which format is truley better? - Page 5

No, PQ and AQ are separate issues. For example, Grand Prix has outstanding PQ, but the AQ is inherently limited by the original audio master. Yes, a lossless encode will help limit degradation of what's there, but an extra 8 bits won't do anything for an original track that didn't have great dynamic range or sound placement to begin with.


No. BD is clearly inferior in the most important metric to consumers: Price vs. performance. The areas that are continually trumpeted as BDs advantages really don't mean anything to the average consumer, because they simply can't be seen or heard on the average display and sound system in homes in the US. For the vast majority of consumers, the effective performance of these two formats is identical. Thus, it comes down to price and media availability. Media availability is a dead-heat right now, with the number of actual available titles very close between the two. Price is heavily loaded in HD DVDs favor.

HD DVD inferior? Not even close.

David/Bourke - The investment is software, player cost in minuscule in comparison. we'll have loads of players in the end, but won't re-buy much software. That's the perspective I'm coming from when I talk about looking into the future.

Ask Paidgeek. They are exchanging copies for the new version as a courtesy, but nothing was ever recalled. Please stop the lies.

List them please.

Once again the HD DVD argument leads to settling for mediocrity. Congratulations!

From strictly the perspective of QUALITY video/audio, in my newbie opinion, to compare formats, both need to be "viewed" on a 1.3/1080p/HDMI display and played on the most capable HD DVD/Blu-ray players. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the most capable HD DVD player is Toshiba's XA2. Can anyone tell me which Blu-ray player is currently considered the most capable or equal to the XA2?

Hypothetically, if BOTH an HD DVD and Blu-ray version of "The Matrix" (Complete Matrix Trilogy in Dolby TrueHD audio) were played on the best HD DVD and Blu-ray players available today, viewed on a Samsung LN-T4665F 1080p LCD widescreen display using an Onkyo TX-SR605 AV receiver connected to audiophile 7.1 surround speakers, would the video and or audio quality be genuinely/noticeably better in either the HD or Blu-ray format? Assume all connections are made via HDMI cables.

I repeatedly hear arguments relating to the "number" of HD DVD vs. Blu-ray titles available. As someone just getting into the HD world, I was surprised by the high number of "crappy" movies, many I did not think worth paying to see in their theater incarnations, that have been released compared to movies I would want to experience repeatedly. Personally, my standard for buying any movie is whether it is one I will enjoy watching repeatedly. Because Blu-ray has more titles available, they also have a proportionate number of "crappy" movies that I do not want to purchase. If I eliminate all the movies I'd never purchase, I don't see a big difference between HD DVD and Blu-ray titles that I want to own. Why do studios release "crappy" movies over their more popular and more watchable ones? If all new movies are destined to be immediately released in HD DVD/Blu-ray, both should be equally desirable from a video/audio QUALITY perspective.

And in all candor, the argument of which format is "better" is useless/uninformative in that even many of the arguments I've read here seem to be based on marketing spin and or uniformed/inaccurate/sound bites/mistakenly evaluated/mischaracterized/incomplete information and personal opinion. In the end, the only personal opinion that matters is your own. Everything else is meaningless hyperbole. An apples to apples comparison is really the only way to determine which you like best.

and most BD titles' quality are not mediocre how?

do your own research

spin spin spin. Sony's "courtesy" includes exchanging various DVD titles that can't play properly due to their excessive ArccoS copy protection scheme, audio CD with rootkit, and BD that looks like $#1+ (I'm glad to receive the replacement)

Sorry, but I simply don't see where TrueHD is mediocrity, nor do I see where the PQ I'm seeing with my XA2 is 'settling'.

My point wasn't that HD DVD is 'good enough' vs BDs 'better specs'. My point is that in 99% of the displays in use in our market, there will be NO difference between the two. Even our high-end experts wouldn't be able to tell the difference between BD and HD DVD in the average home with an HD setup, because this average home system is no capable of resolving the differences.

Example: There is lots of talk about lossless vs. uncompressed audio on this board. WHO CARES? To reach the point where it's even worth discussing, you need to have:

> A fully-featured 5.1 or 7.1 system capable of full-range reproduction at reference level
> Said system properly calibrated
> Room properly acoustically treated
> Room properly isolated to prevent external noise intrusion
> etc....

