooter would have to be amazing to break the top 20 in a week. Even so, Shooter was released Jul 31, 2007 which was a while before the format switch and sold more on BD than HD DVD IIRC.

Even so, no movie other than 300 has sold in numbers that can make any difference. If this doesn't change neither format will survive as a viable consumer product.

It's not capacity but bandwidth. HD DVD could expand capacity but that would not change bandwidth limitations. Look it up on wikipedia.


And there is 0 proof that the bandwidth difference you speak of with these 2 formats makes any difference.

8 of the top 15 grossing movies in the last year have been from Paramount.

OMG ... I didn't know that.

Is that correct? Link please? That would be major in this format war, as old catalog has been selling like **** compared to the day/date blockbuster releases.

8 of the top 15 grossing movies in the last year have been from Paramount.

Not according to boxofficemojo.com
8 of the top 15 would be on HDDVD, however.

LMAO - NO effect? Because YOU have all the Paramount titles?:rolleyes:

Spoken like the true BD fan that you are. I think you are going to have trouble getting any of your brethern to agree with you though.
Unless Paramount starts actually releasing more of their recent box office hits, their effect will be minimal. Very few people are going to re-buy stuff they already have on DVD.

Unless Paramount starts actually releasing more of their recent box office hits, their effect will be minimal. Very few people are going to re-buy stuff they already have on DVD.
Shrek 3 and Transformers day and date. The number 2 and 3 movie of the year so far.

Not according to boxofficemojo.com
8 of the top 15 would be on HDDVD, however.

Oh great ... so Bull-**** again on the AV "Science" forum! Vancouver ... shame on you! :(

Furthermore, how many of those "top 15" were also available on BD? How many were exclusive to BD? exclusive to HD?

Oh great ... so Bull-**** again on the AV "Science" forum! Vancouver ... shame on you! :(

Furthermore, how many of those "top 15" were also available on BD? How many were exclusive to BD? exclusive to HD?
Quick count of the top 20 says:
BD-8
N-5
HDDVD-7

draw.

And there is 0 proof that the bandwidth difference you speak of with these 2 formats makes any difference.

I will have to look up the shorter film example from a smaller studio later but Harry Potter: Order of the phoenix will be on two discs for HD DVD and only one for blue ray. Not only that but Blu-ray will have DD and PCM audio while HD DVD will have the standard (for HD DVD releases) DD+ audio.

HD DVD: Audio DD+ only. Order of the Phoenix to be a 2-disc edition.

Blu-ray: Audio DD and PCM (English). Order of the Phoenix to be single-disc but include same contents as DVD and HD DVD.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11505960#post11505960

And there is 0 proof that the bandwidth difference you speak of with these 2 formats makes any difference.

100% of BD exclusives from Disney, Fox and Sony have one or more forms of HD audio as in PCM audio, DD-THD or DTS-MA, with less than 10% of all hd dvd releases having actual HD audio in any form other than core.

Its either bandwith limitations or hd dvd's way of saying HD lite is good enough.
Either way its B.S.
Next to 1080p ,HD audio is right there on the list of whats most important on any given HD release.

OMG ... I didn't know that.

Is that correct? Link please? That would be major in this format war, as old catalog has been selling like **** compared to the day/date blockbuster releases.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2007-09-03T135944Z_01_N23255334_RTRUKOC_0_US-HIGHDEFINITION-WAR.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

I am mistaken. 8 of the top 15 are coming to HD DVD....not just from Paramount.

"Eight of the 15 top-grossing films of the year, including "Shrek the Third," "Transformers" and "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" were released by studios that distribute exclusively on HD DVD or on both formats."

100% of BD exclusives from Disney, Fox and Sony have one or more forms of HD audio as in PCM audio, DD-THD or DTS-MA, with less than 10% of all hd dvd releases having actual HD audio in any form other than core.

Its either bandwith limitations or hd dvd's way of saying HD lite is good enough.
Either way its B.S.
Next to 1080p ,HD audio is right there on the list of whats most important on any given HD release.
That would not be a bandwidth issue. Thanks for playing, though.

100% of BD exclusives from Disney, Fox and Sony have one or more forms of HD audio as in PCM audio, DD-THD or DTS-MA, with less than 10% of all hd dvd releases having actual HD audio in any form other than core.

Its either bandwith limitations or hd dvd's way of saying HD lite is good enough.
Either way its B.S.
Next to 1080p ,HD audio is right there on the list of whats most important on any given HD release.

To who? The public? Or the audio geeks here at AVS?

Take a shot and tell me how many have equipment that will play lossless audio. Now take a shot at the people who have DD5.1. And lastly take a shot at the people who are using the speakers in their TV.

To who? The public? Or the audio geeks here at AVS?

Take a shot and tell me how many have equipment that will play lossless audio. Now take a shot at the people who have DD5.1. And lastly take a shot at the people who are using the speakers in their TV.

