New HD-DVD info: not good news if you use component vid for HDTV

[Woochifer]

I picked on a couple of interesting articles in The Digital Bits' daily update. First off, the Video Software Dealers Association had their annual convention this week, and they put out a position paper advocating one single format for HD video discs. It's nothing more than the association's official position (http://www.idealink.org/Resource.phx/vsda/resources/hi-def-dvd/hi-def-criteria.htx) on this and a slew of other marketing and packaging matters, but you never know. The Digital Bits editor thinks it could be significant if large retailers refuse to stock the new HD-DVD and Blu-ray formats until the parties agree to a single format.

Also, Digital Spy posted some new details about HD-DVD. First, the bad news. It looks like Toshiba's going to confirm what we've feared, and pass HD signals only through the digital video connections. What this means for the millions of people who own HDTVs with only analog component video connections is that the maximum resolution that they can receive on their HDTVs via HD-DVD is no better than what they currently get with 480p progressive DVD. If you want HD resolution from your HD-DVD, you have to have a TV that can accept HDMI or comparable digital video signals.

Other intriguing bits from the article. It mentions that HD-DVD mastering will be based on 1080p -- no idea what that means for the resolution of the actual discs, which are supposedly going to go with either 720p or 1080i.

Also, the article mentioned that four HD-DVD disc formats will be introduced. In addition to single-layer, dual-layer, and triple-layer media, a fourth media type called SD-DVD will allow for a DVD layer on one side. Supposedly, the SD-DVD disc format allows for flipper discs with the HD-DVD content on one side and regular DVD content on the other. This ensures backwards compatibility, and could pave the way for simultaneous HD-DVD/DVD releases.

To me, if this format war with Blu-ray goes on as planned, the SD-DVD media could very well turn to HD-DVD's advantage because it would bring HD-DVD into stores en masse without the need for retailers to maintain dual inventories. If the studios backing HD-DVD elect to put out their new releases in HD-DVD/DVD flipper discs, then that could really seed the market for HD-DVD hardware. Somehow, I can see the studios getting greedy, and not taking advantage of this capability on the assumption that people will repurchase their entire video library. Then again, I see it very much in the studios' interest to transition the market over to a copy protected format that uses more up-to-date encryption, and even if hacked would require more bandwidth to file share. My understanding is that Blu-ray uses a very thin substrate, so if that eliminates the possibility of issuing Blu-ray/DVD flipper discs, then Blu-ray will depend on being able to squeeze onto retailer shelves. Anyway, here's the article.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds22406.html

[markw]

I grew up in the days before color TV listening to the 4" speaker. To me, the current state of the (video and audio) are is far beyond whatever I could have dreamed of as a young 'un.

Also, this means I've lived through the early FM stereo (with one channel on AM) , the great quad format wars in the 70's (where EVERYBODY lost) , the VHS/Beta wars in the 80's, not to mention elcassettes and other oddities (8 tracks, anyone?) and am in no hurry to live on the bleeding edge of audio/videop technology.

At least SACD and DVD-Audio can peacefully co-exist on a uiversal player. Likewise DD and DTS.

I think I'll just sit this one out for a while until the dust settles. When the marketplace puts a gun to the consumers head and forces Joe Sixpack to make a choice, well, remember the quad wars in the 70's?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is just crazy, how in the hell does Toshiba expect to sell this format to the public if they are going to bypass millions of display devices already in the field?

Do they really think these guys that have invested thousand of dollars in their display devices that do not have HDMI connections are going to buy new projectors and television just for this format?

Toshiba is also sending out mixed signals. In a seminar that I attended earlier this year, during a discussion on HD-DVD(which was quickly cutoff by a studio exec) a Toshiba representative said that HD-DVD was going to based on 1080i. When asked about 1080P, he said that Toshiba didn't have this resolution on its plate and that it would have to retool the entire format to accomodate it. Now they are saying it is going to be based on 1080P. Guys, what is it?

I am so glad I was smart enough to purchased a RPTV with a HDMI input, though I'm still not going to support either formats until we get ONE format. I personally think that HD-DVD will be a huge bust(don't quote me on this LOL)

[Geoffcin]

This is just crazy, how in the hell does Toshiba expect to sell this format to the public if they are going to bypass millions of display devices already in the field?

Do they really think these guys that have invested thousand of dollars in their display devices that do not have HDMI connections are going to buy new projectors and television just for this format?


Toshiba knows that the people who buy the latest & greatest stuff are already going to have a TV with HDMI inputs. By choosing the release HD-DVD in HDMI only it's going to give it an exculsivity that these people LIKE to have. More importantly, it also insures that the digital copywrite protection that software providers have been demanding is enforced.

The real question is going to be is if receiver manufacturers are going to make receivers that are capable of down-converting HDMI to component. So far I haven't seen one.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Toshiba knows that the people who buy the latest & greatest stuff are already going to have a TV with HDMI inputs. By choosing the release HD-DVD in HDMI only it's going to give it an exculsivity that these people LIKE to have. More importantly, it also insures that the digital copywrite protection that software providers have been demanding is enforced.

How then are you going to build a mass market format when you are offering exclusivity to only a few? I completely understand about the copy protection, but you cannot build a format that is going to be the sucessor to the DVD by asking consumers to purchase a new player, television AND receiver.


The real question is going to be is if receiver manufacturers are going to make receivers that are capable of down-converting HDMI to component. So far I haven't seen one.

Forget this, what about receivers offering Dts-HD and DD plus? Haven't even heard of a manufacturer even mentioning this.

[Geoffcin]

How then are you going to build a mass market format when you are offering exclusivity to only a few? I completely understand about the copy protection, but you cannot build a format that is going to be the sucessor to the DVD by asking consumers to purchase a new player, television AND receiver.



Forget this, what about receivers offering Dts-HD and DD plus? Haven't even heard of a manufacturer even mentioning this.

You offer HD for the people who have it (HDMI), and DVD quality for everyone else. It's going to be a long process for them to get everyone on board with HD, I think this is going to be one more incentive.

As to buying a new Player TV, & Receiver. I'm sure that's EXACTLY what the manufactures have in mind, wether they support HD-DVD or BlueRay tech. Like every other emerging tech, the first owners are going to pay a premium for it. These people know that, and really don't mind the expence. I'm sure you know the type.

[kexodusc]

You offer HD for the people who have it (HDMI), and DVD quality for everyone else. It's going to be a long process for them to get everyone on board with HD, I think this is going to be one more incentive.

As to buying a new Player TV, & Receiver. I'm sure that's EXACTLY what the manufactures have in mind, wether they support HD-DVD or BlueRay tech. Like every other emerging tech, the first owners are going to pay a premium for it. These people know that, and really don't mind the expence. I'm sure you know the type.

As an unbiased observer, I have little doubt Blu-ray will pull the same HDMI stunt..same industry mentality working here. But what's to worry about?

Geoffcin's right...it'll take all but 1 nanosecond for an HDMI to Component convertor to hit the market, and my guess is sold by the DVD or TV manufacturers. What that will cost is anyone's guess. I wouldn't at all be surprised if Receivers did the switching when it comes, too.

Any fears are quite unreasonable at this point. It's absolutely clear that the HDMI favoritism won't be a factor for the customers who actually WILL buy early HD-DVD players. And given the lifespan of TV's, and the average joe who lags behind several years, they likely will have an HDMI TV by the time they do adopt the format or will buy convertors. What's the problem here?

I have all the tools ready to for HD-DVD, but there's no way I'm droppint $900-$1000 on a player for very few titles, when I can wait 2 years, and most likely get a far superior unit for 1/2 the price with more titles available. And you can bet if Blu-Ray enters the fold and a format war does occur, it'll probably be later than that.

Anyone else here pick up on the fact that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD camps are expecting their players to be in the $1000 range? You can buy a 51" HDTV for that kind of dough!

[Widowmaker]

This is just crazy, how in the hell does Toshiba expect to sell this format to the public if they are going to bypass millions of display devices already in the field?

Do they really think these guys that have invested thousand of dollars in their display devices that do not have HDMI connections are going to buy new projectors and television just for this format?

Toshiba is also sending out mixed signals. In a seminar that I attended earlier this year, during a discussion on HD-DVD(which was quickly cutoff by a studio exec) a Toshiba representative said that HD-DVD was going to based on 1080i. When asked about 1080P, he said that Toshiba didn't have this resolution on its plate and that it would have to retool the entire format to accomodate it. Now they are saying it is going to be based on 1080P. Guys, what is it?

I am so glad I was smart enough to purchased a RPTV with a HDMI input, though I'm still not going to support either formats until we get ONE format. I personally think that HD-DVD will be a huge bust(don't quote me on this LOL)

This may not be Toshiba's fault. As we all know, HDMI/DVI inputs are HDCP protected and Hollywood may have insisted to Toshiba that they want HDCP-only to protect their IP.

Besides, it won't be just Toshiba, I can easily envision Sony making Blu-ray HDMI/DVI exclusive as well.