This may appear common to those of us who hang out on this board, but it is really quite rare in the rest of the world. The vast majority of people who buy a 'Home Theater' purchase a 'flatscreen' and a HTiB, then proceed to use the worst possible speaker placement and no room treatment whatsoever. At best, the user will do whatever automatic calibration the system will perform, but he/she probably doesn't even know where to put the mic.

On the PQ side, it's even worse. How many people do you think actually calibrate their display with the THX screens on DVDs? Light-controlled room? When we say 'crushed blacks', most people think 'Huh? Kahlua in a blender?'

If we want HD Media to succeed, then THIS is the demographic that needs to adopt it. It may not be J6P, but it ain't the tweakers, either. There just aren't enough of us to keep either format around for very long. Amongst the people who need to be buying HDM, there is NO visible difference between HD DVD and BD.

Yes, but it goes beyond that. You really need a calibrated system, and you need top-notch audio to get the full benefits of the HD formats.


Not enough information. If you assume that both were mastered using the same encode, then there will be no difference between the two. This is the way most of the dual-format releases have been done.

Now, theoretically, it is possible to get a bit more bandwidth and storage onto a BD than a HD DVD. Thus, if you separately optimized the encodes for DL HD DVD and DL BD, you might get a very slightly better picture from the BD. I'm not familiar with the display you mention, and whether or not you can see the difference will depend on the room conditions, calibration, seating distance, etc., so I can't give a hard answer. It certainly won't be a BIG difference, but it might be visible. In truth, though, there is far more difference between the quality of the mastering/encoding than there is between the formats themselves. A well-executed master on HD DVD will look far better than a quick-and-dirty job on BD, and vice versa. I think that we can all agree that the quality spread between best and worst on BOTH formats ranges from horrible to fantastic.

Audio quality would be identical in your scenario, since you have already specified a lossless encoder.


Agreed. It is reasonable to assume that the studios are waiting until there are enough players in the market to guarantee big sales before letting loose the best films.


The problem is that you can't really do an apples-to-apples comparison without buying both and putting them into your system in your viewing room. Joe Average won't be able to tell the difference (nor will he care), but a serious videophile may get terribly worked up about the differences in pixelization between VC-1 and MPEG-4. Thus, Joe average will have to rely on what he sees in stores - which is notably bad information. You can bet that at EVERY store, they have the displays so terribly out of calibration that you can't tell much about the quality of the signal source. As for sound quality? You'll never be able to discern anything between lossless or lossy encoding in most stores. My experience has been that at the few outlets that have decent screening/listening rooms, they only carry one or the other format, so you can't do an A/B comparison.

only 3 of the last 20 BD releases use MPEG-2.......

Almost all HD titles are mediocre. I don't readily accept that like most. Both formats need to improve. Unfortunately HD DVD has the bitrate handicap while BD does not.

Don't forget that when lossless is used on HD DVD peak video bitrates fall significantly. That makes little sense to me and whoever devised these brilliant specs should be fired. Too bad so many can't understand PQ=AQ.

Easy there - I never said that there was no difference between lossy and lossless. Go back and read what I wrote. I am an audiophile first, so I am a BIG fan of lossless encodes. And, yes, I would prefer that BOTH formats adopt lossless encoding as the de facto standard. If/when I go dual-format (and I suspect it's only a matter of time before there's a BD player at $149 or less), I will ALWAYS default to whichever format gives me a lossless audio option.

My point was that if you compare the same master encoded in uncompressed PCM and TrueHD, you WILL NOT hear a difference - they are bit-for-bit identical at the D/A.

Tell me again how there is an audio quality difference between a lossless encode on HD DVD and a lossless encode on BD? There isn't, period.


What I said was:
In this I was responding to the BD fan-boys who continue to try to make the case that uncompressed PCM is somehow superior to lossless encoding. This is BS, pure and simple. Even if there were a miniscule audible difference based on the amount of processing time being taken up by the decoding step, you'd never hear it in any but the most highly-refined room.