Most players are hooked up with optical or coax I suspect. If they aren't now, they will be.

To who? The public? Or the audio geeks here at AVS?

Take a shot and tell me how many have equipment that will play lossless audio. Now take a shot at the people who have DD5.1. And lastly take a shot at the people who are using the speakers in their TV.

The public is not buying in case you have had your head burried in the sand.
These formats were launched at, and are still only supported by early adopters and enthusiast.
hd dvd should have HD audio like BD has, otherwise why are people like yourself even siding with the obviously inferior format?

Why are you even here if HD audio is not important to you?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2007-09-03T135944Z_01_N23255334_RTRUKOC_0_US-HIGHDEFINITION-WAR.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

I am mistaken. 8 of the top 15 are coming to HD DVD....not just from Paramount.

"Eight of the 15 top-grossing films of the year, including "Shrek the Third," "Transformers" and "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" were released by studios that distribute exclusively on HD DVD or on both formats."


Yeah, just to clarify...8 of the top 15 will be on HD-DVD, 10 of the top 15 will be on Blu-Ray. This is assuming Rush Hour 3 comes out.

My opinion: HD audio is important, but having more than one lossless track (of the same language) on a title is simply filling the bits.

To who? The public? Or the audio geeks here at AVS?

Take a shot and tell me how many have equipment that will play lossless audio. Now take a shot at the people who have DD5.1. And lastly take a shot at the people who are using the speakers in their TV.
All you would have to do is peruse a few public profiles instead of taking a while guess.

You know what happens when you assume don't you?

The public is not buying in case you have had your head burried in the sand.
These formats were launched at, and are still only supported by early adopters and enthusiast.
hd dvd should have HD audio like BD has, otherwise why are people like yourself even siding with the obviously inferior format?

Why are you even here if HD audio is not important to you?

Because I enjoy THE MOVIE! I enjoy the movie in HD and I do not feel that DD5.1 or DD+ is some letdown over lossless audio.

I love the movie . . . not my equipment, which is a means to show me the movie.

So you got a $50,000 dedicated HT with a 120" FPTV system using 1080x24P? I mean come on man . . . get with the program!

All you would have to do is peruse a few public profiles instead of taking a while guess.

You know what happens when you assume don't you?

You should know - you do it often enough!

I will have to look up the shorter film example from a smaller studio later but Harry Potter: Order of the phoenix will be on two discs for HD DVD and only one for blue ray. Not only that but Blu-ray will have DD and PCM audio while HD DVD will have the standard (for HD DVD releases) DD+ audio.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11505960#post11505960

Just out of curiosity did you happen to notice that was about the GERMAN release of HP? Can you even play that in NA with region coding? Lickily I don't have to look as it WILL play no matter where in the world it was published on HD DVD. But since I expect there to be a NA release of this boxset I think I will probably wait until I see a US release date and specs for that. Would suck if that PCM track was in German (unless you happen to known German) so you might be stuck with a lowly DD track

To who? The public? Or the audio geeks here at AVS?

Take a shot and tell me how many have equipment that will play lossless audio. Now take a shot at the people who have DD5.1. And lastly take a shot at the people who are using the speakers in their TV.

And that makes sub par audio releases OK how? We are here at the AVSForum generally seeking enlightenment on how to achieve better sound and picture not towing the old standards because they"re "good enough".

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2007-09-03T135944Z_01_N23255334_RTRUKOC_0_US-HIGHDEFINITION-WAR.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

I am mistaken. 8 of the top 15 are coming to HD DVD....not just from Paramount.

"Eight of the 15 top-grossing films of the year, including "Shrek the Third," "Transformers" and "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" were released by studios that distribute exclusively on HD DVD or on both formats."

You are mistaken? As a Canadian, you should be ashamed, again. Don't report "facts" when they aren't. Shame, SHAME! on you!

And that makes sub par audio releases OK how? We are here at the AVSForum generally seeking enlightenment on how to achieve better sound and picture not towing the old standards because they"re "good enough".

Dammit! You're right!
From now on I refuse to buy any movie or format that doesn't offer uncompressed video with 4:4:4 color and at least 7.1 24/192 PCM audio. I have seen the light. Thanks.

And that makes sub par audio releases OK how? We are here at the AVSForum generally seeking enlightenment on how to achieve better sound and picture not towing the old standards because they"re "good enough".

Gee . . . sounds an awful like like what we used to say when I was here in 1998 and all we had was LD. And there were less than 5000 of us.

Just out of curiosity did you happen to notice that was about the GERMAN release of HP? Can you even play that in NA with region coding? Lickily I don't have to look as it WILL play no matter where in the world it was published on HD DVD. But since I expect there to be a NA release of this boxset I think I will probably wait until I see a US release date and specs for that. Would suck if that PCM track was in German (unless you happen to known German) so you might be stuck with a lowly DD track
I could care less. I'm not a Hairy Potter fan.