[edtyct]

No movie studio will sanction films in any HD format unless copy protection is in place, and component outputs won't cut it. Even upconversion to pseudo-HD is impossible without DVI/HDMI at this point. Neither Toshiba nor Sony can afford to manufacture units that no one will buy because content providers refuse to release material. Should they just scrap the idea of DVD in HD altogether? I hardly think so. As Kexo and others have said, most people will wait until their natural upgrade to a compatible display or simply wait until the smoke clears from the war without losing any sleep. The early adopters can have their usual field day, and suffer their customary fate, whether or not either proposed format takes hold. Titles that studios don't consider sensitive might well allow analog playback in HD, but few people will probably want to see them. By the way, 1080p mastering doesn't mean that 1080p decks are in the offing. Even 480p titles are mastered in the state of the art.

Ed

[nick4433]

My hats off to all of you who have embarked upon this HD journey when nothing has been established as a standard. Rock on dudes while I enjoy my projector connected through component cables from my DVD and enjoying the spectacular vision and the 5.1 audio to go with it. Just let me know when the standard has been set and I might bite.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No movie studio will sanction films in any HD format unless copy protection is in place, and component outputs won't cut it. Even upconversion to pseudo-HD is impossible without DVI/HDMI at this point. Neither Toshiba nor Sony can afford to manufacture units that no one will buy because content providers refuse to release material. Should they just scrap the idea of DVD in HD altogether? I hardly think so. As Kexo and others have said, most people will wait until their natural upgrade to a compatible display or simply wait until the smoke clears from the war without losing any sleep. The early adopters can have their usual field day, and suffer their customary fate, whether or not either proposed format takes hold. Titles that studios don't consider sensitive might well allow analog playback in HD, but few people will probably want to see them. By the way, 1080p mastering doesn't mean that 1080p decks are in the offing. Even 480p titles are mastered in the state of the art.

Ed

Do you really think that buying public is going to support a format that requires not only a new receiver, but a new television/projector AND player? The public didn't even buy into DVD-A or SACD which required far less of an investment, and you could still watch DVD's on the player.

I have visited many a A/V site in the last 3 months. If you have read any polls(which are not scientific by any means) on the high def formats, many say they are going to wait this one out. I understand the copy protection issues, but the record companies destroyed DVD-A and SACD by requiring the use of analog outputs, I think the studios are going to destroy these formats be requiring that manufacturers use outputs that aren't already in widespread use in the field. I just don't think the support is there for a major equipment overhaul.

Nick, I hate you! LOL

[nick4433]

Nick, I hate you! LOL
LOLOLOLOL.

[Woochifer]

Lots of excellent points raised by everyone. I think that the digital video requirement very well might become the de facto standard with all future HD hardware, including HD satellite/broadcast receivers and DVRs. Basically, if you have a device that outputs HD through analog component video connections, you might need to hold onto that device and hope that it doesn't break. As HDMI support becomes more commonplace, I can see hardware manufacturers quietly downgrading everything to 480p on the analog video outputs. That becomes a real problem for the millions of customers who did not buy their HDTVs within the last two years when digital video inputs became more commonplace.

I'm sure that the market will respond with video converters that will allow for analog HD inputs to accept digital signals. But, the HD video disc will already be hampered by the confusion that format wars inevitably create, and requiring some external device to do video conversion creates yet another market barrier that HD-DVD and Blu-ray don't need right at the outset.

What has surprised me thus far is that with HD-DVD and Blu-ray's respective introductions less than a year away, I've yet to see any receivers or processors with Dolby Digital Plus or DTS-HD support announced, nor have I seen too many products built around HDMI switching or digital-to-analog video conversion.

One of the more intriguing aspects of that article I posted was the SD-DVD media that the HD-DVD format can use as a dual format disc. With so many technical and strategic factors favoring Blu-ray, the possibility of hybrid HD-DVD/DVD releases seems like HD-DVD's ace in the hole. The key player is probably Warner, because the company jointly holds most of the DVD patents with Toshiba. If they decide that they want to bury Blu-ray under an avalanche of HD-DVDs, they can do so by simply issuing all of their new releases using the two-sided SD-DVD media. The company can still make a ton of money by reissuing their existing video library in HD-DVD, but in the meantime, they will have seeded the market with millions of playable HD-DVDs. If Blu-ray cannot come up with a comparable offfering, then they will have to rely on carving out retail shelf space for themselves, whereas HD-DVDs would get filed with the existing DVD space.

I doubt that this will happen, but it's one way to end any potential format war before it even starts. Plus, it makes sense for everybody involved -- for the studios, because it moves more consumers into a better copy protected format; for retailers, because it does not require separate sections for thenew format; and for the hardware manufacturers, because it creates a new higher margin revenue stream that got removed when DVD hardware got commodified by the flood of cheap Chinese DVD hardware.

[shokhead]

I grew up in the days before color TV listening to the 4" speaker. To me, the current state of the (video and audio) are is far beyond whatever I could have dreamed of as a young 'un.

Also, this means I've lived through the early FM stereo (with one channel on AM) , the great quad format wars in the 70's (where EVERYBODY lost) , the VHS/Beta wars in the 80's, not to mention elcassettes and other oddities (8 tracks, anyone?) and am in no hurry to live on the bleeding edge of audio/videop technology.

At least SACD and DVD-Audio can peacefully co-exist on a uiversal player. Likewise DD and DTS.

I think I'll just sit this one out for a while until the dust settles. When the marketplace puts a gun to the consumers head and forces Joe Sixpack to make a choice, well, remember the quad wars in the 70's?

I'm with you. Would i like to have HD-DVD,sure. Do i need it,nope. Can i live without it,yep. Am i happy with whats out there now,yep. Would i change or upgrade anything i have to have HD-DVD,i dont think so.

[nick4433]

What is SACD? Is it better than my 2 channel stereo?

[abstracta]

it'll take all but 1 nanosecond for an HDMI to Component convertor to hit the market

Yep.

Also, (IMHO) the leap from standard DVD to HD-DVD is far more extreme in terms of improved playback experience than past digital audio standard upgrades. In my opinion the original DVD spec was far too conservative in the first place.

Broadcast FM radio just can't compete with even the basic CD audio format, but a subscription to any HD channel humiliates a top end DVD player. I've always found that kind of ironic.

[edtyct]

Do you really think that buying public is going to support a format that requires not only a new receiver, but a new television/projector AND player? The public didn't even buy into DVD-A or SACD which required far less of an investment, and you could still watch DVD's on the player.

I have visited many a A/V site in the last 3 months. If you have read any polls(which are not scientific by any means) on the high def formats, many say they are going to wait this one out. I understand the copy protection issues, but the record companies destroyed DVD-A and SACD by requiring the use of analog outputs, I think the studios are going to destroy these formats be requiring that manufacturers use outputs that aren't already in widespread use in the field. I just don't think the support is there for a major equipment overhaul.
Sir T, was this shock and awe response meant for me? Well, then, no. I don't think that the buying public will support a format that requires a lot of new equipment, or even one piece for that matter. Toshiba and Sony have just as much data, if not more and better data, about potential adopters than we do (not to mention money), and they are still going to issue their product. It will appeal to a small population and will be priced accordingly. They have to start somewhere. They can afford at least some of the risk involved (though they wouldn't be foolish enough to manufacture these players on a platform that studios wouldn't accept under any conditions). I'm not so sure that the mandate of digital inputs/outputs will forever destroy these formats (or ones very much like them). (And please don't interpret this remark as a lack of sympathy for the thousands of people who bought TVs with only digital inputs). Toshiba and Sony may well have to wait before DVD in HD catches fire, but by all accounts, they are undaunted by anything that might suggest market failure. I guess the possible upside is enough for them.

The preceding was not an endorsement of digital copyprotection or corporate chest thumping of any kind.

Ed

[Woochifer]

Yep.

Also, (IMHO) the leap from standard DVD to HD-DVD is far more extreme in terms of improved playback experience than past digital audio standard upgrades. In my opinion the original DVD spec was far too conservative in the first place.

Not my exact quote, but the sentiment was accurate.

I agree with you about the original DVD spec. With the HDTV specs already in place when the DVD format was getting prepped for market, I've said for years on this board that the DVD got introduced before the underlying technology was ready. As much of an improvement as 480p was over VHS, the DVD format was introduced pretty much as an interim format until the HD market was ready. Unfortunately, the product has proven so successful that it will be extremely difficult for any HD disc format to supplant the now-entrenched DVD as the primary home video carrier. IMO, the parties involved should have positioned the DVD as a true HD format from the outset, even if it required waiting a couple of years for the disc storage technology to catch up with the video encoding. As things stand, we have a format war looming with all kinds of arbitrary market barriers in place as HD-DVD and Blu-ray get ready to launch. If the HD disc formats fail in the market, then we're stuck indefinitely with the 480p DVD as everything else in home video moves forward in 720 and 1080 resolution.

