Blu-ray news

[Mr Peabody]

As IFA nears a lot of new BR machines about to hit the street from Loewe, Sharp, new Phillips, Daewoo and Samsung's new players which include the BD-P2400 dual format player.

Acer who plans to buy Gateway, joins BDA and plans to include BR disc drives in some of their computers. BenQ also is coming out with BR burner.

[PeruvianSkies]

Where does Denon stand at this point??

[musicman1999]

I know a guy thats a Denon dealer and all he knows is that they are going to make an announcement some time soon.

bill

[Woochifer]

Denon already announced a $2,000 Blu-ray player and $1,200 Blu-ray transport. The transport has no internal audio components and needs to be connected to a HDMI 1.3 receiver for audio decoding. No word on when these players will actually hit the street. I read that neither of these players does DVD-A or SACD.

[PeruvianSkies]

Denon already announced a $2,000 Blu-ray player and $1,200 Blu-ray transport. The transport has no internal audio components and needs to be connected to a HDMI 1.3 receiver for audio decoding. No word on when these players will actually hit the street. I read that neither of these players does DVD-A or SACD.

Hopefully they will stick to their usual well-built bodies...I am tired of seeing these HD machines that look like something made from Mattel Plastic.

[Mr Peabody]

A HDMI 1.3, transport only, scares me, even if it is from Denon. I know the new Sony is supposed to pass the digital HD audio by the internal decoder if asked to but what I know of HDMI so far and what I've read on the Dolby website, I'm more than leary of HD audio decoding outside the original player. HDMI has been deceptive up to this point, trying to put out versions to keep up with their hype.

I thought my Samsung looked pretty good and it's much more substantial in feel than my Denon 1600.

It looks like there is going to be plenty of manufacturer support for BR though. An interesting move on Samsung's part to put out a dual format player but maybe they think that's the way to go to get those sitting on the fence.

[Woochifer]

It looks like there is going to be plenty of manufacturer support for BR though. An interesting move on Samsung's part to put out a dual format player but maybe they think that's the way to go to get those sitting on the fence.

Samsung has been pursuing a dual format strategy all along, and their competition in many product categories with Korean rival LG just adds fuel to the fire. Samsung has their eye on the bigger prize since they are also one of the largest OEM optical drive suppliers. If the market winds up supporting both formats, Samsung's in prime position to dominate the OEM market, since all of the hardware vendors need to obtain the optical drives from somebody. Doubtful that Toshiba will become a Blu-ray licensee, or that Sony and some of its Blu-ray partners will license HD-DVD anytime soon. This leaves the field clear for Samsung and LG if demand for dual format hardware picks up.

For now though, dual format players and drives make up a very limited market, since it costs more to buy a dual format player than to buy a separate HD-DVD and Blu-ray player.


A HDMI 1.3, transport only, scares me, even if it is from Denon. I know the new Sony is supposed to pass the digital HD audio by the internal decoder if asked to but what I know of HDMI so far and what I've read on the Dolby website, I'm more than leary of HD audio decoding outside the original player. HDMI has been deceptive up to this point, trying to put out versions to keep up with their hype.

I don't think it's deception and hype, so much as the specs getting revised as the various new formats get finalized. When HDMI 1.0 came out, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD were still in the discussion stage. HDMI 1.3 simply includes those formats in the spec, and integrates the native format support for HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Discussions on this and other boards two years ago clearly mapped out the capabilities that would get added into future HDMI revisions, so it's not like all of this was done in secret.

But, I agree with you about the uncertainty associated with separating the drive from the audio processing with so many layers of copy protection and compatibility issues to sift through. My main concern is how the Blu-ray drive would output the lossless audio when on discs using "advanced" authoring. I suppose that if everything gets transcoded to PCM, then it doesn't matter whether the audio stream is PCM or TrueHD or DTS-HD.

[PeruvianSkies]

I wonder if the Paramount titles on Blu-ray will have any value? I guess they will to some degree if Paramount doesn't go back after...what....18 months.

[Mr Peabody]

I just really have never gotten over HDMI being sold to me as a "multi-channel" digital audio cable only to find out it was 2.0. I haven't kept up with the versions but it took them a while to finally get a HDMI that actually did multi-channel audio.

[PeruvianSkies]

I just really have never gotten over HDMI being sold to me as a "multi-channel" digital audio cable only to find out it was 2.0. I haven't kept up with the versions but it took them a while to finally get a HDMI that actually did multi-channel audio.

As of right now I am not impressed with HDMI period. I know that there are still bugs to work out a bit and things have improved, but after doing some extensive testing with a few cables and comparing it to component...I still felt component delivered better color fidelity and black levels, although HDMI won out in definition, but I prefer my movies to at least have a more film-like quality, which requires a bit of grain.