Because I enjoy THE MOVIE! I enjoy the movie in HD and I do not feel that DD5.1 or DD+ is some letdown over lossless audio.

I love the movie . . . not my equipment, which is a means to show me the movie.

So you got a $50,000 dedicated HT with a 120" FPTV system using 1080x24P? I mean come on man . . . get with the program!

Lee, a lower midfi receiver and lower end speakers available at most any retail outlet are all thats needed to hear the difference between HD audio and dd5.1, which would include most of the members here.
Sure the differences are bigger if you have high end speakers but they are not required.

You do not need ultra hi end gear to hear the difference, and HD means audio, and not just P/Q.
Again, how can you not be for HD audio?

Lee, a lower midfi receiver and lower end speakers available at most any retail outlet are all thats needed to hear the difference between HD audio and dd5.1, which would include most of the members here.
Sure the differences are bigger if you have high end speakers but they are not required.

You do not need ultra hi end gear to hear the difference, and HD means audio, and not just P/Q.
Again, how can you not be for HD audio?

HDM is new. When DVD came out not all titles were in DD5.1 just like not all titles were anamorphic if they were widescreen. EVENTUALLY they both became the norm, just like HD Audio will. But to say the AQ stinks because it's "only" DD5.1 or DD+ makes no sense whatsoever to me.

And what happens when you decide to watch HD CBL, HD SAT or HD OTA. How can anyone stand to listen to such crappy audio?:rolleyes:

If there was a consumer format with 12 bit 4:4:4 lossless video, but there isn't.Oh come on now, for the real "Enthusiast" nothing should be good enough. Demand the digital Master. :D

At the moment AVC/VC-1 is the best achievable in video.And yet, with either of them it seems the 50GB capacity of the BD DL isn't needed.

Lossless at the master bit depth is the best achievable in audio.Agreed.

Its not that a 1.5 Mbps DD+ is bad but just because most people won't be able to hear the difference is sort of like saying all films should be encoded at 30p or 720p because most people don't have 1080 displays and even less people have displays capable of displaying 24 fps natively.Not quite, my gripe is with the people who only want LPCM instead of going with something like TrueHD or MasterHD (or whatever the DTS thingy is called).

The success of DVD was largely due to its ability to scale - the format could go from connecting to a tv with only composite out and analog audio out right through to high end systems with component and optical out.True in the Home Theater World, but the majority of people doesn't care, if they can make out what it looks like they'd be happy, and THEY are the ones who buy in volume and who those companies cater for, not the AVS poster / home theater enthusiast, for those are $500/m gold plated cable with lead shielding etc. (and yes, I am exaggerating here).

HDM is all about transitioning to a new format and it should be about getting the best possible format for the next 10 or so years, not lumping everyone with something that "will do" because thats what the specs allow.No, HDM is a new revenue stream for companies, like they resold you all your records and tapes when the CD came out, or movies when they switched from VHS to DVD.

The fact that you get something more is pure coincidence, for most people DVD is already good enough, including Dolby Digital 5.1.

If quality really would be the measure of all things LD would have kicked VHS in the nuts and had found mainstream adoption, it didn't. The cost was too high and the quality of the VHS tape was good enough for the majority of people. The only reason the DVD took off was that it was cheaper and it had an added bonus of convinience for most people, neither of which is really a hall mark of the HDM.

Part of the problem is that neither format can actually be called the best possible at the moment - blu-ray can take SQ, HD-DVD can take additional functionality and PQ is just about square.We'll see what they make out of TrueHD, unlike BD it is mandatory on HD DVD players.

...
Not quite, my gripe is with the people who only want LPCM instead of going with something like TrueHD or MasterHD (or whatever the DTS thingy is called).
...

We'll see what they make out of TrueHD, unlike BD it is mandatory on HD DVD players.

In theory, TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio (MA) are equivalent to uncompressed PCM after decoding in a suitable player. In practice, the DTS HD MA decoders are slow to get to market and TrueHD "Dialog Normalization" during the TrueHD encode affects the sound. I suspect this screws up the sound too, maybe not noticeable to J6P but those who have invested in serious sound systems will probably notice the difference (and some have already complained loudly).

Nevertheless, I'd probably be pretty happy if HD DVD could deliver even TrueHD on a consistent basis with movie releases. They've yet to consistently deliver lossless audio with HD DVD releases. A lot of us believe this has to do with bandwidth (and storage capacity) limitations.

and TrueHD "Dialog Normalization" during the TrueHD encode affects the sound. I suspect this screws up the sound too, maybe not noticeable to J6P but those who have invested in serious sound systems will probably notice the difference (and some have already complained loudly).

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_2/feature-article-dialog-normalization-6-2000.html - 1st hit on google

HDM is new. When DVD came out not all titles were in DD5.1 just like not all titles were anamorphic if they were widescreen. EVENTUALLY they both became the norm, just like HD Audio will.