It's a similar story with digital audio where the CD format was locked onto the 44.1 kHz/16-bit standard because of prevailing disc storage technology limitations, even though higher resolution audio formats were already in use at that time in recording studios. All these years later, digital audio technology has grown and evolved so much further, yet the playback format remains wedded to standards that were written based on late-70s technology. Think about it, the CD standard was set in stone before the original IBM PC was introduced [4k RAM -- NOT MB, 360k floppy drives, 8088 chip with a clock speed of less than 5 MHz, and a list price of more than $3,000], back when modems were the size of a suitcase and required that you stuff a phone receiver into a couple of foam pads, before the space shuttle first flew, etc. Now, we're stuck with this format, and with the apparent failure of SACD and DVD-A in the market, the CD will likely remain the dominant carrier format for at least a few more years. Ironically, the future of high res audio very well might depend on the success or failure of HD-DVD and Blu-ray, because the mandatory audio formats for both HD disc types will allow for high res lossless multichannel digital audio.

[Woochifer]

Do you really think that buying public is going to support a format that requires not only a new receiver, but a new television/projector AND player? The public didn't even buy into DVD-A or SACD which required far less of an investment, and you could still watch DVD's on the player.

I have visited many a A/V site in the last 3 months. If you have read any polls(which are not scientific by any means) on the high def formats, many say they are going to wait this one out. I understand the copy protection issues, but the record companies destroyed DVD-A and SACD by requiring the use of analog outputs, I think the studios are going to destroy these formats be requiring that manufacturers use outputs that aren't already in widespread use in the field. I just don't think the support is there for a major equipment overhaul.

I guess my question is why are these formats getting rushed to market at this time? I understand that the growth curve on DVD has begun to slow down and all of the players are looking for a new cash cow to milk, since the high margins on the DVD format evaporated a lot sooner than anybody had anticipated. The video software dealers are lobbying everybody involved to unify behind a single format, and they are ultimately the final arbiter of whether these formats sink or swim -- no shelf space for HD-DVD or Blu-ray (mail order still constitutes a small percentage of DVD sales), then the formats will not succeed as anything other than an expensive niche format.

And who knows, maybe the goal for HD-DVD and Blu-ray is to remain an expensive high margin, low volume product where the prices for players and discs remain at a premium. I know that there was plenty of grumbling over how quickly the DVD hardware and movie titles became commodified. But, with HD broadcast and satellite rapidly coming online, there will be plenty of HD options to choose from over the next few years. So, I don't see how these market barriers at the outset can benefit the prospects for HD-DVD and Blu-ray. I read that a poll taken on the AVS Forum found that 45% of the respondents with HDTVs did not have digital video connections. That's a lot of potential customers who will be locked out of the market at the outset, unless external devices come out that will enable them to view HD-DVD or Blu-ray at full resolution. And with any HDMI digital to analog converters, who knows how much they will cost at the outset, or what the picture quality will look like.

Getting the parties to unify behind a single HD disc format will supposedly delay the introduction by about a year as technical issues get resolved, but I say what's wrong with that? One more year means that many more HDTVs sold, and that many more potential consumers for the new HD discs. It also gives more time for DD+ and DTS-HD processors to make their way into high end receivers/processors in anticipation of the new discs coming onto the market. I just don't see the logic behind yet another botched launch and format war. Get behind one format, prepare the market, and do the product launch right. Even the DVD didn't really take off until Circuit City's idiotic DivX format failed and all of the studios finally united behind the DVD format.

[shokhead]

Yep.

Also, (IMHO) the leap from standard DVD to HD-DVD is far more extreme in terms of improved playback experience than past digital audio standard upgrades. In my opinion the original DVD spec was far too conservative in the first place.

Broadcast FM radio just can't compete with even the basic CD audio format, but a subscription to any HD channel humiliates a top end DVD player. I've always found that kind of ironic.

Oh! Which HD-DVD did you watch? What DVD did you compare it to?

[Eric Z]

I think these next few months to a year are going to be very interesting regarding HD formats. I was at Barnes and Noble last night and was flipping through some audio mags and some census/stats periodicals. The estimate of HDTVs in the U.S. household was 8% as of 12/2004 and increased to 10-13% as of last month. Not sure of the accuracy of these stats, but that tells me over 80% of U.S. households still don't have HDTVs. The prices are still too high (eventhough they did fall a lot of the past 8 months) and the technology is still too fresh.

After reading those articles, Woochifer's last post makes more and more sense- maybe firms are going toward a high margin, low volume product. At least in the beginning.

Has anyone else heard other stats of HDTVs in households? The 10-13% at first seemed a bit low, but then again not one of my friends/relatives/coworkers have an HDTV.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think these next few months to a year are going to be very interesting regarding HD formats. I was at Barnes and Noble last night and was flipping through some audio mags and some census/stats periodicals. The estimate of HDTVs in the U.S. household was 8% as of 12/2004 and increased to 10-13% as of last month. Not sure of the accuracy of these stats, but that tells me over 80% of U.S. households still don't have HDTVs. The prices are still too high (eventhough they did fall a lot of the past 8 months) and the technology is still too fresh.

After reading those articles, Woochifer's last post makes more and more sense- maybe firms are going toward a high margin, low volume product. At least in the beginning.

Has anyone else heard other stats of HDTVs in households? The 10-13% at first seemed a bit low, but then again not one of my friends/relatives/coworkers have an HDTV.

How does a format survive as a high margin, low volume product? SACD and DVD-A couldn't do it, how will this?

If Toshiba is really banking on those early adopters, they are in a world of trouble. There is a huge thread at hometheaterforum.com about HD-DVD and BlueRay, and more than 90% of the people that responded in that thread say they are going to wait this one out until either one is adopted for the standard. Even the most ardent of early adopters say they are not going to buy until one wins the war. There are a few that say they'll buy a player when they become available, but they are definately in the minority. Even here not many are going to early adopt either format. Hometheaterdiscussion. com has pretty much the same response as everyone else. Every site that I have visited that had discussions about these formats, the consensus was about the same.

I have been early adopting just about every audio and video format for the last 20 years. I have been burned many times from this, and have many a heavy paper weight as a result. Toshiba cannot count on me this time, even though I have the necessary inputs and outputs for the video side of these formats. ONE FORMAT PLEASE!!!!!

[kexodusc]

There is, of course, the possible outcome that both formats will co-exist...After a few years, quality Universal players should be cheap enough. Not my first choice for all the headaches it would create, but maybe we're looking at this all wrong...who says we can only have 1 format?

At any rate, if every 5--6 years we're getting new upgraded formats, then I don't really care who wins this. Actually, HD-DVD seems far more practical now, cheaper, more compatible, and faster. Better than nothing. Sooner or later something's gonna come out that smoke's BluRay anyway.

When all I had was pro-logic, I was pretty happy to upgrade to Dolby Digital for two years before I could afford a receiver with DTS...this might be the same sort of thing.

[Geoffcin]

How does a format survive as a high margin, low volume product? SACD and DVD-A couldn't do it, how will this?

I have been early adopting just about every audio and video format for the last 20 years. I have been burned many times from this, and have many a heavy paper weight as a result. Toshiba cannot count on me this time, even though I have the necessary inputs and outputs for the video side of these formats. ONE FORMAT PLEASE!!!!!

As a marketing strategy I see this as a very bold move. Already there's a hundred HD-DVD titles going to pressing as we speak. If they can get the finished product to market before the 2005 holiday season then they stand to sell thousands of units. Thank heaven my direct-view 36" 1080i capable TV doesn't have HDMI, or I'ld be tempted to buy into this tech. Especially if the players come in at or below the $500 price point! (that's what I heard they are shooting for)

[Woochifer]

I think these next few months to a year are going to be very interesting regarding HD formats. I was at Barnes and Noble last night and was flipping through some audio mags and some census/stats periodicals. The estimate of HDTVs in the U.S. household was 8% as of 12/2004 and increased to 10-13% as of last month. Not sure of the accuracy of these stats, but that tells me over 80% of U.S. households still don't have HDTVs. The prices are still too high (eventhough they did fall a lot of the past 8 months) and the technology is still too fresh.

After reading those articles, Woochifer's last post makes more and more sense- maybe firms are going toward a high margin, low volume product. At least in the beginning.

Has anyone else heard other stats of HDTVs in households? The 10-13% at first seemed a bit low, but then again not one of my friends/relatives/coworkers have an HDTV.

Actually, those numbers look very generous (optimistic). Consider that there are 105 million households in the U.S. and the estimates of total HDTVs shipped range from 4 to 6 million. Comparatively, the total number of DVD players sold in the U.S. to date is about 91 million (the market penetration is lower than simply dividing the total DVD players with the households because a lot of households have bought more than one DVD player).

With most new format launches, manufacturers and software providers have tried to keep the products in the higher margin range. When Beta and VHS were in their protracted format war (which actually lasted for nearly a decade), VCR prices still remained relatively high for a long time. Even CD players did not become commodified until at least 10 years after their introduction.