FWIW, I do have a treated room and a system that makes use of lossless sound; I definitely can hear a difference between DD, dts, and TrueHD. I will also agree with you that there is no reason that the studios shouldn't be taking advantage of these features on every HD release, and neither format has managed to get this to be the defaul standard. However, I will disagree that a TrueHD release on BD will sound any better than a TrueHD release on HD DVD - they will be identical, except for any differences that may be caused by the player or pre-amp decoder.

I don't see many people saying equal depth LPCM is better than TrueHD. However, using LPCM on BD is great because:

1. It's probably the mostly widely usable sound format.
2. It doesn't affect video bitrates.

TrueHD is the only option on HD DVD because of the impact on video bitrate peaks.

Be fair about this - the same is true for BD. Many of the BD titles use uncompressed PCM, which is a severe bandwidth hog. The use of uncompressed PCM reduces the bandwidth advantage the BD has.

It is safe to say that the best possible situation with today's standards would be to have a DL BD encoded with TrueHD (and NOT uncompressed PCM), then optimized for a VC-1 video encode using maximum available bandwidth. Unfortunately, this is not a common practice.

Second best would be a DL HD DVD using the same technologies - TrueHD and optimized VC-1. This is also not terribly common, though more common than scenario #1.

Third would be a DL BD encoded with uncompressed PCM and optimized VC-1. This, while being third-best, appears to be the most common of the three.

Everything else availble either uses unacceptable bandwidth (multiple audio formats) or is lossy, which is not commensurate with the goals of HD Media.

Given the choice, I would take HD DVD with TrueHD over BD with uncompressed PCM. This is particularly true when you take into account that almost NONE of the current releases in either format have really been optimized for the bandwidth and space available.

That said, I think you are correct in saying that most HD releases today are not fully taking advantage of the technology and quality available.

I would still submit, though, that MOST PEOPLE can't tell the difference on their home system (or simply don't care). The very fact that you are posting on this board puts you in the upper tier of those who watch movies at home, right? I can't tell you how many times I've been invited over to someone's house to watch a movie or a sporting event, and have been absolutely unable to enjoy the evening because of terrible sound (or turned down so low that conversation destroyed the effect), or horrendously bad picture. Like it or not, these are the people who spend money, and they will barely see the difference between SD DVD and HD DVD/BD.

[As a parallel, I also race cars. The vast majority of people who buy Porsches, Ferraris, Vipers, Corvettes, etc., have absolutely NO idea how to set these cars up or drive them at anywhere near their capabilities. It is these buyers, however, that provide the bulk of the spending in this market. That's why you can't buy a Corvette without ABS, airbags, air conditioning, and soft seats, and none of them come with a true performance suspension. Heck, to a driving enthusiast the very concept of a Corvette with an automatic transmission is rather like a Harley with training wheels......but they sell a lot of them.]

Quote:
"The problem is that you can't really do an apples-to-apples comparison without buying both and putting them into your system in your viewing room. Joe Average won't be able to tell the difference (nor will he care), but a serious videophile may get terribly worked up about the differences in pixelization between VC-1 and MPEG-4. Thus, Joe average will have to rely on what he sees in stores - which is notably bad information. You can bet that at EVERY store, they have the displays so terribly out of calibration that you can't tell much about the quality of the signal source. As for sound quality? You'll never be able to discern anything between lossless or lossy encoding in most stores. My experience has been that at the few outlets that have decent screening/listening rooms, they only carry one or the other format, so you can't do an A/B comparison."

That's precisely what I plan to do, but I can't seem to determine what Blu-ray players is comparable/equal to the Toshiba HD-XA2. And thanks for your very thorough response.

The post you're replying to has some merit. Unless of course you also have those miracle ears I keep hearing about. I'm not saying there isn't a difference at all, but like he said, most won't hear the difference. For the most part, we're not talking about night and day differences. Most are so subtle the average user will NEVER tell them apart. That's what he's trying to say.

I have not seen your audio system nor it's set-up, but I'd love to give you a blind audio test to see if you could actually tell the difference on a consistant bases between the audio formats in your home. I live in MN also, I could be there in 20 minutes. A friendly wager wouldn't be out of the question. Put your money where your mouth is.

My 1st post here, couldn't help it but have to chime in.

This is a freaking silly question asking question like this just like asking GM better than FORD ? or TOYOTA better than HONDA?...

Hello anyone ever heard of:

"beauty in the eyes of beholder"

Good luck, this question never get anywhere, you never get the awnser.

With all due respect, we'll have to disagree. There are distinct technical differences between the various available HD solutions, and they do impact the quality of the final product.

It's more like asking which is better between a Mustang Cobra and a Corvette ZR-1. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but most people will never put them on the track to find out how they really differ. This does not make the conversation useless, though, among people who race them.

Interesting...


So if I owned a 720p TV, I would want an A20... not an A2 or A3?
Most people don't own 1080p TV’s. So why buy a 1080p player that will only see its signal get down converted by the display device?
It seems like the same logic as the disk space argument. I have read in a few threads on this site that most Blu Ray movies have been getting shipped on 25gb disks... while HD-DVD movies have been getting shipped on 30gb discs. So where is the disc space advantage?

Craig

Amen... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Craig

You got it...


Craig

What ?!

Art

It's so true, people learn more about both format by reading all those posts in this thread, I didn't means those info are useless. But the original poster looking for the answer "which one is better", he never going to get it.
The moment people spend money and time with their toys, they already bias....you lets people see advantages and disadvantages, but bias have more influence on decisions, some people won't face the true. Who is this forum have final say, my better than your? The debate will keep go on and on until people will lose interest or out of control and shut down by admin.
To me only time will tell

My thoughts exactly with repect to the fan boy (from someone who says "don't be a fan boy") comment that nearly all HD DVD titles are mediocre with respect to PQ and AQ! There's so much BS on this forum with respect to these formats.

Cheers,

Grant

I believe, when all is said and done, the winner of these two formats won't be who has the most disc storage space or what ever technical issue you want to chant Blu Ray or HD-DVD has over the other.
It will be marketing and the stores who market these formats
Honestly, I have never been to a brick and mortar store that has favored HD-DVD. They all favor Blu Ray.
I was in Detroit yesterday. Went to an event called the Woodward Dream Cruise. While we were there, I coaxed my buddies into going into an AV store called the Gramophone.
Let me tell you, the staff there had to be the most unfriendly people I have ever met in an AV store.
We were looking at a room that had two projectors shooting an image on opposite ends of the room. One was a Runco and the other was a Sony Pearl. So we were looking at the material that was being demoed, Star Wars I and that is when it started. I asked him what he carried as far as HD-DVD and BD was concerned. He said Blue Ray, because HD-DVD was going to be dead by Christmas. I asked him why he said that and he said because Blu Ray has all of the movie content and studios in its favor. I asked him if they had ever seen the XA2? He said they had it at one point, but it was riddled with problems and they quit carrying it. He then told me I would be better off getting a BD player and a Denon 2930. Wish I would have been quick enough in my debate with him to remind him that the XA2 had the same processor as the 2930 oh well.
When we originally walked into the store, one of the guys I was with, asked him about a JVC projector he was interested in. The same gentleman, I spoke with about Blu Ray and HD-DVD said they no-longer carry JVC because the quality control on JVC projectors was junk.
It was obvious that only merchandise that he sold was quality. Only merchandise that had a higher profit margin was going to be sold in his store and going to be the winning format.

In the end, most people don't have the AV experience that we had coming into the store and read between the lines of this guys self interest. In the end, most people would take what this guy was shoveling as gospel. Then when that same customer walks into Best Buy and asks a sales guy about Blu Ray and HD-DVD and BB says Blu Ray is the way to go, I just think that is just to much influence for HD-DVD to overcome.

Sorry for the rant...


Craig

tsb,

I like how you forget to mention that BD's peak bandwidth drops even more using PCM, a space hog. Why does BD use it? = because they are a hodgepodge of requirements with a bunch of players that support few features.

If you are going to claim to be format neutral -- which you, obviously, are not -- you need to act like it, not just say you are in your signature.

So far, the only thing you manage to do is to troll in the HD DVD forums and spread misinformation.