But one format was launched whith 100% of its big studio exclusives having HD audio from the start on every single release, and the other that claims to be the complete from the start format is severely lacking on HD audio.

Thats the point, and if your so headstrong on hd dvd and its not a bandwidth problem, then you and others should be demanding actual HD audio instead of 1997's version of audio with a boost here and there from dd+.
I had better audio on tape with some of the D-theater releases than core dd 5.1, now your telling me that core is good enough for now?

If they don't use HD audio for the enthusiast/ early adopter, then what makes you think that this is going to change if/when the masses who could care less about better audio get involved?

The public is not buying in case you have had your head burried in the sand.
These formats were launched at, and are still only supported by early adopters and enthusiast.
hd dvd should have HD audio like BD has, otherwise why are people like yourself even siding with the obviously inferior format?

Why are you even here if HD audio is not important to you?

And HD DVD does have HD audio. Just use your eyes and read.

Superman Returns
The Matrix
Batman Begins

And HD DVD does have HD audio. Just use your eyes and read.

Superman Returns
The Matrix
Batman Begins


Yep, on less than 90% of its titles, not exactly what I call the complete format.

But one format was launched whith 100% of its big studio exclusives having HD audio from the start on every single release, and the other that claims to be the complete from the start format is severely lacking on HD audio.

Thats the point, and if your so headstrong on hd dvd and its not a bandwidth problem, then you and others should be demanding actual HD audio instead of 1997's version of audio with a boost here and there from dd+.
I had better audio on tape with some of the D-theater releases than core dd 5.1, now your telling me that core is good enough for now?

If they don't use HD audio for the enthusiast/ early adopter, then what makes you think that this is going to change if/when the masses who could care less about better audio get involved?

When the equipment gets in to the mass's living room - then it will be widely available. What ? You never heard of a double dip?:D

Take a shot and tell me how many have equipment that will play lossless audio.

This is one thing I don't quite understand - how someone can get so attached to the concept of a format that something like HD audio can't possibly matter.

A number of blu-ray boys did the exact same thing a while back with interactivity and PIP - "it can't possibly matter because it can't be done on blu-ray". At the time and rightly so, the HD-DVD supporters pointed out the double standards in this, even going so far as suggesting the studios take notice and just not put extras on blu-ray disks.

Just out of curiosity did you happen to notice that was about the GERMAN release of HP?

So far all Warner releases have been multi-region where they have done a universal encode for all regions - with the primary track being in the original language.

Dammit! You're right!
From now on I refuse to buy any movie or format that doesn't offer uncompressed video with 4:4:4 color and at least 7.1 24/192 PCM audio. I have seen the light. Thanks.

Unlike the DD+ vs lossless issue, there isn't a competing consumer level format capable of providing uncompressed video and 7.1 24/192 audio.

HDM is new. When DVD came out not all titles were in DD5.1 just like not all titles were anamorphic if they were widescreen. EVENTUALLY they both became the norm, just like HD Audio will.

DVD was always capable of anamorphic widescreen and so it was no hassle for the studios to start using it - is HD-DVD capable of providing lossless audio on all titles for the time when it becomes the norm.

Not quite, my gripe is with the people who only want LPCM instead of going with something like TrueHD or MasterHD (or whatever the DTS thingy is called).

Agreed. TrueHD is perfectly fine. That doesn't alter the fact that HD-DVD has only used TrueHD or a lossless format of any kind on around 15% of releases.

No, HDM is a new revenue stream for companies, like they resold you all your records and tapes when the CD came out, or movies when they switched from VHS to DVD.

No. Thats why the studios went into HDM. Personally I went into HDM for better picture quality and higher fidelity sound.

The fact that you get something more is pure coincidence, for most people DVD is already good enough, including Dolby Digital 5.1.

DVD allowed convenience and low cost for people not interested in home theatre and the best possible quality for people wishing to have it. Why shouldn't a high def medium do the same.

wow this thread is retarded. you'd think after over a year you guys would get bored arguing over the same ****, but i guess not.

well im gonna go watch a movie now, you fanboys take care

indeed. round and round they go.

DD+ sounds great on my system. Are you an AQ snob?

Absolutely, it sounds great. An AQ snob would be someone who refused to listen to a lossy track of any type. That is quite different to someone wanting to ensure they listen to the best quality track available.

Absolutely, it sounds great. An AQ snob would be someone who refused to listen to a lossy track of any type. That is quite different to someone wanting to ensure they listen to the best quality track available.

100% agreed - Lee has actually yet to hear the TrueHD tracks losslessly on any HD DVD titles so he can only presume the best he has heard is all that's needed.