The DVD is actually very unusual in that the bottom dropped out of the price structure after less than six years on the market. The influence of Chinese companies producing boatloads of cheap generic DVD players caught a lot of the manufacturers by surprise. The rush to get HD-DVD and Blu-ray onto the market is probably more an overly hasty reaction to the quick price erosion with the DVD. Right now, manufacturers simply do not make much from DVD hardware.

HDTV has actually managed to keep its price structure intact for a while now. However, sales have picked up a lot over the past year, and a lot of new manufacturing capacity is coming online.


How does a format survive as a high margin, low volume product? SACD and DVD-A couldn't do it, how will this?

If Toshiba is really banking on those early adopters, they are in a world of trouble. There is a huge thread at hometheaterforum.com about HD-DVD and BlueRay, and more than 90% of the people that responded in that thread say they are going to wait this one out until either one is adopted for the standard. Even the most ardent of early adopters say they are not going to buy until one wins the war. There are a few that say they'll buy a player when they become available, but they are definately in the minority. Even here not many are going to early adopt either format. Hometheaterdiscussion. com has pretty much the same response as everyone else. Every site that I have visited that had discussions about these formats, the consensus was about the same.

Actually, Laserdisc managed to slog along for about 20 years as a high margin, low volume format. But, I have a feeling that the marketing machinery about to click into high gear promoting HD-DVD and Blu-ray do not envision a Laserdisc type of market niche. (Although with Laserdisc, it was nice because the specialty stores that served that market generally carried an eclectic assortment of movies. Sadly, most of those stores were not able to stay in business once the DVD came along and promptly went into big box stores)

With SACD in particular, I think that Sony sent way too many mixed signals into the market. The first players were limited to two channels and uberexpensive, and multichannel SACD discs didn't start appearing until a year after the format launched. SACD was marketed as an audiophile-oriented format, and emphasized the remastered two-channel recordings. Then it seemed that almost overnight, the gears shifted and SACD began appearing on midlevel DVD players, and player prices plunged to less than $150. The word at that point was that hybrid SACD/CDs would supplant regular CDs for new releases. Just a marketing disaster all the way around. That over 4,000 SACD titles made it into the market with a format war, and ill-conceived market barriers (analog-only; limited bass management; etc.) in place was a feat in itself.

I've been picking up similar signals for months on various boards that a lot of early adoptors are sitting out until the different players can get their act together. That's a very bad sign because the mass market seems quite happy with the DVD, and the vast majority of TVs out there right now won't benefit from HD-DVD and Blu-ray anyway. If your target market (i.e. HDTV owners with the necessary digital inputs) is small to begin with, then why antagonize them further with an idiotic format war and equally stupid market barriers that basically flip off people who bought their HDTVs two years ago or more?

As much as I love multichannel music, I still don't own a DVD-A or SACD player because even the best universal players that I've tried lack the kind of consistently implemented bass management that I need to integrate with my equalized subwoofer setup. As it stands, I'm limited to DD and DTS because those formats can use digital connections and seamlessly integrate with my receiver's level, delay, and bass management settings. It's sheer stupidity to launch a format that from the outset gives potential buyers -- buyers who WANT to upgrade -- as many reasons as possible not to upgrade. HD-DVD and Blu-ray so far look poised to repeat the exact same mistakes that were made in the DVD-A/SACD launch.

And if that's the case, then we're looking at a long reign for the DVD. In retrospect, the DVD indeed came out earlier than it should have. Figure that the first HDTVs arrived in stores in 1998. Sales were stagnant for years thereafter, and didn't really pick up until more HD broadcasts went on the air and satellite/cable operators began offering HD programming. If DVD had arrived in 1999 or 2000 as a full-blown HD format, it could have paved the way for HDTV in general. Everybody's complaint in the early years of HDTV was the lack of programming. The HDTV standards were already set in 1992, everybody knew what was coming. HDTV sales could have picked up a lot sooner, and DVD would have led the charge to higher resolution programming. Instead, now the DVD is entrenched as a 480p format, and in a totally reactive mode with very uncertain prospects for both HD disc formats.


There is, of course, the possible outcome that both formats will co-exist...After a few years, quality Universal players should be cheap enough. Not my first choice for all the headaches it would create, but maybe we're looking at this all wrong...who says we can only have 1 format?

At any rate, if every 5--6 years we're getting new upgraded formats, then I don't really care who wins this. Actually, HD-DVD seems far more practical now, cheaper, more compatible, and faster. Better than nothing. Sooner or later something's gonna come out that smoke's BluRay anyway.

A universal player might solve things, but I've read that enough differences in the Blu-ray substrate exist to make a universal player more difficult to produce than with other formats. And at the product launch, we're looking at two sides trying to persuade the public to go with their approach. A lot of conflicting (and probably false) information will get thrown around, and if consumers get confused enough, they will quickly tune out and just go back to the DVD.

If we get new formats introduced every 5-6 years, then I think the end result will be the DVD dominating the market indefinitely. Consumers don't like upgrading unless they see obvious and tangible benefits (tough to see it right now because you need an HDTV to discern the difference between HD and DVD resolution, and the majority of TV sold are still standard definition), retailers don't like carrying multiple format inventories, and I doubt that the studios will have a lot of patience for having to retool their production constantly and support an increasing backlog of legacy formats (if the successor to HD-DVD/Blu-ray is introduced in six years, will the studios continue to make DVDs AND HD-DVD/Blu-ray discs? Or will any of those formats get discontinued, leaving some customers in the lurch?). A lot of inertia to overcome, and the DVD is unusual in that it established itself so quickly. And even there, it took the DVD about six years to overtake a clearly inferior and ancient format like VHS. HD-DVD and Blu-ray do not have the same kind of clearcut advantage and obvious benefit over the DVD that the DVD had over VHS.


As a marketing strategy I see this as a very bold move. Already there's a hundred HD-DVD titles going to pressing as we speak. If they can get the finished product to market before the 2005 holiday season then they stand to sell thousands of units. Thank heaven my direct-view 36" 1080i capable TV doesn't have HDMI, or I'ld be tempted to buy into this tech. Especially if the players come in at or below the $500 price point! (that's what I heard they are shooting for)

If you're looking to sit out the HD-DVD/Blu-ray upgrade cycle, then the two camps have provided you with plenty of reasons! I think that with only about half of the studio titles being available for one format or another, a lot of consumers will refrain from supporting one side or another. I heard that the first batch of HD-DVD players will price out at about $800, same with the Blu-ray players.

The more intriguing development will likely occur once the Sony Playstation 3 comes out the first half of next year. That game console will include a Blu-ray drive, and I doubt that Sony can expect to sell millions of units like its previous game consoles have sold if the price is anywhere around even $500. It could very well spark the Blu-ray format the same way that the PS2 provided a huge lift for the DVD format (at that time, the game console sold for $300, while the average DVD player still sold for well over $200).

[shokhead]

With all the pretalk about how important bass management was going to be for multi-channel players and they still dont have it. Oh i suppose that will be the next generation player and milk somemore money out of us. And there's no doubt in my mind that yes, about 5-6 years another format,one i belive they already know about will come along. I'll just stick with the old,run down DVD. The whole game is wearing thin and i mean my wallet also.

[Geoffcin]

With all the pretalk about how important bass management was going to be for multi-channel players and they still dont have it. Oh i suppose that will be the next generation player and milk somemore money out of us. And there's no doubt in my mind that yes, about 5-6 years another format,one i belive they already know about will come along. I'll just stick with the old,run down DVD. The whole game is wearing thin and i mean my wallet also.

But my multi-channel player has full bass management, and it didn't cost a mint either. The sad fact for HT manufacturers is that the jump to HD is going to be IT for quite some time to come. After HD, "Ultra-HD" or what ever is next, will not be a big leap in quality at all.

[Feanor]

How then are you going to build a mass market format when you are offering exclusivity to only a few? I completely understand about the copy protection, but you cannot build a format that is going to be the sucessor to the DVD by asking consumers to purchase a new player, television AND receiver.
...
The industry loves to "skim" or stratify the market. First, they want to find the people who are willing to pay a whole lot of money for an improvement. They want to grab all of that money. Then, over time, as ordinary people upgrade and manfacturing becomes more efficient, they will allow the previously elite technology trickle down to the masses.

Is this a good strategy versus going at once to the mass market? Will it work? Maybe not, but it's some thing the industry wants to try.

[shokhead]

But my multi-channel player has full bass management, and it didn't cost a mint either. The sad fact for HT manufacturers is that the jump to HD is going to be IT for quite some time to come. After HD, "Ultra-HD" or what ever is next, will not be a big leap in quality at all.

Most if not all the players i've seen do not have as good of BM as a receiver.

[kexodusc]

Most if not all the players i've seen do not have as good of BM as a receiver.
I tend to agree with you on this point...That said, most units I've seen have "good enough" Bass Management, enough that it shouldn't be an issue.
Usually the crossovers are around 80-100 Hz when they're fixed. If you play the speakers as full range in the DVD player menu (set them as large), and use receiver's Bass management (which works in Multi-channel mode on Yamaha's, and NAD's for sure, I suspect on most receivers) you can by pass the player's need for Bass Management altogether.