[pixelthis]

I just really have never gotten over HDMI being sold to me as a "multi-channel" digital audio cable only to find out it was 2.0. I haven't kept up with the versions but it took them a while to finally get a HDMI that actually did multi-channel audio.
I think the main value of hdmi is video. I see the advantages of a single cable going into your prepro/receiver but there are other ways of getting audio.
The video advantages of HDMI are worth the fuss. And componet doesnt have "grain",
it has less resolution, since it has to go through several additional stages
digital-analog-digital, and in the case of 1080i, analog again) as opposed to the straight digital-digital of HDMI

[pixelthis]

Since you have a direct view crt you might as well stick to componet, as your set can't resolve the higher resolution of HDMI anyway

[Mr Peabody]

I read an article at greathometheater.com that compared component to HDMI and basically it came down to trying it yourself because the Dto A and AtoD processing could have some effect on component there is also visible digital noise via HDMI, I forgot the reason given for this.

[PeruvianSkies]

I read an article at greathometheater.com that compared component to HDMI and basically it came down to trying it yourself because the Dto A and AtoD processing could have some effect on component there is also visible digital noise via HDMI, I forgot the reason given for this.

Plus in all fairness I am using really good Tributaries component cables and comparing it against a $100.00 HDMI cable from Cobalt.

[musicman1999]

I have my cable box hooked up both ways and prefer component,especially for standard def
material but have an analog set so perhaps that stands to reason.When the set was calibrated i only had component so i did the HDMI myself and i was suprised at how different the setting needed to be in order to get the picture close to the quality of the component.

bill

[Mr Peabody]

Do you use any other Tributaries? I bought one of their HDMI cables and only paid $80.00. But HDMI cables have come down some. My first HDMI cost $150.00 and it was a Monster. It was going to a TV I don't watch much and this was a couple years ago. The Monster is probably a version 1.0, I think the Tributaries is supposed to be 1.3. The T seems to work fine. I'd like to find a loaner and compare it to something.

[pixelthis]

Do you use any other Tributaries? I bought one of their HDMI cables and only paid $80.00. But HDMI cables have come down some. My first HDMI cost $150.00 and it was a Monster. It was going to a TV I don't watch much and this was a couple years ago. The Monster is probably a version 1.0, I think the Tributaries is supposed to be 1.3. The T seems to work fine. I'd like to find a loaner and compare it to something.
When I got my switcher from monoprice I also got a HDMI cable for 25 bucks, gold plate on the plugs.
Couldn't tell the diff between it and the one on my Samsung.
Since hdmi is digital there shouldn't be any difference.
Digital is digital

[Mr Peabody]

I'm not so sure that digital is digital. As in all cables there are two camps. One saying as long as it works the cable is fine and the other claiming better cables help. I personally, in audio have noticed differences but mainly from the difference in the source that delivered the signal. I did have a compatibility problem between my cable box and processor that the manufacturer of my processor was able to cure, but I'm not so sure what the issue was. The manufacturer blamed an inferior digital transmission from the cable box. I haven't had enough A/b of digital cables to take a hard line with either camp. I'm leaning toward at least a better than average cable though because digital can still be effected by outside interference which could cause additional clocking and error correction issues that could theoretically be audible. The same thing I'd think could hold true for video.

[pixelthis]

I'm not so sure that digital is digital. As in all cables there are two camps. One saying as long as it works the cable is fine and the other claiming better cables help. I personally, in audio have noticed differences but mainly from the difference in the source that delivered the signal. I did have a compatibility problem between my cable box and processor that the manufacturer of my processor was able to cure, but I'm not so sure what the issue was. The manufacturer blamed an inferior digital transmission from the cable box. I haven't had enough A/b of digital cables to take a hard line with either camp. I'm leaning toward at least a better than average cable though because digital can still be effected by outside interference which could cause additional clocking and error correction issues that could theoretically be audible. The same thing I'd think could hold true for video.
Sorry but we will have to disagree on this one. There is so much error correction in todays signals that even if you lose a portion you will still get a valid signal, al you need really is a cable to get the signal to your device.
And the digital signal wont "change", as long as it reaches its destination it will sound the same as when it started once its decoded

[PeruvianSkies]

Do you use any other Tributaries? I bought one of their HDMI cables and only paid $80.00. But HDMI cables have come down some. My first HDMI cost $150.00 and it was a Monster. It was going to a TV I don't watch much and this was a couple years ago. The Monster is probably a version 1.0, I think the Tributaries is supposed to be 1.3. The T seems to work fine. I'd like to find a loaner and compare it to something.

I am using Tributaries top of the line component video cable...it's the Silver Series (6ft) and I think it goes for around $250-$300. Not sure because of the length, I got mine on a trade.