Once he finally hears lossless, he'll know what most other people already know.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_2/feature-article-dialog-normalization-6-2000.html - 1st hit on google

Interesting read. Thanks. I'll need to digest it but it looks like it still amounts to the use of a digital volume control, principly to attenuate TV commercials ? I wouldn't have thought attenuating TV commercials would be necessary for movies... I'd still be more comfortable with the master audio being passed unmodified.

It's ok.. HD-DVD has their own version of Pirates due out and it's much better than the BD version.

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/images/post/1/1483/original.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats#Technical _Details

Look at the peak rates and capacity. If you have Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio track (lossless), you are left with only 12.24 Mbits/s available bandwidth for video on HD DVD compared with 30Mbits/s on Blu-ray.
Please tell me you don't actually believe this drivel. 5.1 16/48 PCM (most commonly used thus far) takes about 7Mbps. 7.1 24/48 PCM (hasn't been used yet to my knowledge) bumps this up to a little over 9Mbps.

You honestly believe that if you take one of those tracks and COMPRESS it with Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA, that it doubles or triples in size?

In actuality, a losslessly-compressed 24/48 soundtrack runs right around 3.4Mbps, with peaks over 4Mbps. Care to try to make your comparison again? 26+ Mbps for video doesn't seem NEARLY as dire as 12Mbps now, does it? Especially when your misapplication of the wikipedia info would have limited Blu-Ray to 24Mbps for the video if you had at least done your math right.

The point is that your argument that the difference between lossless and DD+ 1.5 is "HUGE" and "A REAL QUALITY" difference is utterly devoid of intellectual honesty. Have you ever been submitted in a valid double blind test comparing DD+ and lossless? If the difference is huge, then are you honestly asserting that you would be able to tell the difference all the time?

Until then, I'm sorry for being a sheeple and thinking that highly tangible and perceptible features like interactivity are slightly more useful.

It's still a difference between lossy and lossless. I'll vote for lossless everytime. If the format supports it, use it. If the format doesn't support it, use another format which does.

Once he finally hears lossless, he'll know what most other people already know.

What, that they prefer compressed MP3s to DVD-A and SACD?

The average guy does not care. Sure there is that top 2% who love AQ, but for everyone else, it just does not matter.

On a side note, I love the the guys with crappy speakers (like Bose) who claim that lossless audio sounds better.:D

What, that they prefer compressed MP3s to DVD-A and SACD?

The average guy does not care. Sure there is that top 2% who love AQ, but for everyone else, it just does not matter.

On a side note, I love the the guys with crappy speakers (like Bose) who claim that lossless audio sounds better.:D

i would care about Lossless if i could afford a great speaker system , but all i got is a $200 system from bestbuy.

As for mp3s well i don't prefer them and i doubt anyone out there does prefer them for their sound quality, we use them because of their size. Lossless audio on an ipod would fill up the hardrive very quickly wouldn't it ?

Imagine someone buying an ipod nano and filling it up with just 20 or so songs .... wouldn't be very popular now would it ?

i would care about Lossless if i could afford a great speaker system , but all i got is a $200 system from bestbuy.

As for mp3s well i don't prefer them and i doubt anyone out there does prefer them for their sound quality, we use them because of their size. Lossless audio on an ipod would fill up the hardrive very quickly wouldn't it ?

Imagine someone buying an ipod nano and filling it up with just 20 or so songs .... wouldn't be very popular now would it ?

Maybe your system isn't so good now, but later on, when you can afford a better system, you will be glad that collection of discs you accumulated supported lossless audio. E.g. I'm looking forward to the day when I procure an DTS HD MA-capable player to playback that accumulation of discs with DTS HD MA sound tracks.

You aren't buying an HD movie for portability, you are buying it to play a movie with "high-def" picture and sound. I'd want as much PQ/SQ "squeezed" onto the disc as the format allows. If one format allows more "stuff" to be "squeezed" on to the same physically-sized disc, than that's the format to go with.

"Take Disney's Cars. You look at the depth of the graphical animation in that movie and HD DVD would discriminate that part. Therefore the studio's choice was clear. HD DVD is not good enough. Blu-ray is the only format which has the 50GB."


50 GB for what...? I see, they're putting in even more trailers & teasers before the movie! :D

It's ok.. HD-DVD has their own version of Pirates due out and it's much better than the BD version.

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/images/post/1/1483/original.jpeg

Lmao.....when are you guys gonna learn...WE and not all of us, are the only ones who care about this stuff. JSP only cares about the price...he will only Venture[r] into the HD media game when it is affordable. Sheesh, I wish everyone was more neutral like me.:D

Maybe your system isn't so good now, but later on, when you can afford a better system, you will be glad that collection of discs you accumulated supported lossless audio. E.g. I'm looking forward to the day when I procure an DTS HD MA-capable player to playback that accumulation of discs with DTS HD MA sound tracks.