[Woochifer]

I tend to agree with you on this point...That said, most units I've seen have "good enough" Bass Management, enough that it shouldn't be an issue.
Usually the crossovers are around 80-100 Hz when they're fixed. If you play the speakers as full range in the DVD player menu (set them as large), and use receiver's Bass management (which works in Multi-channel mode on Yamaha's, and NAD's for sure, I suspect on most receivers) you can by pass the player's need for Bass Management altogether.

It's not an excuse. The bass management that I've seen thus far on the universal players that even have the feature in the first place (most of the sub-$200 universal players have no bass management whatsoever) lacks the ability to change the crossover point, and in the cases I've seen, you often have different crossover points AND different crossover slopes for DVD-A and SACD playback, with the crossover DISABLED with uncompressed PCM sources.

For anyone who's used to having all of their analog and digital sources follow the same crossover point and the same crossover slope, this is absolutely inexplicable and makes no sense whatsoever. The bass management issue (along with the inconsistent availability of delay timing) is the main reason I have yet to buy a universal player, so I obviously do not view this as an inconsequential issue, particularly since I generally see plenty of merit to multichannel music and high res digital audio. For someone like me who uses a parametric equalizer with multiple EQ filters, this means setting up FOUR separate EQ profiles for my system -- THREE for the output from the universal player alone -- and having to manually switch the EQ profile every time I switch sources.

Setting the DVD player outputs to LARGE and running the output through the receiver's multichannel inputs is not as simple as you make it out to be. With my receiver, the multichannel inputs completely bypass the processing circuitry (including the crossovers), which makes that kind of a setting useless in my situation. Unless there's been a radical shift in design philosophy over the past couple of years, my understanding has been that this is how the multichannel analog inputs for nearly all receivers since the "Dolby Digital-ready" days have been designed.

And even if the bass management can be handled through the receiver's multichannel inputs, that still involves a redundant A-D/D-A conversion. If the signal coming into the receiver is already in the analog domain, I would prefer that the bass management get applied in the digital domain before it gets converted to analog, rather than having an analog signal converted to digital for bass management and back to analog again for playback.

[Geoffcin]

It's not an excuse.

That Multi-channel music was NOT recorded or mixed with sat/sub HT in mind. Most of the studios that I've seen doing multi-channel recording use 5 identical full range speakers.

While I agree that bass under 100hz is hard to locate, if there's a bass note that's designed to be playing in the right rear speaker, and the sub is in the left corner, it's my opinion that you WILL be able to identify that somethings amiss.

[kexodusc]

.


And even if the bass management can be handled through the receiver's multichannel inputs, that still involves a redundant A-D/D-A conversion. If the signal coming into the receiver is already in the analog domain, I would prefer that the bass management get applied in the digital domain before it gets converted to analog, rather than having an analog signal converted to digital for bass management and back to analog again for playback.

Now this I hadn't considered...another stage of conversion to apply the processing? I'll have to investigate...still, redundant or not, if it's done well and the sound quality is fine, it could be an option for some.

You do bring up a valid point...when including DVD-A/SACD on the new universal players it is frustrating to see that they've abandonned or ignored most adjustable parameters required to make HT work...My room has a large disparity in the distance of a few speakers...if you're unable to adjust the delays or levels to the channels, I wouldn't want to bother with a universal player either.

I wouldn't get too discouraged though...a few DVD-A's I have with DTS actually sound better to me than the DVD-A track, Crystal Method's 6.1 Legion of Boom for example. And I usually prefer even crappy old Dolby Digital in 5.1 to some 2-channel CD mixes, that might have slightly better fidelity or resolution than the Dolby Digital track of the same music. In some cases, it's not even close. Odd, perhaps resolution isn't as important as a more cohesive soundstage and superior imaging?
You don't need a DVD-A/SACD player to enjoy multi-channel audio.

[shokhead]

And thats why i like DTS. Its just as good to me then DVD-A and SACD. I think better BM would make a big difference.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That Multi-channel music was NOT recorded or mixed with sat/sub HT in mind. Most of the studios that I've seen doing multi-channel recording use 5 identical full range speakers.

According to a survey taken at Surround Sound 2005 amoung studio owners and engineers, it is split about 50-50 with some studio going all full range(some of the most expensive mastering houses) and some going with sub/sat system. The manual on surround sound recording and mastering introduced two years ago by some of the most prominent recording engineers(Phil Ramone lead the committee) states very clearly that all engineers should monitor on a sub/sat system to make sure of the subwoofer information is of consistant volume and not overloading the system. This should be done because they understood that some listeners would be using sub/sat system to play back multichannel audio. Not that many people are using identical speakers all the way around, and bass sounds very different on all large speakers than it does from a sub/sat system with a single sub.



While I agree that bass under 100hz is hard to locate, if there's a bass note that's designed to be playing in the right rear speaker, and the sub is in the left corner, it's my opinion that you WILL be able to identify that somethings amiss.

The problem with your logic on this is that you would not hear bass from the right rear speaker if you use a sub. All the bass would be directed to the sub.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I tend to agree with you on this point...That said, most units I've seen have "good enough" Bass Management, enough that it shouldn't be an issue.
Usually the crossovers are around 80-100 Hz when they're fixed. If you play the speakers as full range in the DVD player menu (set them as large), and use receiver's Bass management (which works in Multi-channel mode on Yamaha's, and NAD's for sure, I suspect on most receivers) you can by pass the player's need for Bass Management altogether.

Not one DVD player with SACD has adequate bass management for this format. If the DVD player has to convert the signal to PCM(which all of them do) then it is not adequate for this format. The signal should probably be all PCM if this is the case. Some question to ask yourself.

1. What is my DVD players crossover frequencies when using its bass management?
2. What is the slope?
3. Any high or low pass filtering?
4. How does this interact with my speakers?

Most people do not have the answers to these questions. And if they did, they would probably find it not adequate for their system.

[Woochifer]

Now this I hadn't considered...another stage of conversion to apply the processing? I'll have to investigate...still, redundant or not, if it's done well and the sound quality is fine, it could be an option for some.

Among HT receivers, as far as I know, only the flagship Denon models include a parallel analog crossover to use with two-channel analog sources to avoid any redundant digital conversions with the bass management engaged (I think that the multichannel inputs on those models bypass the crossover and DSP circuitry). Since DVD-A and SACD both require multichannel analog inputs, this would mean that any other model that routes the multichannel input into the receiver's bass management circuitry (and I'm not aware of any that do), would require an A-D/D-A conversion somewhere in preamp section.


You do bring up a valid point...when including DVD-A/SACD on the new universal players it is frustrating to see that they've abandonned or ignored most adjustable parameters required to make HT work...My room has a large disparity in the distance of a few speakers...if you're unable to adjust the delays or levels to the channels, I wouldn't want to bother with a universal player either.

I wouldn't get too discouraged though...a few DVD-A's I have with DTS actually sound better to me than the DVD-A track, Crystal Method's 6.1 Legion of Boom for example. And I usually prefer even crappy old Dolby Digital in 5.1 to some 2-channel CD mixes, that might have slightly better fidelity or resolution than the Dolby Digital track of the same music. In some cases, it's not even close. Odd, perhaps resolution isn't as important as a more cohesive soundstage and superior imaging?
You don't need a DVD-A/SACD player to enjoy multi-channel audio.

Believe me, I've already heard plenty of good things with multichannel audio, which is why I buy DVD-As. My frustration with the existing situation centers on my having to decide between 1) compromising the resolution in order to use the optimal bass management, EQ, delay, and level settings on my system, or 2) taking advantage of the full resolution of the DVD-A/SACD formats while using less than optimal system settings. If multichannel already sounds as good as it does with an audibly compromised format like Dolby Digital, I'm just waiting for someone to settle on a formula that allows the consumer to enjoy multichannel audio in its full resolution without the ridiculous market barriers that accompanied DVD-A and SACD.

With DualDisc, it looks like multichannel audio will catch on finally, albeit with less than full resolution on titles without DVD-A soundtracks included. DD+ and DTS-HD represent the next frontier for high resolution multichannel audio because they are backwards compatible with existing decoders and fully scalable from lossy to lossless resolution. If those formats catch on, then we won't have to worry about choosing between the limitations of DD, DTS, DVD-A, and SACD.

[kexodusc]

My frustration with the existing situation centers on my having to decide between 1) compromising the resolution in order to use the optimal bass management, EQ, delay, and level settings on my system, or 2) taking advantage of the full resolution of the DVD-A/SACD formats while using less than optimal system settings. If multichannel already sounds as good as it does with an audibly compromised format like Dolby Digital, I'm just waiting for someone to settle on a formula that allows the consumer to enjoy multichannel audio in its full resolution without the ridiculous market barriers that accompanied DVD-A and SACD.


You could just quit being so cheap and fork out $500-$600 for a new player...hey, quit driving your car for a few weeks, the money you save on gas could be used for that... :D

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You could just quit being so cheap and fork out $500-$600 for a new player...hey, quit driving your car for a few weeks, the money you save on gas could be used for that... :D

I own a hybrid, how will this work for me?? LOL

[nick4433]

Why are you guys so much in a hurry to jump on these new and untested formats?

[Mr Peabody]

To my understanding component hook ups ARE digital. Is there both digital and analog component? Am I mis-informed on the component being digital? My cable box is HD and it only has an component output, I have to set the box internally to 1080i, is the cable company being deceptive by saying I'm getting 1080i and I only receive 480p? I know when I compare the analog to the same HD channel there is a big difference. And component was delivering HD before HDMI and DVI was on the market, so what gives?

[nick4433]

To my understanding component hook ups ARE digital. Is there both digital and analog component? Am I mis-informed on the component being digital? My cable box is HD and it only has an component output, I have to set the box internally to 1080i, is the cable company being deceptive by saying I'm getting 1080i and I only receive 480p? I know when I compare the analog to the same HD channel there is a big difference. And component was delivering HD before HDMI and DVI was on the market, so what gives?
This is what I'm talking about. Not worth the headaches and the accompanying acid reflex desease it brings. Actually my cable company has offered me a digital HDTV box which has DVI output and component outputs.
Does 1080i offer a sharper pcture than 480p? I am not even on the HD bandwagon yet but somehow I am feeling I am being screwed by my cable company in advance. PLease help!

[kexodusc]

Component Video is analog as far as I know, there's no further A/D conversion inside the TV recieving the signal. It's the same cable as your basic RCA stereo/video and coaxial digital cable.
HDMI/DVI would allow the digital signal from the set top box/receiver to be carried to the TV for conversion. Cables themselves aren't digital or analog. Its really the the signal that they carry that determines this, how they're modulated.

You can argue what's better or worse. Right now, most sites I've visited suggest neither is better for 1080i, so component video is fine. Some people report worse results with HDMI at this point, particularly with non HD stations.

Keep in mind, HDMI/DVI were not made to replace Component Video at all.

If your company is saying you're receiving 1080i, you probably are. Whether it's better than 480p or not depends on what the original resolution was and the ability of your system. I think Fox still broadcasts at lower resolution than 1080i, but your cable company/receiver converts it to a "false-1080i" signal for output to your TV.

The newere HD-DVD formats will be beyond the bandwidth capability of component video, and a digital connection such as DVI/HDMI will be required.

[shokhead]

This is what I'm talking about. Not worth the headaches and the accompanying acid reflex desease it brings. Actually my cable company has offered me a digital HDTV box which has DVI output and component outputs.
Does 1080i offer a sharper pcture than 480p? I am not even on the HD bandwagon yet but somehow I am feeling I am being screwed by my cable company in advance. PLease help!

DVI is already old and not what the new stuff will be using.

[Woochifer]

Why are you guys so much in a hurry to jump on these new and untested formats?

Nickster -

As far as I know, Dolby Digital and DTS have millions of decoders currently in use, so I wouldn't go as far as calling them new and untested.

(Assuming that the two-channel Nick is still with us!)

[kexodusc]

DVI is already old and not what the new stuff will be using.

DVI is just HDMI without the audio...same stuff...they sell DVI/HDMI cables so you can run the video uncompromised to your TV.

IMO, the audio aspect is the best part of HDMI, think of the huge mess of cables 1 HDMI can eliminate - 1 digital, and 3 component video cables, if you use DVD-A or SACD, throw 6 more cables in that as they replace the analog multi-channel cables.

[Woochifer]

To my understanding component hook ups ARE digital. Is there both digital and analog component? Am I mis-informed on the component being digital? My cable box is HD and it only has an component output, I have to set the box internally to 1080i, is the cable company being deceptive by saying I'm getting 1080i and I only receive 480p? I know when I compare the analog to the same HD channel there is a big difference. And component was delivering HD before HDMI and DVI was on the market, so what gives?

Component video is an ANALOG video output, and it has sufficient bandwidth to carry a high definition progressive video signal. In reality, there's no technical reason to upgrade from component video to HDMI or some other digital video connector. The issue with the upcoming HD-DVD and Blu-ray formats is that they will downsample the video resolution for the analog video outputs to 480p, which is identical to the resolution for progressive scan DVD. The true HD signal will only get sent through the digital video signals -- HDMI being the most common digital video connector getting fitted onto newer HDTVs.

The reason? Once again, it comes down to copy protection. Analog component video is a nonsecured connection, and studios are paranoid as hell about anyone being to create copies indistinguishable from their video library masters.

Analog component video WAS around long before HDMI or DVI came along, and that's why there are so many HDTVs out there with no digital video connectors at all. While there are plenty of output devices out there right now that will support 720p or 1080i resolution through analog component video outputs, there's no guarantee that this will continue indefinitely.

The same kind of pressures that the studios have exerted to make sure that the upcoming HD video disc formats only output in HD through copy protected digital video connections, they are now applying to ALL device manufacturers. If they have their way, the next generation of HD digital cable/satellite receivers and HD DVRs might have similar output restrictions that limit the true HD output to the digital video connections. Without affordable digital-to-analog video converters coming out soon, this will screw the thousands of HDTV owners who bought their sets before digital video connections became standard.

[Woochifer]

If your company is saying you're receiving 1080i, you probably are. Whether it's better than 480p or not depends on what the original resolution was and the ability of your system. I think Fox still broadcasts at lower resolution than 1080i, but your cable company/receiver converts it to a "false-1080i" signal for output to your TV.

Fox and ABC both broadcast in 720p (in fact, during the World Series, Fox was running promos about how the following broadcast would be televised in 720p, "the finest high defintion standard in the world"), while CBS broadcasts at 1080i. Not sure about NBC, WB, or UPN. Some sports fans have noted that the action looks more fluid and lifelike on ABC and ESPN HD's 720p broadcasts than CBS' 1080i broadcasts.

I think you're right though that a lot of cable systems upsample all of their HD broadcasts to 1080i. I believe that satellite does the same thing, although Directv by this time next year will have started moving all of their HD programming into the MPEG-4 format which will require that HD customers get a new satellite receiver. Not sure if this means that they will continue upsampling the 720p content to 1080i.


The newere HD-DVD formats will be beyond the bandwidth capability of component video, and a digital connection such as DVI/HDMI will be required.

As far as I know, the new formats will likely stick to 720p and 1080i at the outset, and analog component video has more than enough bandwidth for those resolutions. Not sure about this, but I think that component video has enough bandwidth for 1080p as well. As I mentioned, the push for HDMI to carry all HD signal content is less a technical issue, and more of a copy protection initiative. Ironic that DVD-A and SACD mandated analog audio outputs as part of their anti-piracy strategy.

[nick4433]

Nickster -

As far as I know, Dolby Digital and DTS have millions of decoders currently in use, so I wouldn't go as far as calling them new and untested.

(Assuming that the two-channel Nick is still with us!)
Wooch, I was referring to the video formats.

[Woochifer]

Wooch, I was referring to the video formats.

I kinda figured you were. (just doing my part to keep the Nick alien abduction rumors alive! :) ) Keep in mind though that the theme across most of this thread has centered on why people plan to sit out this round of format upgrades. I know that Terrence is dipping into previously untapped reserves of self-control to keep his mitts off of those first HD-DVD players. But, I think the consortia rolling out these new video formats are doing more than enough on their own to dampen consumer enthusiasm.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I kinda figured you were. (just doing my part to keep the Nick alien abduction rumors alive! :) ) Keep in mind though that the theme across most of this thread has centered on why people plan to sit out this round of format upgrades. I know that Terrence is dipping into previously untapped reserves of self-control to keep his mitts off of those first HD-DVD players. But, I think the consortia rolling out these new video formats are doing more than enough on their own to dampen consumer enthusiasm.

Brudda,
I have a DCC player, a DAT recorder, and a Sony Betamax super hifi all sitting around collecting dust. I early adopted into all of these formats and was made sorry for it. This time these latin hands are saying "don't touch this!!"

Nick WAS abducted by aliens. They did weird medical experiments on him that took him from multichannel to stereo.

[nick4433]

Brudda,
I have a DCC player, a DAT recorder, and a Sony Betamax super hifi all sitting around collecting dust. I early adopted into all of these formats and was made sorry for it. This time these latin hands are saying "don't touch this!!"

Nick WAS abducted by aliens. They did weird medical experiments on him that took him from multichannel to stereo.
I sincerely wish for and hope that both you and Wooch stop these alien abduction rumors. I am still the same old Nick who capped your ass one too many times and converted you into a human sprinkler system. I was also never in jail as according to a theory floated by none other than you two again. I am an honest citizen spreading the good virtues of 5.1 sound and good old 2 channel stereo alike.
I have no idea how and when Wooch joined the dark side but it is very saddening to see him on the side of Sir TT. Again, I have no one to blame for this but my prolonged absence from this board but it's never too late to set the record straight.
I also know very well that in order to prove his alien theory, Sir TT has wiped off my existence on this board prior to Dec 2003 which also helps their claim I was in jail. I was very much a member of this board in 2000 and my good friend ADAM would have definitely come forward but Sir TT's and (unfortunately) Wooch's sinister plans have made ADAM disappear from this board. Adam, if you are reading this then please come forward as I really could use your help. (I feel like Will Smith from Enemy of the State.)
Richard, Q, Mytry, anyone please come forward.

[Woochifer]

I sincerely wish for and hope that both you and Wooch stop these alien abduction rumors. I am still the same old Nick who capped your ass one too many times and converted you into a human sprinkler system. I was also never in jail as according to a theory floated by none other than you two again. I am an honest citizen spreading the good virtues of 5.1 sound and good old 2 channel stereo alike.
I have no idea how and when Wooch joined the dark side but it is very saddening to see him on the side of Sir TT. Again, I have no one to blame for this but my prolonged absence from this board but it's never too late to set the record straight.
I also know very well that in order to prove his alien theory, Sir TT has wiped off my existence on this board prior to Dec 2003 which also helps their claim I was in jail. I was very much a member of this board in 2000 and my good friend ADAM would have definitely come forward but Sir TT's and (unfortunately) Wooch's sinister plans have made ADAM disappear from this board. Adam, if you are reading this then please come forward as I really could use your help. (I feel like Will Smith from Enemy of the State.)
Richard, Q, Mytry, anyone please come forward.

Leave it up to Terrence to complete my training. :)

Man, if you're actually spreading the virtues of 5.1 and two-channel alike, then I take everything back about the alien abductions. Turns out that some doc must've switched out your meds, and we're now getting two Nicks for the price of one! (Well, okay maybe the replicant theory still applies) Good to have you back ... well, good to have one of you back!

Roses are red, violets are blue, I am schizophrenic, and so am I

P.S. I had nothing to do with Adam's disappearance, and it is an ongoing investigation, and that's all that I will say until a more appropriate time, and it is an ongoing investigation.

http://media.msnbc.msn.com/j/msnbc/2032000/2032539.hmedium.jpg

[mixadude]

And you wonder why I got out of the hifi biz in the early '70's.

This shifting consumer standards stuff has me scratchin my head and wondering and waiting, and consequately suffering. I'm watching a 27" Sony TV here at home, unable to commit. And until I can get a fairly solid answer, that's my position. Ferk em! There not gettin a replaceable dime from me if I can help it.

I have been a professional sound engineer with a job since 1977. Before that I was a pretty serious hobbiest, engineering student, and practicing mixer and engineer beginning about 1967 as well as a r'n'r musician. As for my professional video experience, it goes back to about 1981. BUT, all this consumer crap leaves me totally flumoxed and wanting to go find a 12" B+W, and visit nothing but IMAX theatres ;)

[edtyct]

Corporations are like sharks. Their entire raison d'etre is to gobble up as much as they can. They are not concerned with saving anyone's money, and ethical considerations are only an occasional impediment to their actions (assuming a government that would actually deign to exercise a responsible regulatory function; the shark, more than ever, has become king of our political culture).

But in this case, getting DVD in HD, along with HD audio, is an option, not a right. I'm wondering whether people are upset because they think that they should have these new things at a lower price, or because while they are waiting for this lower price, the format war might destroy their prospects completely. But the companies involved aren't going to collaborate with each other unless they perceive it to be in their own interest. I'm not saying that they won't eventually be driven to do so; if movie studios, DVD chains, and consumers utterly refuse their offer, they may eventually change their tune. But so long as they think that they have a chance to trump each other, within the parameters of acceptable risk, they will proceed to launch their products regardless of their bad press or the uneasiness, indifference, skepticism, or technical unreadiness of various consumers. Consumers buy products even when they have pits in their stomachs; the promise of pleasure sometimes overcomes unpleasant contingencies. And early adopters always seem to crawl out of the woodwork (I, for one, have the scrapes and bruises to prove it).

Or do dissenting consumers just think that the current DVD standard is good enough for the foreseeable future, if the upgrades mean having to buy more hard- and software. That's a perfectly legitimate choice, until for whatever reason, it doesn't work any more. In liminal moments like this one, we tend to portray ourselves as disembodied, privileged observers who aren't part of the culture. Nonetheless, we often end up getting washed out to sea by currents that we at one time might never imagined to have been so strong, whether for good or ill. This may not be the most significant wave that we will ever have experienced, but it may well be a case in point.

Ed

[Woochifer]

But in this case, getting DVD in HD, along with HD audio, is an option, not a right. I'm wondering whether people are upset because they think that they should have these new things at a lower price, or because while they are waiting for this lower price, the format war might destroy their prospects completely. But the companies involved aren't going to collaborate with each other unless they perceive it to be in their own interest. I'm not saying that they won't eventually be driven to do so; if movie studios, DVD chains, and consumers utterly refuse their offer, they may eventually change their tune. But so long as they think that they have a chance to trump each other, within the parameters of acceptable risk, they will proceed to launch their products regardless of their bad press or the uneasiness, indifference, skepticism, or technical unreadiness of various consumers. Consumers buy products even when they have pits in their stomachs; the promise of pleasure sometimes overcomes unpleasant contingencies. And early adopters always seem to crawl out of the woodwork (I, for one, have the scrapes and bruises to prove it).

I think what people are stewing about in the case of HD-DVD and Blu-ray is that they want to see HD video discs succeed in the market, and consumers with HDTVs have a pent up demand for more HD content. But, consumers see all kinds of ill-conceived market barriers already going up before the formats have even hit the stores. I think that next year will be the year that HDTV comes of age. I see HDTV sales taking off in a big way, and the broadcast, cable, satellite, and DVR providers have got their plans and hardware plans in place (expecting that Directv will have an upgrade plan for its HD customers once they move their HD transmissions over to the new satellites and the MPEG-4 format). If there was one HD video disc standard in place, then it would be perfectly poised to ride that tide of consumer enthusiasm and the demand for HD programming that all of the new HDTVs will create.

With two dueling incompatible formats, and now restrictions on HD analog outputs, it's put quite a damper on the enthusiasm. What's really interesting about this format launch is just how much backlash has already gotten stirred up. People who would ordinarily be early adoptors don't see a clearcut front runner that they can get behind. If the chances are roughly 50-50 that they will have an $800 paperweight in their closet within three years by choosing one format over another, then I can see how they might not want to dive in right off the bat. Even the consortia getting ready to launch this format war acknowledge that a lot of consumers are ready to sit things out until one clear HD format emerges. (see article below)


Or do dissenting consumers just think that the current DVD standard is good enough for the foreseeable future, if the upgrades mean having to buy more hard- and software. That's a perfectly legitimate choice, until for whatever reason, it doesn't work any more. In liminal moments like this one, we tend to portray ourselves as disembodied, privileged observers who aren't part of the culture. Nonetheless, we often end up getting washed out to sea by currents that we at one time might never imagined to have been so strong, whether for good or ill. This may not be the most significant wave that we will ever have experienced, but it may well be a case in point.

I think the scenario with consumers sticking with DVD is actually very likely. Consumers make their decisions based on perceived value. For consumers who are happy with DVD, HD-DVD/Blu-ray might have minimal value. For consumers who do not currently own HDTVs and do not plan to buy one soon, HD-DVD/Blu-ray will likely have no value. For consumers who currently own HDTVs with analog inputs only, HD-DVD/Blu-ray will have a lot less value than it would have had with full resolution analog video. At the outset, the only consumer group for whom HD-DVD/Blu-ray will have high value will be those consumers who own HDTVs with digital video connections. And that group currently consists of only about 2 to 3 million households in the U.S. Considering that over 90 million DVD players have been sold in the U.S. so far, it looks like HD-DVD/Blu-ray is in no position to arbitrarily limit their market.

With the transition from VHS to DVD, the DVD format provided plenty of value for consumers. First, the picture quality improvement benefited everybody. Second, the DVD fully embraced discrete multichannel audio, which had only been available on a few select Laserdisc titles and players. Third, the DVD provided opportunities for new interactive features. HD-DVD and Blu-ray only provide better resolution with the video and audio, so the value aspect is not as clear cut this time around. Even with one unified HD disc format, the relatively recent ascendance of the DVD is a significant force to compete with. With two divided camps and further market restrictions from the outset, HD-DVD and Blu-ray are digging themselves a big hole at the outset, and one that they might not be able to climb out of. The HD market is ready to take off, and it might not pull HD-DVD and Blu-ray up with it.

[Woochifer]

Here's an Investor's Daily News article on the upcoming HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war (I got the link from The Digital Bits (http://www.thedigitalbits.com), which has been a consistent proponent of a unified disc format from the beginning). A lot of interesting info, including the likelihood of an internet connection built into the new players that can unlock additional content for a fee (is this DivX reincarnated?).

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ibd/20050801/bs_ibd_ibd/200581tech01

Blu-ray Vs. HD DVD Slows High-Definition

Brian Deagon Mon Aug 1, 7:00 PM ET

Much to the chagrin of most everyone, people who plan to buy high-definition DVD players will have to decide between two competing formats.

The first models will arrive later this year, using a format called HD DVD. A second version, using a format called Blu-ray, will follow three to six months later. HD DVD and Blu-ray are not compatible with one another. Blu-ray DVDs won't play on HD DVD players, and vice versa.

For consumers, it's VCR vs. Betamax all over again. (See related story, this page.)

Almost 30 years ago, two competing formats emerged for videocassette tape recorders. The Betamax, made by Sony, arrived first. The VCR followed, supported by an array of manufacturers. Though the Betamax was considered to be the better player technically, the VCR won. The original Betamax could only record one hour. The VCR was designed to record for four hours, which was deemed necessary so that Americans could record an entire football game.

In short, bigger was better. This is also the reason Blu-ray has more high-profile backers than HD DVD.

When HD DVD was first announced, its disc capacity was 30 gigabytes, up from today's standard 5 gigabyte DVDs.

But the Blu-ray disc was 50 gigabytes. The higher capacity of Blu-ray enticed Hewlett-Packard (NYSE:HPQ - News) and Dell (NasdaqNM:DELL - News), the two largest PC makers, to join the Sony-led Blu-ray group. Other Blu-ray backers include Hitachi (NYSE:HIT - News), Matsu****a's (NYSE:MC - News) Panasonic, Pioneer (NYSE:PIO - News), Philips Electronics (NYSE:PHG - News), Samsung, Apple Computer (NasdaqNM:AAPL - News), Thomson (NYSE:TMS - News), Sharp, LG Electronics and JVC.

Added Capacity

But in May, the HD DVD group said its discs would hold 45 gigabytes, not 30. Toshiba leads the HD DVD side. Other corporate backers are NEC (NasdaqNM:NIPNY - News), Sanyo (NasdaqSC:SANYY - News) and Thomson, the one company on both sides. Both systems are designed to play DVD movies in high-definition format, which Hollywood studios are eager to provide. High-def will display twice the resolution of current DVDs, and thus will be a match for high-def TV sets.

Both versions will be backward compatible. That is, they will play your current stack of DVD movies. Recordable versions will come later, at a higher price.

Both versions are expected to have an Internet connection, allowing interactive communication. For example, consumers might pay a fee to unlock additional features on a disc.

Certainly, only one standard -- possibly a "merger" of the two standards -- will win out. For now, Hollywood is split down the middle.

Blu-ray backers include Disney, 20th Century Fox, Touchstone and Miramax. Sony also brings to the table Sony Pictures and MGM, which it recently bought.

HD DVD is backed by Paramount, Universal, Warner, HBO and New Line Cinema.

Each side plans to make DVD movies in its favored format, but none has said they'll make DVDs in both formats.

Like Hollywood studios, consumers are caught in a quandary.

Both systems will appear identical in terms of features and performance. At first, HD DVD discs should be cheaper to make, and it has a three- to six-month lead in development.

"But I don't think that HD DVD being first to market will give it that much of an edge," said Joni Blecher, an analyst at Jupiter Research.

Early Adopters Waiting

With new technologies, there always are people pining to be early adopters. But maybe not this time.

"We think early adopters will wait, as they are aware of the format wars," said Andy Parsons, a Pioneer Electronics senior vice president.

No question the backers for either standard will switch sides if they decide the other format will win.

One plus for Blu-ray is that Sony says it will use the technology in its next PlayStation game console, the PS3. But the PS3 won't be out until mid-2006, months after HD DVD is expected to be out on the market. Moreover, Microsoft (NasdaqNM:MSFT - News) is in talks with the HD DVD group about the possibility of using that format in future versions of the
Xbox, PlayStation's major rival.

Consumers, at some point, will make the call, but Hollywood has an influential role. And there, HD DVD may have an edge.

HD DVD will enable four different disc formats: A 15-gigabyte version, as well as 30- and 45-gigabyte versions. It will also have a two-sided disk format that will play HD movies on one side and the current DVD format on the other. A 30-gigabyte disc provides eight hours of content. These formats give Hollywood some less expensive options.

Blu-ray will have just 50-gigabyte and 25-gigabyte formats.

"The studios tell us 15 gigabytes is enough," said Mark Knox, an adviser for the HD DVD group.

"We have lots of programming and not everything we sell requires 50 gigabytes, or even 25 gigabytes, so we like the flexibility that HD DVD provides," said Steve Nickerson, a senior vice president at Warner Home Video.

[edtyct]

Wooch,

That seems to be it in a nutshell. But the companies involved have their own agenda, seemingly undaunted by such analyses. Many of us would like to have DVD in HD, but few people will risk their hard-earned money on it at this point, for all the reasons given. But such are the terms that we're offered, unless some other interested party like Microsoft is able to sneak into the picture and grab the opportunity. However, if Toshiba is able to produce enough titles in a short time, maybe enough early adopters will emerge to justify continuing. Hell, there are people out there buying the Chinese 720p players and disks. I simply don't know what would be a satisfactory launch in this case. To say the least, it will be interesting to find out.

Ed

[Woochifer]

Wooch,

That seems to be it in a nutshell. But the companies involved have their own agenda, seemingly undaunted by such analyses. Many of us would like to have DVD in HD, but few people will risk their hard-earned money on it at this point, for all the reasons given. But such are the terms that we're offered, unless some other interested party like Microsoft is able to sneak into the picture and grab the opportunity. However, if Toshiba is able to produce enough titles in a short time, maybe enough early adopters will emerge to justify continuing. Hell, there are people out there buying the Chinese 720p players and disks. I simply don't know what would be a satisfactory launch in this case. To say the least, it will be interesting to find out.

Ed

It will be very interesting because both sides have their ace in the hole that they can use to make a play for market share. HD-DVD has the two-sided flipper disc format that they can use to issue dual format DVD/HD-DVD releases. If the studios supporting HD-DVD shift their new releases to a hybrid DVD/HD-DVD format (highly doubtful they will considering the greed involved), then they can potentially flood the market with HD-DVD discs before Blu-ray even hits the stores.

Meanwhile, Blu-ray will be included with the upcoming Playstation 3, which means potentially millions of Blu-ray players in people's homes, even those without HDTVs. The PS3 factor will also likely drive player prices down, because video game consoles won't sell if they're outrageously expensive and most of the revenue comes from the games anyway. A lot of people used PS2 consoles as their primary DVD player when it first came out, and it could be a similar situation here. Problem with Blu-ray is that they might have millions of PS3 consoles seeding the market, but the need for retailers to maintain dual inventories with their discs might mean very few stores where consumers can find Blu-ray discs. As a side note, the PS3 will also include SACD, an indication that SACD might be a standard part of Blu-ray.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=12935

But, so long as the studios themselves remain divided evenly, neither format will gain the upper hand for a long time. Studios breaking ranks and issuing discs in both formats (not likely) might free up enough space for one format to eventually take over, but we'll see what happens when this ugly scenario plays itself out.

[shokhead]

It will be very interesting because both sides have their ace in the hole that they can use to make a play for market share. HD-DVD has the two-sided flipper disc format that they can use to issue dual format DVD/HD-DVD releases. If the studios supporting HD-DVD shift their new releases to a hybrid DVD/HD-DVD format (highly doubtful they will considering the greed involved), then they can potentially flood the market with HD-DVD discs before Blu-ray even hits the stores.

Meanwhile, Blu-ray will be included with the upcoming Playstation 3, which means potentially millions of Blu-ray players in people's homes, even those without HDTVs. The PS3 factor will also likely drive player prices down, because video game consoles won't sell if they're outrageously expensive and most of the revenue comes from the games anyway. A lot of people used PS2 consoles as their primary DVD player when it first came out, and it could be a similar situation here. Problem with Blu-ray is that they might have millions of PS3 consoles seeding the market, but the need for retailers to maintain dual inventories with their discs might mean very few stores where consumers can find Blu-ray discs. As a side note, the PS3 will also include SACD, an indication that SACD might be a standard part of Blu-ray.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=12935

But, so long as the studios themselves remain divided evenly, neither format will gain the upper hand for a long time. Studios breaking ranks and issuing discs in both formats (not likely) might free up enough space for one format to eventually take over, but we'll see what happens when this ugly scenario plays itself out.

Gee,does this sound like DVD-A/SACD?

[kexodusc]

Gee,does this sound like DVD-A/SACD?

Not at all. There's far more versatility with the HD formats than with DVD-A/SACD. Music, HD video, and gaming applications, as well as PC storage. Over 4 times the opportunity here.
It's extremely doubtful that one won't emerge as a result of tapping into a few of these potential markets.

[shokhead]

Not format but hype,next great thing,cant miss. They are saying the same type stuff as they did with DVD-A and SACD.