You aren't buying an HD movie for portability, you are buying it to play a movie with "high-def" picture and sound. I'd want as much PQ/SQ "squeezed" onto the disc as the format allows. If one format allows more "stuff" to be "squeezed" on to the same physically-sized disc, than that's the format to go with.

Your right later on i will , but here is the sad truth . I just recently bought a 5.1 set , before that since the start of dvd i've been using a 2.1 sound system. In the 9 years or so that i've owned a dvd player i have not used the better sound capabilitys.

So of course I want true hd on every title , but i understand that at the start it will take time to ramp up. If in late 2008 or very early 2009 true hd isn't on the majority of new releases ( I can understand very old movies not having it) then I will be pretty pissed, but in 2006/7 i'm okay with the sound i'm getting.

There are very few first year buys from my dvd collection taht haven't been update and i bleieve that will be the same today.

As for the mp3s , i was agreeing with you and disagreeing with the other poster. MP3s are more popular than the other formats because of how portable it is compared to the others and in that market its very important.

I would hope going foward they created a new hd dvd based audio format , perhaps 7.1 true hd albums that you can rip to mp3 for on the go. We do need a true audio replacement for cds .

Someone needs to do a double-blind test study before any of us are discussing the perceptible differences between lossless and DD+.

As for the iPod, I compress to a bit rate of 256kbps and battery life and space are not issues. There is clearly a difference in audio quality with decent headphones/computer speakers. If you're encoding/downloading 128kbps files, then you really don't care much about audio quality IMHO (or you just want music for free, regardless of sound).

How good can a decent lossy soundtrack be?

Well, Bungling Blu Bill HUnt's THE DIGITAL BITS gave 'King Kong' 19.5/20, saying:

"The Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 track is all a surround experience should be - dynamic and completely enveloping with ample engagement of the surrounds and LFE. The disc is probably the best HD-DVD demonstration material available to date."

'Hot Fuzz' only has DD+, but High DEf Digest say:

"...the included Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 EX surround mix (1.5 Mbps) is impressively proficient in everything it does. Rich dynamics immediately make their presence known with boomy bass and crisp treble ranges that didn't have peaking issues or stability problems. Dialogue is layered exactly as it should be within the soundscape and I wasn't distracted by any prioritization mishaps.

Channel movement occurs frequently and startlingly fast -- but the Digital-Plus mix offers subtle pans and smooth transitions that add a level of authenticity to the soundfield. More importantly, accuracy is exact and all of the speakers get a full workout with boisterous explosions and weighty gunshots. I continually found myself turning my head at sounds that seemed to be occurring elsewhere in my house. Immersing myself in the mix was a cinch and I found the entire sound experience to be extremely pleasant from beginning to end."

And that's disc with 5 star video review.

I wonder how many people here actually watch films and how many simply read the specifications?

Steve W

Someone needs to do a double-blind test study before any of us are discussing the perceptible differences between lossless and DD+.

I agree.

Importantly, they should not be told its an audio test!

Why? Well, we don't sit watching a film whilst giving the audio our fullest attention.

We watch films and the sound...well, it's just there.

That's how it is when watching a film in the real world, so that's how it should be for the test.

Steve W

:rolleyes:

Welcome to the future of Hi-Def sound!! It's lossy over lossless anytime!!

I agree.

Importantly, they should not be told its an audio test!

Why? Well, we don't sit watching a film whilst giving the audio our fullest attention.

We watch films and the sound...well, it's just there.

That's how it is when watching a film in the real world, so that's how it should be for the test.

Steve W

Speakers and placement are 10x more important that Lossy vs. Lossless.
I have always said a receiver with great DACs and a nice set of speakers can make a good lossy track sound as good as lossless (flame suit on).

Speakers and placement are 10x more important that Lossy vs. Lossless.
I have always said a receiver with great DACs and a nice set of speakers can make a good lossy track sound as good as lossless (flame suit on).

Au contraire. Great DACs and great (resolving) speakers means you are more likely to notice the differences between lossy and lossless sound tracks. With Bose speakers, you won't be able to tell the difference.

Do you know the only thing that matters? That really matters?

QUESTION: Who has ever watched 'King Kong' and thought "This picture and/or sound is not up to scratch, to the point of detracting from my enjoyment of the film".

That is the only thing that matters.

When I used to watch my SD DVDs on my SD projector I really enjoyed it, but it was absolutely impossible to ignore how the picture was very soft, and the fact that I could quite easilly see individual pixels and the line structure.

When I used to listen to DPL sountracks on my LaserDiscs, it was impossible to ignore how lightweight and non-stereo the rears were.

These things detracted from my enjoyment. I didn't have to look for them. I didn't need to listen for them.

When I watch my BDs or HD DVDs I can safely say that nothing detracts from my pleasure, other than the 'phone ringing, as long as it's a good print and a decent soundmix.

That is the only thing that should matter to any of us.

Steve W

Speakers and placement are 10x more important that Lossy vs. Lossless.
I have always said a receiver with great DACs and a nice set of speakers can make a good lossy track sound as good as lossless (flame suit on).

I have a great surround system (Magnaplanar and B&W Nautilus speakers). I use analog outputs from my Toshiba A1. It gets redigitized by my Anthem D1, but this isn't a big quality loss.

On my system, the lossless is different, but not necessarily better. It is smoother, but sometimes I feel it is less exciting.

The differences are minor, however. I greatly enjoy the DD+, and I'm usually an audio snob. Regular DD is a travesty.

DD+ has great sound. The soundtracks themselves, with 100 inputs mixed together, compression and processing added, etc. are not exactly pristine 2-channel music. I'm sure I wouldn't like the compression on high-quality music, but on movies, DD+ is quite sufficient. The snob in me prefers lossless, but you don't need it to fully enjoy the movie. It doesn't affect whether I'll buy a movie or not, and certainly isn't going to change the format war.

Yep, on less than 90% of its titles, not exactly what I call the complete format.

Well he is envious of his brothers PS3's superior HDM audio. Good to see he plans on double dipping to catch up :D

I have a great surround system (Magnaplanar and B&W Nautilus speakers). I use analog outputs from my Toshiba A1. It gets redigitized by my Anthem D1, but this isn't a big quality loss.

On my system, the lossless is different, but not necessarily better. It is smoother, but sometimes I feel it is less exciting.

The differences are minor, however. I greatly enjoy the DD+, and I'm usually an audio snob. Regular DD is a travesty.

DD+ has great sound. The soundtracks themselves, with 100 inputs mixed together, compression and processing added, etc. are not exactly pristine 2-channel music. I'm sure I wouldn't like the compression on high-quality music, but on movies, DD+ is quite sufficient. The snob in me prefers lossless, but you don't need it to fully enjoy the movie. It doesn't affect whether I'll buy a movie or not, and certainly isn't going to change the format war.

The best sound I have ever heard was from a nice set of Magnepan planner speakers. Freakin' amazing. My wife made me return them because of their size.:(

What, that they prefer compressed MP3s to DVD-A and SACD?

The average guy does not care. Sure there is that top 2% who love AQ, but for everyone else, it just does not matter.

On a side note, I love the the guys with crappy speakers (like Bose) who claim that lossless audio sounds better.:D

Are you here for yourself and your tastes or for "the average" persons tastse? I'm here for what I prefer and that is the best PQ and SQ and blu-ray offers the most of what I want for use in my home.

Are you here for yourself and your tastes or for "the average" persons tastse? I'm here for ...blu-ray...

I said...

Speakers and placement are 10x more important that Lossy vs. Lossless.
I have always said a receiver with great DACs and a nice set of speakers can make a good lossy track sound as good as lossless

Since I have far more SD DVDs and watch far more HDTV than HDM, I prefer a system that makes all 3 look and sound great. Video is far more important to me though, as long as the audio is of solid quality and immersive. That's why I spent over 3 grand on a projector and only 1 grand on a receiver.

Are you here for yourself and your tastes or for "the average" persons tastse? I'm here for what I prefer and that is the best PQ and SQ and blu-ray offers the most of what I want for use in my home.

I am sorry Brian... maybe its your posts or its my dislexia... but your forum name just makes me laugh.

I usually have a ceiling fan running, the AC units cycles off and on, so I don't have a perfect listen enviroment. Even with good speakers, and a properly calibrated sound system I just don't get the big deal.. I am not saying I don't want lossless audio, it is just that the sound mix seems to make a lot more difference than the subtle difference in my media rooms than whether it is DD+ or some lossles format.

I said...

Speakers and placement are 10x more important that Lossy vs. Lossless.
I have always said a receiver with great DACs and a nice set of speakers can make a good lossy track sound as good as lossless

Since I have far more SD DVDs and watch far more HDTV than HDM, I prefer a system that makes all 3 look and sound great. Video is far more important to me though, as long as the audio is of solid quality and immersive. That's why I spent over 3 grand on a projector and only 1 grand on a receiver.

Thanks for the answering. No doubt placement and equipment is important. However after the placement and speaker choice are taken into considering there are still the same benefits to having better encodes, doing proper room placements and calibrations (bass traps, accoustical treatments, etc) doesn't suddenly take away those advantages. It simply makes all sources sound better.

Thanks for the answering. No doubt placement and equipment is important. However after the placement and speaker choice are taken into considering there are still the same benefits to having better encodes, doing proper room placements and calibrations (bass traps, accoustical treatments, etc) doesn't suddenly take away those advantages. It simply makes all sources sound better.

Hm,

Can you detail where you placed your treatments in your setup:

http://www.geocities.com/briankmonkey/DSC00049.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/briankmonkey/DSC00049.JPG

I am sorry Brian... maybe its your posts or its my dislexia... but your forum name just makes me laugh.

I usually have a ceiling fan running, the AC units cycles off and on, so I don't have a perfect listen enviroment. Even with good speakers, and a properly calibrated sound system I just don't get the big deal.. I am not saying I don't want lossless audio, it is just that the sound mix seems to make a lot more difference than the subtle difference in my media rooms than whether it is DD+ or some lossles format.

lol, no problem. More than a couple have type "brainkmonkey".

Heck, none of us have a perfect listening environment. Some of us just make with what we can or want. Exactly true, the sound mix plays a huge factor. Simply putting it on a lossless codec doesn't guarantee a great sound product.

Hm,

Can you detail where you placed your treatments in your setup:

http://www.geocities.com/briankmonkey/DSC00049.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/briankmonkey/DSC00049.JPG

lol, I sold that place 3 years ago. Regardless I didn't have many treatments, just some minor furniture adjustments.

Real classy PM to me about it. Personally I disagree as it was my favorite display I've owned (liked it more than the SXRD I had at my newer place) but I guess I'll just have to live with you not liking it :eek: I'm sure you'll share your setup with everybody here so that anybody who has something better (I assume yours is better with your nose up all high and might like that) can crap down on you, right!

http://www.geocities.com/briankmonkey/DSC00049.JPG

Nice "home theater"! NOT

I enjoy the "idea" of lossless just like the next man, but this "lossless or bust" attitude of some of these "spec priests" give me a damn headache.

Seriously, how is it that these PQ / SQ disciples who preach BD superiority with fire and brimstone, do so with the PS3 as their soap box? Seriously?? They're using a GAME CONSOLE, which, at its introduction, wasn't received very well by reviewers for its video playback prowess and only fared moderately well on the audio side. However, this IS the HD equipment, along with the "spec sheet scrolls" that these disciples are using as their staff to part the Red Sea with and leading J6P to HD bliss. YAWN!!

Price and REAL WORLD userability is what will matter on a broader scale. The intricacies of the HD format, either format, will remain in the realm of the niche market...err...enthusiast.

Prophecy complete...

P.S. The ten commandments would be awesome on either BD or HD DVD. Or, is it already available.

I have a great surround system (Magnaplanar and B&W Nautilus speakers). I use analog outputs from my Toshiba A1. It gets redigitized by my Anthem D1, but this isn't a big quality loss.

On my system, the lossless is different, but not necessarily better. It is smoother, but sometimes I feel it is less exciting.

The differences are minor, however. I greatly enjoy the DD+, and I'm usually an audio snob. Regular DD is a travesty.

DD+ has great sound. The soundtracks themselves, with 100 inputs mixed together, compression and processing added, etc. are not exactly pristine 2-channel music. I'm sure I wouldn't like the compression on high-quality music, but on movies, DD+ is quite sufficient. The snob in me prefers lossless, but you don't need it to fully enjoy the movie. It doesn't affect whether I'll buy a movie or not, and certainly isn't going to change the format war.

So will you be interested in music videos with 5.1 24/96 PCM soundtracks and hi-def video (e.g. "Chris Botti Live" on Blu-ray) ? I'm looking forward to it but it may not happen if Blu-ray does not demonstrate enough staying power. (5.1 5.6M DSD would be even better but I doubt that will ever be a reality). Are you going to be perfectly happy with DD+ music videos knowing the masters might have been 24/96 or higher resolution ?

lol, I sold that place 3 years ago. Regardless I didn't have many treatments, just some minor furniture adjustments.

Real classy PM to me about it. Personally I disagree as it was my favorite display I've owned (liked it more than the SXRD I had at my newer place) but I guess I'll just have to live with you not liking it :eek: I'm sure you'll share your setup with everybody here so that anybody who has something better (I assume yours is better with your nose up all high and might like that) can crap down on you, right!


Agreed. Isn't there more than enough misguided elitism around here, without people adding to it unnecessarily?

I enjoy the "idea" of lossless just like the next man, but this "lossless or bust" attitude of some of these "spec priests" give me a damn headache.

Seriously, how is it that these PQ / SQ disciples who preach BD superiority with fire and brimstone, do so with the PS3 as their soap box? Seriously?? They're using a GAME CONSOLE, which, at its introduction, wasn't received very well by reviewers for its video playback prowess and only fared moderately well on the audio side. However, this IS the HD equipment, along with the "spec sheet scrolls" that these disciples are using as their staff to part the Red Sea with and leading J6P to HD bliss. YAWN!!

Price and REAL WORLD userability is what will matter on a broader scale. The intricacies of the HD format, either format, will remain in the realm of the niche market...err...enthusiast.

Prophecy complete...

P.S. The ten commandments would be awesome on either BD or HD DVD. Or, is it already available.

Laws yes, I'd just love to see some of the golden-eared, self-described audiophiles around here take part in a carefully controlled DBT........that is, if they'd be willing to. :rolleyes: