Hi-Res Audio Formats on BR & HDDVD

[nightflier]

I think a lot of attention has been focussed on the video qualities of the BR/HDDVD formats. I'm probably not in the majority, but I'm interested in the audio formats that these higher-capacity disks can support. I've read several articles claiming how much better Dolby True-HD and DTS-HD are than their DD/DTS predecessors. Some even claim that these formats are superior to SACD Surround.

Now this peaked my interest. I have been a fan of SACD for some time and in my experience it has been the best sound format that I have ever heard within my budget, (although I still have a penchant for analog, but that is a separate discussion). When comparing DD/DTS music DVDs to SACD music, I still sense a superiority in the SACD format. So I have a bunch of questions and was hoping more knowledgeable people here could help answer them:

1. Are the 5.1 analog outputs the only way to get True-HD and DTS-HD? It seems silly, but I thought I read in several places that HDMI currently does not support these formats.

2. If so, how does the resolution of True-HD and DTS-HD compare to SACD?

3. What is the reason for the supposed superiority of True-HD and DTS-HD in surround sound over SACD?

4. Are there any plans to make True-HD and DTS-HD music-only disks? Right now, the only way to get HiRes surround is through concert disks.

5. Will HDDVD's capacity limitation be a problem for trying to fit True-HD and DTS-HD on a disk? While it does have higher capacity, will Blu-Ray have capacity problems as well?

6. While it is still young technology, it does seem that most BR & HDDVD players are more of the value-engineered and competitively priced variety. Any plans for HiFi manufacturers to offer something higher-grade?

7. Besides support for True-HD and DTS-HD, are there any other sound improvements in the HDMI 1.3 spec?

8. It seems that True-HD and DTS-HD are pretty much still 5.1 formats, especially for music. So how are the rear channels in a 7.1 system handled through True-HD and DTS-HD?

9. Many of my SACD titles are actually 5.0, not 5.1, forcing me to use my speakers in full range mode or using my pre/pro to force a crossover (which I am certain is detrimental to the sound reproduction). Do True-HD and DTS-HD soundtracks do a better job of integrating the subwoofer since they are primarily movie-focussed sound formats?

10. I noticed some BR/HDDVD players support DVD-A, but why is there no support for SACD, even from Sony?

Obviously, you can read from my questions and my other posts that I have not bought into either format. Of course I'm waiting to see which format will win out, and this is not at all clear to me right now. But perhaps a more important factor for me is that I want a player from a manufacturer that has put some engineering into getting the best sound out of the formats. I just don't feel that Sony/Toshiba/Panasonic are up to the task especially since they are trying so desperately to undercut each other's business and this means cost-cutting.

[PeruvianSkies]

I am guessing it won't be long before the Little Green Knight that Couldn't will be here to comment on this....

[kelsci]

Nightflier, the only thing I have to say about the audio on these two formats is that Mr. Bungle from PeeWee Herman was at work on the audio design of these machines.
I think that Dolby True-HD has some relationship with DVD-Audio. BD can output the PCM tracks that are on many BD discs at least through analog outputs if that machine has them. I think that track might also be outputted with HDMI 1.2 into a receiver. I have not read any articles talking about SACD and BD-HD-DVD machines and a realtionship there at this time.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

1. Are the 5.1 analog outputs the only way to get True-HD and DTS-HD? It seems silly, but I thought I read in several places that HDMI currently does not support these formats.

This is false. Using the 5.1 analog outputs forces the audio to go through one conversion from D/A in the players to the receiver, go back to digital for bass management,delay, and levels, and then back to analog to your amps. That is alot of analog and digital conversion, and opens up the chance for dropped bits and digital errors. However the benefit with this connection is that it is backwards compatible with pre HDMI receivers.

HDMI 1.3 will pass all digital audio formats in existance all in its native bitstream. .


2. If so, how does the resolution of True-HD and DTS-HD compare to SACD?

This is impossible to tell objectively since no direct double blind comparisons have ever been conducted. Since SACD is handled and processed so differently than the PCM based TruHD and DTS HD, they cannot sound exactly alike. There will always be some subtle differences even if the same master tape is used to encode them both. In my experience I have found that to my ears SACD sounds much closer to the live mike feed that PCM does. I am always aware I am hearing digital sound, VERY good digital sound when talking about 24/96khz. However SACD sounds much more like analog and very non fatiguing when the bitstream stays in the DSD mode thoughout the entire chain(no PCM conversion)


3. What is the reason for the supposed superiority of True-HD and DTS-HD in surround sound over SACD?

If anything its efficiency. Both TrueHD and DTS HD use variable bitrates that allows the audio to be transported in a pipeline that expands and contracts as bits are required to maintain losslessness and transparency. SACD uses a constant bitrate which means the pipeline has to be consistantly the same size moment by moment, much like LPCM (or PCM) audio.


4. Are there any plans to make True-HD and DTS-HD music-only disks? Right now, the only way to get HiRes surround is through concert disks.

At CES Dolby was playing concert recordings at 24/96khz encoded in Dolby TrueHD. It sounded VERY good. I heard DTS HD master audio recordings of the Firebird Suite recorded at 24/96khz through 7.1 channels at a Dts Demo in New York not to long ago. That was a wow event to say the least.

I have not heard of anyone making any commitment to either format at this time. Although I know Dts Entertainment is going to get knee deep in this if HD DVD or Bluray gets a broader market share.


5. Will HDDVD's capacity limitation be a problem for trying to fit True-HD and DTS-HD on a disk? While it does have higher capacity, will Blu-Ray have capacity problems as well?


I do not think HD DVD has a problem with including the lossless formats capacity wise as long as the movie is not too long. The problem with HD DVD is bandwidth and capacity together. HD DVD can never use uncompressed PCM because of space and bandwidth problems when video is in the pipeline. To counter that HD DVD basically uses True-HD and VC-1 because this is the most efficient coupling of audio and video codecs. However, when you start using PIP, mutliple language soundtracks, and interactive features in the mix even these tools have to be compromised because of bandwidth issues. You either have to give up the True-HD lossless audio, or you have to compress the video more aggresively. The prime example of this happening is the upcoming Transformers HD DVD and Shriek the Third. There is going to be so many interactive features running along with the movie, there was not enough bandwidth for a True-HD soundtrack.

Bluray has a much larger moment to moment pipeline. It has a 40mbps constant video rate, with peaks to 48mbps. It has an overall 54mbps bitrate. If you kept your video peaks below 40mbps(way beyond what HD DVD can do), you could have 5.1 uncompressed PCM track at 24/48khz, a 24/48khz Dolby True-HD soundtrack, and Dolby digital at 640kbps in two languages, and extras all going in the pipeline at once. Or they could use 4 TrueHD bitstreams in different languages, and a couple of 640kbps other language as well at the same time. Great for an all region release. No disc capacity or bandwidth problems which is very important for the future growth of the format.


6. While it is still young technology, it does seem that most BR & HDDVD players are more of the value-engineered and competitively priced variety. Any plans for HiFi manufacturers to offer something higher-grade?

Pioneer and Sony have plans for a higher grade upscale Bluray player later this year, or early next. Onyko also has said it will release a high end HD DVD player. It has not said when though.


7. Besides support for True-HD and DTS-HD, are there any other sound improvements in the HDMI 1.3 spec?

Just the ability to pass DVD-A, SACD, and 8 channel uncompressed audio at up to 24/192khz.


8. It seems that True-HD and DTS-HD are pretty much still 5.1 formats, especially for music. So how are the rear channels in a 7.1 system handled through True-HD and DTS-HD?

This is still a puzzle, as no standard have been set. However there have been a few 7.1 soundtracks on bluray that has used the surrounds in this fashion

Side left wall
Rear left wall
Side right wall
Rear right wall

What has also been proposed is this configuration

Left surround
Center rear surround
Right surround
Overhead



9. Many of my SACD titles are actually 5.0, not 5.1, forcing me to use my speakers in full range mode or using my pre/pro to force a crossover (which I am certain is detrimental to the sound reproduction). Do True-HD and DTS-HD soundtracks do a better job of integrating the subwoofer since they are primarily movie-focussed sound formats?

Most definately. As a film mixer I have noticed that overall sound levels in the mains and bass frequency and level have gotten so loud, you almost cannot produce a soundtrack without an LFE track.


10. I noticed some BR/HDDVD players support DVD-A, but why is there no support for SACD, even from Sony?

Actually the PS3 supports SACD. I know of no standalone that does. Perphaps Sony high end bluray player will support it, I just don't know that one.


Obviously, you can read from my questions and my other posts that I have not bought into either format. Of course I'm waiting to see which format will win out, and this is not at all clear to me right now. But perhaps a more important factor for me is that I want a player from a manufacturer that has put some engineering into getting the best sound out of the formats. I just don't feel that Sony/Toshiba/Panasonic are up to the task especially since they are trying so desperately to undercut each other's business and this means cost-cutting.

I would not rule Sony nor Pioneer's high end bluray players. These players will have chipsets that support the most high end of video and audio solutions. Also Onkyo's HD DVD player sounds very promising as well. They have just not annouced a release time on this player. Toshiba is in a hard place. Their selling point to their exclusive studios is cheap price of the players. It would be very hard to justify a high end piece and accomplish the selling point they promised.

I am not endorsing either format, just presenting the facts.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am guessing it won't be long before the Little Green Knight that Couldn't will be here to comment on this....

Is it really that difficult for you to just try and answer nighflier questions instead of dragging attitutes from another part of the board over here? Can you answer even one of his questions just so you can stay on topic? Geeze.....:frown2::rolleyes5:

[kexodusc]

Is it really that difficult for you to just try and answer nighflier questions instead of dragging attitutes from another part of the board over here? Can you answer even one of his questions just so you can stay on topic? Geeze.....:frown2::rolleyes5:
I think these little side posts of his are rather amusing. He sort of hovers around poor Nightflier like a lost dog looking for a friend...

[PeruvianSkies]

I think these little side posts of his are rather amusing. He sort of hovers around poor Nightflier like a lost dog looking for a friend...

I would prefer to have no friends than have you as my friend... Not that I need any friends on here anyway, I have plenty of true friends in real life.

[L.J.]

Excellent post Sir T. Thanks for taking the time.

PSky, I agree with Sir T on not draggin' the nonsense from one thread to another. Many new members here do not fully understand all this (I'm one of them) and it's difficult to go through all the crap to get some good info. Please contribute to the thread or take the crap somewhere else.

[kexodusc]

I would prefer to have no friends than have you as my friend... Not that I need any friends on here anyway, I have plenty of true friends in real life.
You are pretty special.

[PeruvianSkies]

Excellent post Sir T. Thanks for taking the time.

PSky, I agree with Sir T on not draggin' the nonsense from one thread to another. Many new members here do not fully understand all this (I'm one of them) and it's difficult to go through all the crap to get some good info. Please contribute to the thread or take the crap somewhere else.

All that I said was "prepare yourself" and I was talking to Nightflier with my comment (not anyone else) about a Green Knight coming here and moments later...Sir T arrived and did exactly what I said. I never used anything insulting and I didn't bring (as Sir T called it) "attitutes" with me.

So how about you and Kex get over it. Both of you are contributing nothing in these cases...all you can say is something against me for commenting towards anther person.

[PeruvianSkies]

You are pretty special.

It's interesting to think how at one time I considered you to be one of the more reputable members of this site by contributing productive things to this site, now all you can do is attack me for disagreeing with other members.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All that I said was "prepare yourself" and I was talking to Nightflier with my comment (not anyone else) about a Green Knight coming here and moments later...Sir T arrived and did exactly what I said. I never used anything insulting and I didn't bring (as Sir T called it) "attitutes" with me.

So how about you and Kex get over it. Both of you are contributing nothing in these cases...all you can say is something against me for commenting towards anther person.

You can end all of this by NOT commenting on the person, and commenting on the OP's questions. Just that simple

[kexodusc]

It's interesting to think how at one time I considered you to be one of the more reputable members of this site by contributing productive things to this site, now all you can do is attack me for disagreeing with other members.
I'm not attacking you for disagreeing with other members...I was commenting on your peculiar, pre-emptive strike on Sir T in this thread.
Tell ya what, I'll leave you alone if you stop with the sarcasm and rhetoric about whichever members you decide to have a beef with.

[pixelthis]

Is it really that difficult for you to just try and answer nighflier questions instead of dragging attitutes from another part of the board over here? Can you answer even one of his questions just so you can stay on topic? Geeze.....:frown2::rolleyes5:

As long as hes' jacking you hes' leaving ME alone.
THANKS:thumbsup:

[pixelthis]

I would prefer to have no friends than have you as my friend... Not that I need any friends on here anyway, I have plenty of true friends in real life.

This isn't REAL LIFE???:yikes:

[kelsci]

Good to hear from you again your Lordship. I actually saved your reply on this matter in an e-mail file for possible future reference. The EX-ES question on the sixth and seven channels again shows the MR BUNGLE attitude with BD-HD-DVD formats by not thinking about how to do this when the format was released for sale.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Good to hear from you again your Lordship. I actually saved your reply on this matter in an e-mail file for possible future reference. The EX-ES question on the sixth and seven channels again shows the MR BUNGLE attitude with BD-HD-DVD formats by not thinking about how to do this when the format was released for sale.

Actually both formats were able to do 8 channels of PCM audio right out of the box. So there was never a need for a EX/ES solution for it. The only reason the ES/EX issue existed on DVD, was because of the cap of 5.1 for Dolby, and 6.1 for Dts.

[dean_martin]

Pioneer and Sony have plans for a higher grade upscale Bluray player later this year, or early next. Onyko also has said it will release a high end HD DVD player. It has not said when though.





Based on an interview with one of the founders of ARCAM in Stereophile earlier this year, it seemed like ARCAM was favoring HD-DVD. (I posted a link in the other thread.) Have manufacturers like Denon and Marantz that are known for excellent video (and audio) performance announced any plans to launch players that support either format?

[kexodusc]

Have manufacturers like Denon and Marantz that are known for excellent video (and audio) performance announced any plans to launch players that support either format?

Well yeah, rumour has it Sony is firmly behind Blu-Ray.:lol:

[L.J.]

Based on an interview with one of the founders of ARCAM in Stereophile earlier this year, it seemed like ARCAM was favoring HD-DVD. (I posted a link in the other thread.) Have manufacturers like Denon and Marantz that are known for excellent video (and audio) performance announced any plans to launch players that support either format?

Denon has a couple a BR players coming out. Someone posted a news release somewhere around here. I think the prices were like $2k or something like that. Oouch!

[dean_martin]

Denon has a couple a BR players coming out. Someone posted a news release somewhere around here. I think the prices were like $2k or something like that. Oouch!

Thanks, L.J. I missed that post, I guess. If it was in that thread on the news and rumors board, I must confess that I couldn't make it through the whole thing.

[dean_martin]

Well yeah, rumour has it Sony is firmly behind Blu-Ray.:lol:

Reh...reeeeeeaalllllyyyy?

[L.J.]

Thanks, L.J. I missed that post, I guess. If it was in that thread on the news and rumors board, I must confess that I couldn't make it through the whole thing.

Here's a link

http://www.listenup.com/content/partner_stores/denon/talmadge.aug.07.php

Kinda interesting to see a "BR Transport". I was under the impression that most BR will be advanced authored, requiring decoding to be done in the player.

[Groundbeef]

What is the difference between HDMI, and TOSLINK as far as audio? When I say Toslink, I am meaning optical (just so I'm clear, I think Toslink is optical).

Does optical carry all the available audio? Or is it limited to 5.1 or higher?

Thanks.

[L.J.]

What is the difference between HDMI, and TOSLINK as far as audio? When I say Toslink, I am meaning optical (just so I'm clear, I think Toslink is optical).

Does optical carry all the available audio? Or is it limited to 5.1 or higher?

Thanks.

SPDIF (Coaxial, Optical)
- Provides two channel lossless uncompressed PCM audio.
- Provides all pre-HDMI Dolby and DTS formats (5.1/6.1).

HDMI 1.1
- Provides up to 8 (7.1) channels of lossless uncompressed PCM audio.
- Provides all pre-HDMI Dolby and DTS formats (5.1/6.1).
- Provides DVD-Audio streaming as PCM.

HDMI 1.2
- Adds SACD streaming as proprietary DSD format.

HDMI 1.3
- Adds up to 8 (7.1) channels of post-HDMI Dolby and DTS formats (TrueHD, etc.).



Copied from AVS......yes, I'm lazy.

[nightflier]

Thanks for the detailed information. I still have some questions though.


This is false. Using the 5.1 analog outputs forces the audio to go through one conversion from D/A in the players to the receiver, go back to digital for bass management,delay, and levels, and then back to analog to your amps. That is alot of analog and digital conversion, and opens up the chance for dropped bits and digital errors. However the benefit with this connection is that it is backwards compatible with pre HDMI receivers.

If my receiver is capable of keeping the 5.1 inputs all analog throughout and onto my amp (it is), then there is only one conversion: inside my source. In my case, and I will suspect in many cases, the conversion capabilities of the source are superior to those in most receivers.

Also, this does not answer my question. Does HDMI (pre-1.3) pass True-HD and DTS-HD sound?


However SACD sounds much more like analog and very non fatiguing when the bitstream stays in the DSD mode thoughout the entire chain(no PCM conversion)

I would like to agree, although I don't have the facilities in-house to test this out. So under what circumstances would the bitstream be converted to PCM, if there is no additional conversion after the music leaves the source, as in my setup?


If anything its efficiency. Both TrueHD and DTS HD use variable bitrates that allows the audio to be transported in a pipeline that expands and contracts as bits are required to maintain losslessness and transparency. SACD uses a constant bitrate which means the pipeline has to be consistantly the same size moment by moment, much like LPCM (or PCM) audio.

So this would make it more costly to ask a player to do both? I presume that the electronics required to do both would be more complex.


At CES Dolby was playing concert recordings at 24/96khz encoded in Dolby TrueHD. It sounded VERY good. I heard DTS HD master audio recordings of the Firebird Suite recorded at 24/96khz through 7.1 channels at a Dts Demo in New York not to long ago. That was a wow event to say the least.

Firebird is one of the more dynamic pieces I can think of, and one I know quite well. Makes me wish I could have heard that.


I do not think HD DVD has a problem with including the lossless formats capacity wise as long as the movie is not too long. The problem with HD DVD is bandwidth and capacity together. HD DVD can never use uncompressed PCM because of space and bandwidth problems when video is in the pipeline. To counter that HD DVD basically uses True-HD and VC-1 because this is the most efficient coupling of audio and video codecs. However, when you start using PIP, mutliple language soundtracks, and interactive features in the mix even these tools have to be compromised because of bandwidth issues. You either have to give up the True-HD lossless audio, or you have to compress the video more aggresively. The prime example of this happening is the upcoming Transformers HD DVD and Shriek the Third. There is going to be so many interactive features running along with the movie, there was not enough bandwidth for a True-HD soundtrack.

Obviously this is a serious limitation of HDDVD. Of course, they could distribute it on two disks, but that would not help sales, I think. This to me, is a significant argument in favor of BR. That said, I can care a whole lot less about the interactive features, but that's me and I don't think the buying public would agree.


Bluray has a much larger moment to moment pipeline. It has a 40mbps constant video rate, with peaks to 48mbps. It has an overall 54mbps bitrate. If you kept your video peaks below 40mbps(way beyond what HD DVD can do), you could have 5.1 uncompressed PCM track at 24/48khz, a 24/48khz Dolby True-HD soundtrack, and Dolby digital at 640kbps in two languages, and extras all going in the pipeline at once. Or they could use 4 TrueHD bitstreams in different languages, and a couple of 640kbps other language as well at the same time. Great for an all region release. No disc capacity or bandwidth problems which is very important for the future growth of the format.

That said, BR still has a limit that we are reaching pretty quickly. While HDDVD is clearly left behind, the reality is that at some point BR will reach those same constraints. Hence my argument that both formats are still limiting as compared to VOD and downloads which do not have that limitation. Another risk is that a new disk format emerges that has more capacity than both to include all the sound formats people will want or need for the next few years. HDDVD's limitations here may serve to demonstrate that both formats have limitations and may not be the best choice.


Pioneer and Sony have plans for a higher grade upscale Bluray player later this year, or early next. Onyko also has said it will release a high end HD DVD player. It has not said when though.

Still waiting for the Denon player too. Still, I'm more looking at products in a different class like Classe and Meridian.


Just the ability to pass DVD-A, SACD, and 8 channel uncompressed audio at up to 24/192khz.

Still, the fact that many players are not 1.3 compliant should be a huge deterrent to people buying in. It isn't, because most of the buying public is focussed on video, but for those of us who care about sound, this should be a big issue.


This is still a puzzle, as no standard have been set. However there have been a few 7.1 soundtracks on bluray that has used the surrounds in this fashion

So let me get this straight. There is no consensus on how to us the last two channels when listening to TrueHD and DTSHD? This to me is another big reason to wait things out. I sure hope that the 1.3 spec does a better job of specifying how they should be used.


Most definately. As a film mixer I have noticed that overall sound levels in the mains and bass frequency and level have gotten so loud, you almost cannot produce a soundtrack without an LFE track.

It's about time! Geez, it sure took the industry long enough. One of the reason that DVD-A always sounded sop much better to my ears is because the bass always seamed bigger. We only tested this on a few disks, but that was always what we heard and it made the decision to choose and back SACD that much harder. Now this would also be a good argument for releasing more music on BR or HDDVD. Don't the people in the industry read up on what the consumers are clamoring for?


Actually the PS3 supports SACD. I know of no standalone that does. Perphaps Sony high end bluray player will support it, I just don't know that one.

Well if the PS3 can do it, then maybe it's not that hard or expensive to do. Then again, does the PS3 even have 5.1 analog outs? If not, does it play SACDs? In stereo? I know it's not HDMI 1.3 compliant, so how does this work?


I would not rule Sony nor Pioneer's high end bluray players. These players will have chipsets that support the most high end of video and audio solutions. Also Onkyo's HD DVD player sounds very promising as well. They have just not annouced a release time on this player. Toshiba is in a hard place. Their selling point to their exclusive studios is cheap price of the players. It would be very hard to justify a high end piece and accomplish the selling point they promised. I am not endorsing either format, just presenting the facts.

These sound issues, especially the lack of HDMI 1.3 support, are telling me to wait until some of them can be addressed. In the case of HDDVD, the sound issues are pretty damning, but until HDMI 1.3 BR players start appearing, I am definitely going to wait this one out.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Based on an interview with one of the founders of ARCAM in Stereophile earlier this year, it seemed like ARCAM was favoring HD-DVD. (I posted a link in the other thread.) Have manufacturers like Denon and Marantz that are known for excellent video (and audio) performance announced any plans to launch players that support either format?

I read that article as well. Arcam was favoring HD DVD because it is so closely aligned with DVD that it is a bit easy to produce a player for. Arcam is a small company, and really cannot afford the cost of producing a bluray player. What they could have done is liscense a design from another bluray manufacturer, and tweak the design to their standards.

Denon has announced two Bluray players being released next year. No word from Marantz as of yet.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks for the detailed information. I still have some questions though.



[quote]If my receiver is capable of keeping the 5.1 inputs all analog throughout and onto my amp (it is), then there is only one conversion: inside my source. In my case, and I will suspect in many cases, the conversion capabilities of the source are superior to those in most receivers.

Actually no there is two. If you use the players 5.1 analog outs, the player does D/A conversion and sends it to the receiver. Only if the player does bass management, delay and level setting(all the Toshiba players have bugs in their internal processing) will the source remain analog all the way through. If the receiver has to do the post processing, then you have to convert the audio back to digital to do it. I would not use Toshiba post processing because it does not boost the LFE the required 10db for Dolby and Dts playback.


Also, this does not answer my question. Does HDMI (pre-1.3) pass True-HD and DTS-HD sound?

If the player does the decoding, yes. It will convert it to PCM(which is what it was before encoding) and pass it through HDMI 1.1, 1.2, 1.2a




I would like to agree, although I don't have the facilities in-house to test this out. So under what circumstances would the bitstream be converted to PCM, if there is no additional conversion after the music leaves the source, as in my setup?

If you use bass management, delay, or level settings, the signal must be converted to PCM. There are no post processing tools in DSD except on the ultra high end SACD only players.



So this would make it more costly to ask a player to do both? I presume that the electronics required to do both would be more complex.

Its not in the electronics, its in the bitstream. SACD cannot do variable bit rate because the stream is not PCM, its DSD. DSD works very differently from PCM as it needs no reconstruction filters. Since both Dts HD MA and DTHD are both PCM based, they can do both constant and variable bit rate processing.




Firebird is one of the more dynamic pieces I can think of, and one I know quite well. Makes me wish I could have heard that.

It was heaven on earth as far as music listening goes.


Obviously this is a serious limitation of HDDVD. Of course, they could distribute it on two disks, but that would not help sales, I think. This to me, is a significant argument in favor of BR. That said, I can care a whole lot less about the interactive features, but that's me and I don't think the buying public would agree.

The public apparently doesn't agree with either of us on this issue.




That said, BR still has a limit that we are reaching pretty quickly. While HDDVD is clearly left behind, the reality is that at some point BR will reach those same constraints.

That reality is a loooong way off. First there isn't a single movie released on DVD that could challenge a 50gb disc. There are three that I know of that have maxed out HD DVD. If the 50GB disc looks like it will be maxed out in the future, then BR has a 100GB that is compatible with all current bluray players. TDK developed it, and it is ready to go. All it would take is a small adjustment to current bluray replication lines. This is called insider information.


Hence my argument that both formats are still limiting as compared to VOD and downloads which do not have that limitation. Another risk is that a new disk format emerges that has more capacity than both to include all the sound formats people will want or need for the next few years. HDDVD's limitations here may serve to demonstrate that both formats have limitations and may not be the best choice.

I know of no format in developement that has the capacity of 100GB except bluray. And any format that does come down the pipeline has to have the support of the CE manufacturers, and the studio's have to support it as well.

VOD has alot more limitations that either of the HD disc. I cannot do lossless audio, it has to be much more agressively compressed which can create artifacting, and it has to compete with other programming for bandwidth which leads to more compression. It is expensive(you have to have digital cable which ain't cheap), full of DRM, time limits, and it has can be much more problematic than disc. Right now it cannot be owned or stored.




Still waiting for the Denon player too. Still, I'm more looking at products in a different class like Classe and Meridian.

You will be waiting a while. It took years into the DVD format before they released a player.




Still, the fact that many players are not 1.3 compliant should be a huge deterrent to people buying in. It isn't, because most of the buying public is focussed on video, but for those of us who care about sound, this should be a big issue.

Nightflier, you don't know what you are talking about, hence starting this post. If the decoding is done onboard the player, then 1.3 compliance is not necessary. Don't buy into marketing hype. All bluray and HD DVD disc are authored in the advanced mode to include interactivity. That means if the consumer wants the interactivity, the decoding has to take place in the player. When the player decodes the formats, it transcodes the audio back to its orginal form which is PCM. The 1.1 HDMI standards allow 8 channels of 24/192khz PCM audio to pass. So this 1.3HDMI not in players is a big issue to those who are ignorant of the formats.




So let me get this straight. There is no consensus on how to us the last two channels when listening to TrueHD and DTSHD? This to me is another big reason to wait things out. I sure hope that the 1.3 spec does a better job of specifying how they should be used.

Another non worry for the educated, and a big worry for the uneducated. First, there isn't a single post production facility in Hollywood that can mix 7.1. Secondly 7.1 is really marketing hype to me because most small rooms cannot support 7.1 without creating an acoustical mess, or the effect being so subtle as to be barely heard. The 1.3 spec only addressing transmission, not spatiality.




It's about time! Geez, it sure took the industry long enough. One of the reason that DVD-A always sounded sop much better to my ears is because the bass always seamed bigger. We only tested this on a few disks, but that was always what we heard and it made the decision to choose and back SACD that much harder. Now this would also be a good argument for releasing more music on BR or HDDVD. Don't the people in the industry read up on what the consumers are clamoring for?

Not all DVD-A titles used the LFE channel. I would say you probably didn't get a large enough sample to even fairly compare SACD and DVD-A if you are talking just a few disc. The LFE in music only applications is unnecessary, because there are no musical instruments with enough low bass at high enough levels to max out the main channels. With movies soundtracks that is not the case. Since most people use a sub/sat system anyway, all the bass is direct to a sub, including the LFE, so how do you know which bass is contributing to what.




Well if the PS3 can do it, then maybe it's not that hard or expensive to do. Then again, does the PS3 even have 5.1 analog outs? If not, does it play SACDs? In stereo? I know it's not HDMI 1.3 compliant, so how does this work?

You KNOW the PS3 is not 1.3 compliant? So much for what you know, it is 1.3 compliant, and always has been. What planet have you been living on? It does't have analog outs, it does play SACD in multichannel and in stereo. If it wasn't compliant then why offer the feature? Duh!




These sound issues, especially the lack of HDMI 1.3 support, are telling me to wait until some of them can be addressed. In the case of HDDVD, the sound issues are pretty damning, but until HDMI 1.3 BR players start appearing, I am definitely going to wait this one out.

You are entitled to make your own decisions, even if they are born out of ignorance. Funny how you have turned this from an innocent like inquiry, to another dig on the HD players and format. Aren't you tired of this kind of idiocrasy?

You sound like you are trying to justify why YOU don't want to get into the HD on disc formats. Some people may not want to wait, and are well aware of what they are getting into.

[kelsci]

The following is a link to a recent article on the High Definition Digest discussing the whole audio "shebang". This whole audio thingy with high defintion should get the Pee Wee Herman MR. BUNGLE AWARD imho.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/High-Def_FAQ:_Blu-ray_and_HD_DVD_Audio_Explained/1064

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The following is a link to a recent article on the High Definition Digest discussing the whole audio "shebang". This whole audio thingy with high defintion should get the Pee Wee Herman MR. BUNGLE AWARD imho.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/High-Def_FAQ:_Blu-ray_and_HD_DVD_Audio_Explained/1064

Well Josh does a decent job of explaining the new formats. Though he isn't entirely correct on quite a few points.

Perhaps I should have just posted this link instead of trying to carefully answer questions from a poster that really did not want the answers, but just wanted another opportunity to diss both formats.

Kel,
I don't really think its an audio format thing that is so confusing. I think the HDMI thing is what is making everything so confusing.

[kelsci]

"Kel,
I don't really think its an audio format thing that is so confusing. I think the HDMI thing is what is making everything so confusing"

Your Lordship; I would say it is a combination of both. For instance, In reading Josh's article, I did not know that Dolby HD-Master did not feature a "core" such as DTS-HD master. To me it is a "MR BUNGLE" all the way around. For example, on HI-DEF DIGEST, the review of TRANSFORMERS has only a D.D. plus audio track because there was not enough capacity on the disc with some kind of features or whatever to have a Dolby Hi-Def audio master track. Why this was not a two-disc set is beyond me. I am the kind of person who believes in the best audio/video transfer be done FIRST, then determine what and where the extras should go next.

Personally, I cannot afford to delve into the high def. world at this time and really do not care. I have gone through some odd-ball mental changes in the past eight years or so that does not leave me with the interest that I would have had once upon a time. What little mental energy I have will for the next year go into transferring of my videos, many made in linear stereo onto a dvd-r while my linear stereo portable vhs machines are still operating to make the transfers. Again, it is good to see you back.

[L.J.]

"Kel,
I don't really think its an audio format thing that is so confusing. I think the HDMI thing is what is making everything so confusing"

Your Lordship; I would say it is a combination of both. For instance, In reading Josh's article, I did not know that Dolby HD-Master did not feature a "core" such as DTS-HD master. To me it is a "MR BUNGLE" all the way around. For example, on HI-DEF DIGEST, the review of TRANSFORMERS has only a D.D. plus audio track because there was not enough capacity on the disc with some kind of features or whatever to have a Dolby Hi-Def audio master track. Why this was not a two-disc set is beyond me. I am the kind of person who believes in the best audio/video transfer be done FIRST, then determine what and where the extras should go next.

I agree with that. Screw the extras or put 'em on a separate disc.

[kexodusc]

I agree with that. Screw the extras or put 'em on a separate disc.
I'd even pay $1-$2 extra for the better soundtracks.
In my DVD collection, I'm guessing there are fewer than a dozen discs for which I've actually bothered checking the special features - Star Wars, the Godfathers, Lost, Donnie Darko, 24, and maybe one or two others.
99% I think it is the biggest waste of storage space...grrr...would love to see DTS on there.

I went down to my favorite Music store today - they're stocking HD-DVD and BluRay - I was shocked at how few actually contained anything other than the Dolby Digital, DD Plus and maybe the True HD or PCM stuff every now and then. Most either didn't have any DTS or just didn't have the label on them. Granted I may have only looked at 60 or so titles, but it would seem more goofy special features, and undoubtedly more advertisements, are occupying storage space at the expense of the better audio formats.

This reminds me of what they did with the DualDisc format - instead of using it as a DVD-A hi-rez outfit, they added a bunch of video/graphic stuff....booo!

I don't remember, but I assume DTS didn't start appearing on DVD's until a few years into the product life cycle, and I know a lot of DVD's didn't even have the DD 5.1 track early on. Maybe that's all this is - I think the lack of a/v receivers with built in decoders might have something to do with it, hopefully they'll roll out more audio friendly versions of these titles in the future.

[PeruvianSkies]

"Kel,
I don't really think its an audio format thing that is so confusing. I think the HDMI thing is what is making everything so confusing"

Your Lordship; I would say it is a combination of both. For instance, In reading Josh's article, I did not know that Dolby HD-Master did not feature a "core" such as DTS-HD master. To me it is a "MR BUNGLE" all the way around. For example, on HI-DEF DIGEST, the review of TRANSFORMERS has only a D.D. plus audio track because there was not enough capacity on the disc with some kind of features or whatever to have a Dolby Hi-Def audio master track. Why this was not a two-disc set is beyond me. I am the kind of person who believes in the best audio/video transfer be done FIRST, then determine what and where the extras should go next.

Personally, I cannot afford to delve into the high def. world at this time and really do not care. I have gone through some odd-ball mental changes in the past eight years or so that does not leave me with the interest that I would have had once upon a time. What little mental energy I have will for the next year go into transferring of my videos, many made in linear stereo onto a dvd-r while my linear stereo portable vhs machines are still operating to make the transfers. Again, it is good to see you back.


HITTING THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!

This is so true especially when both HD parties were trying to convince us early on that the advantage of the HD formats would be the best audio, the best video, and storage, which means we could get high quality performance and still have extras that DVD could never deliver....

So I see already the studios are skimping out on performance and tacking on extras, which they think they can sneak in there blindly without anyone noticing. There needs to be standards, which DVD never got right either. All HD discs should be done with True HD, DTS-HD, and optimal 1080p. Then worry about the extras! No compression, no compromises!

[PeruvianSkies]

I

I don't remember, but I assume DTS didn't start appearing on DVD's until a few years into the product life cycle, and I know a lot of DVD's didn't even have the DD 5.1 track early on. Maybe that's all this is - I think the lack of a/v receivers with built in decoders might have something to do with it, hopefully they'll roll out more audio friendly versions of these titles in the future.

Actually Universal starting issuing in 1998 DTS seperate DVD's in their catalog, which most of which were full-bit rate and you had to pay premium to get them when they first came out, some of the titles included:

THE JACKAL
OUT OF SIGHT
THE SHADOW
THE BOXER
MERCURY RISING
DANTE'S PEAK
etc etc

These were issued on Laserdisc as well in DTS and were stunning! Stunning I say!

[L.J.]

I'd even pay $1-$2 extra for the better soundtracks.
In my DVD collection, I'm guessing there are fewer than a dozen discs for which I've actually bothered checking the special features - Star Wars, the Godfathers, Lost, Donnie Darko, 24, and maybe one or two others.
99% I think it is the biggest waste of storage space...grrr...would love to see DTS on there.

I went down to my favorite Music store today - they're stocking HD-DVD and BluRay - I was shocked at how few actually contained anything other than the Dolby Digital, DD Plus and maybe the True HD or PCM stuff every now and then. Most either didn't have any DTS or just didn't have the label on them. Granted I may have only looked at 60 or so titles, but it would seem more goofy special features, and undoubtedly more advertisements, are occupying storage space at the expense of the better audio formats.

This reminds me of what they did with the DualDisc format - instead of using it as a DVD-A hi-rez outfit, they added a bunch of video/graphic stuff....booo!

I don't remember, but I assume DTS didn't start appearing on DVD's until a few years into the product life cycle, and I know a lot of DVD's didn't even have the DD 5.1 track early on. Maybe that's all this is - I think the lack of a/v receivers with built in decoders might have something to do with it, hopefully they'll roll out more audio friendly versions of these titles in the future.

Yeah, I'd pay a couple extra bucks as well.

Most new releases I have seen for BR have either PCM or TrueHD. DTSMA usually from fox. BR seems to be going in the right direction. I'm even seeing BR disc with 2 HD audio tracks. Spider man 3 for example, with a PCM & True HD track. Seems like a waste, but I guess if you have the extra space, why not.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1042/spiderman3.html

[bobsticks]

Not for nothing but the Transformers HD-DVD is sold out in this town; I mean I can't find the thing anywhere. Hopefully that is a good sign for the format. One could argue that perhaps the area was shorted, but in a city that regularly serves as a test market I find this hard to believe.

[kexodusc]

Actually Universal starting issuing in 1998 DTS seperate DVD's in their catalog, which most of which were full-bit rate and you had to pay premium to get them when they first came out, some of the titles included:

THE JACKAL
OUT OF SIGHT
THE SHADOW
THE BOXER
MERCURY RISING
DANTE'S PEAK
etc etc

These were issued on Laserdisc as well in DTS and were stunning! Stunning I say!
So there was a lag between the first DVD's appearing in stores and DTS appearing as well.
i'm one of the few that got burned pretty bad by Laserdisc - I only had a few compared to some, maybe 30 or so..but I didn't have the decoder to process any DTS, if they even had it. Don't remember.
I always felt Laserdisc had some titles that looked and sounded better than some DVD's I ended up replacing - Apollo 13 comes to mind...

[PeruvianSkies]

So there was a lag between the first DVD's appearing in stores and DTS appearing as well.
i'm one of the few that got burned pretty bad by Laserdisc - I only had a few compared to some, maybe 30 or so..but I didn't have the decoder to process any DTS, if they even had it. Don't remember.
I always felt Laserdisc had some titles that looked and sounded better than some DVD's I ended up replacing - Apollo 13 comes to mind...

Kex,

The majority (and I do mean majority) of early DVD's were recycled Laserdisc transfers, but where LD was superior was in the lack of compression that some DVD's had. The DTS on those LD's were stunning! RONIN and BLADE come to mind as two Laserdiscs that have yet to be beat on DVD and we will see what happens with the HD formats. The DTS DVD's were not too far behind the initial DVD's, but the studios were too mixed on releasing DTS as a standard feature. Warner never really got on board with DTS, MGM was not doing DTS except in some rare cases (HANNIBAL), and Paramount NEVER did a DTS DVD, at least not until late in the game with the Jack Ryan films. Fox and Universal did DTS more frequently, Columbia started doing some titles, mostly Superbit, and Disney was here and there as well. With that type of inconsistency it's no wonder few people still to this day know about the advantages of DTS. I am glad to see better support on the HD formats, but I think it should be standard!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Kex,

The majority (and I do mean majority) of early DVD's were recycled Laserdisc transfers, but where LD was superior was in the lack of compression that some DVD's had.

This is not accurate at all. Some DVD titles had ported transfers from Laserdisc, not the majority. And where laserdisc lacked compression, it had much more video noise, and was generally softer than their digital video counterparts. DVD has more lines of resolution than Laserdisc (500 for DVD and 425 for laserdisc). When you letterbox, laserdisc drops down to 380 lines of resolution



The DTS DVD's were not too far behind the initial DVD's, but the studios were too mixed on releasing DTS as a standard feature.

Actually this is not the reason you didn't see many Dts soundtracks. The reason had to do with bit budget and disc space. You have to compress video much more aggressively when you had a 754kbps Dts soundtrack along with a 448kbps DD track. If you had running commentary along with both formats, you had to dig into the video bit budget. As MPEG encoders got better and more efficient, you were able to add both without aggressive compression.



Warner never really got on board with DTS

Lethal Weapon and Twister special editions had full bitrate Dts and full bitrate DD sound.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not for nothing but the Transformers HD-DVD is sold out in this town; I mean I can't find the thing anywhere. Hopefully that is a good sign for the format. One could argue that perhaps the area was shorted, but in a city that regularly serves as a test market I find this hard to believe.

Bob,
Paramount had a hard time getting their allotments out to retail stores. The larger sellers got the most, and the lesser the least. According to my sources at Paramount(I used to work their) they were only able to get out about 65% of what they plan to ship.

[PeruvianSkies]

This is not accurate at all. Some DVD titles had ported transfers from Laserdisc, not the majority. And where laserdisc lacked compression, it had much more video noise, and was generally softer than their digital video counterparts. DVD has more lines of resolution than Laserdisc (500 for DVD and 425 for laserdisc). When you letterbox, laserdisc drops down to 380 lines of resolution




Actually this is not the reason you didn't see many Dts soundtracks. The reason had to do with bit budget and disc space. You have to compress video much more aggressively when you had a 754kbps Dts soundtrack along with a 448kbps DD track. If you had running commentary along with both formats, you had to dig into the video bit budget. As MPEG encoders got better and more efficient, you were able to add both without aggressive compression.




Lethal Weapon and Twister special editions had full bitrate Dts and full bitrate DD sound.

Yeah, LETHAL WEAPON and TWiSTER...hardly what I would call "getting on board".

Your rationalization of my comments sound just like the same pathetic excuses that studios keep using and making for their mistakes and that is why so many DVD's are still poor in performance and probably the reason why some of the HD discs are already problematic.

When I was talking about compression I was referring more to the soundtracks, which is why the Criterion Ed. of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is still superior to any DVD edition of the film, it's thicker, richer, and sounds good for an older mix.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your Lordship; I would say it is a combination of both. For instance, In reading Josh's article, I did not know that Dolby HD-Master did not feature a "core" such as DTS-HD master. To me it is a "MR BUNGLE" all the way around. For example, on HI-DEF DIGEST, the review of TRANSFORMERS has only a D.D. plus audio track because there was not enough capacity on the disc with some kind of features or whatever to have a Dolby Hi-Def audio master track. Why this was not a two-disc set is beyond me. I am the kind of person who believes in the best audio/video transfer be done FIRST, then determine what and where the extras should go next.

The HD DVD format uses short packet sizes for DD that is why you have DD+ in the first place. It wasn't a Dolby thing, it was a design flaw in the way HD DVD handles audio.


Part of the problem with Transformers wasn't just disc space. It was bandwidth as well.
Most of the extra's are on the second disc, however paramount chose to use HDi, with pip, and commentary, so bandwidth was quickly used up.

They could have gone back and re-compressed the video, but it would have paid a price in artifacting, and still you could not have fit a DTHD soundtrack. I guess this puts away the notion that 30GB is enough space on disc for the next generation video format. Unfortunately no current player can play the new TL51 HD DVD disc, so it will not see the light of day. If HD DVD wins the format war, you will get alot of compromises and cut corners unfortunately. However, if HD DVD forgoes the emphasis on interactivity, then you could get a Lossless soundtrack on these major releases. That is not going to happen though.

From what I heard, they had planned a 16bit PCM track along with a 24bit Dolby TrueHD track along with commentary and extra's on a single BD50 bluray disc.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yeah, LETHAL WEAPON and TWiSTER...hardly what I would call "getting on board".

Your rationalization of my comments sound just like the same pathetic excuses that studios keep using and making for their mistakes and that is why so many DVD's are still poor in performance and probably the reason why some of the HD discs are already problematic.

When I was talking about compression I was referring more to the soundtracks, which is why the Criterion Ed. of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is still superior to any DVD edition of the film, it's thicker, richer, and sounds good for an older mix.

PS,
It is clear you have no understanding of disc capacity, and format bandwidth. You only have a peak of 10mbps bandwidth for audio, video, and commentary. DD takes up 448kbps of that bandwidth, Dts 754kbps, and the commentary 192kbps all running at the same time. This leaves less than 9mbps for video peaks. The lower your average bitrate, the more artifact prone you video becomes. Movies with alot of motion require that the bandwidth stay relatively high to keep motion artifacting down, and to keep mosquito noise and various other digital artifact from creeping into your picture. This will push the video more towards the peak video rate, and it is limited to 8.5mbps, then you are leaving yourself open to alot of video problems. Dealing with the DVD format has always evolved balancing compromises. Most studios know alot more about transferring films to DVD than you ever will, so it seems ironic that you would be questioning their decisions.

Have you ever compressed video? Probably not, so you don't understand what issues can crop up. It is easy to pass judgement when you are on the outside looking in.

[PeruvianSkies]

PS,
It is clear you have no understanding of disc capacity, and format bandwidth. You only have a peak of 10mbps bandwidth for audio, video, and commentary. DD takes up 448kbps of that bandwidth, Dts 754kbps, and the commentary 192kbps all running at the same time. This leaves less than 9mbps for video peaks. The lower your average bitrate, the more artifact prone you video becomes. Movies with alot of motion require that the bandwidth stay relatively high to keep motion artifacting down, and to keep mosquito noise and various other digital artifact from creeping into your picture. This will push the video more towards the peak video rate, and it is limited to 8.5mbps, then you are leaving yourself open to alot of video problems. Dealing with the DVD format has always evolved balancing compromises. Most studios know alot more about transferring films to DVD than you ever will, so it seems ironic that you would be questioning their decisions.

Have you ever compressed video? Probably not, so you don't understand what issues can crop up. It is easy to pass judgement when you are on the outside looking in.

I do video production on a daily basis, I understand compression and use it all the time when I have to, otherwise I use uncompressed video if I can depending on storage. I use Final Cut Pro and export my files with H.264 compression or uncompressed at 10-bit 4:2:2.

Maybe you are just surprised that someone else around here knows just as much if not more than you do regarding formats and you try and knit pick every little thing you can in order to try and make yourself seem better.


Have you heard the RONIN DTS Laser? Or BLADE DTS laser? What about import versions of those films on DVD that include DTS that the Region 1 does not include? Hmmmm? I suppose that there is a reason why Disney does DTS on Region 3 DVD's for titles like MONSTERS INC and THE LION KING, but do not include it on the Region 1 discs...they have the exact same features, just not DTS.

[PeruvianSkies]

SirT, I have a new nickname for you.... Nick Naylor, I am sure you understand why.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do video production on a daily basis, I understand compression and use it all the time when I have to, otherwise I use uncompressed video if I can depending on storage. I use Final Cut Pro and export my files with H.264 compression or uncompressed at 10-bit 4:2:2.

Anyone can say this, but can they transfer this in a coherent explaination? So far not. There is currently no format that can pass uncompressed video let alone store it. Uncompressed video would need a bitrate that far surpassed what even bluray could do. So just what does anyone do with uncompressed video with nothing to show it on?


Maybe you are just surprised that someone else around here knows just as much if not more than you do regarding formats and you try and knit pick every little thing you can in order to try and make yourself seem better.

If you know so much, then why even mention uncompressed video? How come you don't seem to understand the balance of audio and video bitrates on the DVD format? How do you make this statement;


All HD discs should be done with True HD, DTS-HD, and optimal 1080p. Then worry about the extras! No compression, no compromises!

and not worry about you bit bandwidth or disc capacity. You have to take the length of the movie into consideration as well, especially with HD DVD.


Have you heard the RONIN DTS Laser? Or BLADE DTS laser? What about import versions of those films on DVD that include DTS that the Region 1 does not include?

I own both laserdiscs. Have you compared the video quality of the region 3 versus the region 1? That will tell you alot.


Hmmmm? I suppose that there is a reason why Disney does DTS on Region 3 DVD's for titles like MONSTERS INC and THE LION KING, but do not include it on the Region 1 discs...they have the exact same features, just not DTS.

This I can tell you for sure. Disney didn't do the compression for region 3, a local post house did it. If you compared the video quality of both, you will find the region 3 quite a bit more "digital" looking with more edge enhancement to hide the fact the picture was a bit softer and noiser. If you look at the average screen size of region three consumers versus region 1, you would find region 1 consumer uses vastly larger display sizes. Blow up that region 3 picture to region 1 sizes, and it becomes easier to see why they get Dts, and we don't.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

SirT, I have a new nickname for you.... Nick Naylor, I am sure you understand why.

We are discussing audio and video. Why is it that you cannot resist bringing personalities into these conversations. I am not really interested in your personality comparisons. You don't even know me! Analyze yourself, and leave the personality mentions out of the equation.

[PeruvianSkies]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible]Anyone can say this, but can they transfer this in a coherent explaination? So far not. There is currently no format that can pass uncompressed video let alone store it. Uncompressed video would need a bitrate that far surpassed what even bluray could do. So just what does anyone do with uncompressed video with nothing to show it on?




and not worry about you bit bandwidth or disc capacity. You have to take the length of the movie into consideration as well, especially with HD DVD.

There is no reason why extras couldn't be put onto a second disc in order to keep things performance-wise top notch on the movie-only disc. There are always excuses to diminish quality it would seem, just another poor attempt for the studio to release another special edition in a few months.




I own both laserdiscs. Have you compared the video quality of the region 3 versus the region 1? That will tell you alot.

Anyone can say THIS too.




This I can tell you for sure. Disney didn't do the compression for region 3, a local post house did it. If you compared the video quality of both, you will find the region 3 quite a bit more "digital" looking with more edge enhancement to hide the fact the picture was a bit softer and noiser. If you look at the average screen size of region three consumers versus region 1, you would find region 1 consumer uses vastly larger display sizes. Blow up that region 3 picture to region 1 sizes, and it becomes easier to see why they get Dts, and we don't.

The different in picture quality is not that much different and certainly not worth cutting out the DTS audio track, which outperforms the DD on those titles.

[PeruvianSkies]

We are discussing audio and video. Why is it that you cannot resist bringing personalities into these conversations. I am not really interested in your personality comparisons. You don't even know me! Analyze yourself, and leave the personality mentions out of the equation.

Whatever you say Mr. Naylor.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE]





[quote]There is no reason why extras couldn't be put onto a second disc in order to keep things performance-wise top notch on the movie-only disc. There are always excuses to diminish quality it would seem, just another poor attempt for the studio to release another special edition in a few months.

Did you read my post. Scrap the crap off of your eyes. The extra's were on the second disc. You had the movie(not short) picture in picture(which cannot be done on the disc without the movie) commentary(which has to accompany the movie), and HDi along with the video and sound. That is way to much information to pass through a 36.55mbps bandwidth and include a DTHD soundtrack as well. It could not be done, the format has limitations.






Anyone can say THIS too.

Whatever.








The different in picture quality is not that much different and certainly not worth cutting out the DTS audio track, which outperforms the DD on those titles.

Have you actually done the comparison? Come on PS, stop the dumb****. The picture quality on the region 3 disc is not nearly as good as the region 1 disc. I know Monster Inc. has a bitrate that hovers near a constant 7.5mbps with peaks to 9mbps. There is no way the region 3 could do this. Faking the funk does not help your arguement.

So what editing software did you use to edit your uncompressed video?

[PeruvianSkies]

To my friends here at Audioreview....
The time has come for Sir T to move on. My first notion was to just stop visiting the site and fade into the sunset, but I thought it would be better to thank some very cool people who have truely(and I mean that) affected my online and offline life in a very positive way. I am not angry at anyone, not dissatified with management, but I am bored coming here.

Gone are the great debates between informative minds where I actually learned something. Gone are the most knowledgeable people that used to populate this site (Richard Greene being my most remembered) and really schooled me on things I didn't know. I am not learning anything anymore That's not exactly bad as things, people, and times change. I guess this has been brewing for a while with me, as I have found myself coming less and less here. I have been on this site a hair less than 10 years, and while my style hasn't change much, the people here have.

To my brudda Wooch; my absence from here will mean nothing much for you. We will still communicate and eventually meet up for that promised beer. I remember when you joined audioreview. You had a tremendous thirst for audio knowledge, and over the years you quenched that thirst in a big way. The amount of information, and the accuracy of that information has left me astounded, and proud that I could be of some small help to you.

Edtyct, never really been a video display guy, but I have learned a great deal from your postings and am beginning to work very hard to achieve a balance between my audio and video knowledge. Thanks for stimulating the grey matter, its been a while since that been done.

Worf, Kex, topspeed, JR, LJ and all of my other brudda's in the Favorite film section, what a great joy exchanging movie reviews with you guys. I have managed to broaden my taste in movies, and find out that I was viewing drivel in the eyes of my most esteem klingon. LOL

Resident loser, I really had a tough time understanding your perspective on many issues, however I have grown to respect your knowledge and opinions in a very profound way, even if I didn't necessarily agree.

If I missed anyone specifically I just want to give a collective thanks to all.

All of the other old dinosaurs that were here(and there weren't many) when I got here have all gone and turned to oil. The T-man is going to follow in their steps. If anyone would like to personally contact me, you can send a private message and we'll exchange email addresses. Peace to all, and please keep the place together will ya!! LOL
__________________
Sir Terrence


So why did you come back ??? If this place is so 'boring' why come back? Maybe you get off on arguing with people and getting on peoples nerves. Do you know how to have a healthy dispute? Based on what I have seen no. There are ways to disagree with people and if that escalates to a heated debate, then so be it, but you start things off on the wrong foot, rather than try to debate in a productive manner.

[PeruvianSkies]

[QUOTE=PeruvianSkies][QUOTE]


So what editing software did you use to edit your uncompressed video?

I already said Final Cut Pro, sometimes Pinnacle...usually uncompressed for high-rez images, not video footage.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible][QUOTE=PeruvianSkies]

I already said Final Cut Pro, sometimes Pinnacle...usually uncompressed for high-rez images, not video footage.

Both final cut pro and Pinnicle are digital video editing software. Which means the video has to be compressed. Pinnicle is based on MPEG4 which is a compression algorythm. It cannot edit uncompressed video, it does not have the necessary bandwidth. No digital editing software can edit uncompressed video, the file sizes would be to large to manage, not to mention processor intensive.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So why did you come back ??? If this place is so 'boring' why come back? Maybe you get off on arguing with people and getting on peoples nerves. Do you know how to have a healthy dispute? Based on what I have seen no. There are ways to disagree with people and if that escalates to a heated debate, then so be it, but you start things off on the wrong foot, rather than try to debate in a productive manner.


This is a smoke screen. What, you want the place to yourself so you can continue to fake people out. Don't like the blanket pulled off do you?

One can only debate in a productive matter when the other tells the truth. When they lie, productive debate becomes impossible.

Still stuck on the people rather than the subject huh? Is it to hide the fact that you don't know much about what you say you know?

[PeruvianSkies]

This is a smoke screen. What, you want the place to yourself so you can continue to fake people out. Don't like the blanket pulled off do you?

One can only debate in a productive matter when the other tells the truth. When they lie, productive debate becomes impossible.

Still stuck on the people rather than the subject huh? Is it to hide the fact that you don't know much about what you say you know?

Do tell..what am I lying about ??? Hmmm.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Do tell..what am I lying about ??? Hmmm.




I already said Final Cut Pro, sometimes Pinnacle...usually uncompressed for high-rez images, not video footage.

You told, I don't have to.

[PeruvianSkies]

I already said Final Cut Pro, sometimes Pinnacle...usually uncompressed for high-rez images, not video footage.

You told, I don't have to.

So you are saying that these two programs are incapable of doing uncompressed material?

[kelsci]

I just read somewhere that there are going to be playback issues on the BD SPIDERMAN 3 disc. BD better get their act together with whatever their troubles are; hardware or software.

[L.J.]

I just read somewhere that there are going to be playback issues on the BD SPIDERMAN 3 disc. BD better get their act together with whatever their troubles are; hardware or software.

Really? Hopefully not with the PS3. Gotta link to that?

The last time this happened, firmware upgrades were issued pretty quickly, so hopefully this will be the same as before.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So you are saying that these two programs are incapable of doing uncompressed material?

Oh no, it can handle compressed video just fine, but it does not remain uncompressed at output. It has to be compressed to something right?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I just read somewhere that there are going to be playback issues on the BD SPIDERMAN 3 disc. BD better get their act together with whatever their troubles are; hardware or software.

Kel,
Reviewers(who get their disc well in advance of the street release) are having trouble with this release as it require a firmware update to make it play correctly. The PS3 plays it just fine though. I know that Sony and Pioneer are going to issue updates before it hits the streets.

[PeruvianSkies]

Oh no, it can handle compressed video just fine, but it does not remain uncompressed at output. It has to be compressed to something right?

Correct. My point earlier though was that for my purposes I am not always exporting it for use and keeping it uncompressed with playback happening from the computer, i.e. as a character generator etc.

[kelsci]

Your Lordship; that is good news that for those people owning BD players and purchasing Spiderman 3, that firmware updates should be available. From my readings, it seems that owners of PS3 had the least problems playing so called "troublesome" BD discs.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your Lordship; that is good news that for those people owning BD players and purchasing Spiderman 3, that firmware updates should be available. From my readings, it seems that owners of PS3 had the least problems playing so called "troublesome" BD discs.

The PS3 is the most robust bluray out there, and none of the reviewers that review with PS3 has reported any problems.

[nightflier]

Actually no there is two. If you use the players 5.1 analog outs, the player does D/A conversion and sends it to the receiver. Only if the player does bass management, delay and level setting(all the Toshiba players have bugs in their internal processing) will the source remain analog all the way through. If the receiver has to do the post processing, then you have to convert the audio back to digital to do it. I would not use Toshiba post processing because it does not boost the LFE the required 10db for Dolby and Dts playback.

Actually, my Outlaw pre/pro has the option to do bass management on the 5.1 inputs, but I selected to turn that off, so the only D/A conversion is in the player. Don't know how Toshiba players do it or whether they have bugs, although I'm sure those issues are worked out by now.


If the player does the decoding, yes. It will convert it to PCM(which is what it was before encoding) and pass it through HDMI 1.1, 1.2, 1.2a

So HDMI 1.2 passes True-HD and DTS-HD? I thought I had read in several places that that was not the case. But if so, then I stand corrected.


If you use bass management, delay, or level settings, the signal must be converted to PCM. There are no post processing tools in DSD except on the ultra high end SACD only players.

Well, then my Sony player (not too expensive) must be pretty high end.


That reality is a loooong way off. First there isn't a single movie released on DVD that could challenge a 50gb disc. There are three that I know of that have maxed out HD DVD. If the 50GB disc looks like it will be maxed out in the future, then BR has a 100GB that is compatible with all current bluray players. TDK developed it, and it is ready to go. All it would take is a small adjustment to current bluray replication lines. This is called insider information.

Considering how much room True-HD and DTS-HD take up on these disks, I don't think it will be that hard to fill one up, even a 100Gb disk, if you want to have the hi-res sound formats in multiple languages. Unlike extras and all the other useless fluff, a second or third language cannot be on a second disk without splitting the movie in half. I agree it may take some time to get there, but HDDVD's capacity limitations will eventually also become a problem for BR, especially "special extended edition movies." And here I was thinking that one day I could have all 12 hours of the Godfather or LOTR on one disk.


I know of no format in developement that has the capacity of 100GB except bluray. And any format that does come down the pipeline has to have the support of the CE manufacturers, and the studio's have to support it as well.

Except downloads, since these are essentially unlimitted - as long as one has the hard drive capacity, there is no limitation. Also, the movie could be downloaded compressed (not viewable - sort of like a ZIPed archive) and then decompressed, maybe even on the fly, when the owner wishes to view it. This way the hard drive of this player would really only need the room for one decompressed movie at a time.


VOD has alot more limitations that either of the HD disc. I cannot do lossless audio, it has to be much more agressively compressed which can create artifacting, and it has to compete with other programming for bandwidth which leads to more compression. It is expensive (you have to have digital cable which ain't cheap), full of DRM, time limits, and it has can be much more problematic than disc. Right now it cannot be owned or stored.

Well those are issues with some content, but not all content. You're painting this with too broad a brush. You could for example select a free VOD of 24 in HD to watch after the initial show had aired - this would address many of the copyright issues you mention. Currently these are not offered with impressive video or sound specs, but there's no reason to believe that things won't improve over time.

I suppose I'm more optimistic about the technology than you are. I also think that for many people 720p HD with basic DD 5.1 will be just fine and the higher capabilities won't matter so much to most consumers. I know that you & I disagree on whether this will actually compete with BR/HDDVD, but my opinion is that it will for the simple fact that it will keep the consumers watching cable rather than buying disks. It's the fact that they can get this w/o getting off the couch that makes it so attractive as an alternative. Will they trade higher resolution for convenience, my guess is that yes, convenience always trounces technology.


You will be waiting a while. It took years into the DVD format before they released a player.

Well, didn't I read on this forum that they are just about to release one? I also think that companies like Classe are already ramping up to release a HD player, but they will do like most other companies and wait out this holiday season. Personally, I think that the real wild card in this format war is Microsoft. People aren't talking about them much, but their continued support for HDDVD is scaring a lot of manufacturers. What do they know that we don't?


Nightflier, you don't know what you are talking about, hence starting this post. If the decoding is done onboard the player, then 1.3 compliance is not necessary. Don't buy into marketing hype. All bluray and HD DVD disc are authored in the advanced mode to include interactivity. That means if the consumer wants the interactivity, the decoding has to take place in the player. When the player decodes the formats, it transcodes the audio back to its orginal form which is PCM. The 1.1 HDMI standards allow 8 channels of 24/192khz PCM audio to pass. So this 1.3HDMI not in players is a big issue to those who are ignorant of the formats.

I admit, I didn't know all the facts when I started the post - hence the reason I did start it. But apparently, neither did a lot of other online commentators, so if there's one lesson we can learn from this it's that there is a lot of confusion about HDMI 1.3. This confusion isn't helping with adoption of the BR & HDDVD formats. Even if there is no technological basis for staying away from HDMI 1.2 players, the very fact is that the next generation of players will all be HDMI 1.3. It will clearly say so on the box (mostly for marketing hype), and this is keeping consumers from buying into the new formats. Nobody wants to own last year's model - giving it a number change from .2 to .3, only exacerbates this.


Another non worry for the educated, and a big worry for the uneducated. First, there isn't a single post production facility in Hollywood that can mix 7.1. Secondly 7.1 is really marketing hype to me because most small rooms cannot support 7.1 without creating an acoustical mess, or the effect being so subtle as to be barely heard.

I don't know about DD True-HD and DTS-HD, but I can tell you that with current DD and DTS sound formats, the difference between 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1 is clearly audible to me. When I had my Axiom speaker setup I spent quite some time trying different configurations, even in my small room, and I can tell you for a fact that 7.1 gave a much larger dimensional feel to movie and concert soundtracks. Granted, SACD doesn't benefit from the extra two channels, sometimes even requiring unpleasant tweaking, but for movie and concert DVDs, the additional channels were well wroth the investment in my HT room.

Now if I have to sit there an tweak things every time I insert a different BR or HDDVD movie, because the #$@%^ studios can't come to an agreement on a standard way to use the last two channels, then that is definitely a deterrent for me, and I imagine a lot of other consumers as well (both the "educated" and the less "educated" ones). And even if that wasn't the case, the very fact that this is another point of confusion, will also serve to deter consumers.


...The LFE in music only applications is unnecessary, because there are no musical instruments with enough low bass at high enough levels to max out the main channels. With movies soundtracks that is not the case. Since most people use a sub/sat system anyway, all the bass is direct to a sub, including the LFE, so how do you know which bass is contributing to what.

Well I'll admit that my preference for organ music is a little unique (I used to play the organ in my Church), I don't think you can make such a blanket statement about LFE in music. I also happen to listen to a lot of symphonic classical as well as jazz and I'm not really happy w/o my bass. Since most people will be listening to SACD in a surround sound system which often consists of speakers that are not really full range, this is a problem. Not everyone has 5 full-range towers in the ideal SACD configuration (although I have contemplated doing just that). Anyhow, my point is that this was a painful shortcoming for the SACD format and could have contributed to the lack of enthusiasm about the sound "improvements" that many people never heard in their full glory.

We can only hope that both BR & HDDVD formats don't ignore the LFE in the same way, although it does seem that this is being addressed, albeit not uniformly.


You KNOW the PS3 is not 1.3 compliant? So much for what you know, it is 1.3 compliant, and always has been. What planet have you been living on? It does't have analog outs, it does play SACD in multichannel and in stereo. If it wasn't compliant then why offer the feature? Duh!

It's what I had read and, considering it had no 5.1 outs, I did not realize that it was capable of playing SACD in surround sound. Again. there is a tremendous amount of confusion about these details, and the vendors/salesreps from Crutchfield to Circuit City to Best Buys aren't very knowledgeable about this either. So just so I get this correct now, the only BR or HDDVD player that will play 5.1 SACDs is the PS3, and that only if my pre/pro supports HDMI 1.3. What is the likelihood of that combination in the marketplace. Again, I would have expected Sony's higher end BR player to support SACD, because it has 5.1 analog outs. I am rather disappointed that it doesn't. For me this is a big reason to wait out the format war - because only then will more players come out and hopefully one that has analog 5.1 SACD outputs.


You are entitled to make your own decisions, even if they are born out of ignorance. Funny how you have turned this from an innocent like inquiry, to another dig on the HD players and format. Aren't you tired of this kind of idiocrasy?

I started this thread because I had some questions about the formats. I had no intention of trashing either format, actually I never did trash them in any thread without also finding comparable faults in the other. But you have done nothing but insult me at every opportunity. You also insult others and I think this is really childish behavior. I'm sorry you couldn't convince me to buy a player (BR) that still has a substantial chance of becoming a brick, but that does not give you any right to throw insults around. I can roll with the punches, trust me, but why don't we try to keep this thread about the sound formats? I had some legitimate questions, and while you have answered them somewhat, there is absolutely no need to go trolling around everywhere I post.


You sound like you are trying to justify why YOU don't want to get into the HD on disc formats. Some people may not want to wait, and are well aware of what they are getting into.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm only asking questions about the formats. Isn't that what this forum is about?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, my Outlaw pre/pro has the option to do bass management on the 5.1 inputs, but I selected to turn that off, so the only D/A conversion is in the player. Don't know how Toshiba players do it or whether they have bugs, although I'm sure those issues are worked out by now.

There is no evidence that the bugs are worked out, both the A2 and the XA-2 have it.




So HDMI 1.2 passes True-HD and DTS-HD? I thought I had read in several places that that was not the case. But if so, then I stand corrected.

If the decoding is done in the player like it should, it will decode both formats into PCM which HDMI 1.2 supports. You stand corrected.




Well, then my Sony player (not too expensive) must be pretty high end.

Since there are no post processing tools in DSD in player on any player I know of, I highly doubt that you player does not convert to PCM. Even the ultra expensive Denon 5900 has to convert to PCM to do it. Now if you don't use the players on board bass management, you still have to convert to PCM at the reciever level. If you use no bass management at all like I do, then its DSD all the way.




Considering how much room True-HD and DTS-HD take up on these disks, I don't think it will be that hard to fill one up, even a 100Gb disk, if you want to have the hi-res sound formats in multiple languages.

Since you don't seem to know much about either format, how could you come to this conclusion? Bluray has both uncompressed PCM AND DTHD on a single BD50 disc on several releases. On one foreign title that I cannot remember the name, it had one lossless PCM track, and 3 DTHD tracks with different languages, all on a single BD50 disc. Both of these audio formats were design to take up alot less space than uncompressed audio.

This does not sound like an inquizitive statement, it sound like a declarative one.


Unlike extras and all the other useless fluff, a second or third language cannot be on a second disk without splitting the movie in half. I agree it may take some time to get there, but HDDVD's capacity limitations will eventually also become a problem for BR, especially "special extended edition movies." And here I was thinking that one day I could have all 12 hours of the Godfather or LOTR on one disk.

Another declarative statement that is flat wrong. Here we go....HD DVD capacity limitation are apart of its very infrastructure and cannot be overcome. Toshiba's TL51 triple layer disc cannot play in current players, or the next generation as well.

Bluray has already shown that you can encode two exact streams of a 2.5 hour movies(that would be 5 hours on a single stream) and a uncompressed 5.1 track on a single BD50 disc using VC-1 or AVC which is quite commonly used on the format. LOTR could easily fit on one disc on bluray, it could never on HD DVD. Having a 100gb disc in the wings just gives bluray that much more flexibility, and more room to grow over time.




Except downloads, since these are essentially unlimitted - as long as one has the hard drive capacity, there is no limitation. Also, the movie could be downloaded compressed (not viewable - sort of like a ZIPed archive) and then decompressed, maybe even on the fly, when the owner wishes to view it. This way the hard drive of this player would really only need the room for one decompressed movie at a time.

Downloads are heavily compressed, much more so than any movie destined for both HD disc formats. Downloading will take a long time before it can mimick the experience of HD on disc. Now for folks who don't care about PQ or AQ, downloading is perfect, those who do, downloading is not an option.

Do you understand how difficult it would be for a player to decompress video on the fly?. The processing power alone would make it very expensive to reproduce. The algorythm would be extremely complex, and prone to errors if not done extremely well. They have had compress/decompress processors in audio for years(DBX comes to mind), but the results were unreliable and often had audible pumping on difficult passages. Can you imagine this effect on a video signal?




Well those are issues with some content, but not all content. You're painting this with too broad a brush. You could for example select a free VOD of 24 in HD to watch after the initial show had aired - this would address many of the copyright issues you mention. Currently these are not offered with impressive video or sound specs, but there's no reason to believe that things won't improve over time.

Umm, it is an issue with all content. Who makes the downloads? The movie studio's create the product. Who would make the processors and playback devices? That would be the CE companies. Without them downloading is impossible. Things could improve over time, but bluray and HD DVD are here now, and they have set the benchmark for quality that VOD has to follow.

A free VOD has no financial incentive for anyone. For just that reason, PQ and AQ will not be top notch. It is only when a VOD brings on a financial reward that anyone puts quality into it. That includes compressing the audio and video which is a must for downloads




I suppose I'm more optimistic about the technology than you are. I also think that for many people 720p HD with basic DD 5.1 will be just fine and the higher capabilities won't matter so much to most consumers. I know that you & I disagree on whether this will actually compete with BR/HDDVD, but my opinion is that it will for the simple fact that it will keep the consumers watching cable rather than buying disks. It's the fact that they can get this w/o getting off the couch that makes it so attractive as an alternative. Will they trade higher resolution for convenience, my guess is that yes, convenience always trounces technology.

You are optimistic to the point of unrealistic. 720p as a download looks nothing like 720p video on disc. Some folks don't subscribe to "good enough". The download is at the mercy of the bandwidth of the cable or satellite company. As they add pay channels, VOD will suffer in both AQ and PQ. BR/HD DVD does not have to share its video or audio stream with any other streams. Therefore their is a predictability in the AQ and PQ. There is history of cable's and satellites PQ suffering when channels are added. Then you have to deal with the price of HD cable, which has stopped many in their tracks.

While there is history that convience HAS(not always)trounced quality, VOD will have to go alot further than it has to make that a reality in this case. VOD has been around alot longer than HD on disc, so its novelity has worn off along time ago as downloads have been flat for almost two years. With Netflicks renting both BR and HD DVD, and Blockbuster renting blurays without anyone even going to a B&M, both offer convience. Except the HD on disc media offers convience and quality.




Well, didn't I read on this forum that they are just about to release one? I also think that companies like Classe are already ramping up to release a HD player, but they will do like most other companies and wait out this holiday season. Personally, I think that the real wild card in this format war is Microsoft. People aren't talking about them much, but their continued support for HDDVD is scaring a lot of manufacturers. What do they know that we don't?

You cannot read something that has not been announced. I hope you know this. Classe has not even come close to annoucing a player for either format. Googling has not shown a single annoucement from either manufacturer on HD players.

What evidence do you have that Microsoft is scaring alot of manufacturers? Can you please provide a link? I think you are lying, because information that you can get on the inside and outside does not support this. Everyone in the film business knows microsoft's intent, that is to see HD on disc go away. Bill Gates has said this himself

“The format that’s under discussion right now, HD versus Blu-ray, that’s simply the last physical format we’ll ever have.

Even videos in the future will either be on a disk in your pocket or over the Internet and therefore far more convenient for you.”

http://www.xb360info.com/xbox/news/184

And both would be using windows software. That is his vision. Convience over quality. Executives from the largest five movie studio have dismissed this vision because that disc in your pocket will not play on a screen large enough to view HD material, and since broadband is not widespread at this moment(has a long way to go) downloading quality HD video is still far off.



I admit, I didn't know all the facts when I started the post - hence the reason I did start it. But apparently, neither did a lot of other online commentators, so if there's one lesson we can learn from this it's that there is a lot of confusion about HDMI 1.3. This confusion isn't helping with adoption of the BR & HDDVD formats. Even if there is no technological basis for staying away from HDMI 1.2 players, the very fact is that the next generation of players will all be HDMI 1.3. It will clearly say so on the box (mostly for marketing hype), and this is keeping consumers from buying into the new formats. Nobody wants to own last year's model - giving it a number change from .2 to .3, only exacerbates this.

It is apparent that you are pretty late to the game. Alot of issues you bring up have been discussed to death elsewhere. Yes there is alot of confusion, but there is also alot of good information.

Once again you are advancing a false theory. The average person does not have any idea about HDMI versions, so it is not likely that this is stopping them from buying players from either format. HDMI confusion is not stopping anyone from snapping up a upconverting DVD player. They are selling quite well in spite of the fact the consumer has no idea which version it supports. You are inventing this, like you invented the sinking ship theory, and the politcal upheaval scenario.




I don't know about DD True-HD and DTS-HD, but I can tell you that with current DD and DTS sound formats, the difference between 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1 is clearly audible to me. When I had my Axiom speaker setup I spent quite some time trying different configurations, even in my small room, and I can tell you for a fact that 7.1 gave a much larger dimensional feel to movie and concert soundtracks. Granted, SACD doesn't benefit from the extra two channels, sometimes even requiring unpleasant tweaking, but for movie and concert DVDs, the additional channels were well wroth the investment in my HT room.

It is easy to be pleased with what you have personally done. However I bet if I went into your room, I could find all kinds of acoustical issues with a small room and a 7.1 setup with an RTA that is PC based. Considering that 7.1 has never been monitored at the mix level, how do you know that what you are hearing is true to the intent of the director or re-recording mixer? 5.1 and 6.1 discrete have been monitored, but comb filtering, and uncontrolled arrival times will still present a problem acoustically. One can never rely on their opinion only unless they only want to please themselves.


Now if I have to sit there an tweak things every time I insert a different BR or HDDVD movie, because the #$@%^ studios can't come to an agreement on a standard way to use the last two channels, then that is definitely a deterrent for me, and I imagine a lot of other consumers as well (both the "educated" and the less "educated" ones). And even if that wasn't the case, the very fact that this is another point of confusion, will also serve to deter consumers.

You have so many deterrents its not funny. It will be a long time before anymore than 5.1 channels are the norm. By the time this happens, monitoring and placement standards will be in place because they have to be. SMPTE would have an issue if soundtracks are being created without a speaker positioning plan. How would they be monitored without some sort of standard. According to you, everything under the sun when it comes to bluray and HD DVD deters the consumer. Optimistic or critical? So far nothing but critical except when it comes to downloads where you can invent all kinds of pluses.




Well I'll admit that my preference for organ music is a little unique (I used to play the organ in my Church), I don't think you can make such a blanket statement about LFE in music. I also happen to listen to a lot of symphonic classical as well as jazz and I'm not really happy w/o my bass.

When is the last time you ever mixed audio? LFE is completely unnecessary in music. Considering that not many people listen to anything without a sub, and if they do not have a sub, the probably have extended range speakers. If you mixed the bass in the main channels, in most people's system it would come out of the subwoofer anyway. Since most organ music is recorded in the far field, the bass is never loud enough to overload any channel within the playback chain from an electrical standpoint. Movies are quite different. The bass channel is not naturally recorded, and sound effects can easily overload a system without a LFE to direct the loudest bass away from the mains. Movies have a fixed monitoring loudness level to coincide with SMPTE standards for theater speaker system playback. Music has no such standard. They can be monitored at any level. Aside from organ pedals and huge bass drums, there is not much audio below 40hz in most classical and jazz music. My statement is not blanket, it is born out of years of experience, technical guides, and experimentation in the studio.



Since most people will be listening to SACD in a surround sound system which often consists of speakers that are not really full range, this is a problem. Not everyone has 5 full-range towers in the ideal SACD configuration (although I have contemplated doing just that). Anyhow, my point is that this was a painful shortcoming for the SACD format and could have contributed to the lack of enthusiasm about the sound "improvements" that many people never heard in their full glory.

Now this is a blanket statement if I ever read one. If people use a 5.1 sub sat system then the mains being full range is unnecessary. They will have bass management that will filter bass out of the mains anyway. I have over 250 SACD of classical and Jazz. I have never heard one instance of deep bass coming from the rear, because most mixing studios do not support very large speakers in the rear hemisphere. Besides, bass coming from the sides and behind along with the front causes all kinds of unnatural acoustical effects that are very audible. What person in their right mind would purchase 5 small monitors without a sub? The gotta know the mains do not do bass right? Bass management was created for a reason, and that reason smacks right in the face of you crazy theory on this matter. You amaze me at finding reasons not to do something, I do not know anyone who comes from these rather odd angles on just about everything.


We can only hope that both BR & HDDVD formats don't ignore the LFE in the same way, although it does seem that this is being addressed, albeit not uniformly.

Nobody is going to mix specifically for any format. The will mix on a palette that is best for the music. Using the LFE for music application is not recommended by SMPTE, Dolby, Dts, the steering committee for audio engineers or any other body that sets standards. Now a mixer can choose to use the LFE, but it is not recommended.


It's what I had read and, considering it had no 5.1 outs, I did not realize that it was capable of playing SACD in surround sound Again. there is a tremendous amount of confusion about these details, and the vendors/salesreps from Crutchfield to Circuit City to Best Buys aren't very knowledgeable about this either.

No there is not. There is a website dedicated to it, and it is stated in the manual as well. You are confused, but people who actually own the PS3, and read the manual, know it can playback SACD.

http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html




So just so I get this correct now, the only BR or HDDVD player that will play 5.1 SACDs is the PS3, and that only if my pre/pro supports HDMI 1.3.

Ummm no! No HD DVD player plays SACD. Just like every other player that plays SACD, the PS3 converts the DSD signal to PCM albiet at a much higher decimated level than you typical SACD playback device. It decimates the DSD signal to 176.4khz sample rate, and then oversamples that as well. So you are getting much more resolution from DSD stream than every SACD playback device I know of. Since it is converted to PCM, HDMI 1.1, 1.2, 1.2a 1.3, 1.3a and 1.3b can all playback SACD. Now if you want to playback the DSD stream direct, then that requires a 1.2 HDMI connection. HDMI 1.3 is not necessary unless you want to playback all of the high resolution formats in their native form sans SACD. Since no player supports playback of native Dts HD MA or DTHD at this time, then 1.3 is not really necessary. And since all HD DVD and Bluray disc are authored in the advanced mode, and most decoding has to be done in player in this mode, then 1.3 becomes totally unnecessary for this application. There is no option currently to defeat the advance mode and provide access to the native stream. From what I have heard, the DVD forum is never going to approve it. Bluray has that chance, but you cannot find it in the current players.




What is the likelihood of that combination in the marketplace. Again, I would have expected Sony's higher end BR player to support SACD, because it has 5.1 analog outs. I am rather disappointed that it doesn't. For me this is a big reason to wait out the format war - because only then will more players come out and hopefully one that has analog 5.1 SACD outputs.

Why would you expect that they would support a format in a BR player when they have plenty of DVD players and dedicated players that can do that? SACD is not a widely propagated format, and BR players are extremely complex to design and get right. You have to pick and choose what you can put in those players to keep them at accessable price points. If SACD was more popular, then you would see it supported in every Sony player. With the ability to do 24/192khz on 8 channels that all HDMI versions support, it is questionable that you will need SACD. At that bit and sample level, the differences between SACD and PCM are too subtle for 95% of the consumers to know the difference.




I started this thread because I had some questions about the formats. I had no intention of trashing either format, actually I never did trash them in any thread without also finding comparable faults in the other.


What you call faults are a result of your lack of knowledge, not the players themselves.


But you have done nothing but insult me at every opportunity. You also insult others and I think this is really childish behavior.

Who cares what you think. I am trashing your bad information, I could really care less about you personally. I care about Kelsci, LJ, Wooch and quite a few other on a personal basis, but not you. The passive/aggressive slant is pretty childish as well, stop your crying and actually learn something for a change. You are insulting yourself.


I'm sorry you couldn't convince me to buy a player (BR) that still has a substantial chance of becoming a brick, but that does not give you any right to throw insults around. I can roll with the punches, trust me, but why don't we try to keep this thread about the sound formats? I had some legitimate questions, and while you have answered them somewhat, there is absolutely no need to go trolling around everywhere I post.

If you have no intention on buying any player(let alone a BR player) then why ask these questions?. You intent was to start another HD format bashing thread where you thought you could control the direction of the topic. You asked questions at first, then you started making uneducated conclusions which does not denote curiosity at all. You are coming to too many conclusions with little or no understanding of what you are commenting on.

Answered them somewhat? I have answer ALL of your questions, but your understanding of the answers has so far been pretty limited because of your lack of knowledge, or your desire to continually bash Bluray.

Do not make any conclusions before you understand the subject matter. A inquizitive person does not come to any conclusions, they just do not know enough to do so.


I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm only asking questions about the formats. Isn't that what this forum is about?

If you are not going to purchase any equipment these formats are in, then why the question in the first place?. If I had no intention of supporting something, I would have no questions to ask, the interest would not be there. Do you understand that concept?

You are as transparent as glass nightflier, I see right through you. Now after this, I hope everyone see's right through you as well.

[kelsci]

Boy, your Lordship, this discussion you have had with Nightflier makes the discussion a few years back that you had with Lexmark 3200 over the EX business seem like Kindergarten 1. WHEW!!!!!!!!

[nightflier]

From his own mouth:


Since you don't seem to know much about either format...

...Another declarative statement that is flat wrong.

...You are optimistic to the point of unrealistic....

...You cannot read something that has not been announced. I hope you know this....

...What evidence do you have...I think you are lying...

...It is apparent that you are pretty late to the game....

...Once again you are advancing a false theory. The average person does not have any idea about HDMI...

...You are inventing this, like you invented...

...It is easy to be pleased with what you have personally done. However I bet if I went into your room, I could find all kinds of acoustical issues with a small room and a 7.1 setup with an RTA that is PC based. ...One can never rely on their opinion only unless they only want to please themselves....

...You have so many deterrents its not funny....

...So far nothing but critical except when it comes to downloads where you can invent all kinds of pluses....

...When is the last time you ever mixed audio?

...My statement is not blanket, it is born out of years of experience, technical guides, and experimentation in the studio.

...Now this is a blanket statement if I ever read one....

...What person in their right mind would purchase 5 small monitors without a sub?

...I do not know anyone who comes from these rather odd angles on just about everything....

...No there is not... Ummm no!...

...the differences between SACD and PCM are too subtle for 95% of the consumers to know the difference....

...What you call faults are a result of your lack of knowledge, not the players themselves....

...Who cares what you think....

...I could really care less about you personally. I care about Kelsci, LJ, Wooch and quite a few other on a personal basis, but not you....

...The passive/aggressive slant is pretty childish... stop your crying and actually learn something for a change. You are insulting yourself....

...You are coming to too many conclusions with little or no understanding of what you are commenting on....

...I have answer ALL of your questions, but your understanding of the answers has so far been pretty limited because of your lack of knowledge...

...Do not make any conclusions before you understand the subject matter.....

...You are as transparent as glass nightflier, I see right through you. Now after this, I hope everyone see's right through you as well.



Wow, all this from one post! Can there be a more arrogant, boorish, self-absorbed, and bitter sycophant on this forum? I seriously doubt it. Now onto the nonsense he is spewing out and passing off as knowledge.


Since there are no post processing tools in DSD in player on any player I know of, I highly doubt that you player does not convert to PCM. Even the ultra expensive Denon 5900 has to convert to PCM to do it. Now if you don't use the players on board bass management, you still have to convert to PCM at the reciever level. If you use no bass management at all like I do, then its DSD all the way.

My player has the option of converting to PCM or not. But I prefer not to do any any bass management in the player.


HD DVD capacity limitation are apart of its very infrastructure and cannot be overcome. Toshiba's TL51 triple layer disc cannot play in current players, or the next generation as well....Bluray has already shown that you can encode two exact streams of a 2.5 hour movies(that would be 5 hours on a single stream) and a uncompressed 5.1 track on a single BD50 disc using VC-1 or AVC which is quite commonly used on the format.

That does not negate the fact that both disk formats have a limit and although HDDVD is more limited, what we can learn about how Toshiba addresses this will be valuable for Sony and the rest of the BR camp as well. Just because a limit is further off, does not mean the limit does not exist. How many times in recent memory hasn't a technological limit not been declared inconsequential due to lack of foresight. I can think of a few: the 640Kb memory addresses limit in x86 PC chips, IP addressing, hard drive capacities, the list goes on. BR's 100Gb limit is only far off to those people who don't understand technology - what is true today, won't be true tomorrow.


LOTR could easily fit on one disc on bluray, it could never on HD DVD

That is a blanket statement that is only partially true because it all depends on what sound formats and how many extras one would include. In 480p, the movies themselves are only six regular DVDs, a total of 10 hours so that could just fit on 25Gb, if you exclude the foreign languages, for example. That said, this would be in standard DVD quality, which is not how an HDDVD would be marketed anyhow, but it could fit, so to say it could never fit is a blanket statement. Of course, having another 25Gb on a BR disk would perhaps allow the same movie to be encoded in true 1080p with full hi-res sound formats, but even that would be pushing the envelope - it would fit, but just barely. My point being that the supposed greater capacity of BR, is still limiting. And that 100Gb disk is still waiting in the wings as you say, so it does not apply to this example.


Downloads are heavily compressed, much more so than any movie destined for both HD disc formats. Downloading will take a long time before it can mimick the experience of HD on disc. Now for folks who don't care about PQ or AQ, downloading is perfect, those who do, downloading is not an option.

Hey, Einstein, downloads only need to be compressed during the download. Once they are downloaded they can be completely decompressed. Even at it's full capacity of 50Gb (as if any current movies actually needed that), it would compress to about 20Gb, which would take at most an hour to download, after which it could be decompressed for viewing. This is not unsurmountable.

But let's get to what I was actually saying: currently people are happy with just 720p with a single DD sound track, and that would take at most 15 minutes to download. If they are happy with standard DVD quality, even less.

And yes, I know decompressing on the fly would take a long time. I'm not saying this technology is here now, so just drop the insults, already.


Things could improve over time, but bluray and HD DVD are here now, and they have set the benchmark for quality that VOD has to follow.

First of all, things will improve - the quest for new sources of revenue will drive the innovation. Second, BR & HDDVD are here now for less that 5% of the market. I would hardly call that here now across the board. Fact is, BR/HDDVD is only here for a very small percentage of the buying public. Finally, they have not set any benchmark for VOD.

VOD, especially free TV shows is hugely popular. Whether it's online or on people's Tivo's, just about everyone is time-shifting. True, it's not 1080p quality, but that's because most people really don't want that right now. Standard def, or even lower def (for phones & PDAs) VOD is the single biggest threat to BR & HDDVD, even though it is not hi def. This is because people are watching it, everywhere, and this is time taken away from watching movies on disk. Moreover, the convenience of VOD is creating a culture of expectations for entertainment that will be ready to use the same methods when 1080p content becomes available. As much as you and I personally may not like the trend, the disk is dead. Just as CD sales are tanking, so will movie sales on disk go down in flames. People want their entertainment digitally and not on disk - quality is far less important to them. I hope that you can wrap your head around that reality.


A free VOD has no financial incentive for anyone. For just that reason, PQ and AQ will not be top notch. It is only when a VOD brings on a financial reward that anyone puts quality into it. That includes compressing the audio and video which is a must for downloads

You must have been asleep when they started the concept of ad supported entertainment. And it doesn't have to be programming that's preceded by a commercial, either since product placement is all the rage now.



720p as a download looks nothing like 720p video on disc.

720p is 720p, it doesn't matter what medium your player is reading from. Where do you get the idea that a video in 720p is not 720p? What planet are you from?


Some folks don't subscribe to good enough. The download is at the mercy of the bandwidth of the cable or satellite company. As they add pay channels, VOD will suffer in both AQ and PQ.

As I explained, 720p with 5.1 DD surround sound is enough for most people. Of course it's not as good as BR or HDDVD, but ask yourself this: how many people bought 720p displays when that was state of the art? I'll give you a place to start: just about every Pioneer and Panasonic flat-screen TV owner.


VOD has been around alot longer than HD on disc, so its novelity has worn off along time ago as downloads have been flat for almost two years.

Your knowledge about this is only based in VOD sales. That's not the whole picture. VOD is far more popular with free content, but you have no way of measuring that. To say that VOD's novelty has worn off is appallingly self-serving. It's a lie. What you should have said is that VOD sales are slow. And don't even try to confuse this with downloads because we both know that's not the same. And even if they were, you're still only talking about sales. That's only part of the picture.


You cannot read something that has not been announced. I hope you know this. Classe has not even come close to annoucing a player for either format. Googling has not shown a single annoucement from either manufacturer on HD players.

Well, you sneaky myopic little imp, I said that Denon had announced one, not Classe. Don't try to make this what it isn't. Classe is thinking about releasing a high-def player sometime early next year (I read that in Stereophile).


Everyone in the film business knows microsoft's intent, that is to see HD on disc go away

So you speak for everyone in the film business? Or do you speak for Microsoft? All the fancy quotes and links you provided don't say that Microsoft wants HD to go away. Now where are you pulling that crap from. Bill gates never uttered those words. Microsoft may be making a handy profit from HDDVD and could care less about the format war - now that would be more accurate. Not putting the player inside the game console is smart, since all they would have to do to switch sides is add an external BR player - heck people can have both. It's all sound economic thinking.

All that aside, Microsoft and it's support for HDDVD, represent a significant portion of the market. This is what's worrying people. Microsoft is known for pushing technologically weaker products so hard that they eventually dominate the market (IE, Outlook, Access, etc.). If Microsoft decided to take the same headstrong approach with HDDVD, even if it was just to put pressure on Sony, it would be significant.


The average person does not have any idea about HDMI versions, so it is not likely that this is stopping them from buying players from either format. HDMI confusion is not stopping anyone from snapping up a upconverting DVD player. They are selling quite well in spite of the fact the consumer has no idea which version it supports.

We're not talking about upconverting players here, we're talking about BR/HDDVD players and both of them may very well be affected by HDMI confusion. You're spreading FUD byt bringing up upconverting players into the discussion. And no matter how you try to spin it, nobody want last year's model. So the buying public, whether they know what it is or not, wants HDMI 1.3, not something that they perceive to be less because of it's lower number. This is not an invention, it's common sense.


However I bet if I went into your room, I could find all kinds of acoustical issues with a small room and a 7.1 setup with an RTA that is PC based. Considering that 7.1 has never been monitored at the mix level, how do you know that what you are hearing is true to the intent of the director or re-recording mixer? 5.1 and 6.1 discrete have been monitored, but comb filtering, and uncontrolled arrival times will still present a problem acoustically. One can never rely on their opinion only unless they only want to please themselves.

First of all, if you came over to my place and started giving me your opinion about my gear, you'd get the whoop*ss of a lifetime, and not from me, but from my 2-year old, 'cause even he can teach you a thing or two - it seems no one has done that yet and it's high time they did. And I'm sure there's quite a few people who would do the same if you brought your arrogant opinions to their house. Don't come here, you're not welcome. Second, you have no idea what I've done to my HT room. Would it interest you to know that I actually do have acoustic panels and bass traps installed? How about the fact that I have an Outlaw ICBM and a Beringer BFD as well? Don't even start to lecture me about bass and the .1 channel. I've been working on the bass in my room for over a year now, and while I don't have it set up completely how I like it, it's probably light years ahead of what you're got. You arrogant, ignorant little imp, come on over, and we'll see what happens.


It will be a long time before anymore than 5.1 channels are the norm.

If you had read up on your sales figures, you would know that 7.1 systems are outselling 5.1 by a wide margin (read that in on of the home installer mags).


except when it comes to downloads where you can invent all kinds of pluses.

I haven't invented anything. It's all pretty logical, really. I've made a few predictions, but there's sound reasoning behind them.


LFE is completely unnecessary in music.

Tell that to everyone else here. It's an ignorant statement, and you know it.


Since most organ music is recorded in the far field, the bass is never loud enough to overload any channel within the playback chain from an electrical standpoint.

We're not talking about overloading anything. Again, more FUD. I'm talking about hearing it. There are very few speakers (at least from what the average person can afford), that can play down to 27.6 Hz (piano) without audibly lowering the dB level. For an organ, that figure can come down much further (to 8 Hz on the world's largest organs). Playing this kind of music on my current Vienna Weberns at full range (and without an LFE redirection to the sub), looses a substantial amount of the music.

The inability to play these frequencies comes off as silence unless the music is turned way up. On my 2-channel system with the Quads 22Ls I get a little more, but it's still irritating. If I have to turn the volume way up, and the music quickly varies in frequency (Dupre, Franck, etc.) then the music is suddenly very loud in the 30 Hz - 100 Hz range, which can actually damage lesser speakers. Your years of experience with classical and jazz are possibly centered on Mozart and Kenny G (or maybe Disney's Fantasia, I don't know)? Anyhow, your ignorant statement: there is not much audio below 40hz in most classical and jazz music is just that, ignorant, and nothing more.


What person in their right mind would purchase 5 small monitors without a sub?

Well actually, given that a sub is typically the most expensive speaker in a setup, that's not unlikely at all. And we're talking about music here - it's quite conceivable that some people setting up a surround sound system just for music, would do just that. Granted, it's not the norm, but it's still a few people. And anyhow, that has nothing to do with what I said: that the lack of adequate bass reproduction in many SACDs was a factor that may have had an impact on the lackluster interest in the format. I can remember quite a few magazine articles that lamented SACD's seeming lack of bass as compared to DVD-A.


the PS3 converts the DSD signal to PCM albiet at a much higher decimated level than you typical SACD playback device. It decimates the DSD signal to 176.4khz sample rate, and then oversamples that as well. So you are getting much more resolution from DSD stream than every SACD playback device I know of. Since it is converted to PCM, HDMI 1.1, 1.2, 1.2a 1.3, 1.3a and 1.3b can all playback SACD. Now if you want to playback the DSD stream direct, then that requires a 1.2 HDMI connection. HDMI 1.3 is not necessary unless you want to playback all of the high resolution formats in their native form sans SACD.

So you're proving my point: this is bad. The ideal output for SACD, right now, is a completely unfettered 5.1 analog output, straight to a pre/pro-amp that passes it straight through. Since the PS3 is the only hi-res player that can play SACD, and it does so much conversion to be able to do it, it's hardly an audiophile solution. As a matter of fact, for those of us who care for good sound, there really isn't a decent SACD player out there that also plays a hi-def video format. Until they start appearing, that's a pretty good reason to wait (for those of us who care about good sound).


Why would you expect that they would support a format in a BR player when they have plenty of DVD players and dedicated players that can do that?

Because, just as with previous universal players, people want something all inclusive. Why would they want two players, when a single one would be more convenient? Another point is that they also have to be able to plug them into their pre/pro/receivers, and not all of those have enough HDMI connectors.


If you have no intention on buying any player(let alone a BR player) then why ask these questions?. You intent was to start another HD format bashing thread where you thought you could control the direction of the topic. You asked questions at first, then you started making uneducated conclusions which does not denote curiosity at all. You are coming to too many conclusions with little or no understanding of what you are commenting on.

Your arrogance and insulting demeanor is truly astounding. How could you possibly know what my intention might be? I had some questions and then you come along and troll all over my thread. Answers to the questions are welcomed, your crappy attitude isn't. I'm amazed you have any friends her on this forum at all. I'm also amazed you haven't been kicked off yet (makes me wonder what kind of shenanigans you are pulling with the policies and moderators here).

And how did you ever come to the conclusion I wasn't going to buy a player? You're the one who's saying that, not me. I only said that I'm going to wait a little longer. Can't you read? I haven't made up my mind about whether that's going to be a BR player or an HDDVD player, but don't start thinking that you know what my plans are.

So now that we have all that out of the way, can you please just answer the questions without insulting everyone around you? What is your major malfunction? Are you going to troll around every other one of the threads I post in, too. Gawd, I sure hope you do come to my house, or any one's house for that matter, so that they can see how much of a jack*ss you really are.

Sir Terrence the Terrible, what is that, a small weenie complex? You probably drive a big car, too, huh? You little sniveling, lying, scheming, hand-wringing and fork-tongued little imp; Lil'T, the cowardly little green feathered fairy, is a much better moniker for you. From now on, every time you see "Lil'T", know that's what it will stand for. Now go cry to your mommy you bed-wetter!

[pixelthis]

This is a smoke screen. What, you want the place to yourself so you can continue to fake people out. Don't like the blanket pulled off do you?

One can only debate in a productive matter when the other tells the truth. When they lie, productive debate becomes impossible.

Still stuck on the people rather than the subject huh? Is it to hide the fact that you don't know much about what you say you know?

Thats one theory:1:

[Feanor]

Thats one theory:1:

Sir T's problem is that he invariably responds to personal attackes in kind. Plus he uses the "L" word to describe what are more likely just ill-informed statements.

[Groundbeef]

Sir T's problem is that he invariably responds to personal attackes in kind. Plus he uses the "L" word to describe what are more likely just ill-informed statements.

I've read quite a few of Sir T's responses/rants, but I can't EVER remeber a time he called someone a Lesbian. Can you provide a link to that?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've read quite a few of Sir T's responses/rants, but I can't EVER remeber a time he called someone a Lesbian. Can you provide a link to that?

Hey, Lesbians are good. No hate here!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T's problem is that he invariably responds to personal attackes in kind. Plus he uses the "L" word to describe what are more likely just ill-informed statements.

Feanor,
When you have already refuted a statement, and the poster continually repeats it over and over, that statement no longer becomes ill informed. They are informed, but they just want to lie, or stretch the truth, which is nothing more than just another way of saying lie.

I will take your former statement to heart, and make sure not to respond in kind, even though I think the little ******* deserves it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

From his own mouth:


Wow, all this from one post! Can there be a more arrogant, boorish, self-absorbed, and bitter sycophant on this forum? I seriously doubt it. Now onto the nonsense he is spewing out and passing off as knowledge.

Usually when people don't know anything, they try and draw attention away from the fact. You are damn good at this. Really good. Just deflect away, and I won't look like an idiot. On that count, you failed. In spite of your deflection, you still look like the village idiot. Congratulations


My player has the option of converting to PCM or not. But I prefer not to do any any bass management in the player.

Nightflier, you cannot avoid conversion unless you do not bass management. If the player or reciever has to do delay for distance compensation, then the audio has to be converted to digital to do this. Options on players be damned. Unless you have a receiver that can do analog bass manangement(which is a very untidy option, and you outlaw cannot do it) then another conversion has to take place. Unless it can do delay, and level compensation in analog(which is distortion laden) then it has to convert to PCM. Your stuff is not so great that it avoids this. The use of the ICBM does not eleminate the fact that distance compensation and speaker level calibration has to be done in digital.


That does not negate the fact that both disk formats have a limit and although HDDVD is more limited, what we can learn about how Toshiba addresses this will be valuable for Sony and the rest of the BR camp as well. Just because a limit is further off, does not mean the limit does not exist. How many times in recent memory hasn't a technological limit not been declared inconsequential due to lack of foresight. I can think of a few: the 640Kb memory addresses limit in x86 PC chips, IP addressing, hard drive capacities, the list goes on. BR's 100Gb limit is only far off to those people who don't understand technology - what is true today, won't be true tomorrow.

This is a very stupid statement. Toshiba cannot teach Sony anything, and HD DVD shows that. If Toshiba was a forward thinking company like Sony has shown here, they would not have limited themselves, and back themselves in the corner by using only a 30GB capacity. This capacity issue cannot be overcome, their own standards prevent it, and player compatibility does as well. The only thing that Toshiba can teach Sony based on this example, is how not to plan for tomorrow. Limits exist everywhere, even in downloads. A forward thinking company creates products that are not just for today, but leaves room to grow into. Sony owns a film studio. They also have a compression and replication facilities. They knew that once you started combining all of the feature set that has been approved by the BDA, they were going to need disc capacity, and a large pipeline to carry all of the data. For a film, any film to take up a 100GB disc, it would have to be 6-9 hours long, have all kinds of extras, several lossless soundtracks, commentary, PIP and a partridge in a pear tree to fill it up. The entire two disc set of Pirates of the Carribean would fit on a single 100GB disc. At that includes a AVC encode with peaks of up to 45mbps on a 150 minute movie, lossless 24bit audio(6.9mbps), three lossy audio tracks, BD-java and 7 hours of 480i extras. That is a huge amount of data, and it would take 3 HD DVD 30GB disc, and 10 GB of a HD DVD 15GB disc, and the data rate could not exceed 36.55mbps for all of the data being transferred. So just what can Toshiba teach Sony nighflier?


That is a blanket statement that is only partially true because it all depends on what sound formats and how many extras one would include. In 480p, the movies themselves are only six regular DVDs, a total of 10 hours so that could just fit on 25Gb, if you exclude the foreign languages, for example. That said, this would be in standard DVD quality, which is not how an HDDVD would be marketed anyhow, but it could fit, so to say it could never fit is a blanket statement. Of course, having another 25Gb on a BR disk would perhaps allow the same movie to be encoded in true 1080p with full hi-res sound formats, but even that would be pushing the envelope - it would fit, but just barely. My point being that the supposed greater capacity of BR, is still limiting. And that 100Gb disk is still waiting in the wings as you say, so it does not apply to this example.

This is where your ignorance rears its ugly head. First DVD's are not produced in 480p, they are produced in 480i, and progressively scanned within the DVD player to present a 480p image. Secondly, the highest data rate from DVD is 10mbps total for audio, video, and running commentary. That is not even in the same league as HD DVD, and would produce lousy HD images. Considering the average data rate for LOTR extended version was about 6mbps with MPEG-2, the picture would look like crap
.
So let's just take Lord of the Rings extended version since this is likely what we are going to see in HD. It was 4 disc set, not 6. The film only was 236 minutes long. Using a average bit rate of 21mbps for video using VC-1, and a DTHD soundtrack as well as a DD+, you would not be able to fit it on a single 30GB disc. So let's dump the DTHD soundtrack, and use DD+ only. You would still only get about 170 minutes of the 236 before the disc would be full. Let's dump the DD+ soundtrack and use DD at 640kbps, and guess what, you still could not fit it on a 30GB disc. You do not encoded HD video in 480p, that is not HD video, that is progressively scanned standard video. Why would you even use that as an example? If you knew what you were talking about, you probably would not have used that as an example because you would have already known that it is not HD resolution.

Bluray using the same data rate and codec for video(you could push it to 30mbps), and using uncompressed PCM, and a single DD track at 640kbps would fit on a BD50 with no problem whatsoever.
Using HD video bitrates, and even lossy audio, HD DVD could not fit this movie on a single 30GB disc. Your example is wrong, and it shows just how uniformed, and how profound your lack of knowledge really is.


Hey, Einstein, downloads only need to be compressed during the download. Once they are downloaded they can be completely decompressed. Even at it's full capacity of 50Gb (as if any current movies actually needed that), it would compress to about 20Gb, which would take at most an hour to download, after which it could be decompressed for viewing. This is not unsurmountable.

Downloads are compressed BEFORE they are downloaded not during. You cannot compress during the download as the result would be completely unpredictable. How do you know if you are aliasing? How do you know if blocking is not occuring? How do you know if pixelation is not occuring if you do not compress it before it is even set to download? You do not. My studio sends the compressed files to apple and Microsoft for storage on their servers. That is standard practice for all movie studios. A movie that is compressed from 50GB to 20GB could not have the same resolution. You have thrown away far to much data for the image quality to remain the same.

Decompression on the fly has already been tried in audio. It was a failure because the results were too unpredictable. Demanding passages caused the decompressor to pump, shifted imaging, and increased noise. Since our eyes are much more keen than our ears, artifacting would be far worse visually. Now could a accurate decompressor be reproduced? Yes it could. Would it be financially feasible?, apparently not since the technology is already here and it has not been done. Decompression done cheaply continues to suffer from lack of sufficient buffers and caches. Dialog lag is also a problem as well as CPU overload. It would be very expensive to create a decompressor that is highly accurate, but it could not handle 1080p regardless because the files could not be compressed small enough(and retain full resolution) nor could they be decompressed back to full resolution because of buffer, cache, and the expense of developing and producing highly accurate algorythms and powerful enough CPU's to handle processing.


But let's get to what I was actually saying: currently people are happy with just 720p with a single DD sound track, and that would take at most 15 minutes to download. If they are happy with standard DVD quality, even less.

So now you are telling me you know that thoughts of everyone? You have polled everyone and came to the conclusion that 720p is enough for everyone?. If DD was good enough, then why is full bitrate Dts so popular amoung hometheater hobbist? Maybe its good enough for you, but how about the 600,000 or so of those who have purchased HD DVD players? You think that it is good enough for them? Or how about the more than 2 million people that have purchased BR players? Do you think that 720p and lossy audio is good enough for them? If 720p was good enough, then why are 1080i and 1080p televisions outselling 720p televisions? More uniformed conclusions. How do you know anything takes 15 minutes to download if you do not know how long the movie is, or how much data has to download?


And yes, I know decompressing on the fly would take a long time. I'm not saying this technology is here now, so just drop the insults, already.

You insulted yourself by just mentioning it.


First of all, things will improve - the quest for new sources of revenue will drive the innovation. Second, BR & HDDVD are here now for less that 5% of the market. I would hardly call that here now across the board. Fact is, BR/HDDVD is only here for a very small percentage of the buying public. Finally, they have not set any benchmark for VOD.

Well you sound like time is standing still. BR and HD DVD were only 1 percent of the market at one time right? Now they are 5 percent and growing. That cannot be said for VOD as its percentage has stagnated for the last two years. If VOD is the next big thing, then why has not a benchmark been set? Because there are too many hurdles to jump through that is why. The studio's will not offer non DRM movies to any downloading service. Broadband is not in enough homes to push VOD. VOD on cable is too expensive for most, and the quality is not there. You cannot watch VOD anytime you want unless you store it. And currently drives are not large enough to store alot of movies. You cannot own it right now.


VOD, especially free TV shows is hugely popular. Whether it's online or on people's Tivo's, just about everyone is time-shifting. True, it's not 1080p quality, but that's because most people really don't want that right now. Standard def, or even lower def (for phones & PDAs) VOD is the single biggest threat to BR & HDDVD, even though it is not hi def. This is because people are watching it, everywhere, and this is time taken away from watching movies on disk. Moreover, the convenience of VOD is creating a culture of expectations for entertainment that will be ready to use the same methods when 1080p content becomes available. As much as you and I personally may not like the trend, the disk is dead. Just as CD sales are tanking, so will movie sales on disk go down in flames. People want their entertainment digitally and not on disk - quality is far less important to them. I hope that you can wrap your head around that reality.


You are speaking for a segment of the population, not all people. This is Bill Gates speak, not an original thought. First, if VOD was all that, why is it not growing? And if disc was so dead, then why is the market for DVD/HD DVD/Bluray more than twenty times that of VOD? DVD has a far larger market share than VOD's peak. We are not discussing CD sales because its decrease has nothing to do with the fact that its music on a disc. Far more people have ripped CD's than have downloaded off of Apple. The market share for movies on disc far outstrippes VOD. So where are you getting your information, from kids? Remember, they said vinyl is dead, and guess what? The dead lives.


You must have been asleep when they started the concept of ad supported entertainment. And it doesn't have to be programming that's preceded by a commercial, either since product placement is all the rage now.

Product placement has been in movies for years. Its nothing new, and certainly not the rage of anything. Can anyone say overstatement!




720p is 720p, it doesn't matter what medium your player is reading from. Where do you get the idea that a video in 720p is not 720p? What planet are you from?

Obviously from a planet that has inhabitants that are more intelligent than you. 720p at 14.4mbps with MPEG-2 does not look the same as 720p at 25mbps+ with AVC or VC-1. While they may have the same pixel count, the lower bitrate would have far more artifacting than the higher bitrate one. Color is likely to be more rich because you are transmitting more color information, its not being compressed away. The lower bitrate PQ would likely look more "digital" and less natural than the higher bitrate 720p. To the informed PQ and pixel count are not the same thing. To airheaded folks, 720p is 720p regardless of the amount of compression applied.


As I explained, 720p with 5.1 DD surround sound is enough for most people. Of course it's not as good as BR or HDDVD, but ask yourself this: how many people bought 720p displays when that was state of the art? I'll give you a place to start: just about every Pioneer and Panasonic flat-screen TV owner.

Well, my have things changed. 1080i and 1080p set are currently outselling 720p sets now that 1080p is state of the art. You can only "explain" your choices, not mine or anyone elses. To the more than 3 million people in this country that have purchased HD players from both formats, 720p and DD is not good enough. One mans ceiling is anothers floor.


Your knowledge about this is only based in VOD sales. That's not the whole picture. VOD is far more popular with free content, but you have no way of measuring that. To say that VOD's novelty has worn off is appallingly self-serving. It's a lie. What you should have said is that VOD sales are slow. And don't even try to confuse this with downloads because we both know that's not the same. And even if they were, you're still only talking about sales. That's only part of the picture.

Free content is already broadcast by network television. So as long as broadcasters show the programming, FOD will not grow quickly. Broadcasters make very little money from FOD, advertisers make the bulk of that money. As long as it plays out that way, getting more FOD will be difficult. VOD novelty has worn off, or sales would still be growing. They are not. FOD cannot be compared to HD DVD or Bluray, just like broadcast television cannot be compared to HD media on disc. FOD is killing VOD right now, but neither can touch DVD. FOD still costs $300 per program in infrastructure charges, and that is hampering its growth. Until the infrastructure cost go down, programming will remain limited. You cannot say that for HD on disc. There are more HD DVD and bluray movies than FOD movies. FOD caters to television shows that are cancelled, or in syndication. That is not the same market as HD DVD or Bluray. You comparison is apples and pears. Since FOD cannot be effectively tracked, offering it up as a point is no point at all. Anyone can say something is huge, but can they prove it?. So far you have offered no proof of ANYTHING you have stated.


Well, you sneaky myopic little imp, I said that Denon had announced one, not Classe. Don't try to make this what it isn't. Classe is thinking about releasing a high-def player sometime early next year (I read that in Stereophile).

Denon is releasing a Bluray player, not a HD DVD player. Classe has made no annoucement of a player for either format. I also subscribed to stereophile. Beside any such announcement would have been easily googled and found. Stereophile is online. I went to their site and searched for Classe HD DVD player and found nothing. Did the same for Bluray player and found nothing. You did say this didn't you;

I also think that companies like Classe are already ramping up to release a HD player, but they will do like most other companies and wait out this holiday season.

Interesting you don't you read you own stuff. Thinking about and ramping up are very different things are they not? If they were even thinking about it, and it was in stereophile, one could find the annoucement. You are full of it, Classe has made no such announcement, and is not ramping up to do anything. If I am wrong, prove it.


So you speak for everyone in the film business? Or do you speak for Microsoft? All the fancy quotes and links you provided don't say that Microsoft wants HD to go away. Now where are you pulling that crap from. Bill gates never uttered those words. Microsoft may be making a handy profit from HDDVD and could care less about the format war - now that would be more accurate. Not putting the player inside the game console is smart, since all they would have to do to switch sides is add an external BR player - heck people can have both. It's all sound economic thinking.

I am surprised that you are advancing this statement, since the article quotes him directly from a speech. The link was a transcript taken from a speech at Howard University, and the link said so. Here is another Microsoft exec saying the same thing

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2007/06/14/microsoft-says-hd-dvd-and-blu-ray-to-be-obsolete-in-5-years/

Bill Gates words again;

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12398

Do you still want to deny that it is Microsoft's intention to make downloads the digital distribution of the future? It isn't going to fly, because every studio executive has already come out and said so. Movies on disc is what feeds the studio's coffers, not downloading, and not VOD. The only money microsoft is making from HD DVD is royalites they have to share with disney on HDi, and from VC-1.


All that aside, Microsoft and it's support for HDDVD, represent a significant portion of the market. This is what's worrying people. Microsoft is known for pushing technologically weaker products so hard that they eventually dominate the market (IE, Outlook, Access, etc.). If Microsoft decided to take the same headstrong approach with HDDVD, even if it was just to put pressure on Sony, it would be significant.

As I ask before, can you provide a link that states that anyone is worried about microsoft support of HD DVD? Microsoft is part of the HD DVD PG, and has provided part of the encentive package that got Paramount to jump from neutral to HD DVD exclusive. Both Universal and Paramount have the smallest share of sales from all HD media on disc. Warner, Sony, Fox and Disney(which all support Bluray) have a larger share than both of those two. So much for Microsoft support. Microsoft has been pushing hard to get into video business. Their set top cable box was a failure. They do not make movies, and they do not make a HD player. Why fear them? You do not know what the hell you are talking about, face it.


We're not talking about upconverting players here, we're talking about BR/HDDVD players and both of them may very well be affected by HDMI confusion. You're spreading FUD byt bringing up upconverting players into the discussion. And no matter how you try to spin it, nobody want last year's model. So the buying public, whether they know what it is or not, wants HDMI 1.3, not something that they perceive to be less because of it's lower number. This is not an invention, it's common sense.

The buying public does not know anything about HDMI 1.3 or 1.2 or 1.1 for that matter. You yourself do not know a damn thing about it. If the public is confused about HDMI, it is confused about HDMI in every player. Why do you think upconverting DVD would be any different? So you really think that the buying public(whether they know it or not) wants HDMI 1.3? How does somebody not know they want something? If they want it, they have to know about it right? The public is confused and unknowledgeable of HDMI versions, just as you are. You don't know your bum from a hole in the ground on this issue, how do you think others that don't come to A/V sites are going to know they want HDMI 1.3? Stop making stuff up nighflier, cover your assinine opinions with at least some facts and realities.


First of all, if you came over to my place and started giving me your opinion about my gear, you'd get the whoop*ss of a lifetime, and not from me, but from my 2-year old, 'cause even he can teach you a thing or two - it seems no one has done that yet and it's high time they did.

Your little two year old has not even taught you anything, so how does a diaper wearing whiney kid going to teach me something?. Maybe instead of posting here, you should go to his class. LOLOLOLOL. My dog would eat your kid anyway. LOLOLOL



And I'm sure there's quite a few people who would do the same if you brought your arrogant opinions to their house. Don't come here, you're not welcome. Second, you have no idea what I've done to my HT room. Would it interest you to know that I actually do have acoustic panels and bass traps installed? How about the fact that I have an Outlaw ICBM and a Beringer BFD as well? Don't even start to lecture me about bass and the .1 channel. I've been working on the bass in my room for over a year now, and while I don't have it set up completely how I like it, it's probably light years ahead of what you're got. You arrogant, ignorant little imp, come on over, and we'll see what happens.


I thought I was talking to an adult, not some kid who enjoys getting into a pissing contest over toys. Just because you been "working on the bass in your room for over a year" does not mean you know anything about the function and purpose of the LFE channel. Just becuase you have the ICBM and the Beringer does not mean you know anything about measuring and tackling the issues of standing waves and resonances. Just because you put in bass traps or acoustic panels does not mean you measured your room with a RTA, or understanding what the measurement mean. Give me a break with the temper tantrum. The only thing you are saying is your bass signals are overprocessed. Combining two processors on your bass signals is not exactly an "audiophile" thing to do.

Until you have heard what I "got" then your words are just words. Empty words at that.


If you had read up on your sales figures, you would know that 7.1 systems are outselling 5.1 by a wide margin (read that in on of the home installer mags).


What good is a 7.1 system when their are no 7.1 mixed movies? Two of those channels are synthesized and do not represent the intentions of the director or re-recording mixer. How 7.1 system are designed are all over the map. Some manufacturers use a mono center rear and split it between two channels. That is not 7.1. Others use steering algorythms and simulate stereo rears. That is not 7.1. 7.1 is seven DISCRETE channels and a sub. Not 5 discrete channels, two synthesized channels and a sub. There are no movies for the home with seven DISCRETE channels and a sub, so give the marketing hype a break.


I haven't invented anything. It's all pretty logical, really. I've made a few predictions, but there's sound reasoning behind them.

It may be sound to you, but reality does not play out what is sound to you. What was sound to you is that a ship sink with a load of Bluray players, and all of a sudden the price of players goes up. That is not sound reasoning, that is ignorance personified.


Tell that to everyone else here. It's an ignorant statement, and you know it.

Read number seven

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/howto/805bass/index1.html
Another;

http://www.abluesky.com/asp/catalogue/catalogue.asp?linkid=140

http://www.allbusiness.com/information/internet-publishing-broadcasting/850930-1.html

Read these words "So, unless you are recording Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture with REAL cannons, it doesn't need to be used in most music applications"

Nighflier, you are talking to a person who records audio for a living. There is nothing you can tell me about the subject that I don't already know. Okay.


We're not talking about overloading anything. Again, more FUD. I'm talking about hearing it. There are very few speakers (at least from what the average person can afford), that can play down to 27.6 Hz (piano) without audibly lowering the dB level. For an organ, that figure can come down much further (to 8 Hz on the world's largest organs). Playing this kind of music on my current Vienna Weberns at full range (and without an LFE redirection to the sub), looses a substantial amount of the music.

First if you have a subwoofer and bass mangement, there is no need to use the LFE. You just mix all the bass(even deep bass) into the mains, and allow the crossover in the bass management circuits to send that deep bass to the subwoofer. The only reason to use the LFE channel is when you have high level deep bass that will overload the system electronically. You send that bass to the LFE because it give you 10db of headroom over the main channels. Acoustical recordings do not have bass that will electronically overload any system. If it did, it would overload the microphones that recorded it before it ever reached your system. It would have overloaded the mixer and any other post processing tools before it ever reached your system. Its not about frequency, its about amplitude. Two channel music has never used LFE, and there have been organ works recorded in two channel for decades. The LFE is strictly for movies, not music.


The inability to play these frequencies comes off as silence unless the music is turned way up. On my 2-channel system with the Quads 22Ls I get a little more, but it's still irritating. If I have to turn the volume way up, and the music quickly varies in frequency (Dupre, Franck, etc.) then the music is suddenly very loud in the 30 Hz - 100 Hz range, which can actually damage lesser speakers. Your years of experience with classical and jazz are possibly centered on Mozart and Kenny G (or maybe Disney's Fantasia, I don't know)? Anyhow, your ignorant statement: there is not much audio below 40hz in most classical and jazz music is just that, ignorant, and nothing more.


Aside from the piano, there are no acoustical instrument with bass below 40hz. The double bass lowest note is 42hz. Here is a link that tell the frequency range of acoustical instruments.

http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/frequency_e.html

As you can see, even though a piano can play as low as 27.5hz, it cannot do so at very high levels. This link supports my knowledge and my years of experience, it however kills your point about the need for a LFE in music. Once again, conclusions without information. Aside from pedal notes on a organ(which are recorded in the far field and are not at 105-115db loud) there is no acoustical recording with any bass below 40hz, the chart supports that.



Well actually, given that a sub is typically the most expensive speaker in a setup, that's not unlikely at all. And we're talking about music here - it's quite conceivable that some people setting up a surround sound system just for music, would do just that. Granted, it's not the norm, but it's still a few people. And anyhow, that has nothing to do with what I said: that the lack of adequate bass reproduction in many SACDs was a factor that may have had an impact on the lackluster interest in the format. I can remember quite a few magazine articles that lamented SACD's seeming lack of bass as compared to DVD-A.

Here you go again advancing obsecure and completely abstract points. If you agree its not the norm, and only a few people would do it, then why advance it as an issue. Anyone stupid enough to buy a surround sound system with no sub, is not serious about surround. What you say is conceiverable is not really at all. When a person buys a 5.1 system, they are going to watch movies with it, and it will likely have a sub. If they like surround music, they will play it through their 5.1 system completely with a sub. SACD does not have bass issues, nightflier system does. You memory is meaningless to me, I want you to show links that support the notion that DVD-A has more bass than SACD. How do you make that comparison when there are so few common titles released to both formats? Comparing titles of different music is not comparison at all.


So you're proving my point: this is bad. The ideal output for SACD, right now, is a completely unfettered 5.1 analog output, straight to a pre/pro-amp that passes it straight through. Since the PS3 is the only hi-res player that can play SACD, and it does so much conversion to be able to do it, it's hardly an audiophile solution. As a matter of fact, for those of us who care for good sound, there really isn't a decent SACD player out there that also plays a hi-def video format. Until they start appearing, that's a pretty good reason to wait (for those of us who care about good sound).

The word "audiophile" is meaningless in this day in time. It is an eletist term that carries no weight since they have no greater hearing capabilities than a none audiophile. This has been proven in DBT after DBT.

Secondly the PS3 does what every other SACD player does, except better and with more precision. The folks that developed the PS3 processing were the same folks that created the DSD/SACD format. The PS3 decimates the DSD stream at such a level(176.4khz sample rate) that it is transparent to the stream. The SACD/DSD engineers have confirmed this. No other DVD/SACD player solution decimates at this high of a sample rate, or with this kind of precision. The PS3 allows the digital signal to remain digital all the way to the receivers D/A conversion, just like any component that utilizes an HDMI connection. The only way your signal path would work, is if the end user has all of his speakers equidistant from the listening position, all full range, and all at identical levels without level adjustments. This is impossible. You have to set individual levels for you speakers, the level controls are digital. If you speakers are not equidistant, the delay is digital. And if you have to use mini-monitors, then bass management is essential and that is digitally done. You profess yourself that you need the LFE channel or you cannot hear deep bass. You say you have a hard time hearing bass in your system, that is because you have chosen not to use bass management tools in your reciever, and you speakers have very limited deep bass capabilities. This is no solution because you have traded a supposed signal purity for accurate reproduction. You claim to have the ICBM, so what is the problem? You should hear all the bass you need from any recording.

Lastly, one check on Highfedilityreview shows that there are not many universal players under a $1,000. None of those players outputs DVD-A or SACD at any higher than 24/96khz, which is far lower a sample rate than the PS3's 176.4khz.




Because, just as with previous universal players, people want something all inclusive. Why would they want two players, when a single one would be more convenient? Another point is that they also have to be able to plug them into their pre/pro/receivers, and not all of those have enough HDMI connectors.

Once again, you know what all people want. And you call me arrogant. At least I am not professing to be a mind reader. Not everyone purchased Universal players right? As I have stated earlier, universal players are still quite expensive, except the Oppo players which do not decimate SACD or DVD-A any higher than 24/96khz. As far as the amount of HDMI conncection, that can be overcome with a HDMI switcher, of which one can be purchased through monoprice for less than $110 bucks for 4 HDMI in to 1 out.


Your arrogance and insulting demeanor is truly astounding. How could you possibly know what my intention might be?

You stated that you were not interested in purchasing a BR player that could end up a brick. Since HD DVD has more chance than BR of that happening, I would think you would not even bother with it. So by the process of elemination, you apparently are not interested in any HD player.






I had some questions and then you come along and troll all over my thread.

You had some questions, and when they were responded to, you all of a sudden became the foremost expert on audio, disc storage, various outrageous predictions, unlikely scenarios and the beat goes on.




Answers to the questions are welcomed, your crappy attitude isn't. I'm amazed you have any friends her on this forum at all. I'm also amazed you haven't been kicked off yet (makes me wonder what kind of shenanigans you are pulling with the policies and moderators here).

My attitude is no worse than yours. I am amazed that people here have not found out that you are not as knowledgeable as you pose yourself to be.



And how did you ever come to the conclusion I wasn't going to buy a player? You're the one who's saying that, not me. I only said that I'm going to wait a little longer. Can't you read? I haven't made up my mind about whether that's going to be a BR player or an HDDVD player, but don't start thinking that you know what my plans are.

I do not care what you plans are. As far as I am concerned, you can shove whatever you choose up your....not going there.


So now that we have all that out of the way, can you please just answer the questions without insulting everyone around you?

I believe this is between you and I, not everyone around me. If you do not want to be insulted, either stop trying to be an expert when you are unknowledgeable, or do not insult others. You get what you give out.



What is your major malfunction? Are you going to troll around every other one of the threads I post in, too. Gawd, I sure hope you do come to my house, or any one's house for that matter, so that they can see how much of a jack*ss you really are.

If you spread FUD, yes I will be there to counter it. Just get ready for it. Not interested in you, or your house. If you think I am a jackass now, just keep spreading misinformation, and FUD.



Sir Terrence the Terrible, what is that, a small weenie complex? You probably drive a big car, too, huh? You little sniveling, lying, scheming, hand-wringing and fork-tongued little imp; Lil'T, the cowardly little green feathered fairy, is a much better moniker for you. From now on, every time you see "Lil'T", know that's what it will stand for. Now go cry to your mommy you bed-wetter!

Nightflier, you must be gay. What does anyones weenie have to do with this. Why would you be interested in any males weenie size or even mention it?

I must have really lit your panties and bra on fire, you sure did bust a gut in this last paragraph. LOLOL. Enhance your calm dude, you are going to explode if you don't. Don't kids call names like this?

[nightflier]

Usually when people don't know anything, they try and draw attention away from the fact....On that count, you failed. In spite of your deflection, you still look like the village idiot.

It's convenient how you just dismissed with one small comment all the arrogant nonsense you blurted out in the last post. I mean some of this stuff is precious, really. Let's review some of the highlights so that we really know who's the idiot here:


...I think you are lying...The average person does not have any idea about HDMI...My statement is not blanket, it is born out of years of experience, technical guides, and experimentation...the differences are too subtle for 95% of the consumers to know the difference....Who cares what you think...You are coming to too many conclusions with little or no understanding of what you are commenting on....but your understanding of the answers has so far been pretty limited because of your lack of knowledge...You are as transparent as glass nightflier, I see right through you.

If all your insults and statements of supposed superiority aren't deflections and completely outside of this discussion about audio, then what are they? No, I'm pretty sure you are the idiot here - you should read your own nonsense sometime. Now stop with the insults already.


Nightflier, you cannot avoid conversion unless you do not bass management....player or reciever has to do delay for distance...audio has to be converted to digital to do this. Unless you have a receiver that can...delay, and level compensation...convert to PCM...

Lots of fluff, but I don't use bass management in the receiver at all. So stop boring everyone with obvious details that you want people to think makes you sound smart. I told you already I don't use bass-management. When I'm listening to SACD, the only bass management happens in the ICBM.


you outlaw cannot do it...Your stuff is not so great...

So it's not enough to insult me, now my system is not up to snuff either? Since when was there a minimum system standard to post in this forum? Is that a new requirement on AR I didn't know about? I mean really, how arrogant can you be?


This is a very stupid statement. Toshiba cannot teach Sony anything, and HD DVD shows that. If Toshiba was a forward thinking company like Sony has shown here, they would not have limited themselves, and back themselves in the corner by using only a 30GB capacity....

It's basic economics, Lil'T. If there's a limit and one company reaches it first, the other companies can learn from how that company deals with it. There's no need to go into technical details and bore everyone here with useless factoids of information that you want to throw out to make yourself sound smart again. It's quite simple, really. But then again, making things simple to understand isn't your strong suit, is it?


This is where your ignorance rears its ugly head. First DVD's are not produced in 480p, they are produced in 480i, and progressively scanned within the DVD player to present a 480p image.

My bad, I meant 480i. So I mistype one letter and that makes me ignorant? Again, no need for a long tirade littered with more insults. You have far more typos in your posts, so let's not split hairs about this one.


So let's just take Lord of the Rings extended version since this is likely what we are going to see in HD. It was 4 disc set, not 6.

No, it was three DVD sets sold separately for a total of 12 DVDs. The movie alone (without the extras) is 2 DVDs from each set = 6 DVDs. Maybe your math is that bad, I don't know -or maybe you don't know how to read: LOTR = The Lord of The Rings, i.e. the whole series.


Downloads are compressed BEFORE they are downloaded not during.

We both know I didn't mean that the film would be compressed on the fly. It would be stored on the distribution server already compressed. You know very well that's what I meant when I said that "it only needs to be compressed during the download," ie. it would be available in a compressed format. Don't be a jack*ss again and try to turn this into an error on my part. I'm certain everyone else understood what I meant. Only an anal little imp like you would split hairs over this point and then start backfilling the hole with more jargon to aggrandize yourself. Get on with it already.


Decompression on the fly has already been tried in audio.

I'm pretty sure I said from the beginning that this wasn't ready for prime time yet. But it will be coming. I've read several promising white papers on new technologies related to this very problem. Stop wasting everyone's time with your hair splitting, these are non issues.


Now could a accurate decompressor be reproduced? Yes it could. Would it be financially feasible? apparently not since the technology is already here and it has not been done. Decompression done cheaply continues to suffer from lack of sufficient buffers and caches. Dialog lag is also a problem as well as CPU overload. It would be very expensive to create a decompressor that is highly accurate, but it could not handle 1080p regardless because the files could not be compressed small enough(and retain full resolution) nor could they be decompressed back to full resolution because of buffer, cache, and the expense of developing and producing highly accurate algorythms and powerful enough CPU's to handle processing.

So you're admitting that technologically, it's feasible? So much for all the talk about the technical hurdles. It's interesting that you spend so much time talking about the technical issues, when you just finished saying the technology is already here. Is it, or not? Well which is it, Lil'T? Again, more useless fluff. The fact is you can't know any better than I what will be available in the future. But to categorically reject its application altogether, is just shortsighted. But apparently everything has to be black and white. Well, if you want it that way, tell us: is the technology here or not?


If DD was good enough, then why is full bitrate Dts so popular amoung hometheater hobbist? Maybe its good enough for you, but how about the 600,000 or so of those who have purchased HD DVD players? You think that it is good enough for them? Or how about the more than 2 million people that have purchased BR players? Do you think that 720p and lossy audio is good enough for them? If 720p was good enough, then why are 1080i and 1080p televisions outselling 720p televisions? More uniformed conclusions. How do you know anything takes 15 minutes to download if you do not know how long the movie is, or how much data has to download?

Hobbyists are not your average user. The average user does not need 1080i/p, especially if it will take longer to download or cost more. My guess is that they would opt for the 720p/DD version. And I was talking about people who would be downloading the content, not the people who have already made the jump to BR or HDDVD. After all, since those people only make up 5%, they are not the market these new technologies are after - no, they are looking to the people who haven't bought in yet. Let's stay on topic, Lil'T, and don't start again with the diversions and FUD.

Regarding the TVs, I'm not talking about what's being sold, I'm talking about what's already in people's homes. See, this is more of your FUD. Either that or you are so focussed on your precious sales figures, that you can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Jeez, it's like I'm talking to an ADD kid looking at a kaleidoscope - can't you ever stay on topic? Of course, 1080i/p TVs are what people are buying now; nobody wants to own last year's model (more on that below).


Well you sound like time is standing still. BR and HD DVD were only 1 percent of the market at one time right? Now they are 5 percent and growing.

I don't know what they were "at one time." Let's stay on point: they are at 5% of the market, so with a 2-1 lead, that makes BR just 3% of the market. I know it sounds like a whole lot more when you continually emphasize the 2 million players that are out there, but it's still just 3%. And let's not forget that this includes PS3s which are not all used for BR watching all the time. So let's get this out there so everyone knows what you are flag-waiving about:

BR represents just 3% of the market!


VOD as its percentage has stagnated for the last two years....The studio's will not offer non DRM movies to any downloading service. Broadband is not in enough homes to push VOD. VOD on cable is too expensive for most, and the quality is not there..

More FUD. Let's clear this up once and for all:

VOD Sales have stagnated

Again, with your sales figures - as if that was all there was to this. As usual, with your tunnel vision, Lil'T, you are not able to see the bigger picture. Sales figures say nothing about how much VOD has been downloaded. Free VOD (mostly TV shows) is just as popular, perhaps a lot more so and is therefore competing directly with Paid VOD and every other medium. We don't need exact numbers to define this, either, Lil'T, because we are just suggesting that this could be, just maybe, another reason Paid VOD has stagnated. Fact is, neither of us knows why paid VOD has stagnated. So don't come here and try to make this something it isn't.


You cannot watch VOD anytime you want unless you store it. And currently drives are not large enough to store alot of movies.

Nonsense. Apple iMovie and xBox have enough to store enough content for most people - and they have small drives by computer standards. Plop in a couple of 750Gb drives or connect them to a firewire/USB port and you've got enough for weeks of watching your favorite shows.


You cannot own it [VOD] right now.

More of your narrow minded vision focussed on just sales. TV shows don't need to be "owned" and that's what people are watching from their hard drives. And just so there's no confusion, the reason I keep bringing this up, and consequently you keep downplaying it, is that it:

Creates a culture of downloading

This is the monster in the closet for the BR & HDDVD format. Because if people are so used to getting their content that way, they'll be expecting it for HD content as well. This will drive the innovations and the economies of scale to make this possible for Joe Sixpack. Downplay it all you want, it's not going to make it go away.


You are speaking for a segment of the population, not all people. This is Bill Gates speak, not an original thought. First, if VOD was all that, why is it not growing?

Already explained. See above. So sales are not growing - that means very little in the bigger picture.


And if [content on] disc was so dead...

Didn't say it was "dead." Only you want to believe that is what I'm saying. I said CD sales are stagnating because downloads are more popular. This could happen to movies as well (again, just so we're clear, I'm not saying it's already happened, so don't start on that again, Lil'T). I'm saying it's a very real possibility.


We are not discussing CD sales because its decrease has nothing to do with the fact that its music on a disc.

How the heck would you know? I'd say the opposite is true. Everything from Napster to iTunes has helped bring CD sales to a virtual stand-still. Yes, they are still selling, but there's very little growth there anymore, especially with popular content.


Far more people have ripped CD's than have downloaded off of Apple.

You don't know that. You're just guessing. I'm going to go with the idea that they are about the same now and that ripped MP3s will slowly disappear off the internet as the downloaded version become more prevalent. It's just too convenient to download.


The market share for movies on disc far outstrippes VOD.

Only if you're looking at sales of VOD, not all VOD. Stop beating the dead horse. He's dead.


Product placement has been in movies for years. Its nothing new, and certainly not the rage of anything. Can anyone say overstatement!

Hey you're the one who ignored product placement completely. You said something to the effect that free content is insignificant because it's free. Well, with product placement it isn't "free." You're proving my point with your ignorant retorts. And as far as it not being all the rage, then why has revenue from product placement grown so fast? I'm pretty sure it is now the largest revenue source in freely available video content? Oh, I'm sorry is that a sales figure / stats you wanted us to ignore?


720p at 14.4mbps with MPEG-2 does not look the same as 720p at 25mbps+ with AVC or VC-1. While they may have the same pixel count, the lower bitrate would have far more artifacting than the higher bitrate one. Color is likely to be more rich because you are transmitting more color information, its not being compressed away. The lower bitrate PQ would likely look more "digital" and less natural than the higher bitrate 720p.

That all depends on the size and quality of the display. On a 32" screen, the differences are not going to be significant, on a computer screen even less so, and on a PDA, who really care? This is only significant for people with large, expensive TVs, not the general public. 720p is pretty much 720p on a standard 720p TV. Anyhow, you're basically taking it down to one of the lowest lowest MPEG-2 formats and comparing it to the best - of course there will be differences, but not all content is going to be the lowest quality nor will it all be viewed on 60" 1080p TVs. Besides, how many people are going to put two TVs next to each other in their living rooms just to compare? They've got more important things to do like watch the darned show.


Well, my have things changed. 1080i and 1080p set are currently outselling 720p sets now that 1080p is state of the art. You can only "explain" your choices, not mine or anyone elses. To the more than 3 million people in this country that have purchased HD players from both formats, 720p and DD is not good enough. One mans ceiling is anothers floor.

Again, beating a dead horse. What's selling is not what's in people's homes. Stop being so narrow minded, Lil'T. It's really childish and it makes you sound so much dumber than you could sound.


Free content is already broadcast by network television. So as long as broadcasters show the programming, FOD will not grow quickly. Broadcasters make very little money from FOD, advertisers make the bulk of that money.

Actually, broadcasters only show the programming once or twice (at least until the series is over and some other company buys the re-broadcasting rights). Between that time, the way most people watch these very same shows is from a recorded format (Tivo, computer HD, PVR, iMovie, cable box recorder, xBox, DVR, VCR, Podcast the list goes on). I would even go so far as saying that this is how the vast majority of people watch TV, now. And no, advertisers do not make any money on advertising - they pay for it . I mean, c'mon, are you that dim? You really must have flunked out of high school Econ, Lil'T.


VOD novelty has worn off, or sales would still be growing. They are not. FOD cannot be compared to HD DVD or Bluray, just like broadcast television cannot be compared to HD media on disc. FOD is killing VOD right now, but neither can touch DVD. FOD still costs $300 per program in infrastructure charges, and that is hampering its growth. Until the infrastructure cost go down, programming will remain limited. You cannot say that for HD on disc. There are more HD DVD and bluray movies than FOD movies. FOD caters to television shows that are cancelled, or in syndication. That is not the same market as HD DVD or Bluray. You comparison is apples and pears. Since FOD cannot be effectively tracked, offering it up as a point is no point at all.

More FUD and nonsense. Well at least you are agreeing with me that Freed VOD is hurting Paid VOD, I guess when it suits you, you'll flip-flop as much as any politician. Now I never said that VOD would compete with HD on quality. I'm only saying that it's keeping people watching something other than HD and it's creating a culture/habit/expectation for how people will acquire content in the future. No matter how you want to spin it, buying expensive equipment, hooking it all up, changing disks for every movie, and risking it all to be bricked, is a whole lot less convenient that downloaded unlimited content at any time on existing equipment. Even if it is not 1080p/DTS-HD, it's still keeping people watching.

Now Lil T, how many times will I have to repeat this point. Are you just that dense or is your tunnel vision keeping you from seeing anything else?


Denon is releasing a Bluray player, not a HD DVD player.

I never said they were releasing an HDDVD player. Why are you stuck on this?


Classe has made no annoucement of a player for either format. I also subscribed to stereophile. Beside any such announcement would have been easily googled and found. Stereophile is online. I went to their site and searched for Classe HD DVD player and found nothing. Did the same for Bluray player and found nothing. You did say this didn't you.

You subscribed? Well maybe you should continue to subscribe - it's a pretty good source IMO. Or did you piss off someone there as well, and they canceled your subscription? Now, just because you did a cursory search through a website doesn't mean it ain't so. I'm pretty sure I read that in Stereophile, or one of my other print magazines. I don't remember exactly were, but I was pretty sure it was in one of the reports from one of the recent shows. I'll see if I can dig it up.


Interesting you don't you read you own stuff. Thinking about and ramping up are very different things are they not? If they were even thinking about it, and it was in stereophile, one could find the anouncement...If I am wrong, prove it

Like I said, I don't remember exactly where I read it, but I certainly did. Before you start jumping up and down like a child claiming that you finally got one on me, let's see what I find.

But since I doubt that will satisfy you, I asked one of my friends to inquire what if anything they had in the works. He is a long time Classe fanatic, owns several components, and is also waiting to see if Classe will release something. Naturally, they didn't want to commit to anything, but they did say something interesting: that "A degree of uncertainty continues to cloud the future of the new blue laser disc formats and it remains unclear which, if any, of these formats will become the dominant technology." While this may not calm you down from chomping at the bit, it does call the future of both formats into question. And that is precisely what I've been trying to say: people should wait before investing a lot of money in either format. Now if Classe isn't willing to commit to one format (not even BR with its vaulted extra capacity), then wouldn't it be a safer policy for us to wait as well? At the very least, let's wait and see what shakes out of the tree this holiday season.


I am surprised that you are advancing this statement, since the article quotes him [Bill Gates] directly from a speech. The link was a transcript taken from a speech at Howard University, and the link said so. Here is another Microsoft exec saying the same thing Do you still want to deny that it is Microsoft's intention to make downloads the digital distribution of the future?

I never said Bill Gates / Microsoft is or isn't interested in making downloads the digital distribution of the future (as you put it). As before, you are putting words into my mouth. You're either trying to make something out of nothing or lying again. Now, Lil'T, this is really childish. What I said was that Microsoft has a crap-load of resources to try and figure out what we common folks don't yet know about the future. If they say something will be, they certainly have the marketing resources to make that happen - and not even all the studios together can change that. Remember this is the company that has destroyed just about every competing product that was technologically better, just because it had an inferior product that was in competition against it. It may not scare you, but it should scare just about every other company that doesn't have the size to fight back.


Movies on disc is what feeds the studio's coffers, not downloading, and not VOD. The only money microsoft is making from HD DVD is royalites they have to share with disney on HDi, and from VC-1.

Hence the reason Studios lost so much on dwindling CD sales without seeing that one coming. Anyhow, just because the studios make money on HD disks, doesn't change anything about what Microsoft might do. If Microsoft is intent on pushing VOD or use HDDVD to kill off Sony & BR, you can bet on it, they will do it. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but seeing as it's stock price has risen exponentially for the last two decades, it's clear that there's a lot of share owners who don't seem to mind that so much either. If Microsoft cashes in, so do its stock holders - and that is real power in the marketplace. I don't see any major studios pushing BR listed in the Dow - do you?


As I ask before, can you provide a link that states that anyone is worried about microsoft support of HD DVD? Microsoft is part of the HD DVD PG, and has provided part of the encentive package that got Paramount to jump from neutral to HD DVD exclusive.

Don't need to provide a example, you provided it yourself. Apparently Paramount was cowed enough to do as it was told.


Both Universal and Paramount have the smallest share of sales from all HD media on disc. Warner, Sony, Fox and Disney(which all support Bluray) have a larger share than both of those two.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Lil'T, let's not start more FUD. Warner is in both camps. And let's also not forget that all that would be needed for BR to falter is for just one of their studios to do the same, that is, put a foot in both camps. And I know your industry insider sources have convinced you otherwise, but if it's going to make them more money, there's no reason Fox or Disney won't do so (as a matter of fact didn't you tell us that Fox said as much?). It's not at all unthinkable that the format war (just like the SACD/DVD-A format war) never resolves itself and that they all remain niche products long enough for VOD to get a real foot-hold.


So much for Microsoft support. Microsoft has been pushing hard to get into video business. Their set top cable box was a failure. They do not make movies, and they do not make a HD player. Why fear them? You do not know what the hell you are talking about, face it.

That's kind of like living down the street from them in Redmond and saying why fear them? Even Adobe fears them; everybody fears the 800 lb gorilla. Those who don't end up lodged in its butt-crack. I know it's a bit crude of an example, but for you Lil'T it's necessary to come up with colorful examples that even you can understand. As far as knowing what I'm talking about, I do know a thing or two about this industry so don't come in here and tell me how the world revolves around your ego. I know enough about Microsoft's corporate history to know not to say stupid stuff like what you're blurting out.


The buying public does not know anything about HDMI 1.3 or 1.2 or 1.1 for that matter. ...If the public is confused about HDMI, it is confused about HDMI in every player....Do you really think that the buying public(whether they know it or not) wants HDMI 1.3?...The public is confused and unknowledgeable of HDMI versions...You don't know your bum from a hole in the ground on

(I edited the pointless insults out, because it's really getting tiresome coming from someone who is so full of himself he can't even see that he's so wrong).

So here you go again talking about us Hoi polloi as if you are somehow better. That's really irritating too. But just to humor your pointless point, the buying public doesn't need to know anything about HDMI to know that they will always buy the latest version. As soon as HDMI 1.3 is readily available, that is going to be the new catch-phrase they will be looking for, whether they know what it supports or not. Nobody is going to buy last year's model - this is basic economics, Lil'T. Oh, that's right, you didn't pass that class....

And if they are confused, then they'll stay away. Whether you want to admit it or not, the confusion isn't helping sales at all. You know it, and I know it. So stop with the FUD and the fancy details about what each version of HDMI can do, and realize that you are not helping yourself with this argument. As a matter of fact you are adding to the confusion. Give it up already.


Your little two year old has not even taught you anything, so how does a diaper wearing whiney kid going to teach me something?. Maybe instead of posting here, you should go to his class. My dog would eat your kid anyway.

Well, my 2-year old can certainly teach you a thing or two about being polite. And since we're comparing pets, why don't you bring your rascal of a mutt over and we'll see what Abe and Jake, my Dobermans will make of him - they've been with me since they were pups and they tend to be pretty protective of my family. But enough baby talk (it's tiring to have to bend down to your level); the fact is that if you think you can go to our homes and can school anyone here on how bad their systems are, they will kick your a** out on that curb faster than you can finish that sentence. Your arrogance about how much better your are than everyone else here is astounding. I certainly hope you are stupid enough to pull that attitude at someone's house, just for the amusement of reading about it here the next day.


Just because you have the ICBM and the Beringer does not mean you know anything about measuring and tackling the issues of standing waves and resonances. Just because you put in bass traps or acoustic panels does not mean you measured your room with a RTA, or understanding what the measurement mean. Give me a break with the temper tantrum. The only thing you are saying is your bass signals are overprocessed. Combining two processors on your bass signals is not exactly an "audiophile" thing to do. Until you have heard what I "got" then your words are just words. Empty words at that.

Well if that's not arrogant and bloated, then I don't know what is. You know nothing of what I have and how it's been configured. If you'd read any of my other posts, you'd know that I have both a 2-channel system and a surround sound system in the same room. No, it's not ideal, but the two systems are completely separate. The Behringer is on the 2-channel system, you ignorant oaf. The bass traps and panels were installed and calibrated by someone who is a reseller of these systems and certainly knows enough about them to do it right - as a matter of fact he was over not too long ago when I moved everything into a single room. So before you start spouting off what you guess you might know about my system, why don't you start by avoiding the pointless insults? You are so full of yourself, you don't even realize how insulting you are coming off. How many people here have to tell you that before you get it?


What good is a 7.1 system when their are no 7.1 mixed movies? Two of those channels are synthesized and do not represent the intentions of the director or re-recording mixer. How 7.1 system are designed are all over the map. Some manufacturers use a mono center rear and split it between two channels. That is not 7.1. Others use steering algorythms and simulate stereo rears. That is not 7.1. 7.1 is seven DISCRETE channels and a sub. Not 5 discrete channels, two synthesized channels and a sub. There are no movies for the home with seven DISCRETE channels and a sub, so give the marketing hype a break.

Blah blah blah. More diversions, FUD and seeming technically-related stuff that completely misses the point. Let me refresh your memory: you were going on and on about how 5.1 systems were all that was necessary and that they were prevalent out there. Then I told you that I read that 7.1 systems were outselling the 5.1 systems by a significant amount. So now that you can't dispute that, you continue with your boring drivel about how 5.1 may be more than enough. It doesn't change the fact that home installers are configuring systems for 7.1. That's not to say they are the majority out there now, but it's still pretty clear that they ultimately will be. And then you dismiss all home installers as not knowing how to set these up. I'll tell you, I know a few that do know quite a bit, probably more than you. I mean really, Lil'T, how arrogant do you have to be to dismiss a whole industry as less knowledgeable than you? Read what people are saying about you - it's not pretty.


It may be sound to you, but reality does not play out what is sound to you. What was sound to you is that a ship sink...That is not sound reasoning.

Yeah, as if you wrote the book on sound reasoning. LOL. Can you even write? Let's try this again Lil'T, what are you trying to say?


Read these words "So, unless you are recording Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture with REAL cannons, it doesn't need to be used in most music applications"

Funny you should mention that. I just happen to have just that SACD and yes, it does use real cannons. Heck, I can probably also dig up my For Those About to Rock CD somewhere that also uses real cannon. Now granted, this isn't everyday fare, but it exists.


...you are talking to a person who records audio for a living. There is nothing you can tell me about the subject that I don't already know. Okay.

Yeah, yeah, we heard you the first time, you know everything better than me, better than everyone else here, better than Bill Gates, better than everyone at Microsoft, better than the whole home installer industry, etc. etc.... Well, here's something you don't seem to know: you don't!


First if you have a subwoofer and bass mangement, there is no need to use the LFE...Blah blah blah...You just mix all the bass(even deep bass) blah blah blah... into the mains, and allow the crossover in the bass management circuits to send that deep bass to the subwoofer...Blah blah blah... The only reason to use the LFE channel is when you have high level deep bass that will overload the system electronically....Blah blah blah...The LFE is strictly for movies, not music....Blah blah blah...

Spare us the lecture on LFE, we know how it works, we don't need to get another drawn-out paragraph about how much you want everybody to believe that you know something, anything, really - stop it. And for anyone who doesn't know about LFE, there are plenty of more pleasant threads on this forum that they can get the info from, without being insulted. And regarding your ignorant comment about "LFE being strictly for movies, you must have forgotten about concert DVDs, right?


Aside from the piano, there are no acoustical instrument with bass below 40hz. The double bass lowest note is 42hz. As you can see, even though a piano can play as low as 27.5hz, it cannot do so at very high levels. This link supports my knowledge and my years of experience, it however kills your point about the need for a LFE in music. Once again, conclusions without information. Aside from pedal notes on a organ(which are recorded in the far field and are not at 105-115db loud) there is no acoustical recording with any bass below 40hz, the chart supports that.

That is more FUD. I have several recordings that will easily go down below that. And yes, I happen to like organ music, which I'm sure is not common, but that still negates another one of your silly absolutist statements that "there is no acoustical recording with any bass below 40Hz." As a matter of fact I also have modern classical pieces that don't use organ, but that also go down very deep. You're just spreading more FUD - you relish in it.


If you agree its not the norm, and only a few people would do it, then why advance it as an issue. Anyone stupid enough to buy a surround sound system with no sub, is not serious about surround. What you say is conceiverable is not really at all.

Again, because the Sub is the most expensive speaker, this is not at all inconceivable. More FUD.


SACD does not have bass issues, nightflier system does. You memory is meaningless to me, I want you to show links that support the notion that DVD-A has more bass than SACD. How do you make that comparison when there are so few common titles released to both formats? Comparing titles of different music is not comparison at all.

If the SACD sounds less bass-y, in a direct comparison of the same recording, then I'm pretty sure that is significant. I had read this several times back when the SACD/DVD-A format war was alive and well. I don't give a crap whether that's significant to you. It's significant to me. Anyhow, my point about that was that this may have had something to do with reducing SACD sales. Now, before you again make this into something that it isn't, I said, just as I've said before, "it may have had something to do with it.


The word "audiophile" is meaningless in this day in time. It is an eletist term that carries no weight since they have no greater hearing capabilities than a none audiophile. This has been proven in DBT after DBT.

And your point is? I never said they had better hearing. I do believe however, that an audiophile, as a specialist, just like a musician, has trained his or her ears to listen for details that others may just ignore. This, by the way has also been proven in DBT after DBT. Again, you're trying to create more FUD.


Secondly the PS3 does what every other SACD player does, except better and with more precision. The folks that developed the PS3 processing were the same folks that created the DSD/SACD format. The PS3 decimates the DSD stream at such a level(176.4khz sample rate) that it is transparent to the stream. The SACD/DSD engineers have confirmed this. No other DVD/SACD player solution decimates at this high of a sample rate, or with this kind of precision. The PS3 allows the digital signal to remain digital all the way to the receivers D/A conversion, just like any component that utilizes an HDMI connection.

Nonetheless, this is additional processing. You're proving nothing. It would be better to have no processing at all, just like you said, right? Anyhow, I have yet to see the PS3 listed in Stereophile's ratings as a viable SACD player. You say it does it "better" I'm going to guess that's hogwash.


The only way your signal path would work, is if the end user has all of his speakers equidistant from the listening position, all full range, and all at identical levels without level adjustments. This is impossible. You have to set individual levels for you speakers, the level controls are digital. If you speakers are not equidistant, the delay is digital.

Impossible? Well didn't you just describe just how to do it? That seems hardly impossible. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what the SACD spec recommended. It is what it was recorded for, no?


And if you have to use mini-monitors, then bass management is essential and that is digitally done.

Except for the thousands of people who have purchased and are enjoying their ICBMs.


You profess yourself that you need the LFE Channel or you cannot hear deep bass. You say you have a hard time hearing bass in your system, that is because you have chosen not to use bass management tools in your reciever, and you speakers have very limited deep bass capabilities. This is no solution because you have traded a supposed signal purity for accurate reproduction. You claim to have the ICBM, so what is the problem? You should hear all the bass you need from any recording.

Yes, I have the ICBM and it's working, but for all those who don't, there's a real problem. Besides, the ICBM is no longer available and they are selling on the used market for quite a bit more than the new models did. That tells you there's a real need for this device, unfortunately not enough to drive the continued manufacturing of it. For SACD, I had planned to set up a surround sound music-only system as close to the SACD spec as possible, but that was becoming rather expensive and so I'm postponing that. If one day I can afford to do this, I will. Now, if there is the potential for a new Hi Res audio format, either based on BR/HDDVD or some other new format, then I want to wait and see what that will be.

And so, after 15 pages of fighting off Lil'T's insults....

That was really my main reason for starting this thread: to see what the audio/music future of the new Hi Res formats was going to be. And your contention that I was trying to further the debate over BR & HDDVD is just nonsense. You're the one who turned this thread into what the last one fizzled out to, with your insults and childish behavior. I certainly didn't expect you to come trolling on this thread - but you did and now I doubt anyone is still reading it. Was it your intent to drive everyone away here too? Frankly, if your stupid comments are the price of admission for your input, then stay the hell away from my threads. And I'm pretty sure others will want you to stay away from their posts too if all you're going to do is denigrate everything they say. You're a stalking troll and a particularly nasty one at that.


Lastly, one check on Highfedility review shows that there are not many universal players under a $1,000. None of those players outputs DVD-A or SACD at any higher than 24/96khz, which is far lower a sample rate than the PS3's 176.4khz.

Lastly? Yeah I doubt that. Again, more FUD. There are plenty of universal players out there under $1K. Just look at Marantz, Pioneer, Yamaha, and several others. Now they're not exactly what I'm in the market for, but for most needs, there's plenty to be had. Oh and yes, some of them can do better that 24/96KHz. and have 5.1 analog outputs. I'm sorry if that one site didn't have any of those - maybe it's your tunnel vision again only wanting to point out what suits your own argument.


At least I am not professing to be a mind reader.

Really? I mean do you listen to yourself? Didn't you say that you spoke for the whole movie industry when you said that they all disagree with Bill Gates? Maybe you can read his mind too? Get off your high horse already, it doesn't suit a little fairy-footed green imp like yourself. Maybe you should look for a pony instead, although I doubt you'd be able to get on that without a step ladder too.


As far as the amount of HDMI conncection, that can be overcome with a HDMI switcher, of which one can be purchased through monoprice for less than $110 bucks for 4 HDMI in to 1 out.

But isn't that adding more complexity to the mix? Didn't you say that all this extra stuff was bad for the signal? Certainly this isn't how people who want the best sound from their players are going to hook things up.


You stated that you were not interested in purchasing a BR player that could end up a brick. Since HD DVD has more chance than BR of that happening, I would think you would not even bother with it. So by the process of elemination, you apparently are not interested in any HD player.

Your "process of elimination" is pretty elementary. You don't know what I have in my home, you don't know why I started this thread, and you certainly don't know what I may or may not buy. Or are you now saying that you can read my mind too?


you all of a sudden became the foremost expert on audio, disc storage, various outrageous predictions, unlikely scenarios and the beat goes on.

Check yourself, Lil'T. I never said I was an expert in audio. No; you're the only dimwit that's come out and claimed anything of the sort and we all now know how false that claim was. Again, you're claiming things you think you know about me or saying that I said something I didn't. They are all lies, untruths and FUD.


My attitude is no worse than yours. I am amazed that people here have not found out that you are not as knowledgeable as you pose yourself to be.

Nice choice of words, Kettle. Your attitude is a whole lot worse than mine. If anyone has any doubt about this, they should scroll back a few posts and see who started with the insults first in both this thread and the last one you trolled all over. And as far as being knowledgeable, I never claimed to be an expert in audio or the movie industry, so it's OK for me not to be. You, on the other hand, think that you're the pinnacle of knowledge here. Well, if your grammar, typos, doublespeak and false assumptions are any indication, we can all rest assured that that's not the case.


I do not care what you plans are. As far as I am concerned, you can shove whatever you choose up your....not going there.

You've gone there and then some. Don't try and come off all modest now. And apparently you do care what my plans are. You're pretty darned focussed on pointing out what I might be thinking, what my supposed intent was on this thread, what I may or may not know, and what I may or may not purchase. No, I'd say, you are pretty friggin' damned focussed on everything about me - what's your obsession, you stalker? Are you going to send me strange packages in the mail? Funny thing is, I couldn't care less about you or your input - you're a mild irritation, to be sure, but your input is completely without merit. I think this thread would be 100% better if you weren't in it. You're that nerdy kid that no one wants at the party, but they feel too sorry to tell you to leave. Well I don't feel sorry. Leave already. You're not wanted here. Go! Git! Basta! And don't let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out!


I believe this is between you and I, not everyone around me.

No it's not about you and I, you self-centered little spec. This is pretty sad, really, Lil'T. Are you so desperate for friends that you would try to find some common cause with me? How pathetic.


...yes I will be there to counter it. Just get ready for it.... If you think I am a jackass now...

No Lil'T I don't think you're a jack*ss anymore. I just think you are sad, pathetic, small, and weak. That's why you are Lil'T, so puny you can't even hold up all the letters in "Little." You know what, I'll help you out, I won't even capitalize your name anymore, from now on, you'll be "lil't" and nothing more. Does that help?


Nightflier, you must be gay. What does anyones weenie have to do with this. Why would you be interested in any males weenie size or even mention it?

Hey you're the one with the (former) "Sir Terrence the Terrible" moniker. "Terrible?" In your own little mind, maybe. How is that not an inferiority complex? I'm just guessing you have a tiny weenie, and given the high horses, holier-than-us arrogant attitude, and the incessant defensive posture, I'm probably not too far off the mark. Right, lil't? C'mon, you know you want to say something... Sorry, I couldn't hear you, there must be a mosquito in the room - careful, you might knocked over!

And as far as being gay, hey, you're the one with the puffy green feather, the weenie complex, and apparently an obsession with Lesbians. Go figure....


I must have really lit your panties and bra on fire

Dear lil't, there you go again with the sexual imagery. Either you really are gay, or you haven't reached puberty yet. In any case, you are pathetic, weak, and a sorry excuse for knowledge on this board. No, I don't care much about you, but I do feel kind of sorry. Now go home, something stinks around here so you probably need a diaper change.

[PeruvianSkies]

Nightflier....what are you trying to say...you don't agree with Sir T? lol.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Lots of fluff, but I don't use bass management in the receiver at all. So stop boring everyone with obvious details that you want people to think makes you sound smart. I told you already I don't use bass-management. When I'm listening to SACD, the only bass management happens in the ICBM.

You do use delay and level matching right? If you do not, then you are not going to get very good sound through your thoroughly pristine setup. How you happen to miss this is anyones guess. :rolleyes5:


So it's not enough to insult me, now my system is not up to snuff either? Since when was there a minimum system standard to post in this forum? Is that a new requirement on AR I didn't know about? I mean really, how arrogant can you be?

You set yourself up dude. "oh I don't use bass management in my system, I use the ICBM". Is not the bass management system in your receiver up to snuff? Jeeze do you have to be so whiney?


It's basic economics, Lil'T. If there's a limit and one company reaches it first, the other companies can learn from how that company deals with it. There's no need to go into technical details and bore everyone here with useless factoids of information that you want to throw out to make yourself sound smart again. It's quite simple, really. But then again, making things simple to understand isn't your strong suit, is it?

Actually there is a need for some technical detail, and the reason why you won't bore anyone with it, is because you do not know anything about it. You can only hide for so long before people recognize that you do not know as much as you try and present. Toshiba aligned itself much too close to the DVD format, and that is why it could not present a technically proficent product for the future. Of course you would not know this because there is not much you know or understand about the format.


My bad, I meant 480i. So I mistype one letter and that makes me ignorant? Again, no need for a long tirade littered with more insults. You have far more typos in your posts, so let's not split hairs about this one.

You have "mistyped" this two other times not counting this post. So when does mistype finally recognize ignorance?


No, it was three DVD sets sold separately for a total of 12 DVDs. The movie alone (without the extras) is 2 DVDs from each set = 6 DVDs. Maybe your math is that bad, I don't know -or maybe you don't know how to read: LOTR = The Lord of The Rings, i.e. the whole series.

Would it be so difficult to say the whole series rather than just leave that for someone to figure out. You are becoming too good at diffusive and vague statements that sometimes what you say is difficult to decipher. So you are saying that the entire LOTR series can be put on a single HD30 HD DVD disc? Maybe it could if it were compressed to the point that it is unwatchable. Still a bad example, and another example of your lack of knowledge.


We both know I didn't mean that the film would be compressed on the fly. It would be stored on the distribution server already compressed. You know very well that's what I meant when I said that "it only needs to be compressed during the download," ie. it would be available in a compressed format. Don't be a jack*ss again and try to turn this into an error on my part. I'm certain everyone else understood what I meant. Only an anal little imp like you would split hairs over this point and then start backfilling the hole with more jargon to aggrandize yourself. Get on with it already.

You did say this right?

Hey, Einstein, downloads only need to be compressed during the download.[/quote]

During the download is the key phrase. The would mean to anyone that speaks english that it is compressed DURING the download, not before it is downloaded. This was an error on your part, you are just to immature to admit it. Be careful when you backpeddle that you do not fall and hurt the ground with your head.




I'm pretty sure I said from the beginning that this wasn't ready for prime time yet. But it will be coming. I've read several promising white papers on new technologies related to this very problem. Stop wasting everyone's time with your hair splitting, these are non issues.

If this is a non issue, then why did you bring it up? If it is not ready for prime time, then why did you bring it up? Still trying to muddy the water so you ignorance cannot be seen?


So you're admitting that technologically, it's feasible?So much for all the talk about the technical hurdles. It's interesting that you spend so much time talking about the technical issues, when you just finished saying the technology is already here. Is it, or not? Well which is it, Lil'T? Again, more useless fluff. The fact is you can't know any better than I what will be available in the future. But to categorically reject its application altogether, is just shortsighted. But apparently everything has to be black and white. Well, if you want it that way, tell us: is the technology here or not?

Well, if it was feasible wouldn't it have been done already. Financially it is not feasible whether it is technologically or not. So it is a non issue in the context of this discussion. Since you cannot compress on the fly and decompress at a time when video compression is used so extensively, you have no point. You continue to extol flights of fancy while ignoring reality. Compression/decompression has already been tried at the audio level. It failed. Since nothing like it has been introduced to consumers, its vaporware. Your point is woefully weak when you base it on vaporware.


Hobbyists are not your average user. The average user does not need 1080i/p, especially if it will take longer to download or cost more.

Which is why downloading is not ready for primetime. If it cannot mimick the disc experience that so many are used to, then it cannot compete against it. Once again you are deciding what everyone needs. You do not need it, you let everyone else decide if they need it or not.


My guess is that they would opt for the 720p/DD version.

Your guess does not even amount to a pile of cow plop. Where are the facts that support your guess? I have been asking this for four pages.


And I was talking about people who would be downloading the content, not the people who have already made the jump to BR or HDDVD. After all, since those people only make up 5%, they are not the market these new technologies are after - no, they are looking to the people who haven't bought in yet. Let's stay on topic, Lil'T, and don't start again with the diversions and FUD.

People who download content are looking for convience over quality. That is not the same consumer that has adopted HD DVD or bluray. Broadband would have to be cheaper than it is, allow people to own it, get rid of the DRM, timelimits, and give them the experience that equal what they can get on HD media on disc. If they cannot do this, there is not going to be any real competition against HD DVD or Bluray.



Regarding the TVs, I'm not talking about what's being sold, I'm talking about what's already in people's homes. See, this is more of your FUD. Either that or you are so focussed on your precious sales figures, that you can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Jeez, it's like I'm talking to an ADD kid looking at a kaleidoscope - can't you ever stay on topic? Of course, 1080i/p TVs are what people are buying now; nobody wants to own last year's model (more on that below).

So if 720p is last years technology, then so is your assertions on 720p being enough for everyone. Alot of folks that are buying 1080p panels now were former owners of 720p panels. If you would stop making unrealistic things up, maybe we can get somewhere here. You have so personalized this whole conversation how in the hell can you ask anyone to stay on topic. You have wander all over the globe with your unproven, and unsupported assertions. Maybe you should look in the mirrior and ask your self "can I stay on topic and not focus on the person I am debating" a thousand times. Perhaps it will stick at that point.


I don't know what they were "at one time." Let's stay on point: they are at 5% of the market, so with a 2-1 lead, that makes BR just 3% of the market. I know it sounds like a whole lot more when you continually emphasize the 2 million players that are out there, but it's still just 3%. And let's not forget that this includes PS3s which are not all used for BR watching all the time. So let's get this out there so everyone knows what you are flag-waiving about:

You are so full of it nightflier you are going to bust and paint the globe brown. The point is that technology starts somewhere and ends up somewhere at any given time. My point is that it started at 1%, and now is 5% all in 18 months. VOD has never been all that big, and now it is stagnant.




[B] BR represents just 3% of the market!

You continually focus on just one segment of HD on disc. BR is just one side, there is the HD DVD side and that adds another 2%. DVD has been around for ten years, HD on disc less than two. Logic would dictate that they will not have the equal market share(or anything close) with a 8 year difference in introduction period. Only an igorance fool would attempt to make this kind of comparison.


More FUD. Let's clear this up once and for all:
VOD Sales have stagnated
Again, with your sales figures - as if that was all there was to this. As usual, with your tunnel vision, Lil'T, you are not able to see the bigger picture. Sales figures say nothing about how much VOD has been downloaded. Free VOD (mostly TV shows) is just as popular, perhaps a lot more so and is therefore competing directly with Paid VOD and every other medium. We don't need exact numbers to define this, either, Lil'T, because we are just suggesting that this could be, just maybe, another reason Paid VOD has stagnated. Fact is, neither of us knows why paid VOD has stagnated. So don't come here and try to make this something it isn't.

BR and HD DVD do not cater to the folks that are looking at low quality downloaded television shows. You cannot compare two different market segments against each other. That is stupid.

FOD has not been measured (and it can) because there is nothing to compare it against except broadcast televsion. If it was a huge market segment, there would be all kinds of product to capture it other than cable. It is not a huge staple to cable because it does not bring in revenue. FOD still costs $300 per program in infrastructure cost, so until it becomes cheaper, it will not have much traction over time. Suggesting that something COULD be is meaningless. I am interested in what things are, and how those things do in the future. Anyone can suggest something that COULD be.
See, we do not need your supposes, coulds, or would be's. The cable industry has already recognized its issues. You need to read more.




Nonsense. Apple iMovie and xBox have enough to store enough content for most people - and they have small drives by computer standards. Plop in a couple of 750Gb drives or connect them to a firewire/USB port and you've got enough for weeks of watching your favorite shows.

Yes, but they cannot handle 1080p 24fps encoded movies with lossless soundtracks. And with DRM, and the ability of Apple and Microsoft to create code that corrupts the movie after a certain amount of time, it does not really matter if you can store it. How many joe6sixpacks are going to connect an external drive to their cable assigned DVR, and how many cable assigned DVR allow external storage devices? Is this more of that could be bull?


More of your narrow minded vision focussed on just sales. TV shows don't need to be "owned" and that's what people are watching from their hard drives. And just so there's no confusion, the reason I keep bringing this up, and consequently you keep downplaying it, is that it:

Sales drive the machine. No sales, no products. You cannot build a business on FOD's. Once you choose the high quality option on DVR, disc space disappears very rapidly.



Creates a culture of downloading

Which feeds a culture of piracy. That is the bane of the motion picture industry.


This is the monster in the closet for the BR & HDDVD format. Because if people are so used to getting their content that way, they'll be expecting it for HD content as well. This will drive the innovations and the economies of scale to make this possible for Joe Sixpack. Downplay it all you want, it's not going to make it go away.

Bull. Downloading 1080p 24fps encoded movies with lossless soundtracks and value extras is a long, long way off. So if anyone is expecting it, it is only you. The cost of broadband over a year is way more than either a HD DVD player or a Bluray player. I am currently paying $120 a month for broadband cable, which equals to $1440 a year. I could buy two PS3, and a HD DVD player for that amount of money. Or I could buy a one of either format, and have enough money to buy a ton of movies. .


Already explained. See above. So sales are not growing - that means very little in the bigger picture.

Now you want to create a bigger picture so you can do more muddling. Nope, there is one picture companies are interested in. That picture would be on the front of the almighty dollar. And right now that dollar is not getting into their hands as fast, or in the quantities they want.


Didn't say it was "dead." Only you want to believe that is what I'm saying. I said CD sales are stagnating because downloads are more popular. This could happen to movies as well (again, just so we're clear, I'm not saying it's already happened, so don't start on that again, Lil'T). I'm saying it's a very real possibility.

You did say this didn't you

As much as you and I personally may not like the trend, the disk is dead.

So, either you are a liar, or you just spew out things without thought. I go for the former since you have demonstrated that you are good at it time and time again.

Secondly, CD sales were suffering way before Itunes and any other downloading service was ever invented. Back in 2002 sales of the CD were slipping in favor of concert DVD's. Back in 2000 sales of CD were slipping because there was too much junk being recorded by the major labels who control the CD market. The biggest CURRENT factor is illegal downloads, not Itunes or any other music downloading site. Peer to peer is more a problem to the CD than legal downloads. According to NDP, music downloading exploded in 2006, but continued to trail CD sales in the same period.


How the heck would you know? I'd say the opposite is true. Everything from Napster to iTunes has helped bring CD sales to a virtual stand-still. Yes, they are still selling, but there's very little growth there anymore, especially with popular content.

Support this argument with verifiable facts, instead of what you say. The CD in spite of the fact that its not growing still out strips downloading in terms revenue. Survey after survery disagrees with you. The reason why CD sales are not growing is more complex than napster and Itunes. If you read the surveys(and obviously you do not) it is not those services, its P2P, and its the fact that nobody wants to pay $16 to listen to one song on a CD while the other are trash. Downloading benefits from this by giving the end user the ability to create their own playlist. Sound quality is a big issue as producers and engineers push the evelope towards clipping the audio. Only a person with 1 or 2 brain cells would believe that downloading was the ONLY reason CD sales are falling.


You don't know that. You're just guessing. I'm going to go with the idea that they are about the same now and that ripped MP3s will slowly disappear off the internet as the downloaded version become more prevalent. It's just too convenient to download.

CD's have been around since the eighties. The ability to rip CD's and create playlists on your computer has been around since the middle to late nineties. Legal downloading is only about 3-4 year old. Far more people have ripped CD's than have downloaded. CD sales are larger than downloading revenue. Hence, more people have ripped than have downloaded.




Only if you're looking at sales of VOD, not all VOD. Stop beating the dead horse. He's dead.

All VOD is driven by sales. FOD is not. FOD is not VOD. FOD is free, VOD is not.


Hey you're the one who ignored product placement completely. You said something to the effect that free content is insignificant because it's free. Well, with product placement it isn't "free." You're proving my point with your ignorant retorts. And as far as it not being all the rage, then why has revenue from product placement grown so fast? I'm pretty sure it is now the largest revenue source in freely available video content? Oh, I'm sorry is that a sales figure / stats you wanted us to ignore?

Revenue from product placement is a fraction of overall advertisment money. It was a 2 billion dollar business in 2005. But all of that did not come from FOD, it was from movies and television as well. FOD is free, it may cost the advertisers, but to the consumer it is free. Please, not all of us are as stupid as you are. Product placement has been apart of the movie landscape for as long as I have been mixing movie soundtracks. Its not new, its old, and just another revenue source for advertisers. You are blowing smoke up my ass here.


That all depends on the size and quality of the display. On a 32" screen, the differences are not going to be significant, on a computer screen even less so, and on a PDA, who really care? This is only significant for people with large, expensive TVs, not the general public. 720p is pretty much 720p on a standard 720p TV.

Your fanny is in a crack again. The ability to see the resolution of any pixel count is not price driven. It is viewing distance driven. If you sit too far from a large expensive 720p panel, you will not see 720p worth of information. Nobody is going to view HD movies on a PDA. Nobody is buying 32" televisions either. According to Microsoft themselves, very few folks watch movies on their computers unless they are travelling. Resolution is not an issue in this case. 720p highly compressed will look softer than a less compressed 720p if one sits close enough to get the full 720p information.




Anyhow, you're basically taking it down to one of the lowest lowest MPEG-2 formats and comparing it to the best - of course there will be differences, but not all content is going to be the lowest quality nor will it all be viewed on 60" 1080p TVs. Besides, how many people are going to put two TVs next to each other in their living rooms just to compare? They've got more important things to do like watch the darned show.

This is the real world, and you are going to have these kinds of differences. Not all HD video is treated equally. Cable compress the hell out of a 720p or 1080i image. HD over the air has significantly less compression, but is subject to motion artifacting if the wrong format is used. Most all downloading either uses VC-1 (Xbox live) or MPEG-2 from cable VOD at various bit rates. People are going to view HD video on everything from a 27" to 130". It does not take two television to recognized interlacing artifacts. It does not take two televisions to see pixelation or color banding. If you sit the proper distance to realize the full resolution from any video format, these artifacts are pretty easy to see. Now if you sit too far, then the resolution of the source makes no difference at all, and HD is a waste.




Again, beating a dead horse. What's selling is not what's in people's homes. Stop being so narrow minded, Lil'T. It's really childish and it makes you sound so much dumber than you could sound.

This is all you are countering with, name calling? And you say I am insulting you, with this kind of reply, you are insulting yourself.


Actually, broadcasters only show the programming once or twice (at least until the series is over and some other company buys the re-broadcasting rights). Between that time, the way most people watch these very same shows is from a recorded format (Tivo, computer HD, PVR, iMovie, cable box recorder, xBox, DVR, VCR, Podcast the list goes on). I would even go so far as saying that this is how the vast majority of people watch TV, now. And no, advertisers do not make any money on advertising - they pay for it . I mean, c'mon, are you that dim? You really must have flunked out of high school Econ, Lil'T.

Advertiser sell products that are advertised. If they did not, why advertise? Why spend the money? How large is the market for already viewed programming? I would say the quality of television now adays does not lend to more than one viewing. Very few television shows are viewed more than once, which is the reason why television on DVD is not selling all that well. DVR and PVR are the same thing (it would be too easy to call you an idiot, so I won't). VCR are all but dead and forgotten. Podcast still have not reached the masses, Imovie is not doing blockbuster business. But you did forget one thing, and I believe you did it on purpose. The DVD is still one of the most popular ways of watching movies, if not the most popular. Baked over programming is not so popular that it outstrips DVD viewership. Once again, you are overstating your point.




More FUD and nonsense. Well at least you are agreeing with me that Freed VOD is hurting Paid VOD, I guess when it suits you, you'll flip-flop as much as any politician.

I do not believe I ever disagreed with this, or mention this before my last post. You are a much better politician than I, you know how to pull crap out of thin air, with no support for what you say. Much like our President.


Now I never said that VOD would compete with HD on quality. I'm only saying that it's keeping people watching something other than HD and it's creating a culture/habit/expectation for how people will acquire content in the future.

How do you know what people expect in the future. Did you ask them? Or are you just reading their minds?. Disc based media is the bread and butter of the motion picture industry. They are not going to sacrifice that for stagnant revenue. If people were so sprung on VOD, then why is it not growing by leaps and bounds?


No matter how you want to spin it, buying expensive equipment, hooking it all up, changing disks for every movie, and risking it all to be bricked, is a whole lot less convenient that downloaded unlimited content at any time on existing equipment. Even if it is not 1080p/DTS-HD, it's still keeping people watching.

Well, it did not stop them from buying DVD's, and it certainly is not stopping them from buying HD media on disc. Didn't folks think that the DVD would not make it? They did, and it was shortsighted people just like you. Your kind was wrong then, and will be wrong again. There is no such thing as unlimited content unless you have every movie and television show at your fingertips. We are a long way from there, so once again you are overstating your point which you always do.



Now Lil T, how many times will I have to repeat this point. Are you just that dense or is your tunnel vision keeping you from seeing anything else?

You'll have to repeat it until you can support it with facts. You opinion and my butt. That is the value of your opinion.


I never said they were releasing an HDDVD player. Why are you stuck on this?

You said they were releasing a player in the context of a point on HD DVD. Were you being ambigous and diffusive on purpose just to give to give yourself wiggle room out of a lie?



Like I said, I don't remember exactly where I read it, but I certainly did. Before you start jumping up and down like a child claiming that you finally got one on me, let's see what I find.

Now you have memory issues. How convient. Find it, or lay it to rest and face the fact that you were busted in a lie.


But since I doubt that will satisfy you, I asked one of my friends to inquire what if anything they had in the works. He is a long time Classe fanatic, owns several components, and is also waiting to see if Classe will release something. Naturally, they didn't want to commit to anything, but they did say something interesting: that "A degree of uncertainty continues to cloud the future of the new blue laser disc formats and it remains unclear which, if any, of these formats will become the dominant technology." While this may not calm you down from chomping at the bit, it does call the future of both formats into question. And that is precisely what I've been trying to say: people should wait before investing a lot of money in either format. Now if Classe isn't willing to commit to one format (not even BR with its vaulted extra capacity), then wouldn't it be a safer policy for us to wait as well? At the very least, let's wait and see what shakes out of the tree this holiday season.

Give this crap a rest. Your friend is a classe finatic, not a classe investor, board member, CEO of CFO. What he says does not mean a damn thing. This crap is expoused by you, and you need to stop all of the lying and spreading FUD. This means less than gum on my shoe. Do you have anything more credible than this pile of dog poop?


I never said Bill Gates / Microsoft is or isn't interested in making downloads the digital distribution of the future (as you put it). As before, you are putting words into my mouth. You're either trying to make something out of nothing or lying again. Now, Lil'T, this is really childish. What I said was that Microsoft has a crap-load of resources to try and figure out what we common folks don't yet know about the future. If they say something will be, they certainly have the marketing resources to make that happen - and not even all the studios together can change that. Remember this is the company that has destroyed just about every competing product that was technologically better, just because it had an inferior product that was in competition against it. It may not scare you, but it should scare just about every other company that doesn't have the size to fight back.

You said that I made it up, that Bill Gates never said that the disc is a dead format. Now that I have shown the you the links from two high level Microsoft exec, you are changing your tune. Everything Microsoft thinks up is not sucessful. Microsoft is in the computer software business. That does not mean the will be sucessful in the movie business. So far, the only traction they have in that business is buying movies from studios, and selling them online. Even Apple can do that, as well as Amazon, and Walmart for that matter. Microsoft does not own content, they have to buy it. Microsoft does not make HD players, they have to pay for its manufacture. Microsoft is not even doing all that well in their core business. Can anyone say VISTA?


Hence the reason Studios lost so much on dwindling CD sales without seeing that one coming. Anyhow, just because the studios make money on HD disks, doesn't change anything about what Microsoft might do. If Microsoft is intent on pushing VOD or use HDDVD to kill off Sony & BR, you can bet on it, they will do it. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but seeing as it's stock price has risen exponentially for the last two decades, it's clear that there's a lot of share owners who don't seem to mind that so much either. If Microsoft cashes in, so do its stock holders - and that is real power in the marketplace. I don't see any major studios pushing BR listed in the Dow - do you?

Record companies sell CD's, Studios make movies. Studios are were music is recorded. Microsoft has to pay the movie studios for content. If the movie studios decided that HD on disc was the only way you are going to see HD, then the best Microsoft could do is absolutely nothing. Microsoft has been supporting HD DVD since it was released, their support is not helping HD DVD right now is it? Microsoft is a giant in the computer software business. They are an outsider in the movie business. There stock price is irrelevant to the movie studios, they are not in direct competition. I do not think that even Microsoft has the power to take on 170 companies that form the BDA. This is just more of your mindless musings.


Don't need to provide a example, you provided it yourself. Apparently Paramount was cowed enough to do as it was told.

Yes, and they are paying dearly for it. Transformers was proof of that.


Tsk, tsk, tsk, Lil'T, let's not start more FUD. Warner is in both camps. And let's also not forget that all that would be needed for BR to falter is for just one of their studios to do the same, that is, put a foot in both camps. And I know your industry insider sources have convinced you otherwise, but if it's going to make them more money, there's no reason Fox or Disney won't do so (as a matter of fact didn't you tell us that Fox said as much?). It's not at all unthinkable that the format war (just like the SACD/DVD-A format war) never resolves itself and that they all remain niche products long enough for VOD to get a real foot-hold.

Its funny, you keep mentioning BR as faltering, what about HD DVD? Warner is not going to be in both camps long. I attended the Bluray festival yesterday and the day before, and Warner was talking awful strong about exclusively support bluray.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=640

http://hdtv.engadget.com/2007/10/30/warner-home-video-to-support-blu-ray-exclusively/

So while you are so focused on BR, HD DVD may take a huge blow at the end of this year. Disney, Fox, and Sony are not going to support HD DVD. Disney and Fox asked Toshiba to include more protection, and region coding. Toshiba and the DVD forum said no, and that is why Disney and Fox will not support HD DVD. Sony won't for obvious reasons. Give it up man.


That's kind of like living down the street from them in Redmond and saying why fear them? Even Adobe fears them; everybody fears the 800 lb gorilla. Those who don't end up lodged in its butt-crack. I know it's a bit crude of an example, but for you Lil'T it's necessary to come up with colorful examples that even you can understand. As far as knowing what I'm talking about, I do know a thing or two about this industry so don't come in here and tell me how the world revolves around your ego. I know enough about Microsoft's corporate history to know not to say stupid stuff like what you're blurting out.

Adobe works in the same industry as microsoft, of course they are scared of them. And you are right, you just know a thing or two, minus two.


(I edited the pointless insults out, because it's really getting tiresome coming from someone who is so full of himself he can't even see that he's so wrong).
So here you go again talking about us Hoi polloi as if you are somehow better. That's really irritating too. But just to humor your pointless point, the buying public doesn't need to know anything about HDMI to know that they will always buy the latest version. As soon as HDMI 1.3 is readily available, that is going to be the new catch-phrase they will be looking for, whether they know what it supports or not. Nobody is going to buy last year's model - this is basic economics, Lil'T. Oh, that's right, you didn't pass that class....
And if they are confused, then they'll stay away. Whether you want to admit it or not, the confusion isn't helping sales at all. You know it, and I know it. So stop with the FUD and the fancy details about what each version of HDMI can do, and realize that you are not helping yourself with this argument. As a matter of fact you are adding to the confusion. Give it up already.

When I am wrong, I admit it. So far you haven't proved I am wrong. And if you are waiting for me to admit it just to please you, please hold your breath. If they were all that confused, HD DVD and Bluray would have already failed. Upconverting DVD players would not be so popular. HDMI 1.3 is readily available. You can find it in televisions, recievers, and in HD DVD and Bluray players. The only thing that I can take away from this comment is that you don't want to learn which HDMI version do, which is just what I suspected. The whole point of this 4 page long post, is to give you the oportunity to know HD players. You are a clear piece of glass. The war is not helping sales, I am not sure that HDMI issues are hurting sales. Niether are you.


Well, my 2-year old can certainly teach you a thing or two about being polite. And since we're comparing pets, why don't you bring your rascal of a mutt over and we'll see what Abe and Jake, my Dobermans will make of him - they've been with me since they were pups and they tend to be pretty protective of my family. But enough baby talk (it's tiring to have to bend down to your level); the fact is that if you think you can go to our homes and can school anyone here on how bad their systems are, they will kick your a** out on that curb faster than you can finish that sentence. Your arrogance about how much better your are than everyone else here is astounding. I certainly hope you are stupid enough to pull that attitude at someone's house, just for the amusement of reading about it here the next day.

This has nothing to do with audio. This is more of " I don't know a damn thing so I am just going to focus on unreleated topic to hide that fact". I am bored with this.


Well if that's not arrogant and bloated, then I don't know what is. You know nothing of what I have and how it's been configured. If you'd read any of my other posts, you'd know that I have both a 2-channel system and a surround sound system in the same room. No, it's not ideal, but the two systems are completely separate. The Behringer is on the 2-channel system, you ignorant oaf. The bass traps and panels were installed and calibrated by someone who is a reseller of these systems and certainly knows enough about them to do it right - as a matter of fact he was over not too long ago when I moved everything into a single room. So before you start spouting off what you guess you might know about my system, why don't you start by avoiding the pointless insults? You are so full of yourself, you don't even realize how insulting you are coming off. How many people here have to tell you that before you get it?

Blah blah blah. Once again, why use a ICBM? Is the internal bass management of your little Outlaw not good enough? I do not give a flying ....... about you or your system. So you could have saved all of these words



Blah blah blah. More diversions, FUD and seeming technically-related stuff that completely misses the point. Let me refresh your memory: you were going on and on about how 5.1 systems were all that was necessary and that they were prevalent out there. Then I told you that I read that 7.1 systems were outselling the 5.1 systems by a significant amount. So now that you can't dispute that, you continue with your boring drivel about how 5.1 may be more than enough. It doesn't change the fact that home installers are configuring systems for 7.1. That's not to say they are the majority out there now, but it's still pretty clear that they ultimately will be. And then you dismiss all home installers as not knowing how to set these up. I'll tell you, I know a few that do know quite a bit, probably more than you. I mean really, Lil'T, how arrogant do you have to be to dismiss a whole industry as less knowledgeable than you? Read what people are saying about you - it's not pretty.

How do you configure for a standard that has not been established? Unless the receiver has 7 completely discrete channels, then it is not a 7.1 system. Most reciever do not have 7 completely discrete channels. The center rear channels are mono, and split into stereo using DSP's (THX). There are no 7.1 mixes. And 7.1 systems are not the majority. So you continue to major in minors. You have a problem with choosing the weakest most insignificant things to base an opinion on. Blah!

[

Funny you should mention that. I just happen to have just that SACD and yes, it does use real cannons. Heck, I can probably also dig up my For Those About to Rock CD somewhere that also uses real cannon. Now granted, this isn't everyday fare, but it exists.

Majoring in minors. One CD, and that is justification for an LFE channel on all SACD. That makes alot of sense, or not.


Yeah, yeah, we heard you the first time, you know everything better than me, better than everyone else here, better than Bill Gates, better than everyone at Microsoft, better than the whole home installer industry, etc. etc.... Well, here's something you don't seem to know: you don't!

Certainly you, Bill Gates in no genius in audio, I am an installer, and have been one since college. So far I have proven that I know more than you, so in the context of posting on AR, thats enough for now.


Spare us the lecture on LFE, we know how it works, we don't need to get another drawn-out paragraph about how much you want everybody to believe that you know something, anything, really - stop it. And for anyone who doesn't know about LFE, there are plenty of more pleasant threads on this forum that they can get the info from, without being insulted. And regarding your ignorant comment about "LFE being strictly for movies, you must have forgotten about concert DVDs, right?

You obviously did not know that much, or you would not expouse its use for music. Not all concert DVD's use LFE either. More majoring in minors?


That is more FUD. I have several recordings that will easily go down below that. And yes, I happen to like organ music, which I'm sure is not common, but that still negates another one of your silly absolutist statements that "there is no acoustical recording with any bass below 40Hz." As a matter of fact I also have modern classical pieces that don't use organ, but that also go down very deep. You're just spreading more FUD - you relish in it.

What is go down deep? Did you not read the link. It stated all of the frequency ranges for acoustical instruments. Only two go down below 40hz, the organ and the piano. Go down deep is ambigous, what is going down deep?. Buy a RTA and give me precise figures, or blow this out of your bum. PROVE YOUR POINT FOO, do not just state something and think that I am going to accept it at face value. I have recorded enough large scale classical music to know better.


Again, because the Sub is the most expensive speaker, this is not at all inconceivable. More FUD.

You said yourself its not the norm. So why do you continue to advance this point. Majoring in minors


If the SACD sounds less bass-y, in a direct comparison of the same recording, then I'm pretty sure that is significant. I had read this several times back when the SACD/DVD-A format war was alive and well. I don't give a crap whether that's significant to you. It's significant to me. Anyhow, my point about that was that this may have had something to do with reducing SACD sales. Now, before you again make this into something that it isn't, I said, just as I've said before, "it may have had something to do with it.

Where is this direct comparison then?? I do not care what you read, that has already proven unreliable. I do not care what is significant to you either. You think cows pissing on a flat rock is significant. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?? Where is your proof that SACD has less bass than DVD-A, and that what you think killed it. Do you realize how absolutely stupid that sounds???


And your point is? I never said they had better hearing. I do believe however, that an audiophile, as a specialist, just like a musician, has trained his or her ears to listen for details that others may just ignore. This, by the way has also been proven in DBT after DBT. Again, you're trying to create more FUD.

Bull. If audiophiles had better hearing than the average joe, this would turn out in DBT after DBT. AES has done DBT after DBT on this issue, and there is no proof that a person that calls himself an audiophile hears anything more than me or you. I have perfect pitch, not all musicians have this gift. An audiophile is nothing more than an elitist self given title that one bestows on themselves. Nothing more. If this has been proven otherwise then WHERE IS THE PROOF!! Post it right here. Otherwise there is no merit to what you say.


Nonetheless, this is additional processing. You're proving nothing. It would be better to have no processing at all, just like you said, right? Anyhow, I have yet to see the PS3 listed in Stereophile's ratings as a viable SACD player. You say it does it "better" I'm going to guess that's hogwash.

This is not ADDITIONAL processing. This is processing that has to be done by ALL SACD players. All current SACD players decimate at 24/96khz, the PS3 does 24/176.4khz. All current SACD players have to turn the DSD stream to PCM to pass through its DAC's. That includes yours as well. Stereophile is not going to list the PS3 as anything. Its not expensive enough. And just because it does not, it does not take anything away from the PS3 capabilities. The guys who created DSD/SACD did the programming on the PS3. Who knows how to do this better than the creator?


Impossible? Well didn't you just describe just how to do it? That seems hardly impossible. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what the SACD spec recommended. It is what it was recorded for, no?

No speaker in a 5.1 has identical volume straight out of the carton. It has to be calibrated, which means a trip through the A/D conversion and back. I do not use bass management, and my speakers are all equidistant from my listening position. But I still have to balance my speakers just like everyone else. So it is impossible. What the spec mentions, and what can be practically done in ones home is usually miles apart.


Except for the thousands of people who have purchased and are enjoying their ICBMs.

Well thousand of people have purchased MP3 music, that does not make it good.


Yes, I have the ICBM and it's working, but for all those who don't, there's a real problem. Besides, the ICBM is no longer available and they are selling on the used market for quite a bit more than the new models did. That tells you there's a real need for this device, unfortunately not enough to drive the continued manufacturing of it. For SACD, I had planned to set up a surround sound music-only system as close to the SACD spec as possible, but that was becoming rather expensive and so I'm postponing that. If one day I can afford to do this, I will. Now, if there is the potential for a new Hi Res audio format, either based on BR/HDDVD or some other new format, then I want to wait and see what that will be.

If there was a real need for the device, it would not have been discontinued. It was developed because bass management coming through the reciever analog inputs did not work. It was developed because bass management in SACD and DVD-A players was inadequate. Now there is no use for it because they are both essentially gone. The are selling on the used market because there is no purpose for them now. You also mentioned before that there were alot of BR players on the used market. Does that make them important as well, or is your argument one sided?



Lastly? Yeah I doubt that. Again, more FUD. There are plenty of universal players out there under $1K. Just look at Marantz, Pioneer, Yamaha, and several others. Now they're not exactly what I'm in the market for, but for most needs, there's plenty to be had. Oh and yes, some of them can do better that 24/96KHz. and have 5.1 analog outputs. I'm sorry if that one site didn't have any of those - maybe it's your tunnel vision again only wanting to point out what suits your own argument.

Sorry buddy, you are wrong again. According to highfedilitydigest, all universal players turn SACD into PCM signals at 24/96khz because that is all that processing power can support. They tested all players released in the last 5 years. So if there is one that decimates higher, the proof is on you bud.


Really? I mean do you listen to yourself? Didn't you say that you spoke for the whole movie industry when you said that they all disagree with Bill Gates?

They spoke it themselves. I did not need to. You need to read more man, you do not seem to know anything.


Maybe you can read his mind too? Get off your high horse already, it doesn't suit a little fairy-footed green imp like yourself. Maybe you should look for a pony instead, although I doubt you'd be able to get on that without a step ladder too.

More name calling to deflect the lack of knowledge. You should just call me every name in the book so everyone can plainly see you know absolutely nothing. That way you can get all of the bull out of the way.


But isn't that adding more complexity to the mix? Didn't you say that all this extra stuff was bad for the signal? Certainly this isn't how people who want the best sound from their players are going to hook things up.

You are not processing the signal, you are passing it transparently. AVS has already done quite of bit of testing on HDMI switching devices, and they have already shown the signals are routed, not processed. As long as it can pass 1080p without artifacts, it is perfectly acceptable. Remember, you sing the praises of the ICBM, isn't that an extra step of processing and not just routing?


Your "process of elimination" is pretty elementary. You don't know what I have in my home, you don't know why I started this thread, and you certainly don't know what I may or may not buy. Or are you now saying that you can read my mind too?

If I could, the process would last about a millisecond!


Check yourself, Lil'T. I never said I was an expert in audio. No; you're the only dimwit that's come out and claimed anything of the sort and we all now know how false that claim was. Again, you're claiming things you think you know about me or saying that I said something I didn't. They are all lies, untruths and FUD.

Did I say I was an expert, or did I just turn your arguements into a lawn sprinkler? I never made any such claim, and we know you are not an expert. I never said I knew anything about you. What I did say was I wasn't interested in knowing anything about you. As far as I am concerned, you are nothing more than a pimple on my dog butt.




[

Hey you're the one with the (former) "Sir Terrence the Terrible" moniker. "Terrible?" In your own little mind, maybe. How is that not an inferiority complex? I'm just guessing you have a tiny weenie, and given the high horses, holier-than-us arrogant attitude, and the incessant defensive posture, I'm probably not too far off the mark. Right, lil't? C'mon, you know you want to say something... Sorry, I couldn't hear you, there must be a mosquito in the room - careful, you might knocked over!
And as far as being gay, hey, you're the one with the puffy green feather, the weenie complex, and apparently an obsession with Lesbians. Go figure...

Umm, when are you going to talk about audio? This is audioreview no?

I see deflection, much deflection in the force.

This rest of your comments are not worth responding to. Its nothing but personal attacks and insults. This is audioreview, a website for audio not personalities. In the future, trying throwing more fact and supportive evidence and less sand and mud.

[GMichael]

I'm not reading ALL of that. And nobody here can make me!:incazzato:

[Groundbeef]

BR and HD DVD do not cater to the folks that are looking at low quality downloaded television shows. You cannot compare two different market segments against each other. That is stupid.


I think that your definition of 'low quality' and the majority of the public are quite different. You have some high quality gear, great audio equipment, and are only satisfied with full qulity/lossless sound. This does NOT bear out for the rest of the marketplace. Just because YOU don't enjoy it, doesn't mean it won't succeed, or even supplant HD/BR. Look at YouTube. You might think its low quality crap (and most of it is), but its booming.

On the flip side, w/ITunes, and XBOX Live, you can get DVD quality TV programs for cheap (around $1-2 per episode). With Live, there is no limits on viewing, or time periods. TV shows "bought" are yours. The only differnce is that w/360 the HD cannont be attached or accessed by a computer. So its actually pretty safe from Piracy. The PS3 is a different animal because it uses a standard HardDrive, that can be removed and accessed by a computer. Perhaps thats why industry is slow to embrace the PS3 as a D/L solution for media?

But more to the point D/L content is absolutely a threat, and can be compared with each other. The markets are merging.



Yes, but they cannot handle 1080p 24fps encoded movies with lossless soundtracks. And with DRM, and the ability of Apple and Microsoft to create code that corrupts the movie after a certain amount of time, it does not really matter if you can store it. How many joe6sixpacks are going to connect an external drive to their cable assigned DVR, and how many cable assigned DVR allow external storage devices? Is this more of that could be bull? .

Technical point here. The DRM doesn't "corrupt" the movie. It simply doesn't allow playback without a current "Key". If you don't have your XBOX on a constant connection, after the 24 hour "window" it will prompt you to re-connect to see if a new key has been issued. If not, you can't play it past the 24hr window.




Which feeds a culture of piracy. That is the bane of the motion picture industry. .

Only for the dishonest ones. I don't steal movies OR music, but I DO pay for my d/l content. Please don't lump everyone into the same basket.




Bull. Downloading 1080p 24fps encoded movies with lossless soundtracks and value extras is a long, long way off. So if anyone is expecting it, it is only you. The cost of broadband over a year is way more than either a HD DVD player or a Bluray player. I am currently paying $120 a month for broadband cable, which equals to $1440 a year. I could buy two PS3, and a HD DVD player for that amount of money. Or I could buy a one of either format, and have enough money to buy a ton of movies. .

Is that $120 just for internet? That seems really high! And again with the 1080p/Lossless. That may be what it's gonna take for YOU, but not for a majority of the US customer base. Live certainly doesn't offer that level of HD, but for its offerings, its blowing the doors off expectations. Disney has signed on, Lionsgate is releasing more and more, and more studios are taking note. Not everyone owns a BMW A/V setup.
.



Advertiser sell products that are advertised. If they did not, why advertise? Why spend the money? How large is the market for already viewed programming? I would say the quality of television now adays does not lend to more than one viewing. Very few television shows are viewed more than once, which is the reason why television on DVD is not selling all that well. DVR and PVR are the same thing (it would be too easy to call you an idiot, so I won't).
.

A small distinction here. Advertisers promote products that they HOPE to induce consumers to "Try" or "Buy". But there are no direct correlations between amount of $$ spent on advertising to actual products bought. I am not suggesting that advertising doesn't increase awareness of a product, highlight its features, and promote the brand. But to suggest that there is a $ to $ translation between ads and purchase is not right.

And DVR, and PVR are causing a huge shift in the way that advertisers are marketing to consumers. Many ads have gone from quick cuts, and fast action, to those of slow action, and long still shots of either the product or the name. Why? So when consumers zip over them, they are still "exposed" to the ad. Also, Nielson has begun tracking DVR use, especially with TiVO. Some TiVO users through a process of election, and "opting-in" have allowed Nielson access to their viewing habits via electronic tracking. Not of specific housholds, but how often shows are "time delayed", "commercials ff", "# of times watched", and other aspects.




IIts funny, you keep mentioning BR as faltering, what about HD DVD? Warner is not going to be in both camps long. I attended the Bluray festival yesterday and the day before, and Warner was talking awful strong about exclusively support bluray.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=640

http://hdtv.engadget.com/2007/10/30/warner-home-video-to-support-blu-ray-exclusively/

So while you are so focused on BR, HD DVD may take a huge blow at the end of this year. Disney, Fox, and Sony are not going to support HD DVD. Disney and Fox asked Toshiba to include more protection, and region coding. Toshiba and the DVD forum said no, and that is why Disney and Fox will not support HD DVD. Sony won't for obvious reasons. Give it up man.


And its funny you keep bringing up the show you were at. How come you haven't addressed why BR hasn't been re-signed with Warner. Contract obligations lapsed 10/31/07. If BR and Warner are so much in "Love" why hasn't Warner re-signed with BR? At this point they are operating under the terms of the old agreement, but Warner could walk away, and there is NO penalty for them to do so.

I'm not suggesting that Warner is going to leave BR, and go HD-DVD exclusive, but it does seem a bit funny that they havn't re-signed w/ BR.

Everything may be peaches and cream at the trade show, but in business, it doesn't appear to be the love fest your talking about.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think that your definition of 'low quality' and the majority of the public are quite different. You have some high quality gear, great audio equipment, and are only satisfied with full qulity/lossless sound. This does NOT bear out for the rest of the marketplace. Just because YOU don't enjoy it, doesn't mean it won't succeed, or even supplant HD/BR. Look at YouTube. You might think its low quality crap (and most of it is), but its booming.

People who are looking at youtube are not looking for Spiderman, or 2001 in HD. They are looking at video clips. These are too different segments of a market, and are not comparable. I look at youtube, and have found some very rare clips of my favorite Gospel group. However, I do not go there to find my favorite movies in high def, and neither would anyone else or they will be very disappointed. You are attempting to fuse together unrelated things.


On the flip side, w/ITunes, and XBOX Live, you can get DVD quality TV programs for cheap (around $1-2 per episode). With Live, there is no limits on viewing, or time periods. TV shows "bought" are yours. The only differnce is that w/360 the HD cannont be attached or accessed by a computer. So its actually pretty safe from Piracy. The PS3 is a different animal because it uses a standard HardDrive, that can be removed and accessed by a computer. Perhaps thats why industry is slow to embrace the PS3 as a D/L solution for media?

TV programs and HD movies are not the same thing. The PS3 hard drive cannot just be accessed by a computer. The computer has to be connected via a copy protected HDCP protocol just like any other HD media device. So the xbox is no more protected than the PS3. What about reports that there is a huge piracy issue regarding the xbox in china?

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10232

Or about cheating on xbox live?

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16063

Or what about modded boxes that allow pirated games to work on the xbox?

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6042

http://www.geek.com/three-people-facing-charges-for-xbox-piracy/?rfp=dta

It seems that hacking via the motherboard is pretty popular. It seems that one guy advertised how to do the mod on Craigslist. Now what were you saying about security?



But more to the point D/L content is absolutely a threat, and can be compared with each other. The markets are merging.

How can a market based on disc be merging with a market based on downloading? They appeal to different people looking for different things. Downloaders are mainly getting TV programs that are highly compressed (more compressed than DVD) HD on disc supporters are looking for high quality HD video with lossless audio and extra's. I can hardly see a merging in that.



Technical point here. The DRM doesn't "corrupt" the movie. It simply doesn't allow playback without a current "Key". If you don't have your XBOX on a constant connection, after the 24 hour "window" it will prompt you to re-connect to see if a new key has been issued. If not, you can't play it past the 24hr window.

If you do not have the current key, what condition is the data in at the point? Besides you are only speaking of xbox live. Other downloading services use a different kind of DRM. I am aware of the practice of some downloading services that use code to corrupt the files after a certain period.



Only for the dishonest ones. I don't steal movies OR music, but I DO pay for my d/l content. Please don't lump everyone into the same basket.

If you are not one of the dishonest ones, then this comment does not apply to you. I was not lumping anyone. There are some that do not pay for the content, and my comments apply to them. Do not be so defensive.



Is that $120 just for internet? That seems really high! And again with the 1080p/Lossless. That may be what it's gonna take for YOU, but not for a majority of the US customer base. Live certainly doesn't offer that level of HD, but for its offerings, its blowing the doors off expectations. Disney has signed on, Lionsgate is releasing more and more, and more studios are taking note. Not everyone owns a BMW A/V setup.

Ummm, no. $120 pays for HD cable AND internet. The HD content is heavily compressed and so is the audio. The audio is not even DVD quality at 384kbps for the 5.1 channels. The internet is the highest speed available on comcast. In my neighborhood, cable prices at around $100 is not all that usual, especially after the recent hike in prices. Alot of studios have signed up at Xbox live, but the content they are offering is not the same as their HD on disc content, and not even close in quality. More folks enjoy quality images and audio than you think.



A small distinction here. Advertisers promote products that they HOPE to induce consumers to "Try" or "Buy". But there are no direct correlations between amount of $$ spent on advertising to actual products bought. I am not suggesting that advertising doesn't increase awareness of a product, highlight its features, and promote the brand. But to suggest that there is a $ to $ translation between ads and purchase is not right.

Actually it is right. If an advertiser has committed a certain percentage of operating income to advertising on a certain media, there is an expectation of return of investment in the form of sales. If they see that the advertising on that media is not providing a return, they cut advertising on that media. If you were interested in just highlighting features, and promoting the brand without any expectation of return on your expendenture, then that would be wasting cash. How do you support an advertising budget without sales?


And DVR, and PVR are causing a huge shift in the way that advertisers are marketing to consumers. Many ads have gone from quick cuts, and fast action, to those of slow action, and long still shots of either the product or the name. Why? So when consumers zip over them, they are still "exposed" to the ad. Also, Nielson has begun tracking DVR use, especially with TiVO. Some TiVO users through a process of election, and "opting-in" have allowed Nielson access to their viewing habits via electronic tracking. Not of specific housholds, but how often shows are "time delayed", "commercials ff", "# of times watched", and other aspects.

Great information. But how does this address the issue at hand?



And its funny you keep bringing up the show you were at. How come you haven't addressed why BR hasn't been re-signed with Warner. Contract obligations lapsed 10/31/07. If BR and Warner are so much in "Love" why hasn't Warner re-signed with BR? At this point they are operating under the terms of the old agreement, but Warner could walk away, and there is NO penalty for them to do so.

Sorry, but nobody knows the terms of the contract obligations Warner has with the BDA. If Warner had no intention on supporting BR, then there would be no need to for them to attent the festival, or show off new BR releases. There would be no need to annouce new titles for 2008 would they? The BDA forbids releasing contract information, so this appears to be nothing more than FUD, or in other words, a bald face lie. Warner is not nearly stupid as Paramount. Why in the hell would they walk away from a format that provides them with a two to one sales advantage over the other format on all of the titles they released? Paramount is still smarting from their move. Transformers is a perfect movie for the PS3 crowd. Instead of just selling 89k worth of disc, they could have sold twice that or more had they stayed neutral. If Warner was going to walk away, then why did they bother attending the Bluray session at IFA? The did not attend the HD DVD session.



I'm not suggesting that Warner is going to leave BR, and go HD-DVD exclusive, but it does seem a bit funny that they havn't re-signed w/ BR.

Sorry, but you do not know if they signed, or they didn't. This is not public information, and even the insiders at Bluray.com have refused to discuss this because of legal restraints. Lying to advance a false point is a balless act.


Everything may be peaches and cream at the trade show, but in business, it doesn't appear to be the love fest your talking about.

That is a matter of perspective. You were not there, and you did not see or hear what was going on at the festival. Maybe you should refrain from spreading bull crap. Anyone selling 300k worth of HD disc on a single format should be having quite a love fest at this point.

[Groundbeef]

People who are looking at youtube are not looking for Spiderman, or 2001 in HD. They are looking at video clips. These are too different segments of a market, and are not comparable. I look at youtube, and have found some very rare clips of my favorite Gospel group. However, I do not go there to find my favorite movies in high def, and neither would anyone else or they will be very disappointed. You are attempting to fuse together unrelated things.

Not really. You seemed to be suggesting that people are ONLY going to D/L media when its 1080p and lossless. Clearly that is not the case. People are d/l lots of media at substancially lower quality, and doing it with gusto.




TV programs and HD movies are not the same thing. The PS3 hard drive cannot just be accessed by a computer. The computer has to be connected via a copy protected HDCP protocol just like any other HD media device. So the xbox is no more protected than the PS3. What about reports that there is a huge piracy issue regarding the xbox in china?

[It seems that hacking via the motherboard is pretty popular. It seems that one guy advertised how to do the mod on Craigslist. Now what were you saying about security?

No, but the PS3 drive can easily be pulled from the physical unit, and then attached to a PC via cables. An XBOX 360 Hard Drive would have to be physically broken out of the unit, then attached to a computer, making it unable to be-used in the 360. Pretty expensive way to access a $4.00 movie by destroying your $100 Hard Drive.

Your 1st article was written in July 26, 2006. There have been 3 major updates, and numerous minor updates. If you have no more current info on the topic, I would suggest that particular problem has been solved. If you notice, the article also stated that when units had re-established contact w/live the issue was fixed via an automatic update. This is not a "casual" break, nor something an everyday user is going to do to their console. Don't suggest it is.

Your 2nd article concerns cheating in "games" to boost GamerScores. Clearly you are unfamiliar as to what a GamerScore is, and what it's about. Completely unrelated to downloaded material, only related to playing games and getting "achievments". Stick to topics you understand, as gaming is clearly not your forte'. Blu-Ray, sure, Games? Not so much.

Your 3rd article is from 2005. 2005, and it dealt with THE ORIGINAL XBOX. Thats not even a valid console anymore. Games haven't been made for it in 2 years. GET A CLUE.
Why don't you write about Atari 2600 emulators next, and really show off your game knowledge.




How can a market based on disc be merging with a market based on downloading? They appeal to different people looking for different things. Downloaders are mainly getting TV programs that are highly compressed (more compressed than DVD) HD on disc supporters are looking for high quality HD video with lossless audio and extra's. I can hardly see a merging in that.

Depends upon what you are looking for. I don't have the money you most likely do. So I watch a HD D/L to decide if its a movie I would like for my collection. Is it 100% of the physical disc? No, of course not, but it sure does tell me if I like it. I can't afford the luxury of just buying every movie that comes out. To me, and apparently plenty of others, HD d/l is an excellent compromise before shelling out the bucks to buy the media.



If you do not have the current key, what condition is the data in at the point? Besides you are only speaking of xbox live. Other downloading services use a different kind of DRM. I am aware of the practice of some downloading services that use code to corrupt the files after a certain period.

Ok, I'll conceed to that. I just meant (at least on live) the movie isn't "corrupt". It just doesn't play until an updated key is provided after the license lapses.




If you are not one of the dishonest ones, then this comment does not apply to you. I was not lumping anyone. There are some that do not pay for the content, and my comments apply to them. Do not be so defensive.

In your original comment you were suggesting the studios are deathly afraid of people d/l product because they are only looking to do it for free. I'm suggesting thats not the case. Plenty of folks are willing to pay for it.



Ummm, no. $120 pays for HD cable AND internet. The HD content is heavily compressed and so is the audio. The audio is not even DVD quality at 384kbps for the 5.1 channels. The internet is the highest speed available on comcast. In my neighborhood, cable prices at around $100 is not all that usual, especially after the recent hike in prices. Alot of studios have signed up at Xbox live, but the content they are offering is not the same as their HD on disc content, and not even close in quality. More folks enjoy quality images and audio than you think.

I just wanted to be clear on your point. The way it was written, I thought you meant you were paying $120/month for internet. That's like T3 pricing. Again, not suggesting its the same content on the physical disc. People know that, but its renting/selling like hotcakes. More folks enjoy the convience/cost factor of living room HD D/L than you are willing to admit.



Actually it is right. If an advertiser has committed a certain percentage of operating income to advertising on a certain media, there is an expectation of return of investment in the form of sales. If they see that the advertising on that media is not providing a return, they cut advertising on that media. If you were interested in just highlighting features, and promoting the brand without any expectation of return on your expendenture, then that would be wasting cash. How do you support an advertising budget without sales?

No, your wrong. Take some business/marketing classes. Of course there is an EXPECTATION of ROI, but there isn't a direct $ to $ correlation between the two. There are so many other variables that affect a consumer that it is impossible to equate an ad running, and the ultimate purchase decision. Thats not to say there are not great advertsing campaigns, or bad campaigns, but in the end, the advertisment is just another vehicle for promoting your product. It doesn't "MAKE" consumers buy anything.




Great information. But how does this address the issue at hand?


You were suggesting some theories about TV and how many times shows are watched. Advertisers are interested, as well as studios about how DVR/TiVO has/is changing the market. So I was telling you how Neilson is addressing this need.




Sorry, but nobody knows the terms of the contract obligations Warner has with the BDA. If Warner had no intention on supporting BR, then there would be no need to for them to attent the festival, or show off new BR releases. There would be no need to annouce new titles for 2008 would they? The BDA forbids releasing contract information, so this appears to be nothing more than FUD, or in other words, a bald face lie.

That is a matter of perspective. You were not there, and you did not see or hear what was going on at the festival. Maybe you should refrain from spreading bull crap. Anyone selling 300k worth of HD disc on a single format should be having quite a love fest at this point.

So I guess you don't know either? I can't disprove a negative. If you want to call people liars, thats on you. I am just talking about what I hear away from this board. And the talk is that the contract has lapsed, and hasn't been renewed. Maybe they are holding out, who knows. I wasn't at your little party, but it doesn't sound like I missed much.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not really. You seemed to be suggesting that people are ONLY going to D/L media when its 1080p and lossless. Clearly that is not the case. People are d/l lots of media at substancially lower quality, and doing it with gusto.

Read this carefully. I am not saying that people are going to downloads when it is 1080p. I am saying the people who prefer to download are not interested in quality, they are interested in covinence. Those who are looking for quality will not look to downloads.


No, but the PS3 drive can easily be pulled from the physical unit, and then attached to a PC via cables. An XBOX 360 Hard Drive would have to be physically broken out of the unit, then attached to a computer, making it unable to be-used in the 360. Pretty expensive way to access a $4.00 movie by destroying your $100 Hard Drive.

So what is your point? Regardless of the fact that the PS3 drive can be removed, without the necessary HDCP hookup it is essentially useless. Even if you cannot remove the xbox's hard drive it does not appear the xbox is more safe than the PS3 against piracy.


Your 1st article was written in July 26, 2006. There have been 3 major updates, and numerous minor updates. If you have no more current info on the topic, I would suggest that particular problem has been solved. If you notice, the article also stated that when units had re-established contact w/live the issue was fixed via an automatic update. This is not a "casual" break, nor something an everyday user is going to do to their console. Don't suggest it is.

And you think that just because the article was written that things have changed? From what I have gotten reading some gaming boards, when they solder the motherboard for the hack, microsoft cannot touch them. They continue to play bootlegs. It really does not matter if its the everyday user doing it, or a bunch of game geeks, it does not futher you point that the PS3 is less secure than the xbox. The links prove that.


Your 2nd article concerns cheating in "games" to boost GamerScores. Clearly you are unfamiliar as to what a GamerScore is, and what it's about. Completely unrelated to downloaded material, only related to playing games and getting "achievments". Stick to topics you understand, as gaming is clearly not your forte'. Blu-Ray, sure, Games? Not so much.

You were talking about security. I gave two example of security problems concerning the xbox. I do not care what a gamerscore is, it is irrelevant. We were talking about security. Stay with your own comments and stop spinning this with irrelevant information.


Your 3rd article is from 2005. 2005, and it dealt with THE ORIGINAL XBOX. Thats not even a valid console anymore. Games haven't been made for it in 2 years. GET A CLUE.
Why don't you write about Atari 2600 emulators next, and really show off your game knowledge.

I have already told you a dozen times I am not interested in games. This all points to security. So the only thing that changes this is the xbox has not been secure for ages.





Depends upon what you are looking for. I don't have the money you most likely do. So I watch a HD D/L to decide if its a movie I would like for my collection. Is it 100% of the physical disc? No, of course not, but it sure does tell me if I like it. I can't afford the luxury of just buying every movie that comes out. To me, and apparently plenty of others, HD d/l is an excellent compromise before shelling out the bucks to buy the media.

Others have chosen netflicks and blockbuster rather than compromised their experience with a low quality downloads (remember I have seen them). I understand that you have your way of doing things, and others have their way.



In your original comment you were suggesting the studios are deathly afraid of people d/l product because they are only looking to do it for free. I'm suggesting thats not the case. Plenty of folks are willing to pay for it.

Actually that was nightfliers comment. I made no such comment that the studios were deathly afraid of downloads. I said that the studio executives have come out againist Bill Gates vision of the future of HD. Disc based media(DVD and HD media on disc) is a 6 billion dollar industry. NDP projects that downloading will be $200 million in 2008. Do you really think the studio will trade 6 bil for 200 mil?

What the studios do not like is P2P trading of movie files. That is piracy no matter how you slice it.




I just wanted to be clear on your point. The way it was written, I thought you meant you were paying $120/month for internet. That's like T3 pricing. Again, not suggesting its the same content on the physical disc. People know that, but its renting/selling like hotcakes. More folks enjoy the convience/cost factor of living room HD D/L than you are willing to admit.

Actually you are overstating your point. Downloads are a 200 million dollar business. VOD is estimated at 300 million for 2006 the same as it was in 2005. Once again the disc based media was 6 billion in 2006. I think most know that HD downloads which are only 720p heavily compressed video with heavily compressed audio is just a little better than regular DVD. I since I now know that ratio of DVD sales vs downloading, it is clear that each is serving very different people. Keep in mind, Comcast is getting sued for slowing down major downloaders. Internet providers are very aware that it just takes a few consistant downloaders to clog up a system, and they are working to slow them down.




No, your wrong. Take some business/marketing classes. Of course there is an EXPECTATION of ROI, but there isn't a direct $ to $ correlation between the two.

I never said there was a direct dollar to dollar correlation. I said there was a reasonable expectation of a return on investment. That is very different.




There are so many other variables that affect a consumer that it is impossible to equate an ad running, and the ultimate purchase decision. Thats not to say there are not great advertsing campaigns, or bad campaigns, but in the end, the advertisment is just another vehicle for promoting your product. It doesn't "MAKE" consumers buy anything.

Please find the word MAKE in any of my post. Businesses are not going to throw there money at something just to get an effect. They expect some result. If they advertise through radio and that does not help grow their business, they are not going back to radio. The same goes for television. Product placement is better suited to getting your brand noticed or raising brand awareness overall.





You were suggesting some theories about TV and how many times shows are watched. Advertisers are interested, as well as studios about how DVR/TiVO has/is changing the market. So I was telling you how Neilson is addressing this need.

Okay....





So I guess you don't know either? I can't disprove a negative. If you want to call people liars, thats on you. I am just talking about what I hear away from this board. And the talk is that the contract has lapsed, and hasn't been renewed. Maybe they are holding out, who knows. I wasn't at your little party, but it doesn't sound like I missed much.

Well since the party was not a HD DVD party, you did not miss much, and were not missed as well. Be careful about spreading FUD. If you cannot verify it, then you should not spread it. Nobody knows contract information except executives at the highest level. The BDA absolutely forbids any public discussion of contract talks. That is in the contract itself. You do not know ANYTHING regarding contract talks, who signed what and when. So there is no need to spread unsubstantiated rumors.

I never said I knew, I said NOBODY knows rather clearly. Save the rumors for the National Inquirer and The Globe.

[Groundbeef]

Read this carefully. I am not saying that people are going to downloads when it is 1080p. I am saying the people who prefer to download are not interested in quality, they are interested in covinence. Those who are looking for quality will not look to downloads. .

Blanket statement, and simply not true. While I will 100% agree with you that d/l is NOT the same quality as the physical media, for the majority folks that don't have your caliber of equipment its "satisfactory". If there is no difference in "quality" then why are HD downloads on XBOX Live the most popular form of HD D/L in the industry? It's killing ITunes, and cable/sat providers hands down. Keep in mind that the same material is ALSO availible in SD. So why are consumers paying more for the HD?

Why do you feel the need to draw a line in the sand about quality/convienece. It may not be up to YOUR standards, but millions of others disagree with you.




So what is your point? Regardless of the fact that the PS3 drive can be removed, without the necessary HDCP hookup it is essentially useless. Even if you cannot remove the xbox's hard drive it does not appear the xbox is more safe than the PS3 against piracy..

The "piracy" you pointed out with your out of date articles showcased the ablitiy to play bootleg GAMES, not d/l material. If you don't care about games fine, but don't confuse the 2 issues. Movie studios are not concerned about pirated games, but pirated movies.




And you think that just because the article was written that things have changed? From what I have gotten reading some gaming boards, when they solder the motherboard for the hack, microsoft cannot touch them. They continue to play bootlegs. It really does not matter if its the everyday user doing it, or a bunch of game geeks, it does not futher you point that the PS3 is less secure than the xbox. The links prove that.
.

The links only prove that you are content to dig up half the story. Then pretend that your ancient articles somehow end the arguement. Take a read on this site:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171135.html

MS has not only been issuing updates to quell the issue of modding, they have gone further. Now they are issuing updates that physically disable the units. Also known as "bricking". The important part about this is that for d/l material to get on the 360, one has to utilize "LIVE". So, if you have a modded XBOX 360, you need to get on Live. If you want to use Live, you need the latest update. Get the update, kills machine. If you "decline" the update, your booted off live. If you are not on live, YOU CANT GET MEDIA. So, in essence your movie studios are safe.

Game piracy, and movie piracy are 2 different animals.



You were talking about security. I gave two example of security problems concerning the xbox. I do not care what a gamerscore is, it is irrelevant. We were talking about security. Stay with your own comments and stop spinning this with irrelevant information.
.

No this is where you are out of your league. Honestly, as much crap as I give you, I admit you know FAR more than I do about BR/ HD-DVD. It may be fun to tweak your horn, but in the end, I realize you have more information, and expert information that I don't. However, in this arena, you are lost. The information you present is out of date, and unrelated to the issue of MEDIA piracy, and GAME piracy. The issue of security for the "GamerScore" cheating is related to PASSWORDS. Not, modding, or other hardware cracks. If I give someone a password to my account, that is completly different that writing code, or breaking the chips off the motherboard. But I wouldn't expect you to know that as you have already stated numerous times you don't care about gaming. So stop acting like you know anything about it. Because you don't.




I have already told you a dozen times I am not interested in games. This all points to security. So the only thing that changes this is the xbox has not been secure for ages.
.

You are aware of course that the XBOX, and the XBOX 360 are 2 different consoles right? So to dig up information on a dead console only showcases your total lack of knowledge about current issues, and the topic at hand. Your arguement would be akin to me digging up an article about the Ford Pinto, and saying that its olbvious that Ford only makes defective cars. Never mind that it was over 20 years ago, and a DEAD issue. If you can't make your argument relevent about the current system I suggest you troll elsewhere.



What the studios do not like is P2P trading of movie files. That is piracy no matter how you slice it. .

Agreed. But not all movie D/L are P2P. Thats why studios are flocking to Live, and to a lesser degree ITunes.



I never said there was a direct dollar to dollar correlation. I said there was a reasonable expectation of a return on investment. That is very different. .

So please explain to me how they determine the ROI on the ad campaign? How do they assign a value to the campaign. You can expect the world, but it doesn't make it so.




Please find the word MAKE in any of my post. Businesses are not going to throw there money at something just to get an effect. They expect some result. If they advertise through radio and that does not help grow their business, they are not going back to radio. The same goes for television. Product placement is better suited to getting your brand noticed or raising brand awareness overall. .

I'm not going to disagree with product placement, although the power of that is coming more into question as companies rush to place anything and everything. And how in the world do you quantify ROI on product placement? About the best product placement was Recee's Pieces in ET. After that the race was on, but results haven't been nearly as good as that case.

And as far as advertisement goes, business spend plenty of money "just to get an effect". Happens ALL THE TIME. Ever heard of the SuperBowl? Plenty of studies have been done showing that the money spent vs/return doesn't bear out. But lots of companies blow their entire ad budget for the year on 1-2 spots. Master Lock used to be one of them, but they have realized that they get a bigger bang for other promotions.

And just because an ad is placed, doesn't mean results. Let me ask you Mr. Bright guy, how many ads would it take to get you to buy Bose Speakers? I'd be willing to bet that you could watch 20 ads a day on TV, read 15 newspaper ads, see it in your subscription to AARP Monthly, and still never buy it. Why? Because regardless of the LEVEL of promotion, your not interested in the product. But according to your theory, its not because you don't want to buy the product, its because its not being promoted to YOU in the correct way. So should Bose call you every day? Maybe direct email you 3 times an hour, and stick flyers on the windshield of your car? No? What else can they do?



Nobody knows contract information except executives at the highest level. The BDA absolutely forbids any public discussion of contract talks. That is in the contract itself. You do not know ANYTHING regarding contract talks, who signed what and when. So there is no need to spread unsubstantiated rumors.

I never said I knew, I said NOBODY knows rather clearly. Save the rumors for the National Inquirer and The Globe.

Oh, I didn't realize they signed an agreement. Our Government can't keep secrets out of the hands of enemy states, but BY GOD THE BDA CAN!!! The only thing that "agreement" means is that now instead of names, they are called "unnamed sources within the BDA". Give me a break. The information is out there. If you can't comment on them fine. But there is A LOT of speculation on either side. You want to shill for BR based on some little party you attended, fine. If I want to present info I have come across, I will. :prrr:

[nightflier]

This rest of your comments are not worth responding to. Its nothing but personal attacks and insults. This is audioreview, a website for audio not personalities.

Real mature, there lil't. I believe it was you who said:


Nightflier, you must be gay,

...in addition to myriad other insults and personal attacks. As a matter of fact, you're the one who started with the attacks both in this thread (that I started) and the last debate that you ruined with your diarrhea of the mouth. Now I'm sure people are fed up with all the point-for-point debates that really have little to do with the original topic, so since I started this thread, I'll see if I can get you to focus a little.

First of all, I have to come clean about one item. I did say that the "disk was dead." I had fogotten that I had said so, and you pointed that out. Fine. But I still stand by the context I was referring to. As a matter of fact, I disagree with every other argument you've made in your last response. But unlike you, apparently, I do have a life, and so for the sake of brevity and the sanity of anyone who has been kind enough to read through the pointless insults, I am going to try and reign this into the most significant points under discussion. I hope that you can be mature enough to stay on point with those, for the benefit of everyone here.

Point #1: My SACD setup is just fine, thank you
I'm not rehashing this because I want to be right, but it pertains directly to my point about comparing SACD to the new hi-res sound formats. The ICBM is the only processing I have in place. I pass the PCM signal directly from my player through the receiver unprocessed to the ICBM. My seating position is as close to the center of the room as possible and the five identical speakers are angled towards that spot. Granted I do not use distance processing, volume adjustment and the center channel is horizontal. And yes, my Outlaw pre/pro can do all this type of processing, but I choose to forgo it, for the sake of allowing the SACD signal to be as unprocessed as possible.

Now, if I had the funds to improve on this, I would, but right now, that is the best I can do. So now, stop being such an arrogant pr*ck and admit that while this is not perfectly according to spec, it is also not so far off as to skew my ability to make out good recordings from bad, whether the bass is adequate or not, and how different that sound is from other processed formats. Stop acting as if I don't know what I'm doing with my setup.

Point #2: Your opinion is too focussed on sales figures
Now this is pretty basic really. You base the success or failure of VOD solely on sales figures. Now several people here and in the other thread have tried to point out to you that paid VOD is not the whole picture, yet you've wasted a whole lot of time and space trying to prove that it is - give it up already - you are wrong. Free VOD content is significant because it occupies people when they could be watching other content (DVD, Cable, BR/HDDVD, etc.). Therefore it competes with these formats, even if the quality differs. Stop being so concerned about being right that you can't see the obvious truth in this and admit that sales figures are only part of the picture.

Point #3: Your contention that there is no music that uses bass below 40Hz
To begin, the idea that you would know every music disk and be able to tell us this is ludicrous - this is your own fantasy, maybe, but you're not that knowledgeable. Not only do I have a number of LPs, RBCDs, HDCDs, SACDs, DVD-As and concert DVDs that do actually make use of the lower frequencies below 40Hz, but I also happen to like and collect them. As I've mentioned, I used to play the organ and while I may not be able to claim having "perfect pitch" (which is highly subjective, anyhow), I do have a trained ear to this type of instrument.

So yes, I have a large collection of organ music from Bach to Franck to Dupre and even the lesser known modern experimental composers. I also have orchestral and religious works you've probably never heard of from Hofhaness to Von Kessels. I also have a decent selection of piano music, also including many unusual modern compositions you probably wouldn't know or care for. Then there's the music that is non-Western and experimental from Mongolian throat singing and percussion instruments outside of the "traditional" symphonic stable such as gongs and bells - yes, I do have some of that too. Finally there is the non-acoustic compositions in modern music from Massive Attack to Groove Armada.

And if you think I don't have the equipment to fully appreciate it, I've had subs in my home from Paradigm, Talon, SVS, Velodyne, and currently have two 5' tall subs gracing my HT room. You can pretty much say that bass is my passion. So before you come here and insult my knowledge about bass, you better check that attitude and rethink your argument.

Point #4: BR & HDDVD only make up 5% of the market - that makes BR just 3%
You've been trying to weasel out of that one from the beginning. No amount of spin or doublespeak will change this fact. And then you start up on this idea that BR/HDDVD went from 1% to 5% in something like a year and a half and you compare that to DVD's acceptance, what was that some 15 years ago? Only someone so focussed on only seeing his own side of the argument could miss the fact that the time difference makes this comparison completely irrelevant. Distribution, market factors, promotion technologies, and the internet make this completely inconsequential. Now either you know this and you;re just trying to spread FUD, or you're just not able to see the world outside of your own created reality.

Point #5: Downloading didn't start 3-4 years ago (in 2004)
Now this is another example of your focus on sales. You see, in your small little world downloading only started when $ was being made from it. That is completely false. Downloading music started on bulletin boards, decades ago, well before Napster. Granted it was not MP3 quality and took forever to download, but it existed and the cat was out of the bag. When MP3 and Napster spiked, that is when the problem became too great to ignore. But this was years before 2004. So when you suggest that downloading didn't affect CD sales, you're only looking at the last 3-4 years and that's quite misleading. It suits your argument because you can tie spikes in CD sales to it in 2005 & 2006, but that completely neglects to mention the sad state of affairs during the crucial 1998-2003 period.

Point #6: Microsoft's support of HDDVD is significant
You can dismiss Bill Gates all you want (he doesn't even run the company anymore), but the fact is Microsoft is a very important player here. When Microsoft says jump, everybody from Paramount, to Novell, to Steve Jobs, to everyone of its cross-licensing partners asks how high. Your contention that they are just a PC company is ignorant and short-sided. They would like nothing more than to beat Sony out of the HT market and it's probably the reason why they are pushing HDDVD. Now you may think you can troll around yacking about computers and game consoles with the same arrogance as you do with BR/HDDVD, but the fact is you knowledge about those is limited. Why don't you let others handle that before you really get embarrassed?

Point #7: Classe and Denon upcoming players
Now I think the fact that I did not say that Denon made an HDDVD player has been sorted out. You were wrong about that, won't admit that you were wrong, and are still trying to water it down. Granted, it's a minor point, but you're so bent on never having been wrong, that it's relevant to point it out.

Now the Classe issue is still festering. So let me repeat what I said: I read that Classe was considering the development of a new Universal player. It was in a show report that I thought was in Stereophile, and I have yet to find it, but I will. Now regarding that quote about Classe, it did not come from my friend, it came straight from Classe's sales department. If you'd have bothered to read my words a little better, you would not have been caught with your foot in your mouth, again. They said: "A degree of uncertainty continues to cloud the future of the new blue laser disc formats and it remains unclear which, if any, of these formats will become the dominant technology." So if Classe is saying "it's unclear which, if any, of these formats will become dominant," it's also pretty much what I've been saying too: they are going to wait it out a little longer, so maybe the consumers should too.

Point #8: Confusion about the HDMI spec could very well be deterring sales
First of all, not all players are HDMI 1.3. Second very few people know what the spec covers. Third only a few receivers and disk players are HDMI 1.3 compliant. Fourth, very few sales reps know enough to inform consumers. Fifth very few product boxes and store display specs specify this and if they do, it's not complete information. Sixth, the online and print media are also misinformed and printing contradictory information.

The fact is, there's a huge amount of confusion about it. So I would say those are some pretty strong deterrents to the average consumer. To continue to maintain that these deterrents have absolutely no impact on adoption is just absolutist and wishful thinking. The fact is these details are confusing the customer. But the best part is that you think that the average consumer would buy an earlier spec 1.1 or 1.2 over the 1.3 spec. The reality is, that no matter what the technological details are, people will most often choose the higher spec for the same money. Nobody will buy last year's model for the same money. Your contention that they wouldn't is just and uneducated deduction.

So what do you say lil't? Do you think you can spare us the useless hair-slitting and insults and just address these points? Since you've already hijacked this thread into another debate over BR/HDDVD, the least you can do is answer these important points by the OP. After all, it is his thread.

[PeruvianSkies]

Nightflier.....

2000 Posts in 5 years, about half of them meaningless, the other half useless. About 5% of them are just recently debating in the News&Rumors section.

Try 4500 posts in one year, then you can celebrate something...haha!

[L.J.]

Ps, still hatin' I see. Shouldn't you be creating 3rd & 4th screen names or something, so you can hit the people you don't like with red thingies?

Talking 'bout meaningless posts. Half of your posts are following people around taking cheap shots whenever you can. Well, at least you dropped that troll killer title..........

[PeruvianSkies]

Ps, still hatin' I see. Shouldn't you be creating 3rd & 4th screen names or something, so you can hit the people you don't like with red thingies?

Talking 'bout meaningless posts. Half of your posts are following people around taking cheap shots whenever you can. Well, at least you dropped that troll killer title..........

Really? Well, then explain to me the 183 threads that I started this past year? You try writing me off as this 'hater' when I have attempted to try and give this site some energy. I contribute quite a bit to this site, maybe if you read more of my posts you would realize this, they are usually found under the Favorite Films section.

Usernames? I only have one other one, which won't even let me log in anymore because it was hijacked and the Admins shut it down, which is the whole reason I had to start over with this screen name last October.

[L.J.]

Really? Well, then explain to me the 183 threads that I started this past year? You try writing me off as this 'hater' when I have attempted to try and give this site some energy. I contribute quite a bit to this site, maybe if you read more of my posts you would realize this, they are usually found under the Favorite Films section.

Usernames? I only have one other one, which won't even let me log in anymore because it was hijacked and the Admins shut it down, which is the whole reason I had to start over with this screen name last October.

Well let me get that trophy dusted off for ya and get ready for the presentation. I mean, what would AR be without PeruvianSkies and his 183 threads? :Yawn:

[Woochifer]

2,000 Posts in 5 years, about half of them meaningless, the other half useless.

Congrats! Aside from the post volume, you've once again written a perfect autobiography! You sure you're not reading your own posts when throwing your typically whiny accusations out at others?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Blanket statement, and simply not true. While I will 100% agree with you that d/l is NOT the same quality as the physical media, for the majority folks that don't have your caliber of equipment its "satisfactory". If there is no difference in "quality" then why are HD downloads on XBOX Live the most popular form of HD D/L in the industry? It's killing ITunes, and cable/sat providers hands down. Keep in mind that the same material is ALSO availible in SD. So why are consumers paying more for the HD?

Not a blanket statement, a proven fact. Studio after studio survey has proven the same audience going for downloads in general, are not the same audience looking for high quality audio and video. Survey after survey has proven that those who go for downloads generally are doing so for convience, and not for high quality because you and I know it is not high quality. Most hometheater hobbiest do not buy into "satisfactory" when they have access to much higher quality material. XBOX live is for those who own a XBOX game machine. What of those who do not own one? XBOX is useless to them. You cannot equate popularity with quality. MP3 is popular, and we both know it is not quality audio.
According to Microsoft's own survey of XBOX owners, many of them do not even own a HDTV, nor do they own TV with 40" or greater, so what quality can you ascertain from HD on a non HDTV or with one with a screen too small to see any real detail?

XBOX does allow you to get you low quality video from the box to a larger screen. Itunes still has no way to get HD images from the player to a larger screen. That is probably the main reason why it is not more popular. As far as cable/sat downloading, thanks for making my point. Now convey this to nightmare oops I mean nightflier.

Just to give you some perspective. According to NDP downloading will represent a 200 million dollar business 2008. HD DVD and Bluray generated more than 4 billion dollars in sales of players and media from October of 2006 to October of 2007. When compared to a small pond, downloading of any type can look big, but when compared to an overall larger picture, its just a really small fish.



Why do you feel the need to draw a line in the sand about quality/convienece. It may not be up to YOUR standards, but millions of others disagree with you.

It is to help you understand some perspective, and different market segments. Just smooshing things all together does not allow for any analysis. It has been proven in technology after technology that convience comes at the cost of quality. MP3, lossy Itunes files, low quality heavily compressed downloads, and heavily compressed VOD are convient delivery system. HD DVD and Bluray are high quality audio and video delivery system. They are very different, their goal is different, the quality is VERY different, and therefore must be analyzed differently.





The "piracy" you pointed out with your out of date articles showcased the ablitiy to play bootleg GAMES, not d/l material. If you don't care about games fine, but don't confuse the 2 issues. Movie studios are not concerned about pirated games, but pirated movies.

When you said this
The only differnce is that w/360 the HD cannont be attached or accessed by a computer. So its actually pretty safe from Piracy. The PS3 is a different animal because it uses a standard HardDrive, that can be removed and accessed by a computer. Perhaps thats why industry is slow to embrace the PS3 as a D/L solution for media?

You made a blanket assertion that the XBOX was more secure than the PS3. I have proven that you information is incorrect. The XBOX is not more secure than the PS3, based on the articles it is a very unsecure format in and of itself. No one has to compare it to anything. If you tried the same thing to the PS3(messing with its motherboard), you have bricked it before you could download your first game or movie.






The links only prove that you are content to dig up half the story. Then pretend that your ancient articles somehow end the arguement. Take a read on this site:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171135.html

MS has not only been issuing updates to quell the issue of modding, they have gone further. Now they are issuing updates that physically disable the units. Also known as "bricking". The important part about this is that for d/l material to get on the 360, one has to utilize "LIVE". So, if you have a modded XBOX 360, you need to get on Live. If you want to use Live, you need the latest update. Get the update, kills machine. If you "decline" the update, your booted off live. If you are not on live, YOU CANT GET MEDIA. So, in essence your movie studios are safe.

You are not addressing pirated discs and other media. If you do not sign on to XBOX live, they cannot install a update that can brick you player. If you play only pirated material, then MS cannot brick your player. From what I have read, these guys that do the mods avoid XBOX live like the plague. This keeps MS from touching them. The hole is still there, and alot of folks in the Asian territories know this and are expoliting it like crazy.


Game piracy, and movie piracy are 2 different animals.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. How it is done is irrelevant.




No this is where you are out of your league. Honestly, as much crap as I give you, I admit you know FAR more than I do about BR/ HD-DVD. It may be fun to tweak your horn, but in the end, I realize you have more information, and expert information that I don't. However, in this arena, you are lost. The information you present is out of date, and unrelated to the issue of MEDIA piracy, and GAME piracy. The issue of security for the "GamerScore" cheating is related to PASSWORDS. Not, modding, or other hardware cracks. If I give someone a password to my account, that is completly different that writing code, or breaking the chips off the motherboard. But I wouldn't expect you to know that as you have already stated numerous times you don't care about gaming. So stop acting like you know anything about it. Because you don't.

If you know I do not care, then you know you have just wasted time typing this. So going forward, I know when people have made up some of the crap you have that, they are tweaking. So be aware that I am unmoved by this immature practice. Adults do not have to tweak, they discuss and debate. Poking at people is childs play.





You are aware of course that the XBOX, and the XBOX 360 are 2 different consoles right? So to dig up information on a dead console only showcases your total lack of knowledge about current issues, and the topic at hand. Your arguement would be akin to me digging up an article about the Ford Pinto, and saying that its olbvious that Ford only makes defective cars. Never mind that it was over 20 years ago, and a DEAD issue. If you can't make your argument relevent about the current system I suggest you troll elsewhere.

What showcases my knowledge is I know the fact the Microsoft cannot design and implement a secure product. Windows, Windows media player, XBOX, XBOX360, explorer, have all been hacked in some shape or form. This is going back years and years to their first marketed product. So when some beefbrain tells me that any Microsoft product is safer from piracy than another, I know that they are tweaking my horn. Its either that or they don't know their butt from a hole in the ground. Which do you cop to?




Agreed. But not all movie D/L are P2P. Thats why studios are flocking to Live, and to a lesser degree ITunes.

Nobody is flocking to live. Studio are releasing selected movies and TV programming to xbox live. Not ALL studio support XBOX live am I correct? It is somewhat disengenious to use the word flocking since not all studio rushed to support live, nor are they releasing their most valuable content to it. I know for a fact Disney is not releasing their most prized movies to Xbox live



So please explain to me how they determine the ROI on the ad campaign? How do they assign a value to the campaign. You can expect the world, but it doesn't make it so.

Its called sales projections.


I'm not going to disagree with product placement, although the power of that is coming more into question as companies rush to place anything and everything. And how in the world do you quantify ROI on product placement? About the best product placement was Recee's Pieces in ET. After that the race was on, but results haven't been nearly as good as that case.

Thanks for making my point again. Now explain this to nightmare (oops) nightcrawler(dang did it again) nighflier.


And as far as advertisement goes, business spend plenty of money "just to get an effect". Happens ALL THE TIME. Ever heard of the SuperBowl? Plenty of studies have been done showing that the money spent vs/return doesn't bear out. But lots of companies blow their entire ad budget for the year on 1-2 spots. Master Lock used to be one of them, but they have realized that they get a bigger bang for other promotions.

Beefbrain, it is apparent you have never run a business. Anyone spending 2.6 million dollars for a 30 second spot is not looking for an effect. They are advertising in front of one of the largest audiences for a single event next to Nascar. It is irrelevant whether they get the return, but they sure in the hell expect it, and do sale projections to anticipate it. Thank you for making my point again with your Master Lock example. If it does not produce results, companies move on.



And just because an ad is placed, doesn't mean results. Let me ask you Mr. Bright guy, how many ads would it take to get you to buy Bose Speakers? I'd be willing to bet that you could watch 20 ads a day on TV, read 15 newspaper ads, see it in your subscription to AARP Monthly, and still never buy it. Why? Because regardless of the LEVEL of promotion, your not interested in the product. But according to your theory, its not because you don't want to buy the product, its because its not being promoted to YOU in the correct way. So should Bose call you every day? Maybe direct email you 3 times an hour, and stick flyers on the windshield of your car? No? What else can they do?

This is a lousy way to advance your point. Bose is not interested in me, they are interested in the millions and millions of ignorant NON audio folks who are much more subject to the suggestion of quality, than the reality of it. Even though I would not purchase a single product of theirs, the reality is they are the largest speaker company in the world by far. They are looking for people just like you who prefer "good enough" instead of excellent value for the money. They are looking for people too lazy and stupid to do comparison shopping or their audio homework. Piss poor example buddy.




Oh, I didn't realize they signed an agreement. Our Government can't keep secrets out of the hands of enemy states, but BY GOD THE BDA CAN!!! The only thing that "agreement" means is that now instead of names, they are called "unnamed sources within the BDA". Give me a break. The information is out there. If you can't comment on them fine. But there is A LOT of speculation on either side. You want to shill for BR based on some little party you attended, fine. If I want to present info I have come across, I will. :prrr:

Groundbeef, you are nothing more than a liar. If there were unnamed sources giving out BR contract information, people like paidgeek, and several others at bluray.com would know all about it. Most all of the insiders there represent their companies at the highest level from all bluray supporting studios. They will not talk about it at all. What, your gamer friends told you this? There is no information being spread like this on any other hometheater website, or anywhere else you liar. If Paramount could keep the fact that they were going exclusive a secret from even their own employees, then the BDA can keep their contract information secret. To compare what our govenment does to what the BDA does, is a weak and faulty comparison. This is just a plain lie. This is grounds for nobody to believe a damn thing you have to say in the future. You have no credibility on this issue at all. Please go back to the pasture and eat grass. When a person lies like this, this shows the weakness of their point.

[Groundbeef]

You are not addressing pirated discs and other media. If you do not sign on to XBOX live, they cannot install a update that can brick you player. If you play only pirated material, then MS cannot brick your player. From what I have read, these guys that do the mods avoid XBOX live like the plague. This keeps MS from touching them. The hole is still there, and alot of folks in the Asian territories know this and are expoliting it like crazy. .

Thanks for making my point old man. The original discussion was on HD Movie Downloads. Of which XBOX Live is doing a booming business. Then you decide to introduce game piracy THAT IS TOTALLY UNRELATED. So, if you mod your 360, you cant get on live. If you cant get on LIVE, you CANT get movies. If you cant get movies, THERE IS NO DANGER OF PIRACY. Thanks for making MY point, and making yourself look like an even bigger ass than you already have. I'll let Nightflier know you said "Hi".




If you know I do not care, then you know you have just wasted time typing this. So going forward, I know when people have made up some of the crap you have that, they are tweaking. So be aware that I am unmoved by this immature practice. Adults do not have to tweak, they discuss and debate. Poking at people is childs play. .

Well, I've been waiting for you to debate. Instead you have once again gone to the gutter. Calling people liars, and other names only shows off how weak a position you are arguing from. Too bad your employers can't see what an ass you make of yourself here. Unless of course you do it at work also.




What showcases my knowledge is I know the fact the Microsoft cannot design and implement a secure product. Windows, Windows media player, XBOX, XBOX360, explorer, have all been hacked in some shape or form. This is going back years and years to their first marketed product. So when some beefbrain tells me that any Microsoft product is safer from piracy than another, I know that they are tweaking my horn. Its either that or they don't know their butt from a hole in the ground. Which do you cop to?.

Neither. The only thing you have proven is how clueless you are when it comes to consoles. The PS3 has been hacked as well, but the difference is that SONY is "working" on IPTV, and movie D/L and has been for 2 years. MS has a robust SD/HD movie download system, that has not been shown to be affected by nefarious activity. The best you can do is showcase a 2 year old article about gaming piracy, and another about persons sharing passwords. Nothing about movies/TV content because they are unaffected by this SEPARATE issue. When shown articles about MS combating the problem, you can only sputter about how an OLD Defunct Console proves your point. Go take a nap old man, and try again later.



Nobody is flocking to live. Studio are releasing selected movies and TV programming to xbox live. Not ALL studio support XBOX live am I correct? It is somewhat disengenious to use the word flocking since not all studio rushed to support live, nor are they releasing their most valuable content to it. I know for a fact Disney is not releasing their most prized movies to Xbox live.

Right, I forgot, they are "Flocking" to Sony to flood the market with d/l movies and TV content. Oh wait, Sony doesn't offer that service. My bad. Yes, I said "Flock". More and more content is being offered each day. Apple can't compete,and they are killing Sat/Cable. The fact that Disney is offering ANY HD content on MS is a pretty big step. After all, didn't Disney go on record NOT supporting HD-DVD, and only Blu-Ray? Kinda funny then, that they offer HD on a MS service. Great point about Disney, thanks for making my arguement!



Its called sales projections. .

If your basing sales projections soley on your Ad budget you got bigger problems. Good luck with that.




Beefbrain, it is apparent you have never run a business. Anyone spending 2.6 million dollars for a 30 second spot is not looking for an effect. They are advertising in front of one of the largest audiences for a single event next to Nascar. It is irrelevant whether they get the return, but they sure in the hell expect it, and do sale projections to anticipate it. Thank you for making my point again with your Master Lock example. If it does not produce results, companies move on. .

Yeah, your right. Pets.Com was really hoping the Superbowl would have worked out better for them. And certainly anyone else that spends that kind of money isn't looking for an 'effect'. Your an idiot. They ARE looking for an effect, but as you realize, it won't translate directly into sales. Sounds like your backpeddling here. Now it "It's irrelevant whether they get th return". I thought that was what they were so concerned about remeber the ROI? Master Lock only showed that plenty of companies blew their entire ad budget on 1 commercial for the year. For the "Effect" as you put it. It made my case, but I'll let your feeble mind think it helped you. You need all the help you can get.




This is a lousy way to advance your point. Bose is not interested in me, they are interested in the millions and millions of ignorant NON audio folks who are much more subject to the suggestion of quality, than the reality of it. Even though I would not purchase a single product of theirs, the reality is they are the largest speaker company in the world by far. They are looking for people just like you who prefer "good enough" instead of excellent value for the money. They are looking for people too lazy and stupid to do comparison shopping or their audio homework. Piss poor example buddy. .

No, they actually figured you into their ROI. So, if they only spent a bit more they might land you. And its not a bad example, just shows how little you understand the relationship between Advertising, and actual "Sales". Keep thinking there is a direct correlation. It's good that you make all of us laugh so hard. Keeps us coming back to learn more from Sir T "Terrible in Math, Debate, and Business".



Groundbeef, you are nothing more than a liar. If there were unnamed sources giving out BR contract information, people like paidgeek, and several others at bluray.com would know all about it. Most all of the insiders there represent their companies at the highest level from all bluray supporting studios. They will not talk about it at all. What, your gamer friends told you this? There is no information being spread like this on any other hometheater website, or anywhere else you liar. If Paramount could keep the fact that they were going exclusive a secret from even their own employees, then the BDA can keep their contract information secret. To compare what our govenment does to what the BDA does, is a weak and faulty comparison. This is just a plain lie. This is grounds for nobody to believe a damn thing you have to say in the future. You have no credibility on this issue at all. Please go back to the pasture and eat grass. When a person lies like this, this shows the weakness of their point.

More bloviation folks! Step right up, and gather 'round. Hear how the BDA can lock up secrecy where the US government can't. Perhaps BDA should give a course to the CIA, FBI, and NSA. They got that whole "secrecy" thing locked up. Apparently it only takes a signature on a non-disclosure agreement. AHHHHHH. When you belive that NO one will talk it only makes you look dumber than when you discuss game consoles. And belive me, thats pretty stupid.

Do I know what happens between closed doors? Nope. DO YOU? And if you comment on that, you better check your disclosure agreement closely. Because if you talk here, just imagine what others are saying elsewhere. It's human nature to share. Don't pretend some paper agreement will keep secrets. It wont.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Nightmare: Real mature, there lil't. I believe it was you who said:

Since I have been bringing things back to your memory let's discuss why I said this. Did you not make this statement;


Sir Terrence the Terrible, what is that, a small weenie complex?

When someone ask me this question on a audio website, I have to wonder if they are gay for focusing on my body parts, and not on the issue. When you can show me a compelling argument that effectively fuses audio and weenies together logically, then I will apologize for what I said. Otherwise the question stands. Cool?

If you have the life that you state you have, then maybe you should tend to it. Because you are not making any points here with the kind of mindless, unsupported, no history points you are attempting to advance in this debate. Let's get to the meat of your posts cause I am hungry.


Point #1: My SACD setup is just fine, thank you

So you are attempting to advance the arguement that you use no delay because all of your speakers are equidistant, and you use no volume balance for your speakers because all of your speakers were perfectly balance right out of the carton?

Well, then you system must sould like crap. I know of nobody who can just plop five speakers in a room, and they all just balance like magic. Every person in the world HAS to do speaker to speaker balance to achieve equal loudness from all speakers, so for you to say you do not makes you full of it. My speakers are frequency, time/phase correct, and tonally matched anechoically, but when I brought them into my room, they require SOME volume compensation from speaker to speaker to acheive identical output. Who are you trying to fool here?

Secondly the ICBM has to pass ALL audio frequencies through its curcuits to filter out the bass. It is not exactly the cleanest or most graceful way to handle SACD audio. Your player just like all universal players has to convert the DSD stream to PCM so it can pass through your players DAC. Even if your player could pass DSD to your receiver raw and untouched, the outlaw cannot process DSD signal to its outputs. They must be converted to PCM to output through its DAC. No matter where you turn my friend, the conversion is there. Then there is the fact that you send your output through another stage of analog processing. So much for the clean signal path. The only way to do what you THINK you are doing, is to have a player that passes a raw DSD stream to your reciever, which can process raw DSD to its outputs. Since all receiver DSP algorythms are built around PCM, there is no chance you are ever going to get what you THINK you already have. Lastly even if you do not use any form of processing including level matching(which I doubt you can get around without telling a fib), your SACD still has to be converted to PCM no matter what. You would be much better off using the internal bass management of you receiver to acheive a clean link to your speakers. One could also make the point that you have sacrificed audio purity for room contamination because you apparently use nothing to compensate for room resonances and standing waves. So much for the minimalist thinking huh? It is VERY difficult to tame these things with bass traps alone without creating other acoustical problems within the room. Can anyone say suckout?


Point #2: Your opinion is too focussed on sales figures

When a studio is going to look at its game plan, they are not goint to trust nightfliers gut feelings, what he thinks, his anecdotal opinions, and his made in a vaccum projections. They look at sales figures and trends. Unknows and things outside the realm of possibilty is not what they are interested in, that is what nightflier attempts to use to counter verfiable information. Your gut, your thoughts, your musing and rantings are not verifable, and when you are debating online, facts and figures are king, your opinion is not. Your opinion cannot be advanced as a fact, but a figure can.

Studios and Record companies are not interested in free material, it makes them no money. Money drives the machine, helps create, market, and distribute the product. Guts, your brain(which you openly admit has lapses), what you think cannot do this. Guts, brains and projections are only powerful when there are fact and figures to support it.

Nobody but you supports the notion that unknowns are important to anything except to you, so stop the lying, spinning and trying to make it look like there is broad support for your conclusions . Give up the several people support my opinion crap, because only you support your opinion. What you need to do is start to read more verifiable information instead of trying to advance your invented in a vaccum and gut information. I am reading what people who make the decisions read. You are reading your gut and brain which are very uniformed, and not verifiable. Do you think any Studio or Record company executive takes your approach, or mine? Think about his very carefully before you come up with another off the cuff stupid answer okay?

VOD=$200 million dollars worth of business to the studios and cable companies in 2006, less than 2005.
Bluray and HD DVD= $4 billion dollars in player and software sales for the year between October 2006 and 2007. Sales figures are the only thing that a decision maker want to see. Is this too hard for you to grasp? While unit sales are only show a 5% share against the DVD market, it is a 26% share in terms of revenue.


Point #3: Your contention that there is no music that uses bass below 40Hz

Nobody needs to listen to every peice of music to understand that acoustical(non amplified music) recordings sans organ have no useful information below 40hz. All one has to do is look at the chart that explains and shows the frequency response of instruments most used in acoustical orchestrial music.

http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/frequency_e.html

The instrument with the lowest response is the double bass at 41.20hz. The only other instrument that goes lower is the C pedal on a large organ at 16hz(not 8hz as you assert) or a VERY huge bass drum which is not used in a majority of classical music. You can forget your LP's and very deep bass, because LP's cannot track any bass frequencies below 35hz without the needle jumping off the vinyl itself, especially at high levels. I also own quite a few CD, concert DVD, SACD and DVD-A as well. But I do not have to guess what frequencies are excited by the music. I can just look over at 6 RTA's that span from 20hz-20khz on each of my 5.1 channels and they can tell me EXACTLY what frequencies are being excited. You can only guess, and guess what? There ear is terrible at telling you exactly what frequencies you are hearing. It may sound deep to the ear, but not be below 50hz on a RTA. When it comes to deep bass, our ears are just not that sensitive to frequency or amplitude for that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson_curves

The only music that contains deep loud bass, is music that uses sample drums that have been EQ'd(like rap music) sythesized music(this can go as low as 10hz) and pop music(which is not acoustical by anyones standards). The piano which can go as low as 27.5hz cannot do that very loud at all. The bass pedals on a organ(the way it is recorded) can play audible signals down to 16hz, but not loud enough to overload any system electrically.

I really do not care if you have a 10' tall sub, it is only there to reproduce what is on the recording. If the acoustical recording does not have very deep bass(98% don't) then it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Oh and by the way, a cannon is not an acoustical instrument, it is an instrument of war. The rest of your useless musing have no relevance to the topic at hand, because you have no verifiable way of measuring what you think you hear.


Point #4: BR & HDDVD only make up 5% of the market - that makes BR just 3%


This point is only worthwhile if time stops right now. It does not. So let me once again point out facts to you. At one point CD sales where 1% of LP's. At one point SACD and DVD-A sales where 1% of CD's(and probably stayed that way throughout its lifetime). At one time DVD's were 1% of VHS, and HD DVD/BR sales where 1% of DVD's. All grew over time, because time does not stand still.

Artists create music either in a studio or live event. The music goes to post production for sweetening(some cases not). The record companies hear it and decide how to market it. It is distributed and purchased. This has not changed since the advent of the LP. The only thing that has changed is the distribution network with the addition of the internet. While marketing TOOLS have changed, the overall practice of marketing music has not. While promotional TOOLS have changed, the way music is promoted has not.

Movies are created in live locations or studio backlots. The elements of the movie are assembled in post production. The marketing department reviews the movie, and decide what marketing slant to take. The movie is distributed theatrically. When its run is over, the movie is prepared for encoding for at one time VHS, then DVD and now DVD and HD on disc. The TOOLS for this have gotten more sophisticated and better, and some practices for post preparation for encoding have changed. But fundementally the process has not changed much. What has changed is the distribution system with the introduction of the internet. Marketing TOOLS have change, but the practice of marketing a movie has not. Promotional TOOLS have changed, but the practice of promoting a movie theatrically or on disc has not. So to advance the theory that EVERYTHING has so drastically change that something that happen 15 years ago is irrelevant is as stupid as the thought that a ship full of players going down in the ocean effects the pricing structure of the players in the market. HD DVD and Bluray are following the same practice of adoption as the DVD. CD follow the same practice of adoption as the LP. DVD followed the same practice of adoption as VHS. The only change to the landscape has been the distribution of movies via the internet. That is only another TOOL for distribution, not a wholesale change of the way business is done. Only a person making a judgement based on his guts and feeling would advance this kind of theory. So much for your understanding of how things have been done for 30 years. Not much change, but alot of new tools to get a product out there.


Point #5: Downloading didn't start 3-4 years ago (in 2004)

Once again this points out that you do not read what I type. I did not say downloading began 3-4 years ago, I said LEGAL downloading did not began until 3-4 years ago. You have to read ALL the words to get a clear understanding nightmare. P2P started with ripping a disc to your computer, so a disc had to be purchased before a P2P trade took place, right?

In 1998 there were many other reason CD sales were slipping, and illegal downloading was not the major one, or even a minor one. Disc pricing was the major one, and this was indentified in a survey by Warner and Universal records. P2P was so small then, there was absolutely no evidence that it was the issue. I have already identified other reasons in this post.

Secondly, CD sales were suffering way before Itunes and any other downloading service was ever invented. Back in 2002 sales of the CD were slipping in favor of concert DVD's. Back in 2000 sales of CD were slipping because there was too much junk being recorded by the major labels who control the CD market.

There is ample evidence to support this notion. When a concert DVD was released, the sale of the identical audio CD fell dramatically. People wanted images to go with their music on their 5.1 system, and they bought the DVD in greater numbers than the CD. There was a direct correlation to this phenom. You could not download or trade concert videos back in that day right?

In the year 2000 the major record labels did a major year long study and survey as to why sales began to slip. The response came back from the consumer that audio quality, and content quality was the major problem, not downloading. As a matter of fact there is no evidence that even illegal downloads have any effect of sales at all. Here is one study that went back to 2002;

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html

As a matter of fact pirating can actually increase sales of music that is of good quality to the consumer;

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=748832003

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/

According to this report file sharing was at a all time high only as late as 2005

http://www.prohiphop.com/2006/01/improved_cd_sal.html

So much for your assertion that downloads effect sales of discs. And so much for your assertion that the 1998-2003 period was not covered. I did covered it, and quite well I might add. Poof! That was your argument going up in smoke bro.


Point #6: Microsoft's support of HDDVD is significant

Is it? Well, their support did not help HD DVD with the sell of tranformers versus nothing released by BR in the same week of its release did it? HD DVD was outsold that week even with a strong exclusive title. Should HD DVD thank Microsoft for that?

Microsoft support has not helped HD DVD much in terms of disc sold as BR is outselling HD DVD 2-1 since inception in America has it not? World wide it is more like 4.1, not much help there either is there?

It has not help HD DVD with player sales since standalones are neck and neck(inspite of the fact the BR players are more expensive), and overall HD DVD is being outsold world wide 5-1 when you include all players with a internal bluray drive and all players with a HD DVD drive.

Microsoft could not convince the BDA to go with HDi could it? The BDA chose BD-java

Microsoft could not convince the cable industry to include windows CE as the cable box operating system could they? Interactive television never got off the ground.

Microsoft does not own movies do they? The studios own those, so Microsoft is beholden to them, not the other way around.

It is a mistake to equate Microsoft sucess of their core business and transfer that outward to other business ventures. Microsoft cannot overcome the HD DVD problems with their might. The issues are much too profound. How does microsoft might address the fact that Toshiba is the only manufacturer making players? How does microsoft overcome the fact the Sony, Disney, Lionsgate, and Fox will not support HD DVD?

Your point is overstated, as usual.


Point #7: Classe and Denon upcoming players

I was wrong huh

Well, didn't I read on this forum that they are just about to release one? I also think that companies like Classe are already ramping up to release a HD player, but they will do like most other companies and wait out this holiday season

Now are you denying you said they are ramping up to release a HD player, as in HD DVD, because I must tell you, nobody calls a bluray player a HD player, they call it a bluray player. Now if this is just another one of your " I didn't mean that" responses, then maybe you should think before posting a response. I know this would be difficult for you, but give it a try. It will save you alot of headache in the long run.

Then you came back with this charmer;


I said that Denon had announced one, not Classe

Denon annouced a bluray player not a HD player. HD is usually associated with HD DVD not bluray.

You never mention that your friend work in the sales department at classe, here is what you said.


But since I doubt that will satisfy you, I asked one of my friends to inquire what if anything they had in the works. He is a long time Classe fanatic, owns several components, and is also waiting to see if Classe will release something. Naturally, they didn't want to commit to anything, but they did say something interesting: that "A degree of uncertainty continues to cloud the future of the new blue laser disc formats and it remains unclear which, if any, of these formats will become the dominant technology." While this may not calm you down from chomping at the bit, it does call the future of both formats into question. And that is precisely what I've been trying to say: people should wait before investing a lot of money in either format. Now if Classe isn't willing to commit to one format (not even BR with its vaulted extra capacity), then wouldn't it be a safer policy for us to wait as well? At the very least, let's wait and see what shakes out of the tree this holiday season.

Now it is this;


Now regarding that quote about Classe, it did not come from my friend, it came straight from Classe's sales department. If you'd have bothered to read my words a little better, you would not have been caught with your foot in your mouth, again.

I think I read your words quite clear, and it just proves that your are either a pathological liar, or you have the disease called footinmouth. Your classe story has taken on all kinds of versions, it's no wonder anyone can keep track. Your lying, and you know you are lying, so stop, just stop the lying and spining nightliar. There was no annoucement in Stereophile period. I went through about a years worth of my stereophile mags just to see if you were telling the truth. You were not, so this is just a lie to make a point, a pointless point. So now that you have been caught in several lies, how does one believe a word you say in any of your posts?


Point #8: Confusion about the HDMI spec could very well be deterring sales

Where is your proof? I have been asking for this since page two. Where is it?. I do not want to read what you think, I want to read a link that proves your assertions. Mine are quite supportable. I have long said the format wars are the reason people are not jumping into either bluray or HD DVD like crazy. That is the main reason. Other reasons include they not ready to trade in my DVD player, and price. There is online article after another supporting this. There are absolutely no articles supporting that HDMI version are the reasons ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NIL. That may be YOUR reasons, and that is born out of pure ignorace to what each version does. When music is released to bluray or HD DVD, you can bet it will not be in the SACD format. You can get 8 channels of PCM 24/96khz audio uncompressed on HDMI 1.1 version, so if music is your bag, this is what you get. If you are choosing not to support it because it will not support your precious SACD collection, then good, don't. I do not think anyone cares except you.

So back at ya nightliar. Now that I have address these points, and others as well, are you willing to be a student like you tried to be when you started this post? Or are you going to continue to advance stupid, inane, absent minded, historically non existant, outright lies out of your gut, brain, and in some cases your bum?

[PeruvianSkies]

Well let me get that trophy dusted off for ya and get ready for the presentation. I mean, what would AR be without PeruvianSkies and his 183 threads? :Yawn:

I am simply pointing out that I do contribute quite a bit to this site besides just in fights, which you seem to think are the only contributions that I make. You feel like I just come around and 'hate' on others, well, if that were the case would I contribute in other ways and as often as I do?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks for making my point old man. The original discussion was on HD Movie Downloads. Of which XBOX Live is doing a booming business. Then you decide to introduce game piracy THAT IS TOTALLY UNRELATED. So, if you mod your 360, you cant get on live. If you cant get on LIVE, you CANT get movies. If you cant get movies, THERE IS NO DANGER OF PIRACY. Thanks for making MY point, and making yourself look like an even bigger ass than you already have. I'll let Nightflier know you said "Hi".

Did you not say that the XBOX was more secure than the PS3?. That is how piracy was introduced to this conversation meathead. Modders do not care about XBOX live when they can play bootleg movies and games aquired through other sources. When you want to make a statement, be sure that nobody can counter it. Okay? I would hardly call $200 million spread between Apple, XBOX live, and cable booming. 4 billion dollars in a year for a brand new technology would be better described as booming.



Well, I've been waiting for you to debate. Instead you have once again gone to the gutter. Calling people liars, and other names only shows off how weak a position you are arguing from. Too bad your employers can't see what an ass you make of yourself here. Unless of course you do it at work also.

If you are waiting to debate as you state, then why have you gone back to personalities as opposed to the issue at hand? When people lie constantly as you have, then they are liars. There is no other way to characterize it. When a person is ready to debate, they do not lie.



Neither. The only thing you have proven is how clueless you are when it comes to consoles. The PS3 has been hacked as well, but the difference is that SONY is "working" on IPTV, and movie D/L and has been for 2 years. MS has a robust SD/HD movie download system, that has not been shown to be affected by nefarious activity. The best you can do is showcase a 2 year old article about gaming piracy, and another about persons sharing passwords. Nothing about movies/TV content because they are unaffected by this SEPARATE issue. When shown articles about MS combating the problem, you can only sputter about how an OLD Defunct Console proves your point. Go take a nap old man, and try again later.

Your head is as hard as a brick. I already stated I didn't care about consoles. Why don't you get this?

But you said yourself that the XBOX was more secure than the PS3. The difference between the XBOX hack and the PS3 hack is hardware versus software. The software issue can be eleviated through a firmware, unlike the XBOX, which can be . All Sony has to do is include the firmware on the very disc of the next game, and its game over. If the game is spread and picked up, without the proper protocol, the game won't play. XBOX has no such work around. All someone has to do is not log on to XBOX live, and their player can play hacked games and movies forever.

I guess if you were a little diaper wearing child, I would be a old man. Nobody would consider me a old man if they were out of their teens. I can only ascertain that you are a little diaper wearing child by your reference to me as an old man.




Right, I forgot, they are "Flocking" to Sony to flood the market with d/l movies and TV content. Oh wait, Sony doesn't offer that service. My bad. Yes, I said "Flock". More and more content is being offered each day. Apple can't compete,and they are killing Sat/Cable. The fact that Disney is offering ANY HD content on MS is a pretty big step. After all, didn't Disney go on record NOT supporting HD-DVD, and only Blu-Ray? Kinda funny then, that they offer HD on a MS service. Great point about Disney, thanks for making my arguement!

Your attempts to twist this are rebuffed. You cannot use the word FLOCK unless you were describing someone falling all over each other to get to something. The very fact that not ALL studios support XBOX short circuits this whole flocking to live bull crap. The fact that the studios are selective in what they are releasing to live shows a much more measured approach than your word FLOCKING would imply. Inflammatory word usage is for marketing people, and people who spin the facts. Disney offering televsion programming, and a few movies is no big deal. If they were releasing their premium stuff, that a big deal. Overstating a point shows the weakness of that point. Careful scrutiny shows its not point at all. All studio are looking for other distribution outlets. Live is just another one. When they start offering the same content you get on Bluray, then you have said something. Until then, this is a fatty hamburger, your favorite.




If your basing sales projections soley on your Ad budget you got bigger problems. Good luck with that.

How do you obtain a ad budget without sales. Good luck with that! Everyone does sales projections. If an ad does not meet even the most minimum of sales projections, then its on to another marketing outlet. Nobody said sales projection were based SOLEY on anything. It is a major thing, not the ONLY thing. That is business young grass eating leather purse!



Yeah, your right. Pets.Com was really hoping the Superbowl would have worked out better for them. And certainly anyone else that spends that kind of money isn't looking for an 'effect'. Your an idiot. They ARE looking for an effect, but as you realize, it won't translate directly into sales. Sounds like your backpeddling here. Now it "It's irrelevant whether they get th return". I thought that was what they were so concerned about remeber the ROI? Master Lock only showed that plenty of companies blew their entire ad budget on 1 commercial for the year. For the "Effect" as you put it. It made my case, but I'll let your feeble mind think it helped you. You need all the help you can get.

This makes no since at all. Why do you advertise if you are not looking for sales? Why spend big money on advertising if you are not looking for a larger ROI? Master lock learned this, Pets.com learned this, why is this so difficult for you to grasp as well. If a marketing outlet does not translate to sales growth(we are in a results driven world) then that outlet is abandon for another. No back peddling, just total constancy for those who can read.





No, they actually figured you into their ROI. So, if they only spent a bit more they might land you. And its not a bad example, just shows how little you understand the relationship between Advertising, and actual "Sales". Keep thinking there is a direct correlation. It's good that you make all of us laugh so hard. Keeps us coming back to learn more from Sir T "Terrible in Math, Debate, and Business".

Are you disputing that Bose advertising is not found in every audio magazine, in malls, inflight mags on airplanes, online and everywhere else? Here is a company that knows how to market and advertise, that is why they are the largest speaker company in the world. But of course a nose picking gaming little boy wouldn't know that would they? Bose makes my point valid, if no other company in the world does.




More bloviation folks! Step right up, and gather 'round. Hear how the BDA can lock up secrecy where the US government can't. Perhaps BDA should give a course to the CIA, FBI, and NSA. They got that whole "secrecy" thing locked up. Apparently it only takes a signature on a non-disclosure agreement. AHHHHHH. When you belive that NO one will talk it only makes you look dumber than when you discuss game consoles. And belive me, thats pretty stupid.

You have been eating so much of yourself, that the fat from the meat has gone to your head. The CIA, FBI and NSA are HUGE organizations with information on everything(computer laptops etc.). To keep information secret with a combined total of millions of employees would be next to impossible, since those employees have access to sensitive information and can expose it. The BDA is made up of 170 companies, with only people at the highest levels of that company knowing any details of the BDA contracts. The difference is staggering, but I am not surprised that you would even make this comparison.

If I wanted to know anything about consoles, I would know more about them than you ever could. Just like I know more about audio and video than you do. I put my energy into what interested me, not in what interests something that fits between two peices of bread.


Do I know what happens between closed doors? Nope. DO YOU? And if you comment on that, you better check your disclosure agreement closely. Because if you talk here, just imagine what others are saying elsewhere. It's human nature to share. Don't pretend some paper agreement will keep secrets. It wont.

If you were threaten with legal prosecution, would you tell? If it meant banishment from the BDA, and all of your liscensing aggreements abolished and revoked, would you put your business on the line just to spread contract information? I do not think so. As close as I am to the bluray insiders(and one even went to college with me), If I cannot get information on this, you know some snotting nosed gaming freak hasn't a chance. There is no information that I have devulge here, that has not already been reveal at bluray.com. You are spreading lies, you know you are, and it is stupid of you to continue this course. I visit almost all the major and some minor AV sites out there, I have heard of no one mentioning this AT ALL, because no one knows a single detail of this. This is nothing more than one of you fat between the bun lies. Move on, you have absolutely no traction here, that is for sure.

The bottom line is this. If Warner had not renewed is contractual obligations, they would be giving up their seat on the BDA BOD. If that was done, everyone would know about it because who is on the BOD is a matter of public record, and it would have been all over the internet. Since Warner is still listed as part of the BDA BOD, then what you have stated is a lie. When you know the rules of the BDA, it makes advancing this kind of FUD impossible.

You can call me idot, old man, or anything other name. I am unfazed by this. So if you were trying to get an effect, the only effect you got was everyone now knows what a little kid your truely are.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am simply pointing out that I do contribute quite a bit to this site besides just in fights, which you seem to think are the only contributions that I make. You feel like I just come around and 'hate' on others, well, if that were the case would I contribute in other ways and as often as I do?

PS, you are full of BS. You have attacked me at every chance you have gotten since I have return to this site. The only contribution you have made comes in the form of bloated movie analysis that is more opinion that fact. When pressed on technical stuff, you revert to a post i made a year ago as a cover for you crap. Please cut the passive/aggresive crap, it is very unflattering. Why do you think everyone has come down on you like they have, because you have been giving out food for free to the homeless?

I have been on this website since 1996. I have far more posts than 2000. I posted everyday here till a year ago. So my total would be closer to 10-15,000 posts, far more information than you have spewed in your entire life.

[Groundbeef]

Did you not say that the XBOX was more secure than the PS3?. That is how piracy was introduced to this conversation meathead. Modders do not care about XBOX live when they can play bootleg movies and games aquired through other sources. When you want to make a statement, be sure that nobody can counter it. Okay? I would hardly call $200 million spread between Apple, XBOX live, and cable booming. 4 billion dollars in a year for a brand new technology would be better described as booming. .

And I'm sure that it's going to be $200 million forever. In 5 years, lets revisit this topic. By then BR/HD-DVD will be an afterthought, and D/L will be on top.





If you are waiting to debate as you state, then why have you gone back to personalities as opposed to the issue at hand? When people lie constantly as you have, then they are liars. There is no other way to characterize it. When a person is ready to debate, they do not lie. .

You started with the liar comments dumb ass. Just waiting for you to actually debate, instead of trying to come up with witty coments about my Avatar. But since you actually don't have anything realistic or on topic to add, I'll wait for your next meat reference.



Your head is as hard as a brick. I already stated I didn't care about consoles. Why don't you get this?.

Then perhaps you ought to stop commenting about them. Your lack of knowledge and intellegence are showing.



But you said yourself that the XBOX was more secure than the PS3. The difference between the XBOX hack and the PS3 hack is hardware versus software. The software issue can be eleviated through a firmware, unlike the XBOX, which can be . All Sony has to do is include the firmware on the very disc of the next game, and its game over. If the game is spread and picked up, without the proper protocol, the game won't play. XBOX has no such work around. All someone has to do is not log on to XBOX live, and their player can play hacked games and movies forever. .

No, I think I was referencing the fact that its easier to pull the HD out of the PS3 (it is). It wouldn't be that difficult to then attach the HD to a computer. A little emulation and it can access the info. On the 360, you need to modify the motherboard. It is different.

For the PS3, there are A LOT of Linux applications that are doing the same thing that motherboard "mods" are doing to the 360. But you wouldn't know that because you don't care. So stop acting like your the definative source on console info. Because your not.

And please explain the last comment on your quote? How is a modded 360 going to play hacked movies? Without the latest "Key" the movies don't play. Get on live to get a key, and your system is "bricked". Seems like a waste to kill your system for a $4.00 d/l. But again your ignorance gets in the way of your inability to shut up when your behind.



I guess if you were a little diaper wearing child, I would be a old man. Nobody would consider me a old man if they were out of their teens. I can only ascertain that you are a little diaper wearing child by your reference to me as an old man. .

No, your total lack of grip of reality can only lead one to belive that you are in advanced stages of dementia. So, you might be young in years, but your mental ability can only be described as "ancient".




Your attempts to twist this are rebuffed. You cannot use the word FLOCK unless you were describing someone falling all over each other to get to something. The very fact that not ALL studios support XBOX short circuits this whole flocking to live bull crap. The fact that the studios are selective in what they are releasing to live shows a much more measured approach than your word FLOCKING would imply. Inflammatory word usage is for marketing people, and people who spin the facts. Disney offering televsion programming, and a few movies is no big deal. If they were releasing their premium stuff, that a big deal. Overstating a point shows the weakness of that point. Careful scrutiny shows its not point at all. All studio are looking for other distribution outlets. Live is just another one. When they start offering the same content you get on Bluray, then you have said something. Until then, this is a fatty hamburger, your favorite. .

The fact that Disney is even offering programming for d/l is a pretty big thing for MS. It's not like they said MS will NEVER get more, they are starting out slowly. Discount it all you want, but every business starts slowly. Just because physical media is a larger business model now doesn't mean it will be forever. Only a total ass would assume it will. My money is on your studio even looking at internet distribution for media in the future.



How do you obtain a ad budget without sales. Good luck with that! Everyone does sales projections. If an ad does not meet even the most minimum of sales projections, then its on to another marketing outlet. Nobody said sales projection were based SOLEY on anything. It is a major thing, not the ONLY thing. That is business young grass eating leather purse! .

Never said that people don't do sales projections. But they certainly don't bank on a $ to $ relation of ads run to sales.



This makes no since at all. Why do you advertise if you are not looking for sales? Why spend big money on advertising if you are not looking for a larger ROI? Master lock learned this, Pets.com learned this, why is this so difficult for you to grasp as well. If a marketing outlet does not translate to sales growth(we are in a results driven world) then that outlet is abandon for another. No back peddling, just total constancy for those who can read. .

Pets.com went out of business you moron. But who cares right? They were ADVERTISING dammit!



Are you disputing that Bose advertising is not found in every audio magazine, in malls, inflight mags on airplanes, online and everywhere else? Here is a company that knows how to market and advertise, that is why they are the largest speaker company in the world. But of course a nose picking gaming little boy wouldn't know that would they? Bose makes my point valid, if no other company in the world does. .

Nope, not contesting a thing. But I guess they should re-evaluate their advertising if they can't even convince a dolt like yourself to buy.



You have been eating so much of yourself, that the fat from the meat has gone to your head. The CIA, FBI and NSA are HUGE organizations with information on everything(computer laptops etc.). To keep information secret with a combined total of millions of employees would be next to impossible, since those employees have access to sensitive information and can expose it. The BDA is made up of 170 companies, with only people at the highest levels of that company knowing any details of the BDA contracts. The difference is staggering, but I am not surprised that you would even make this comparison. .

You do realize that there are different levels of "Secret" right? For god's sake, we cant even get the VP of the US to keep treasonous secrets "secret". So your 170 company consortium can? Please.



If I wanted to know anything about consoles, I would know more about them than you ever could. Just like I know more about audio and video than you do. I put my energy into what interested me, not in what interests something that fits between two peices of bread. .

So stop acting like you know anything about consoles. You do own one after all. Remember, the one that SONY President stated is a GAME MACHINE 1st and foremost?




If you were threaten with legal prosecution, would you tell? If it meant banishment from the BDA, and all of your liscensing aggreements abolished and revoked, would you put your business on the line just to spread contract information? I do not think so. As close as I am to the bluray insiders(and one even went to college with me), If I cannot get information on this, you know some snotting nosed gaming freak hasn't a chance. There is no information that I have devulge here, that has not already been reveal at bluray.com. You are spreading lies, you know you are, and it is stupid of you to continue this course. I visit almost all the major and some minor AV sites out there, I have heard of no one mentioning this AT ALL, because no one knows a single detail of this. This is nothing more than one of you fat between the bun lies. Move on, you have absolutely no traction here, that is for sure. .

Well, if you sell out the US, it means DEATH. And still, state secrets are sold. So please stop pretending that it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to leak a secret. And just because someone doesn't come running to you with a tattoo on their forhead that says "I LEAK INFO" doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'm not lying, but your delusional.



You can call me idot, old man, or anything other name. I am unfazed by this. So if you were trying to get an effect, the only effect you got was everyone now knows what a little kid your truely are.

No, not really. The only thing that people are realizing since your return is what a tool you are. You can sputter, and bloviate, and try to bully people, but in the end your just a hyperventilating out of touch ass.

[PeruvianSkies]

P

I have been on this website since 1996. I have far more posts than 2000. I posted everyday here till a year ago. So my total would be closer to 10-15,000 posts, far more information than you have spewed in your entire life.


You are also probably twice my age, so I would hope that you have, but that doesn't change the fact that what you spew out is arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish.

[Woochifer]

but that doesn't change the fact that what you spew out is arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish.

:cryin: :cryin: :cryin:

Ooohhh! I'm sure Terrence is oh so hurt by your latest tantrum! :lol:

You sure you're not looking in the mirror when posting? I don't think anyone else but you could have described your own posts quite this well! Congrats yet again! :cool:

And BTW, Terrence's facts have got your "facts" schooled by long shot. Hardly the stuff of "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" but then again, I should defer to you on this "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" subject since you seem to have quite a bit of "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" to your credit! Take a bow, you are an expert at something! :D

[PeruvianSkies]

:cryin: :cryin: :cryin:

Ooohhh! I'm sure Terrence is oh so hurt by your latest tantrum! :lol:

You sure you're not looking in the mirror when posting? I don't think anyone else but you could have described your own posts quite this well! Congrats yet again! :cool:

And BTW, Terrence's facts have got your "facts" schooled by long shot. Hardly the stuff of "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" but then again, I should defer to you on this "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" subject since you seem to have quite a bit of "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" to your credit! Take a bow, you are an expert at something! :D

Why do you feel the need to cover Sir T's back? Or is that the position you are used to in SF?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And I'm sure that it's going to be $200 million forever. In 5 years, lets revisit this topic. By then BR/HD-DVD will be an afterthought, and D/L will be on top.

Half right. HD DVD will be an afterthought, and BR would have had a 3.8billion dollar head start. D/L would have to go through a costly internet face lift, broadband would have to be in over 70% of American homes, and the only delivery system for movies would have to be downloads. Best estimate for this is more than a decade, cause you haven't even started the process.



You started with the liar comments dumb ass. Just waiting for you to actually debate, instead of trying to come up with witty coments about my Avatar. But since you actually don't have anything realistic or on topic to add, I'll wait for your next meat reference.

You lied, not just once, but several times. So if I am a dumb ass, then you must be a beyond retarded ass, because I have shot and killed every last one of your points dead better than a drive by.




Then perhaps you ought to stop commenting about them. Your lack of knowledge and intellegence are showing.

Gettin a little short on real info huh. You have to prove claims of lack of knowledge and intelligence, you just can't say it and hope it sticks.




No, I think I was referencing the fact that its easier to pull the HD out of the PS3 (it is). It wouldn't be that difficult to then attach the HD to a computer. A little emulation and it can access the info. On the 360, you need to modify the motherboard. It is different.

Emulation is not going to help get you past copy protection, oh but a little gamer child probably would not know this. The only way to get any information off the drive of a PS3 is took hook it to a computer that has a HDCP compliant input. This prevents hard drive misuse. I know this, because I actually own one. The fact is, you do not, so what you say is suspect, more so because you have already been busted telling lies.


For the PS3, there are A LOT of Linux applications that are doing the same thing that motherboard "mods" are doing to the 360. But you wouldn't know that because you don't care. So stop acting like your the definative source on console info. Because your not.

When you actually OWN the PS3, you do not have to be a definitive source on console info, just read the instructions. And sorry, a linux application can be rendered useless in the PS3 by a simple firmware upgrade that cannot be avoided. You try and play a new game, or movie that REQUIRES a firmware update, and it is disabled. Since alot of the newer movies are requiring thses updates to play the movies, then there is no way out. With games it is even more covered in that all you have to do is put the firmware update within the game, and boom there goes the application. Remember Sony is not obligated to use Linux or support it, and it is not required to make the player operate. Mine does not use Linux.


And please explain the last comment on your quote? How is a modded 360 going to play hacked movies? Without the latest "Key" the movies don't play. Get on live to get a key, and your system is "bricked". Seems like a waste to kill your system for a $4.00 d/l. But again your ignorance gets in the way of your inability to shut up when your behind.

Sorry, but hacked movies don't need keys. And if you have modded your player at the motherboard level, the keys are not necessary to play any pirated game or movie. What makes a game pirated, is that the security codes are already cracked and off the game or movie. Just like a ripped CD or DVD. Once again, your comment only pertain to XBOX live connections. If you do not connect, they cannot brick your system. If you are using pirated games and movies, then there is absolutely no reason to go to XBOX live. Bang, shot again!




No, your total lack of grip of reality can only lead one to belive that you are in advanced stages of dementia. So, you might be young in years, but your mental ability can only be described as "ancient".

When unable to debate effectively, just spin it to a personal level. Old trick for such a young kid. Us "old men" knew about this when the dinosaur ruled the earth. Its a shame you kiddy's are just now learning old school, because we "old men" see you coming, and going.





The fact that Disney is even offering programming for d/l is a pretty big thing for MS. It's not like they said MS will NEVER get more, they are starting out slowly. Discount it all you want, but every business starts slowly. Just because physical media is a larger business model now doesn't mean it will be forever. Only a total ass would assume it will. My money is on your studio even looking at internet distribution for media in the future.

If Disney or any other studio said no more content, game over for XBOX live. Microsoft does not produce content. So now they are starting of slowly, what happen to the flocking? I know what happen, I work at a studio, and I know mine is not flocking to XBOX live at all. Based on what other studio are offering, they don't seem to be flocking either. If you backpeddle any harder, you may fall and hurt the ground ole beefy one.




Never said that people don't do sales projections. But they certainly don't bank on a $ to $ relation of ads run to sales.

Once again, where did I say it was dollar for dollar. What you are making it seem like is companies are just thowing money at advertising without any expectation of a return. Wrong! Before a company throws out million of dollars, they go through market strategies, focus groups, preview commercial and advertising for effectiveness of focus groups, more focus groups etc.. By then they have spent resources already, and if the campaign does not meet sales projections, then its on to a new strategy. The whole process is methotical, and very measure, but certainly not the mindless waste you assert. Companies EXPECT a certain level of return on their investment, and anyone that says otherwise, is a mindless idiot.




Pets.com went out of business you moron. But who cares right? They were ADVERTISING dammit!

Not relevant at all. It just shows they didn't do their homework. They probably followed your advise.




Nope, not contesting a thing. But I guess they should re-evaluate their advertising if they can't even convince a dolt like yourself to buy.

Well, since I haven't bought their stuff, sure does bring to question the silly name calling doesn't it? Not as dumb as you claim. Did I ever tell you that meat does not have brains?




You do realize that there are different levels of "Secret" right? For god's sake, we cant even get the VP of the US to keep treasonous secrets "secret". So your 170 company consortium can? Please.

Give it up man, I already explained this. If Warner had not signed, they would have to give up their seat. If they gave up their seat, then the whole world would know in about two seconds thanks to the internet just like it did after the Paramount deal broke. No such thing has happen, which confirms that you are spreading lies, something you have continuously done. Hence, liar. The computer companies that are members of the BDA do not know the contractural obligation of the movie companies, and visa versa. Only the movie studios that support the BDA know what other studios contract obligation are, because they are all simular. So what we are talking about is no more than 10-15 people who know what the studios are doing, or not. Significantly less than the hundreds of thousands that know US secrets at any given level. Give it up wally, call the dog in, the hunt is over because the trail is cold.




So stop acting like you know anything about consoles. You do own one after all. Remember, the one that SONY President stated is a GAME MACHINE 1st and foremost?

Then why does Sony marketing it as a entertainment center? There has been only one Sony President presiding over the development of the PS3, and nowhere have I ever read a statement that he calls it a game machine first and foremost. He has called it the mercedes of entertainment center however.





Well, if you sell out the US, it means DEATH. And still, state secrets are sold. So please stop pretending that it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to leak a secret. And just because someone doesn't come running to you with a tattoo on their forhead that says "I LEAK INFO" doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'm not lying, but your delusional.

Your leak has no truth to it. None. I have already stated what would happen if the leak was actually accurate, but since none of these events have happen, you are spreading lies, and trying to make it stick. If it were true, then everyone would already know it. Since it is not even mentioned online ANYWHERE, you are trying to cover a lie you are spreading. Classless your beefyness.




No, not really. The only thing that people are realizing since your return is what a tool you are. You can sputter, and bloviate, and try to bully people, but in the end your just a hyperventilating out of touch ass.

Ohh, looks like your leathery hide has bunched at the bum. Geeze, I have never been called a tool, though I never went camping until this weekend. I guess you keep living, and lots of new things happen to ya. Calling me a bully after all the things you have said sounds like another major case of passive/aggressive. You want to act like you know something, blow your little barrel chest out and call names, and when it is batted back into place, you cry bully. Is this the teeny bopper way of throwing a fit because your diaper is wet?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You are also probably twice my age, so I would hope that you have, but that doesn't change the fact that what you spew out is arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish.

If you think that I am twice your age, and know I should know more than you, then why do you continually step up to the plate to get your ass kicked? Seems kinda of juvenile to me, so maybe you are half my age. Are you in your late teens?

If my information is arrogant, self absorbed, ignorant rubbish, then you will have to prove that. What you cannot do is spin the fact that the best contribution you have given to this website is over bloated opinionated nonsense that means nothing to anyone but yourself. So who really is arrogant, self absorbed, and spews ignorant rubbish? How about your Dracula post? When pushed if you had actually seen the movie on bluray, it turns out you haven't. Yet you had about a page worth of critisizm on a movie you have never seen. How stupid is that PS full of BS?

When pushed further, you attempted to equate a film image to a video image, of which anyone with even a flutters worth of knowledge knows is not possible. Then you tried to say it was not as your remembered, which the last time you saw in the theater was five years ago. Anyone with a flutters worth of knowledge knows our brains do not have the ability to hold images in detail for five years. Our brains continually re-writes images we see, and things we hear every time we sleep. This is why it becomes difficult to describe someone you see committing a crime. The longer you wait, the more difficult it is.

You may remember the story line, but not images, and not audio, and certainly not in enough detail to compare five years later. Since the source you are comparing the video from can never look like the film itself, then your comparison is rubbish. The only way you could remember anything in any detail is to see it over and over and over again, and then describe it. That is because this kind of exposure becomes somewhat hard written into our brains, much like a repetitive task.

So how ignorant am I, and just who is spewing rubbish? Things that make you go hmmmm.

[Woochifer]

Why do you feel the need to cover Sir T's back? Or is that the position you are used to in SF?

Like that's supposed to be an insult? :lol:

Gonna need to do better than channeling tired old homophobic inneuendo. But, I will say this is an improvement over your usual litany of whining little crybaby posts! :cryin: So, maybe you'll get a gold star for the day after all!

Besides, all I'm doing is stating the obvious ... well, maybe not obvious to you! Oh well, no one's perfect!

[nightflier]

Since I have been bringing things back to your memory let's discuss why I said this. Did you not make this statement: "Sir Terrence the Terrible, what is that, a small weenie complex?"

Yes, I was referring to your inferiority complex. I mean who calls himself "Sir Terrence, the Terrible" anyhow? It's like you crawled out of some dungeons and dragons rule book and decided this would be a good place to troll around. You're so full of yourself, so arrogantly defensive, and so concerned about your rep, the only possible conclusion is that you're trying to compensate for something. My guess is that you have manhood problems and my saying so has no gay intentions whatsoever. Heck you're the one going on about people's bums, lesbians, and articles of lingerie. And you want to call me gay? Pluuease! Now unless you really need to come out of the closet, you better stop about this gay business, you're not gaining any traction with it.

Oh and as far as relating your inferiority complex to audio, isn't that why you're always bragging about how good your system is and how much better than everyone else's it is? So if you have a need to overcompensate, it's no surprise you do it through your fancy system too. By the way, you could stand to upgrade those amps and buy something a little higher class than that Sony stuff. Oh, I forgot, you're probably a shill for them too.

So let's get on with the points I made that you are so intent on attacking.

(Point #1: My SACD setup is just fine, thank you)

So off you go with your technical nonsense and yacking about how my system can't possibly send DSD streams and how it's over processing. Nonsense. I'm sending a PCM stream through the pre/pro and out to the ICBM. No processing, nada. So stop with all the attempts at confusing the issue by suggesting that my setup is doing things its not. The ICBM, by the way is a fine product and does an admirable job of filtering out low frequencies to the subs. And I typically use a decibel meter to figure out the output from all the speakers and they are pretty close in volume for my needs. But I'm sure that's not up to your standards, so FYI, I also had my installer friend run calibration tests when he set up the acoustic panels and bass traps. He used specialized software, different settings and all kinds of repetitive test patterns and he's confident it's pretty well calibrated. Of course he's a home installer by trade, so I guess he can't know as much as you, right?

See if you'd just bothered to read what I wrote more carefully, you'd have known that I'm outputting PCM straight to the ICBM and you could have saved me some time and aggravation having to repeat myself. Likewise, I don't know why you keep saying I'm not using acoustic panels and bass traps, because I am. So stop with the nonsense, it's pathetic to see you spin your wheels and go nowhere.

(Point #2: Your opinion is too focussed on sales figures)

Now your response to this one's a doozie. You waste another two paragraphs with insults and nonsense and only make a feeble retort in the last tiny paragraph:


VOD=$200 million dollars worth of business to the studios and cable companies in 2006, less than 2005.
Bluray and HD DVD= $4 billion dollars in player and software sales for the year between October 2006 and 2007. Sales figures are the only thing that a decision maker want to see. Is this too hard for you to grasp? While unit sales are only show a 5% share against the DVD market, it is a 26% share in terms of revenue.

Now, I really can't continue without calling you an asinine stupid mule. I mean really. I just got done saying that you base everything you know on sales figures. I showed that sales figures are not enough, with examples such as: the sale of current 1080p TVs saying nothing about what's in people's homes; and advertising-supported free VOD being a significant portion of the VOD total. And you come back with paid VOD figures. lil't, you only want to see what supports your own argument - we've been through this before. My examples are both very real and well supported, so don't ask me to provide examples if you won't consider them - and we've been there before, too. So I'll repeat this for everyone to read:

lil't is so focussed on sales figures that he completely ignores anything that does not have a price tag

So just so we're clear: your belief is that everything else from pirated content to ad-supported content, is inconsequential because it can't be measured through sales receipts. That's truly precious lil't - it's almost worth quoting, printing and framing. I'll even go further: your shortsightedness is the very reason why a couple of years from now, you'll be eating your own words about BR supplanting every other distribution method to become the dominant movie distribution medium. Sorry to bust your theory, but BR will always remain a niche product - that is my opinion, and I stand by it. Don't worry, I'll be right here in two years waiting for you to apologize.

(Point #3: Your contention that there is no music that uses bass below 40Hz)

It's cute how you start off with saying that, with the exception of every type of music that does go below 40Hz, you are right. Well, no sh*t Sherlock! Of course there is no acoustical instrument that goes lower, if you exclude those that do (like the organ). And speaking of organs, the one in Sydney's famous concert hall does indeed go down to 8Hz. See, you don't know everything. The fact is, I have quite a substantial collection of music, and not just organ music, that goes down well below 40Hz. I collect the stuff, so stop trying to convince yourself I'm out of my league when it comes to bass. For Pete's sake, stop trying to make a blanket statement that is so far from the truth you can't even defend it.

(Point #4: BR & HDDVD only make up 5% of the market - that makes BR just 3%)

Look, no amount of whining is going to change the fact that BR is just a measly 3% of the market. And trying to advance the theory that its growth is more impressive than the growth of 15 year old technologies is just nonsense. There are just too many factors that are different. No matter how many confusing factoids you can present trying to make the comparison stick, any sane reader will know that there are far more variables that are different now than 15 years ago. The comparison just can't be made. Stop it already, you're not getting anywhere with that - you're just spinning your wheels again.

(Point #5: Downloading didn't start 3-4 years ago (in 2004))

It's interesting that you base your petty retort on opinion studies done by Warner and Universal. How accurate is that? Kind of like your "impartial" knowledge about BR when you just happen to "work for a BR-only studio." The fact is, you don't know, I dont' know, nobody knows, what the impact of Napster had on CD sales. To say that concert DVDs had an impact whether true or not, still says nothing about what impact piracy had. The whole point about piracy is that it can't be figured into the equation because it cannot be quantified. It certainly doesn't have a neat little sales receipt you can hang your theories on. It is an estimate at best. What Warner and Universal were able to figure out was based on a sample pool of those individuals who were willing to discuss their legal and/or illegal activities. How reliable is that? And I'm sorry, there is no way to know if file sharing was at an all-time high in 2005, since we don't have comparable numbers for when Napster, Limewire, and eDonkey were all the rage. Just more FUD. You're still spinning and getting nowhere, lil't.

(Point #6: Microsoft's support of HDDVD is significant)

So Microsoft's pressure on Paramount, wasn't significant? I'd think it was. And just because Microsoft doesn't own a studio does not mean it does not have the means to buy one. And that is power, lil't. Wouldn't it just make you soil your diaper to read in tomorrow's paper that Microsoft had just bought Fox? It hasn't happened, but that's not because the company doesn't have the means.

Oh, and your contention that Microsoft is powerless outside it's core business, is nonsense. The company had no problem taking on Novell when it was only a "desktop" operating system. Then it had no problem destroying Lotus 123 with an inferior product called Excel. Then it had no problem becoming the dominant email/messaging platform and devastating Notes in the process. Just a software company? I seriously doubt that - their inroads in hardware have crippled Logitech. Their expansion into Web search and advertising is a direct threat to Google. And as far as putting pressure on companies, Microsoft had no problem kicking IBM in the teeth, then the largest hardware/software company in the world, over the MCA bus, token ring, and WinNT vs. OS/2.

Now Microsoft's support for HDDVD could be just for the sake of beating Sony down - who knows. But the fact is, they have not given up on HDDVD and it makes people wonder why. I'll tell you it makes investors wonder, and I do know that for a fact. It all goes a long way to give people pause about the future of BR. You may not agree with that statement, but that doesn't make it untrue. And I haven't even begun to talk about the cross-licensing agreements that Microsoft has with not just the movie studions but also all the hardware manufacturers that make receivers, TVs, disk players, computer chips. Microsoft's power in this arena is far more pervasive than Sony or Toshiba, by a wide margin.

No, I'm not overstating anything, trust me. And if you don't believe me, let's pick this point up again in two years, that is, if you still have the gall to hang out here.

(Point #7: Classe and Denon upcoming players)

OK, I can't hold this one in either: you arrogant stupid ignoramous. Yes, when I'm talking about HD I'm talking about BR and HDDVD. Geez, it's a pain in the *ss to type it all out for you, so just stick to it that when I say HD, I mean High Definition, not just HDDVD. I would have thought, from someone who relishes in using acronyms, sometimes his own invented ones, that this would be simple enough to follow. Well, I hope that will stop your petty hairsplitting over the statement I made about Denon's upcoming HD player.

Now onto Classe. Again, I have to let this out: you pig-headed mumb-skulled miscreant. I said I asked one of my friends who owns Classe to inquire. I didn't say he worked for the company so get off that already - you're fishing. Can't you read words? I asked him to ask Classe because as an owner with a serial number, he has an avenue for asking this. My thinking was that if I were to ask, I would not get the same level of response. He received an email back from Classe that said exactly what I quoted. This was from the sales department. Now what of that don't you understand? Are you just so desperate to find something to nitpick about that you have to split hairs over how I said it. I think most everyone else reading these posts understood that just fine.

So on that note, you're still just spinning in one spot and going nowhere fast. No traction, lil't, nothing. You haven't moved.

(Point #8: Confusion about the HDMI spec could very well be deterring sales)

I already said: I don't need to do a friggin study to prove this. It's common sense. If people don't know that they won't get screwed with a brick, or at the very least, last year's model, they are less likely to buy. That's just plain marketing.

But I figured that was not enough for an obsessive little nitwit like yourself, so I did a little survey of my own. I was at Best Buy today (the wife wanted a couple of DVDs), and I stood around by the BR and HDDVDs and asked people what they thought of their players. Well not only didn't anyone know what version of HDMI their players had, but they said that if they didn't have HDMI 1.3 they would be rather dissapointed. A few people said that they would sell their player and buy a new HDMI 1.3 compliant one. Now, mind you, this was all from people who had no clue about what each HDMI version supports - and these people all owned the players already! I didn't go to the players section and ask would-be buyers about it, but I can make a fair assumption that if existing owners (who had full access to the manuals) were confused, I'm pretty sure potential buyers would be too. And I'm also sure that if I would have hung out by the players and asked these questions I could have deterred just about everyone from buying a player, either player, with my questions (that is if I would not have been kicked out of the store).

Now I know that's not a conclusive survey for you, but if you're so sure about what you believe, why don't you go do the same? I bet you'll be sorely disappointed at what people tell you.

So before you go saying that you threw this all back at me, why don't you actually address the points. And try and do so without going off on tangents and using diversions to make weak arguments that really don't hold up. So far, nothing you have presented holds up to scrutiny. S let's try it again, OK, lil't?

[Groundbeef]

Half right. HD DVD will be an afterthought, and BR would have had a 3.8billion dollar head start. D/L would have to go through a costly internet face lift, broadband would have to be in over 70% of American homes, and the only delivery system for movies would have to be downloads. Best estimate for this is more than a decade, cause you haven't even started the process.

Where do you get your information? Stupid Daily? Broadband is gaining at a rate of almost 50% a year. Narrowband is falling quickly.

According to this report, 75% thats 75% of households that have internet are utilizing BROADBAND. And new households that are acquiring internet access are choosing broadband.

http://www.bizreport.com/2007/07/threequarters_of_us_households_have_broadband.html

Hell, back in 2004, thats 3 short years ago, but pretty close to when you look for most of your data, the 10 largest cities with internet access were hovering at between 60-70% broadband access!

Looks like the future is here, but somehow you got left back at the station. Did you know TV's come in color now?

If you weren't so stupid, you might be able to find some of this info before you go off an post more dribble.



You lied, not just once, but several times. So if I am a dumb ass, then you must be a beyond retarded ass, because I have shot and killed every last one of your points dead better than a drive by.

I haven't lied once. BTW what classifies as a "Lie". I would suggest that your posting only 1/2 of the story (360 broken for piracy), then neglecting to post that "MS bricking modded 360's" would be at a minimum shading the truth, at worst LYING.

And the only thing that you have managed to shoot is your foot. Unless of course you forgot to pull it out of your waistband, and shot off your junk. That scenario is probably closer to the truth.



Emulation is not going to help get you past copy protection, oh but a little gamer child probably would not know this. The only way to get any information off the drive of a PS3 is took hook it to a computer that has a HDCP compliant input. This prevents hard drive misuse. I know this, because I actually own one. The fact is, you do not, so what you say is suspect, more so because you have already been busted telling lies.

I'm sure that you are well aware of PS3 owners "ripping" BluRay disks onto the drive, and converting them onto PC's right? The key is proving somewhat problematic, but not impossible. Remeber, it was thought that even ripping the BluRay would not be possible.

And your highlighed statement above, what does that prove? Have you actually been trying to circumvent security? Shame on you...



When you actually OWN the PS3, you do not have to be a definitive source on console info, just read the instructions. And sorry, a linux application can be rendered useless in the PS3 by a simple firmware upgrade that cannot be avoided. You try and play a new game, or movie that REQUIRES a firmware update, and it is disabled. Since alot of the newer movies are requiring thses updates to play the movies, then there is no way out. With games it is even more covered in that all you have to do is put the firmware update within the game, and boom there goes the application. Remember Sony is not obligated to use Linux or support it, and it is not required to make the player operate. Mine does not use Linux.

Sure it can be avoided. Just like the XBOX 360. Take it off the network, no more firmware updates.

Also, SlySoft is reporting that they have broken BD+ on EndgadetHD (Has to be the 2nd biggest cheerleader for BR just behind Sir T). The actual article is translated from the German newsite, so its a little choppy in the grammer department. I guess it really didn't take 10 years to bust it huh?

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/10/30/slysoft-claims-to-have-cracked-bd-naysayers-fall-quiet/



Sorry, but hacked movies don't need keys. And if you have modded your player at the motherboard level, the keys are not necessary to play any pirated game or movie. What makes a game pirated, is that the security codes are already cracked and off the game or movie. Just like a ripped CD or DVD. Once again, your comment only pertain to XBOX live connections. If you do not connect, they cannot brick your system. If you are using pirated games and movies, then there is absolutely no reason to go to XBOX live. Bang, shot again!

The only thing you shot was your foot again. Please explain to me how a modded system is going to get movies off LIVE? They get bricked when they connect.

Again, unless you are going to be getting movies off LIVE, its a red herring. I suppose one could load up the player with about 10 movies MOD the motherboard, and then NEVER connect to LIVE again. So if you want to kill your system for 10 $4 movies, thats a risk. But pirated movies, and duplicated DVD's have NOTHING to do with d/l content. Thats why studios are FLOCKING to live. Not the PS3.



When unable to debate effectively, just spin it to a personal level. Old trick for such a young kid. Us "old men" knew about this when the dinosaur ruled the earth. Its a shame you kiddy's are just now learning old school, because we "old men" see you coming, and going.

You are joking right? Or is it the dementia again? You call NightFlier "Gay" (Homophobic? Thats OLD SCHOOL). You manage to throw in a "retard" comment at myself. You have sunk so low, we are all waiting for the obligitory "Nazi" comment. That will pretty much wrap up your "debate" skills. You don't even debate well enough to be called a kid. Your just pathetic.




If Disney or any other studio said no more content, game over for XBOX live. Microsoft does not produce content. So now they are starting of slowly, what happen to the flocking? I know what happen, I work at a studio, and I know mine is not flocking to XBOX live at all. Based on what other studio are offering, they don't seem to be flocking either. If you backpeddle any harder, you may fall and hurt the ground ole beefy one.

How long did you work on that highlight there Einstein? I mean thats got to be one of the richest, most thought provoking, evoctivie, well researched, and presented points ever spoken on this or any other A/V board EVER. You could have only topped it off by suggesting "If the USA stopped producing Electricity, all electrical appliances would stop working!!!". Way to point out the olbvious. Do you have any more brilliant flashes to share with us?

The fact that studios are working with MS/ Apple/ and other content providers to provide any sort of media is a HUGE step. Like it or not, D/L is going to rule the day. It might not now, but it will. Just because you are too dense doesn't mean it wont happen.



Once again, where did I say it was dollar for dollar. What you are making it seem like is companies are just thowing money at advertising without any expectation of a return. Wrong! Before a company throws out million of dollars, they go through market strategies, focus groups, preview commercial and advertising for effectiveness of focus groups, more focus groups etc.. By then they have spent resources already, and if the campaign does not meet sales projections, then its on to a new strategy. The whole process is methotical, and very measure, but certainly not the mindless waste you assert. Companies EXPECT a certain level of return on their investment, and anyone that says otherwise, is a mindless idiot.

Really? Everyone? And what about the compaines that only spend a few hundred $$ or a few thousand $$. Do they do all that expensive research as well? I never said that companies don't expect ROI on their advertisements, but you seem to think that its a simple number to quantify. And its not. So stop pretending that at the end of the day, the finance/accounting department gets a definiative # explaining exactly how many ads went out, and the corresponding # of sales related to the ad. Because they don't.

You sir, are the mindless idiot. Trapped in your own delusional fog about everything.



Not relevant at all. It just shows they didn't do their homework. They probably followed your advise.

No, it only shows that plenty of companies waste money. And that you continue to comment about things you don't know about. Pets.Com was one of the big dot.com deaths. Since you follow (or want people to belive anyway) advertising so closesly, I thought that you SURELY would know about 1 of the biggest casulaties. Again, your ignorance is showcased however.




Well, since I haven't bought their stuff, sure does bring to question the silly name calling doesn't it? Not as dumb as you claim. Did I ever tell you that meat does not have brains?

Oh look everyone another meat reference. Does everyone hear the crickets chirping at yet another "Beef" joke...man you are like a one trick pony. And your trick was over quite a few posts ago. With writing like that I suspect you were the driving force behind that Caveman Show on ABC.



Give it up man, I already explained this. If Warner had not signed, they would have to give up their seat. If they gave up their seat, then the whole world would know in about two seconds thanks to the internet just like it did after the Paramount deal broke. No such thing has happen, which confirms that you are spreading lies, something you have continuously done. Hence, liar. The computer companies that are members of the BDA do not know the contractural obligation of the movie companies, and visa versa. Only the movie studios that support the BDA know what other studios contract obligation are, because they are all simular. So what we are talking about is no more than 10-15 people who know what the studios are doing, or not. Significantly less than the hundreds of thousands that know US secrets at any given level. Give it up wally, call the dog in, the hunt is over because the trail is cold.

They don't have to give up their seat. They can operate under the old agreement. Companies do it all the time during negotiations. You should know this, but again that would involve some thought on your part. The bigger news is whether or not Warner has RE-Signed. I'm not suggesting they will or will not. But the contract has lapsed, and no press conference has been called to say its been re-upped.




Then why does Sony marketing it as a entertainment center? There has been only one Sony President presiding over the development of the PS3, and nowhere have I ever read a statement that he calls it a game machine first and foremost. He has called it the mercedes of entertainment center however.

You are such a dumbass. The CEO of Sony Entertainmet you are referring to was "re-assigned". The newest president said at the Tokyo Game Show IN SEPTEMBER 2007. (Current Info. I know you hate it, but its more current than your 2 year old feeble citations you typically throw up). Here's his actual words:

PlayStation 3 might play Blu-Ray movies, and it might help scientific research like Folding@Home, but Sony wants you to know that it's a game machine first and foremost.

That was the message from Sony Computer Entertainment group CEO Kaz Hirai at his Tokyo Game Show keynote address Thursday morning, as he attempted to show the assembled press that Sony has righted its course with the embattled game player.

"As the fundamental point of our system, I think it is still a game machine," Hirai said. "We want people to first enjoy it for the possibility of interactive games. If we pursue too many directions, people will keep asking us, 'What is PlayStation'?"

Here's the actual article, hope you can read it with all the big words and all:

http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/09/kaz-hirai-plays.html



Your leak has no truth to it. None. I have already stated what would happen if the leak was actually accurate, but since none of these events have happen, you are spreading lies, and trying to make it stick. If it were true, then everyone would already know it. Since it is not even mentioned online ANYWHERE, you are trying to cover a lie you are spreading. Classless your beefyness.

ANOTHER meat reference. You've really outdone yourself this time. Please, don't forget to tip the waitress, and try the veal, its excellent!

And unless you have some confidential info you're not supposed to share, I have'nt lied about anything. Man, you are really terrible in this whole debate thing. Once again, you've been schooled!



Ohh, looks like your leathery hide has bunched at the bum. Geeze, I have never been called a tool, though I never went camping until this weekend. I guess you keep living, and lots of new things happen to ya. Calling me a bully after all the things you have said sounds like another major case of passive/aggressive. You want to act like you know something, blow your little barrel chest out and call names, and when it is batted back into place, you cry bully. Is this the teeny bopper way of throwing a fit because your diaper is wet?

Teeny bopper? Whoochiefer used that about 1 year ago, so I guess now to top it off you also plagiarize others posts on this board. Nice touch.

Talk about acting like I know something? Have you even read what you type? Or is it all top of mind stuff? I mean its not even good. Mostly out of date links supported by some BR shilling? Well, try again, it's always fun to burst your ballon.

[GMichael]

This thread is a fun read.

[L.J.]

Whoochiefer

Who the heck is that? Must be Wooch's evil twin brother :D

[Groundbeef]

Who the heck is that? Must be Wooch's evil twin brother :D

Well, you know, Sir T has me so looped with all of his awesome "Meat" jokes, I may have pushed an extra button. I meant Wooch. There is only one right?

[Feanor]

This thread is a fun read.

:idea: You say you're enjoying reading it; many of us lack the patience. Maybe you could provide us with a synopsis of the meaningful, relevant information. Such a synopsis would be much shorter than the actual thread I dare say.

[GMichael]

Well, first there was a left uppercut, then a right jab, a little dinking and ducking, then some more jabs, A brutal left hook followed by a kick in the groin. I lost track of what was going on after that.

[Woochifer]

Teeny bopper? Whoochiefer used that about 1 year ago, so I guess now to top it off you also plagiarize others posts on this board. Nice touch.

Uh, getting awfully hung up on word usage now aren't we? :cornut: It would only be plagiarism if I'd actually invented the term or if T quoted me verbatim without attribution. Just in case you didn't know, I did not originate the term and T would not be the first person on this board to use it. Also, if you search my previous posts, you'd note that aside from this thread I've never actually used the exact term "teeny bopper" on this board, whereas many others have.

http://forums.audioreview.com/search.php?searchid=147980


Talk about acting like I know something? Have you even read what you type? Or is it all top of mind stuff? I mean its not even good. Mostly out of date links supported by some BR shilling? Well, try again, it's always fun to burst your ballon.

Right, and your views on HD-DVD and the Xbox 360 are totally objective! :D

[Woochifer]

Who the heck is that? Must be Wooch's evil twin brother :D

Hmmm, I always thought that I was the evil twin! Guess I'm not holding up my end of the blood oath! :devil:

[Groundbeef]

Uh, getting awfully hung up on word usage now aren't we? :cornut: It would only be plagiarism if I'd actually invented the term or if T quoted me verbatim without attribution. Just in case you didn't know, I did not originate the term and T would not be the first person on this board to use it. Also, if you search my previous posts, you'd note that aside from this thread I've never actually used the exact term "teeny bopper" on this board, whereas many others have.

http://forums.audioreview.com/search.php?searchid=147980



Right, and your views on HD-DVD and the Xbox 360 are totally objective! :D

Its been some time. Probably over 2 years ago. Didn't mean to drag you into the mud.:nonod:

As far as HD-DVD or Xbox 360, I've never pretended to be objective. While I've made it clear that I don't begrudge anyone for owning a PS3, I don't own one. However, I will respond to out of date, wrong, or misleading info.

It seems that while Mr. T is content to "act" unbiased, in the end he clearly is. Works for a BR studio (exclusive), and is content to point out shortcomings of MS and HD-DVD, while pretending Sony/ BR doesn't have any warts.

BTW I bought 2 Wii over the weekend. To sell on Ebay. Prices are pretty good, but I think I'll wait a couple more weeks to post them up.

Nice to see you lurking around though. Always enjoy your posts!

[Groundbeef]

In the interest of the Warner BR portion of the above threads, it appears that Warner is making an official statement. In essence it says "We are not changing anything. Things are staying the same until we say otherwise. We are not going exclusive to either format at this time."

I'm just wondering who will be lined up and shot for releasing this information. Dont they know THEY SIGNED AN AGREEMENT???? What the hell is going on. This is supposed to be super secret, double cross your fingers keep it a secret secret. Read it here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Warner_Says_Blu-ray_Comments_Misquoted_and_Misconstrued/1135

So I guess we can all sit around and wait. Like we were before. Except now we know that there will be no changes. Right now. Not later perhaps, but for the time being everything is the same. No changes. At all. For now.

[GMichael]

In the interest of the Warner BR portion of the above threads, it appears that Warner is making an official statement. In essence it says "We are not changing anything. Things are staying the same until we say otherwise. We are not going exclusive to either format at this time."

I'm just wondering who will be lined up and shot for releasing this information. Dont they know THEY SIGNED AN AGREEMENT???? What the hell is going on. This is supposed to be super secret, double cross your fingers keep it a secret secret. Read it here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Warner_Says_Blu-ray_Comments_Misquoted_and_Misconstrued/1135

So I guess we can all sit around and wait. Like we were before. Except now we know that there will be no changes. Right now. Not later perhaps, but for the time being everything is the same. No changes. At all. For now.


How many times did Sony deny that they were putting out a 40GB version of the PS3? You just never know what these people are going to do until they do it.
Oh, there is one change. Prices have come down enough for me to own one of each. Some others may feel the same.

[PeruvianSkies]

Ever see The GOOD, The BAD, and the UGLY???

Well, it's kinda like that where Nightflier is, well of course his avatar gives the hint, "Blondie" AKA The Good, then we have Sir T, his ego, and his posse representing "The Bad", and last but not least we have Woochifer taking up the "Ugly" character of the film.

[L.J.]

Ever see The GOOD, The BAD, and the UGLY???

Well, it's kinda like that where Nightflier is, well of course his avatar gives the hint, "Blondie" AKA The Good, then we have Sir T, his ego, and his posse representing "The Bad", and last but not least we have Woochifer taking up the "Ugly" character of the film.

And where exactly do you fall in all this? The innocent bystander.

Wait, let me guess, the damsel in distress, right.

[kexodusc]

Ever see The GOOD, The BAD, and the UGLY???

Well, it's kinda like that where Nightflier is, well of course his avatar gives the hint, "Blondie" AKA The Good, then we have Sir T, his ego, and his posse representing "The Bad", and last but not least we have Woochifer taking up the "Ugly" character of the film.

Sir T has a posse?
You're just one bad analogy after another, aren't you...

[Woochifer]

Ever see The GOOD, The BAD, and the UGLY???

Well, it's kinda like that where Nightflier is, well of course his avatar gives the hint, "Blondie" AKA The Good, then we have Sir T, his ego, and his posse representing "The Bad", and last but not least we have Woochifer taking up the "Ugly" character of the film.

Hey, now yer trying to be funny! (with the "trying" as the operative term here) Just when you seemed doomed to just churning out an endless string of whining screeds and accidentally autobiographical wannabe insults, you spring a surprise on us and try your hand at humor! Gosh, maybe there's hope for you yet! :6:


And where exactly do you fall in all this? The innocent bystander.

Wait, let me guess, the damsel in distress, right.

Now Lex ... errr ... Peruvian, take note -- this IS funny! :cool:

[Woochifer]

Its been some time. Probably over 2 years ago. Didn't mean to drag you into the mud.:nonod:

No prob, just keepin' you on your toes! :cool:

[Groundbeef]

No prob, just keepin' you on your toes! :cool:


Ewwww, you're not asking me to dance are you?

[PeruvianSkies]

Sir T has a posse?
You're just one bad analogy after another, aren't you...

Funny how when I mentioned "posse" you, LJ, and Wooch chime in...so I guess you are acknowledging the fact that you are part of the posse by getting defensive on it.

[PeruvianSkies]

And where exactly do you fall in all this? The innocent bystander.

Wait, let me guess, the damsel in distress, right.

Nice try, but there is no damsel in the film, which you would know if you had seen the film.

[Woochifer]

Ewwww, you're not asking me to dance are you?

Don't flatter yourself! I've been dancing for 20 years, and to get on my dance card, you need to be either good on a dance floor or good to look at ... and gamers aren't what I regard as good to look at! (And no, Dance Revolution does not count for good on a dance floor!) :2:

[Woochifer]

Funny how when I mentioned "posse" you, LJ, and Wooch chime in...so I guess you are acknowledging the fact that you are part of the posse by getting defensive on it.

How disappointng! Just when I thought you were making progress, you slip back to your old tired ways -- y'know accusing others of the exact shortcomings that you display in abundance. (You think Kex is being defensive?! THAT'S funny, albeit humor of the unintentional variety!) I guess it was too much to expect you to go beyond playing the victim card!

[GMichael]

I've been dancing for 20 years,) :2:

Aren't you tired yet?

[Woochifer]

Aren't you tired yet?

:lol: Good one! But, since it's at my expense, you're getting a greenie for that! :devil:

[GMichael]

:lol: Good one! But, since it's at my expense, you're getting a greenie for that! :devil:

GGGGGRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......................... :incazzato:

[Groundbeef]

Aren't you tired yet?

Tired? Are you kidding? Its one of those "dance contests". The last one dancing is going to win a Bose Speaker System. You know Wooch, "Anything for Bose".

I just hope he wins. After all these years, to go away empty handed would be a shame.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Where do you get your information? Stupid Daily? Broadband is gaining at a rate of almost 50% a year. Narrowband is falling quickly.


According to this report, 75% thats 75% of households that have internet are utilizing BROADBAND. And new households that are acquiring internet access are choosing broadband.

http://www.bizreport.com/2007/07/threequarters_of_us_households_have_broadband.html

Yes, Broadband as we have in America according to your stats is at 75%. However, just as I made my point earlier, the broadband we have in this country is not as fast as the rest of the world, and not ready for mass downloading as well. Comcast is already starting to slow traffic down, or stop it entirely for P2P users sharing files because of bandwidth issues. This is just file sharing. When we start talking about those 75% downloading movies, it will get far worse than this. I have stated this to you time and time again, the internet as we have now cannot support widespread movie downloads, it is having a tough time handling P2P file sharing.

http://valleywag.com/tech/lawsuits/comcast-may-get-sued-for-bittorrent-disruption-314188.php

http://pressesc.com/01179677598_us_internet_slow


Hell, back in 2004, thats 3 short years ago, but pretty close to when you look for most of your data, the 10 largest cities with internet access were hovering at between 60-70% broadband access!

This is meaningless if the traffic is bottled up and slow.


Looks like the future is here, but somehow you got left back at the station. Did you know TV's come in color now?

If you weren't so stupid, you might be able to find some of this info before you go off an post more dribble.

If this is what you call the future, then your standards are much lower than mine, and your idea of the future is much different than reality will support.




I haven't lied once. BTW what classifies as a "Lie". I would suggest that your posting only 1/2 of the story (360 broken for piracy), then neglecting to post that "MS bricking modded 360's" would be at a minimum shading the truth, at worst LYING.

I posted mulitple posting of 360 broken for piracy, the links are there, if there was a lie, they told it not me. Are you disputing the links for their accuracy?


And the only thing that you have managed to shoot is your foot. Unless of course you forgot to pull it out of your waistband, and shot off your junk. That scenario is probably closer to the truth.

When you have no facts or info, just insult.


I'm sure that you are well aware of PS3 owners "ripping" BluRay disks onto the drive, and converting them onto PC's right? The key is proving somewhat problematic, but not impossible. Remeber, it was thought that even ripping the BluRay would not be possible.

Well aware of Slysoft software. You notice it is not everywhere? Did you notice that Slysoft has refused to talk about how they did the crack? I tell you why, they know that it is not easy to break BD+ permanently. The BDA can simply revoke the current keys on the fly, and can keep changing them via BD+. Slysoft would have to know every key issued now, and in the future for their software to be effective. Then they would have to figure out a way around BD-Rom as well, because they work hand in hand. If you attempt to play the disc with the security ripped off, it will not play in any bluray drive.


And your highlighed statement above, what does that prove? Have you actually been trying to circumvent security? Shame on you...

Stupid statement, no need to reply to this.




Sure it can be avoided. Just like the XBOX 360. Take it off the network, no more firmware updates.

Thank you for making my point.


Also, SlySoft is reporting that they have broken BD+ on EndgadetHD (Has to be the 2nd biggest cheerleader for BR just behind Sir T). The actual article is translated from the German newsite, so its a little choppy in the grammer department. I guess it really didn't take 10 years to bust it huh?

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/10/30/slysoft-claims-to-have-cracked-bd-naysayers-fall-quiet/

Slysoft has not revealed how they did the crack, so until they do, we do not know just how he got a single key to a single disc. They have not been able to get multiple keys according to the BD+ insiders on bluray.com, and if they do, they would have to know what the new keys were to make the software useful. Nobody knows the new keys, not even the party issueing them.




The only thing you shot was your foot again. Please explain to me how a modded system is going to get movies off LIVE? They get bricked when they connect.

You do not need live when you have access to a unlimited supply of bootleg movies and games right?


Again, unless you are going to be getting movies off LIVE, its a red herring. I suppose one could load up the player with about 10 movies MOD the motherboard, and then NEVER connect to LIVE again. So if you want to kill your system for 10 $4 movies, thats a risk. But pirated movies, and duplicated DVD's have NOTHING to do with d/l content. Thats why studios are FLOCKING to live. Not the PS3.

Flocking is defined as a crowd of people. If not every studio is supporting live, then how do you define a crowd? If english is your first language, then perhaps you need to know how to correctly use words.

Who needs to store any movies on the hard drive? Just go to a corner in most large cities, and you have access to plenty of bootlegged movies and games.




You are joking right? Or is it the dementia again? You call NightFlier "Gay" (Homophobic? Thats OLD SCHOOL). You manage to throw in a "retard" comment at myself. You have sunk so low, we are all waiting for the obligitory "Nazi" comment. That will pretty much wrap up your "debate" skills. You don't even debate well enough to be called a kid. Your just pathetic.

I guess consuming too much of yourself has happered your reading skills. I ASKED nighliar if he was gay, I did not call him gay. Asking someone a question is not homphobic is it?





How long did you work on that highlight there Einstein? I mean thats got to be one of the richest, most thought provoking, evoctivie, well researched, and presented points ever spoken on this or any other A/V board EVER. You could have only topped it off by suggesting "If the USA stopped producing Electricity, all electrical appliances would stop working!!!". Way to point out the olbvious. Do you have any more brilliant flashes to share with us?

Sometimes you have to point to the obvious because alot of stupid people cannot figure it out themselves.


The fact that studios are working with MS/ Apple/ and other content providers to provide any sort of media is a HUGE step. Like it or not, D/L is going to rule the day. It might not now, but it will. Just because you are too dense doesn't mean it wont happen.

Well when it rules the world as you say, let me know. The only thing ruling anything right now is the studios over Microsoft. Its not really that big of a step either, everyone knew some studios were going to support downloads sooner or later.




Really? Everyone? And what about the compaines that only spend a few hundred $$ or a few thousand $$. Do they do all that expensive research as well? I never said that companies don't expect ROI on their advertisements, but you seem to think that its a simple number to quantify. And its not. So stop pretending that at the end of the day, the finance/accounting department gets a definiative # explaining exactly how many ads went out, and the corresponding # of sales related to the ad. Because they don't.

Your whole assesment of what I think is as out of whack as your understanding of advertising in general. It is really difficult to debate if you cannot read and comphrehend a post. Read the cavieat about the millions of dollars, or do you have comprehension trouble with that as well.

If a company spends a few hundred or thousand dollars, it would be on local advertising. Surely nobody is going to spend five thousand dollars worth of time and resources for a hundred or few thousand dollars worth of advertising. The expectation will be much lower, but there are still some expectation on ROI. What just because you spend only a hundred or a thousand dollars on advertising you should not expect a return? This is small business numbers where every dollar counts, and a completely different process on how to advertise. Television is one thing(millions of dollars) local print is another.


You sir, are the mindless idiot. Trapped in your own delusional fog about everything.

You have already confessed that you know less than I, so what does this make you?




No, it only shows that plenty of companies waste money. And that you continue to comment about things you don't know about. Pets.Com was one of the big dot.com deaths. Since you follow (or want people to belive anyway) advertising so closesly, I thought that you SURELY would know about 1 of the biggest casulaties. Again, your ignorance is showcased however.

They did not waste money, their management made a stupid choices and poor decisions. They did not do their homework, and became a victim of the dot.com implosion. Their advertising choice were only a part of the problem, their spending habits and overhead where their largest problem. Sorry, you are overstating their downfall, webvan had them beat by a long shot in terms of losses.

Following dotcom failures almost 5 years after the dot com bust is not something I am interested in. I also never said I follow advertising all that closely. However, since I have plenty of friends who own businesses of all sizes, getting information on the subject is not that difficult. I supposed it would be harder for you to get this from you milk sucking game playing kiddy friends huh?





Oh look everyone another meat reference. Does everyone hear the crickets chirping at yet another "Beef" joke...man you are like a one trick pony. And your trick was over quite a few posts ago. With writing like that I suspect you were the driving force behind that Caveman Show on ABC.

Tricks are for kids, I was calling you what you should have been named in the first place.




They don't have to give up their seat. They can operate under the old agreement. Companies do it all the time during negotiations. You should know this, but again that would involve some thought on your part. The bigger news is whether or not Warner has RE-Signed. I'm not suggesting they will or will not. But the contract has lapsed, and no press conference has been called to say its been re-upped.

You obviously do not know BDA protocol. When a company decides to not support the BDA, they MUST give up their seat on the BDA. According to Paidgeek, you cannot operate under a old contract, you must sign another contract on or before the date of the original contract is signed. Companies may do what you state all the time, but not THIS company, not this contract, and not this board of directors. Since this is the rules, Warner obviously has signed a renewed contract, they're continuing to support bluray right? You spread FUD, and when corrected on the guidlines, you have continued to advance this. You have gone from gossip, to liar.

Lastly, you do not have to, not obligated to, its not necessary to call a press conference everytime you make a move. Right? And you say I don't know what i am talking about???





You are such a dumbass. The CEO of Sony Entertainmet you are referring to was "re-assigned". The newest president said at the Tokyo Game Show IN SEPTEMBER 2007. (Current Info. I know you hate it, but its more current than your 2 year old feeble citations you typically throw up). Here's his actual words:

PlayStation 3 might play Blu-Ray movies, and it might help scientific research like Folding@Home, but Sony wants you to know that it's a game machine first and foremost.

That was the message from Sony Computer Entertainment group CEO Kaz Hirai at his Tokyo Game Show keynote address Thursday morning, as he attempted to show the assembled press that Sony has righted its course with the embattled game player.

"As the fundamental point of our system, I think it is still a game machine," Hirai said. "We want people to first enjoy it for the possibility of interactive games. If we pursue too many directions, people will keep asking us, 'What is PlayStation'?"

Here's the actual article, hope you can read it with all the big words and all:

http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/09/kaz-hirai-plays.html

Seems you do not understand the difference between a unit president, and the CEO.

Hirai may have said it was a gaming machine, but Sir Howard Stringer who is his boss calls it an entertainment center. So who should we believe, the one who runs the company, or one of his suboodinates?. He also said fundementally, which means when all other function are removed. Since all the other functions are not removed, then it is hard to call it a gaming system. As any other game machine played SACD's? Does any other game machine have a built in bluray player? Does any other gaming machine upconvert regular DVD's and lesser games to 1080p? If all the PS3 was is just a gaming machine, then why would it have all of these other non gaming features? No wait, you are actually going to have to think about this, and that make cause the largest earthquake this world has every felt.




ANOTHER meat reference. You've really outdone yourself this time. Please, don't forget to tip the waitress, and try the veal, its excellent!

yawn


And unless you have some confidential info you're not supposed to share, I have'nt lied about anything. Man, you are really terrible in this whole debate thing. Once again, you've been schooled!

How can you say you have schooled me and you have not even proven what you said is true LOLOLOL. Where is a link that says Warner has not signed its contract, or when the date of expiration of the old is? Where is it? What is the name of the other site you got this information from? I have not seen either, hence you lied until you have proven you are telling the truth.




Teeny bopper? Whoochiefer used that about 1 year ago, so I guess now to top it off you also plagiarize others posts on this board. Nice touch.

Another stupid response. Are there any brain cells left?


Talk about acting like I know something? Have you even read what you type? Or is it all top of mind stuff? I mean its not even good. Mostly out of date links supported by some BR shilling? Well, try again, it's always fun to burst your ballon.

Yes you act like you know something, and you are a lousy actor because you have no proof to support what you say. Ballons are for kids kid.

[Groundbeef]

Well aware of Slysoft software. You notice it is not everywhere? Did you notice that Slysoft has refused to talk about how they did the crack? I tell you why, they know that it is not easy to break BD+ permanently. The BDA can simply revoke the current keys on the fly, and can keep changing them via BD+. Slysoft would have to know every key issued now, and in the future for their software to be effective. Then they would have to figure out a way around BD-Rom as well, because they work hand in hand. If you attempt to play the disc with the security ripped off, it will not play in any bluray drive.

Slysoft has not revealed how they did the crack, so until they do, we do not know just how he got a single key to a single disc. They have not been able to get multiple keys according to the BD+ insiders on bluray.com, and if they do, they would have to know what the new keys were to make the software useful. Nobody knows the new keys, not even the party issueing them.


Seems you do not understand the difference between a unit president, and the CEO.

Hirai may have said it was a gaming machine, but Sir Howard Stringer who is his boss calls it an entertainment center. So who should we believe, the one who runs the company, or one of his suboodinates?. He also said fundementally, which means when all other function are removed. Since all the other functions are not removed, then it is hard to call it a gaming system. As any other game machine played SACD's? Does any other game machine have a built in bluray player? Does any other gaming machine upconvert regular DVD's and lesser games to 1080p? If all the PS3 was is just a gaming machine, then why would it have all of these other non gaming features? No wait, you are actually going to have to think about this, and that make cause the largest earthquake this world has every felt.




Alright, I'm gonna ask you a question about SlySoft, as you do have the BR expertise, and I don't. If the keys get switched does that affect consumers that already have BR disks? How does that work exactly?

Also, Slysoft may not have it "solved" but how much of a concern is this for BR? Isn't it a bit unnerving that someone was able to crack it (at least initally) so soon? Wasn't it supposed to take longer, or has this been planned for as an invevitablity?

Second, I think we are into hair splitting territory on the PS3. I fully admit that it has one of the, if not the most robust BR players intstalled. Can't speak for the media hub functions, but I don't think its as robust as LIVE, as there are not the options that MS offers the 360.

However, for you to attempt to suggest that it is not a "Game" machine is not correct. There are NO other BR players that also play PS3 games. The primary push for the PS3 is games. The reveune streams and licencing fees for SONY will be huge once they actually get an installed base large enough to sell games for it. I don't think that Sony is relying on selling a subsidized BR player (for now until cost constrict further, but the recent price cut isn't helping the bleeding), as much as they are hoping for a runaway success as the PS2.

I don't think having "Game" attached to the PS3 takes away from its ablities or anything.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Let's get to it your liarness. Your first bit of ignorance;


Yes, I was referring to your inferiority complex. I mean who calls himself "Sir Terrence, the Terrible" anyhow?

I did not call myself Sir Terrence the Terrible (no comma). That name was given to me by Richard Greene long before you told your first lie here. Long before you were ever heard of here. The rest of the paragraph is nothing more than a sorry ass rant, perhaps to let some steam off. Too much personal stuff, not enough audio stuff.


Oh and as far as relating your inferiority complex to audio, isn't that why you're always bragging about how good your system is and how much better than everyone else's it is?

I made some reference to my system not to show its superiority, but to show how much you lied about the fact that you do not speaker balancing. You lied, I know you lied, and everyone who has every owned and calibrated a 5.1 system knows you are lying.

Then this bright statement after two paragraphs of insults


By the way, you could stand to upgrade those amps and buy something a little higher class than that Sony stuff. Oh, I forgot, you're probably a shill for them too.

This is not to brag, but to show how you know so little about what you like to talk about so much. Those amps you say upgrade, well nightliar, they were upgraded last year. John Curl did the upgrade himself. If you do not know who he is, he is the man behind Mark Levinson amps, Parasound amps, and various other high end amps. The M-504 was part of onkyos high end amps when it was released, John made it three times better than it was.

http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/JCinterview.pdf

So before you start making recommendation on upgrades, pick a person who system you actually know about, rather than one you do not.

The Sony is being used as a pre/pro, and is of much better quality than a outlaw receiver any day of the week, month, or year.

Now let's see how many more lies we uncover;

1. Since that native stream of SACD is DSD, how pure is your signal path sending a PCM bitstream to the ICBM? By you own words your DVD player is converting the DSD stream to PCM. Something you said was not being done previously. Previously you stated that you DVD player has the ability to convert to PCM or remain in DSD. Now which is it nightliar? You did say this did you not?

My player has the option of converting to PCM or not.

Why would you player offer this option if it could only output a PCM signal through its DAC? This does not make a damn bit of sense at all. The bottom line is this, a smart person would either do bass management, delay, and speaker balancing in the player, or in the reciever, which ever could do it with the most precision. Especially since you already have to transcode from DSD to PCM anyway. Sending a PCM signal at SACD resolution through the ICBM will definately raise the s/n ratio, as the ICBM has a s/n of 105db, while SACD typically is 130+db after noise shaping. Since most DSP processing is at 24bit levels(which gives your typically about 120db s/n) you actually have a LESS pure signal path with the ICBM than you would doing post processing on a pre/pro or receiver. So much for the audiophile pure path idealogy.

I never said you were not using traps, acoustical panels or anything of the like. Can you point that out rather than just getting all emotional?

Your installer did the usual, nothing more, nothing less. That I can glean from your response. Was this installer CEDIA, THX, or HTSA certified? If not, then there is no telling what kind of quality his work is.

The object of using a SPL meter is to acheive identical outputs from your speakers, not make it close enough in volume for your needs. This is all so schetzo. I want a clean signal path, but my speaker levels are close enough for me.

2. Sorry nightliar, but an Executive wants to see sales figures, revenue, sales trends, buying trends, ROI, and every other figure based piece of information. They are not interested in things that cannot show measureable information or performance. You on the other hand have a arguement so weak, so convoluted, so gut based, and so very uneducated, that it is unuseful to anyone but yourself. You have already stated that you do not need any proof for anything, so I think you are pretty much through with #2.

3. Read it again. I stated with the exception of Organ music, there is no musical information below 40hz from acoustical recordings. Prove me wrong instead of all the blather. Show some spectral plots showing alot of output below 40hz in symphonic music without Organ. You said this did you not?

As a matter of fact I also have modern classical pieces that don't use organ, but that also go down very deep.

If you wrote this, and then turned around and said this one post later

Of course there is no acoustical instrument that goes lower, if you exclude those that do (like the organ).

Just how many recordings are there of organ music versus non organ included symphonic works? I would say it is about 20:1. Once again you arguement is based on minorities and not majorities. You advance that you have alot of classical pieces that go down deep, but no spectral plots or frequency versus amplitude plots to support anything you have said. Another proofless aruguement.

4. In great detail I have pointed out far more simularities than differences in creating, processing, marketing, and distribution of video material on tape and disc over the last 20 years. Can you explain to everyone what is different aside from the internet? I would like to see more detail, do you know how to provide a link? any info?

5. Once again I provided links to support my ascertions. You have just provided a bunch of words with no support whatsoever. So are you so great that you just say stuff and it is word? I do not want to read your backpeddling gut driven drivel. I want you to actually support what you say with links, verifiable facts, and impartial informations. No more words nightliar.

6. Microsoft did not put any pressure on Paramount, Viacom did. Aside from contributing money to the HD DVD PG, and free encoding, Microsoft played no role in the Paramount defection. That is a fact. There were a few other companies in the HD DVD PG that contribute as much money as Microsoft. Paramounts decision was based on accessibility to replication for discs, making 4th quarter financials look better(they are not doing very well with video sales, and not any better supporting HD DVD only), and lastly the fact they were not going to make 50 million dollars in profit from disc sales, and they knew it. Toshiba runs the HD DVD PG, not microsoft. Microsoft became a HD DVD supporter very late in the game. Do you see Warner going HD DVD exclusive? No, and they won't as long as they continue to make money from their neutral stance. So much for microsoft influence huh

I don't wear diapers, and I do not react to things that have not happened. I do not react to made up crap like you do. I do not invent unlikely scenarios just to support a pointless point either.

Novell is a software company

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell

An American software company is the key phrase. Microsoft is a software company.

Lotus 123 is software. What did you think it was, a way to teach pre-school to count.

Every example you mention is based around software. They did not beat anyone fairly, as noted in the fact that they have been sued for trade practices by the US and EU.

Online search google owns, and even microsoft admits they are a baby in comparison. You are the only ignorant sole that does not know why Microsoft is supporting HD DVD. They are doing it because HD DVD is a VC-1 only format. 99% of all HD DVD are encoded with VC-1 which Microsoft receives royalities for. They are using the HD DVD format to improve the efficency of the encoder to prepare them for increased downloading. HD DVD is 100% HDi, which Microsoft receiver royalities for. And lastly, if Microsoft can create enough confusion between these two formats, they may get more traction with their own download service as an alternative to the confusion. This is well known information, but because you do not follow either format, you would not know this.

7. If you are going to discuss something and look intelligent, it might be helpful to know the proper nomenclature to define the right format. HD is associated with HD DVD. Bluray is associated with bluray disc. You do not call a HD player a bluray player. It creates confusion. Denon is releasing a Bluray player, not a HD player. Get it, got it, good!

Now this classe backpeddling. You read what you said. It was very clear. If you did not mean what you wrote, so what's new. Now, you heard from a friend quoting the sales department from Classe, and you are passing this on unbiased, and by the way in a way that makes it seem like an official word. Bullpuckey. Your quote sounds like your words, and unless you can provide some other information than your words, what you say is meaningless, third party, and filter through your own perspective. It still does not account for the fact that it was never written in Stereophile that they had plan a bluray or HD DVD player, there is no announcement they were contemplating it, and there has been no official word they have excepted or rejected making a player. So it is either a lie, or it is a lie and vaporware. Your choice.

8. You are now advancing HDMI is confusing to consumer is common sense. Then can you tell me why no survey supports this? Can you tell me why it is not widely reported as a point of confusion? Can you tell me why nobody has mentioned this as a reason on the most common AV sites on the web? Nightliar, you need to quit bro, I cannot think of a more foolish assmuption on your part. I suppose when HD DVD held their close out sale, and sold close to 50,000 cheap HD DVD players, people were just confused as hell as to what version the A2 had. Wisen up man, the only thing you have managed to do well in all of your posts is to lie and call names. Give me a break!

If you have no links to support what you say, if you have no studies or surveys to support what you say, if you have absolutely nothing to support what you say, then why should anyone believe you? Surely what you say should be widely documented if they were true right? When it comes to the propogation of untested theories, minor points, no points, no facts, no nothing, you rule as king. King nightliar, propagator of the grand nothing. Wear your invisible crown well.

[nightflier]

I did not call myself Sir Terrence the Terrible (no comma). That name was given to me by Richard Greene

And you're sticking with it, right? Sounds like an inferiority complex just the same. And what did you do for it? Do we even wana know?


I made some reference to my system not to show its superiority, but to show how much you lied about the fact that you do not speaker balancing.

How does bragging about your system show anything about my system? Admit it, you just wanted to brag about it, lil't.


You lied, I know you lied, and everyone who has every owned and calibrated a 5.1 system knows you are lying.

How does your description of your system make me a liar? I never met you or your system. Some twisted logic, if you ask me.


This is not to brag, but to show how you know so little...

Oh, 'come one, you know you're bragging. You have an inferiority complex, remember?


Those amps you say upgrade, well nightliar, they were upgraded last year. John Curl did the upgrade himself. If you do not know who he is, he is the man behind Mark Levinson amps, Parasound amps, and various other high end amps.

Yes, I'm sure everyone here knows who Curl is - no need to brag. What? do you do his laundry too? Geez, stop bragging already. Yes, Curl made some amazing amps, I had the Parasound Halo monoblocks in my home to audition, and yes, they were amazing - just can't afford that kind of heavy metal nor do I have the room.


The M-504 was part of onkyos high end amps when it was released, John made it three times better than it was.

Well it's still Onkyo. You can't escape the fact that all their mass-market mid-fi gear is dragging the price of even your precious 504's down. I wonder how much they would go for on eBay, certainly not what you paid. And why do they need upgrading? Oh, that's right they are Onkyo...

Now I'm not knocking Onkyo for what it is, I've owned quite a few of their pieces, but it's still not the level that most serious enthusiasts would consider driving their multi-thousand-dollar speakers with. If anything, I really don't think it gives you the right to claim it will blow my system away. Speaking of which, I'm using an Outlaw pre/pro, but that's not what's driving my speakers, so why don't you sit back down before you have a another tizzy-fit, lil't. When I get more funds, I'll consider replacing the Outlaw probably with a Primare, Cary or something similar, but for now, my children come first.


The Sony is being used as a pre/pro, and is of much better quality than a outlaw receiver any day of the week, month, or year.

First of all, my Outlaw is not a receiver, but I wouldn't bet on that Sony horse, lil't. I haven't seen too many glowing reviews on that one. At least with the amps you had Curl to hide behind, not so with that mass-market switcher.


Since that native stream of SACD is DSD, how pure is your signal path sending a PCM bitstream to the ICBM? By you own words your DVD player is converting the DSD stream to PCM. Something you said was not being done previously. Previously you stated that you DVD player has the ability to convert to PCM or remain in DSD. Now which is it nightliar? You did say this did you not?

Hold onto to your panties, lil't, all it takes to switch between the two is a few clicks into the menu. I have the option to do both. But since you're so worked up, let's just say I keep it on PCM whenever possible. Now I don't know how that makes me a liar, but you're pretty upset, so maybe you're confused...


Why would you player offer this option if it could only output a PCM signal through its DAC? This does not make a damn bit of sense at all.

No, what makes no sense in your insessant drive to re-write what I'm saying. I never said my player could output only PCM so get off of that already.


The bottom line is this, a smart person would either do bass management, delay, and speaker balancing in the player, or in the reciever, which ever could do it with the most precision.

I've tried it in the pre/pro and in the player and none at all. The best sounding option is to do it in the player before it passes to the pre/pro. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?


I never said you were not using traps, acoustical panels or anything of the like. Can you point that out?

No but you said I didn't know how to configure the room with them. When I told you they were done professionally, you couldn't handle the slap in the face and so you didn't want to talk about it anymore - well until you claimed to know more than the whole home-installer industry. You're such a jack*ss, really.


Your installer did the usual, nothing more, nothing less. That I can glean from your response. Was this installer CEDIA, THX, or HTSA certified? If not, then there is no telling what kind of quality his work is.

You're not much good at "gleaning" either, it seems, my arrogant little imp. So you're certified by all three? Good for you, my friend has two of them. Does that make you better? God, you're such an arrogant jack*ss, I can't believe you have friends.


The object of using a SPL meter is to acheive identical outputs from your speakers, not make it close enough in volume for your needs. This is all so schetzo. I want a clean signal path, but my speaker levels are close enough for me.

More arrogance. I mentioned the SPL meter as one of the tools I used. I can assure you that my installer has far more sophisticated tools. But I'm sure that's not comparable to your golden ears, your tools, and apparently your sixth sense. Could you be more conceited?


Sorry nightliar, but an Executive wants to see sales figures, revenue, sales trends, buying trends, ROI, and every other figure based piece of information. They are not interested in things that cannot show measureable information or performance.

I never dismsissed sales figures and measurable trends so stop with that rant already, it's stale. You know full well that any good executive wants all the facts, not just what's from "official sources." Stop trying to twist around what I'm saying.


Read it again. I stated with the exception of Organ music, there is no musical information below 40hz from acoustical recordings. Prove me wrong instead of all the blather. Show some spectral plots showing alot of output below 40hz in symphonic music without Organ. You said this did you not?

Again more bloated arrogance. You conveniently dismiss organ music, when you know that is exactly what my primary focus was. Don't try and spin this your way. You have no argument so you dismiss mine. Very mature, lil't. Now as far as orchestral music, there's plenty of it that actually includes Organ. As a matter of fact I'm listening to Saint Saens' third right now. Then there's Cochereau, Vierne, Preston, Widor, Liszt, Franck, Trotter, Copland, Glass to name but a few I have in the bookcase in front of me.


Just how many recordings are there of organ music versus non organ included symphonic works? I would say it is about 20:1. Once again you arguement is based on minorities and not majorities.

See the examples above. And this shows how absolutely limitted your knowledge of modern classical music is. I'm sorry but Bach and Liszt aren't everything that falls under classical. It's another glaring example of how narrow-minded and limitted your little mind is. For your information, Organ isn't the only instrument that goes down lower than a Piano - take a look at Von Kessels - I just played the SACD last night. And there is a lot more modern music and world-music-influenced classical that also applies. Just because your knoweledge is stunted, doesn't mean there isn't a whole world of music outside your minuscule reality. Expand your mind, already. Like I said, I collect the stuff, so don't try and convince anyone you know what I have. You don't know what I have and you certainly aren't entitled to dismiss it outright, just because it doesn't fit your pathetic case.


Can you explain to everyone what is different aside from the internet? I would like to see more detail

OK, so let's talk around the white elephant in the room. My whole point was that the Internet is the single biggest difference and you see fit to dismiss that too. How convenient, whatever weakens your argument, you just dismiss. Well in this case, you'd have to be a complete moron to dismiss the impact of the Internet. And don't even go off on this tangent that the Internet filled the void of failing B&M stores, that's ludicrous - the Internet grew exponentially and the B&M stored dwindled very slowly. Oh and regarding your examples of how CD growth compares, it's hogwash if you consider the impact the Internet has had. No, lil't, marketing, sales, searching, and cross-advertising are nothing like they were in 1997, so stop majoring in minors, here. You lost this point well before you started finding "examples" to support your non-case.


I do not want to read your backpeddling gut driven drivel.

Typical lil't. Can't formulate a good argument so you just don't want to read the responses. Kind of like how you dismiss everyone else from Groundbeef to Pixel. Real mature, lil't.


Microsoft is a software company. Every example you mention is based around software.

Again exposing your limitted knowledge. I gave several examples of technologies that were not software, but since those didn't agree with you, you decided to ignore them. Want more? How about all the hardware Microsoft is now manufacturing? Ever heard of xBox? Oh, is that still too much software-ish? How about their inroads into art, the medical industry, financials, copyrights, music, your living room, and yes, lil't, even movies. No, they are not major players in all those industries yet, but they are gaining and it's scaring alot of smaller companies. To think of Microsoft as only a software company shows how little you really know. You say you work in movie sound production, right? Well guess what, you're using Microsoft technologies and copyrighted hardware and software. You may not even know it, but hey, that wouldn't be the first thing you didn't know.


They did not beat anyone fairly, as noted in the fact that they have been sued for trade practices by the US and EU.

I never said they played fair. Hell, my whole argument was about how they've been hitting below the belt to get their way - that is why they are scarry. Talk to anyone who's received a letter from their legal department, and you'll know what scared means.


Online search google owns, and even microsoft admits they are a baby in comparison.

Microsoft could buy Google out tomorrow, and Google knows that. They practically own Apple, Adobe, and can stand toe-to-toe with IBM, CA, and Oracle. Trust me, Microsoft isn't afraid of Google.


You are the only ignorant sole that does not know why Microsoft is supporting HD DVD. They are doing it because HD DVD is a VC-1 only format. 99% of all HD DVD are encoded with VC-1 which Microsoft receives royalities for. They are using the HD DVD format to improve the efficency of the encoder to prepare them for increased downloading.

Again, exhibiting your narrow mind. Microsoft is first and foremost about profits. Supporting HDDVD, and all the decisions they've made in that direction, are good for their bottom line. What you're describing is what Microsoft itself uses to justify it's corporate greed - it's basically their own press-release that you're repeating. Kind of ironic, that this should come from you, isn't it? Again, you're only considering official sources. By the way, I've never been called a "sole" before, is that a new insult?


...because you do not follow either format, you would not know this.

So let me get this straight: for me to have an opinion or even the right to say anything about either format, I first have to buy into one or the other? What kind of doublespeak logic is that? Are you sure you are not the schitzo, here? If anything, for you to have settled on BR as your favorite medium, and to be working for a BR-only company (your words), makes you far less capable to be impartial and even-keeled about the formats. I'm amazed people still listen to you. You're a shill, as we've determined in the last thread.


If you are going to discuss something and look intelligent, it might be helpful to know the proper nomenclature to define the right format. HD is associated with HD DVD. Bluray is associated with bluray disc.

Oh, so BR is not an HD format? Funny you should harp on this when Groundbeef and others seem to be perfectly happy referring to both formats as HD. I guess it's OK for them, but when I happen to do so, heaven forbid, I must have offended the mightly lil't's sensibilities. I'm sorry, is that too confusing for you to wrap your little head around? Well, if this is the only argument you can make, you better quit while you still have your diaper on, lil't.


Now, you heard from a friend quoting the sales department from Classe, and you are passing this on unbiased, and by the way in a way that makes it seem like an official word. Bullpuckey. Your quote sounds like your words, and unless you can provide some other information than your words, what you say is meaningless, third party, and filter through your own perspective.

Bullpuckey? Did you hear that one in pre-school and thought you could slip it in here? You are such a pathetic jack*ss. Let me say this is in no uncertain terms; this is straight from Tom McConville, at Classe, coppied verbatem, from the email that my friend forwarded to me:

"A degree of uncertainty continues to cloud the future of the new blue laser disc formats and it remains unclear which, if any, of these formats will become the dominant technology.

Therefore, while we are committed to developing reference quality components for the HD era, Classe is not commiting to a single format at this time. Please be assured that we are closely following developments in this area and are well placed to react as the future becomes more clear.

I hope this information is helpful. Best wishes.

Tom"

Oh, I'm sorry are you going to try and say that Tom's not as knowledgeable as you, so his opinion doesn't matter? He works there, lil't. It's his job to inform little nitwits like yourself how little you know about their own product line. And just so you don't try and change the subject or find something else to discredit, I took it upon myself to contact a number of other manufacturers (Cambridge Audio, Arcam, Primare, etc.) and while I have't received replies from all of them yet, every single one that did reply had pretty much the same response - they're going to wait. So far only Denon is releasing a BR player in December, although it will probably be too late for x-mas.

So I ask you, lil't, if all these manufacturers are going to wait it out, don't you think it's a bit pre-mature to start flag-waiving for BR? Unless, of course, you have a stake in this - it's good for your wallet, right? You're a shill and the more you deny it, the more it becomes obvious.


You are now advancing HDMI is confusing to consumer...Then can you tell me why no survey supports this? Can you tell me why it is not widely reported as a point of confusion? Can you tell me why nobody has mentioned this as a reason on the most common AV sites on the web?

Because nobody will fund such a survey. First of all, the manufacturers, if they consider it at all, will think it's a minor factor (I don't agree with that, of course). Second the results of such a survey may not help their sales in any way. And third, even if they did find out that it was confusing, what would they be able to do about it? HDMI is going through revisions continuously, that is how it was designed, so that it could grow and change with the times. And just when pointy headed little imps like yourself think they can explain HDMI 1.0, HDMI 1.1, HDMI 1.2, and HDMI 1.3 to everyone reasoneable well, they came up with HDMI 1.3a and HDMI 1.3b designations. What's next HDMI 1.3b.1?

And while we're on the subject, maybe you should let people know that only HDMI 1.3 and above supports Dolby TrueHD bitstream, and DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream. This is significant because lower versions of HDMI down the chain will require a player that can transmit the audio as LPCM (not all do, and even if they do, it's no garantee people will know to engage this, i.e. because of the confusion). And it was this nagging question about HDMI that led me to start this thread in the first place. So no lil't, it's not OK to tell people that HDMI 1.1 or 1.2, which is what most current HD players support, is enough. The confusion about HDMI alone should be a darned good reason to wait a little while longer before buying in. So I'll say it here, just so that people aren't fooled by your shilling:

If you want to hear DD TrueHD and DTS-HD from your BR & HDDVD disks, you may find that currently selling hardware doesn not support it.

Either wait until all the hardware is at a minimum HDMI 1.3 or make sure you read the specs for each piece of gear in the chain very carefully. Lil't would like everyone to ignore this tidbit so that they all just blindly buy into an outdated component because that will help his pocket book (and he hopes it will one day prove him right on these forums, LOL).


Nightliar, you need to quit bro, I cannot think of a more foolish assmuption on your part. I suppose when HD DVD held their close out sale, and sold close to 50,000 cheap HD DVD players, people were just confused as hell as to what version the A2 had. Wisen up man

Funny you should mention that, because I actually went down to my local CC to see what this A2 was all about and I struck up a conversation with the sales manager. And guess what the most common question was that the sales reps were asked about the A2? That's right: "what version of HDMI does it support?" Some people even decided not to buy one because of this. Now I'm sure you'll dismiss this as not representative of the larger marketplace. So? It's still a matter of some confusion, and that was my whole point. Sorry, lil't, but no amount of spin or "insider info" is going to change the fact that all these HDMI versions are indeed confusing people. Just because you don't think that's significant, doesn't mean that it isn't - the universe does not revolve around you.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And you're sticking with it, right? Sounds like an inferiority complex just the same. And what did you do for it? Do we even wana know?

I stuck with it because he was my friend, and he gave it to me in a tongue and cheek way. Why is this any of your business? Nobody needs your lame online psychological, especially considering you have been found being a consistant liar.




How does bragging about your system show anything about my system? Admit it, you just wanted to brag about it, lil't.

Nightliar, I illistrated a point that no matter how well matched your system is, it requires level tweaking. I juxstiposed that against your bald face lie stating that you do not do it, of which you turned around a contridicted yourself and said that you did. You flip flop worse than Hillary, except she seems decisive and consistant next to you.




How does your description of your system make me a liar? I never met you or your system. Some twisted logic, if you ask me.

You said that you do not do level matching(which is a lie and you know it), I illistrated that as well matched as my speaker package is, it requires level matching. Then you turned around and said you use a SPL meter to get a balance that meets your needs, as opposed to level matching with precision. Your purist approach (which turns out to be not so purist) does not match your calibration approach. Kinda of schetzoprenic I would say.

Nobody ask you anything except to prove you assertions, you have not even done that.




Oh, 'come one, you know you're bragging. You have an inferiority complex, remember?

Are you sure this is not a self analysis? I think it is.




Yes, I'm sure everyone here knows who Curl is - no need to brag. What? do you do his laundry too? Geez, stop bragging already. Yes, Curl made some amazing amps, I had the Parasound Halo monoblocks in my home to audition, and yes, they were amazing - just can't afford that kind of heavy metal nor do I have the room.

Then perhaps trying to offer your advice on things you know nothing of may not be a wise thing to do right?




Well it's still Onkyo. You can't escape the fact that all their mass-market mid-fi gear is dragging the price of even your precious 504's down. I wonder how much they would go for on eBay, certainly not what you paid. And why do they need upgrading? Oh, that's right they are Onkyo...

Its says Onkyo on the front panel, but much of the guts do not belong to Onkyo. And your comments once again are as ignorant as your assertion on just about everything we have debated. Stuff them, they are not knowledgeable (and neither are you), and do nothing but make you look about as smart as a stuffed animal. Why they need upgrading is none of your business. Perhaps you should worry more about telling the truth so you do not get busted in any more of your lies.


Now I'm not knocking Onkyo for what it is, I've owned quite a few of their pieces, but it's still not the level that most serious enthusiasts would consider driving their multi-thousand-dollar speakers with. If anything, I really don't think it gives you the right to claim it will blow my system away. Speaking of which, I'm using an Outlaw pre/pro, but that's not what's driving my speakers, so why don't you sit back down before you have a another tizzy-fit, lil't. When I get more funds, I'll consider replacing the Outlaw probably with a Primare, Cary or something similar, but for now, my children come first.

Your assesment of Onkyo is about as off base as your stupid comments regarding HD players going down in davy's locker. A Onkyo chassis with John Curl chosen parts and internal redesign will run circles around anything you have, or will probably own in the future. My Sony receiver as a pre/pro performs as well, if not better than any outlaw pre/pro ever designed. Your outlaw doesn't even support HDMI, and DVI to HDMI connection is iffy at best. So before you cast critisize anyone stuff, look in your own backyard.




First of all, my Outlaw is not a receiver, but I wouldn't bet on that Sony horse, lil't. I haven't seen too many glowing reviews on that one. At least with the amps you had Curl to hide behind, not so with that mass-market switcher.

Have you seen any glowing review of the Sony used as a pre/pro? That would be a no. That changes the dynamics quite a bit doesn't it? The comment on my switcher is stupid, ignorant, and pretty typical for you. Since when does a upgradeable HD broadcast quality switcher that cost upward of 15k a mass market product? It is not even released to the public yet airhead!! LOLOLOL. You are a big joke man, a halarious huge joke. Move along folks, no credibility here, he doesn't even know about the products he comments on.




Hold onto to your panties, lil't, all it takes to switch between the two is a few clicks into the menu. I have the option to do both. But since you're so worked up, let's just say I keep it on PCM whenever possible. Now I don't know how that makes me a liar, but you're pretty upset, so maybe you're confused...

You are still a liar. Why would a DVD player allow the option of either DSD or PCM when it can only pass through its DAC a PCM stream? Why would a DVD player include this option when all DSP based post processing algorythms are based in PCM And even if it could pass it, something has to decode it in its native form right? You need to go straight to the bathroom, you are full of the brown stuff. Your Outlaw cannot pass it, and your DVD player cannot decode it, and you and I both know this. There is no DVD player that can pass a DSD stream in its native form. When will you ever tell the truth?




No, what makes no sense in your insessant drive to re-write what I'm saying. I never said my player could output only PCM so get off of that already.

Well you can't say it outputs DSD can you? Are you saying that you player has the necessary conversion to do DSD in its native stream? How do you do that if you are level matching?




I've tried it in the pre/pro and in the player and none at all. The best sounding option is to do it in the player before it passes to the pre/pro. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Well it wouldn't be that hard if you didn't say you use the ICBM for bass management. It wouldn't be if you didn't say you didn't do delay, or level matching. So what is it liar? Do you do it in player, or by ICBM or a little of both? How do you do this in DSD if there are not post processing tools native to DSD? Liar!!




No but you said I didn't know how to configure the room with them. When I told you they were done professionally, you couldn't handle the slap in the face and so you didn't want to talk about it anymore - well until you claimed to know more than the whole home-installer industry. You're such a jack*ss, really.

You don't, or you wouldn't need a professional installer. You could have done it yourself...opps I take that back, as uneducated as you have appeared here, it may have been best you went to an installer. It just seems kind of strange a person would purchase a sub $1k processor, but have a professional installer put his room together and calibrate his equipment. Something smells fishy, or you are simply telling more lies.

Secondly, saying you went to a professional installer means nothing to me. I have spent a fair amount of my installation career cleaning up behind so called professional installers, so I am not impressed. You couldn't do this yourself, and that speaks loads about what you know about good audio.




You're not much good at "gleaning" either, it seems, my arrogant little imp. So you're certified by all three? Good for you, my friend has two of them. Does that make you better? God, you're such an arrogant jack*ss, I can't believe you have friends.

I would rather be knowledgeable and arrogant, than a retarded name calling wanna be. I am scared you have a kid!




More arrogance. I mentioned the SPL meter as one of the tools I used. I can assure you that my installer has far more sophisticated tools. But I'm sure that's not comparable to your golden ears, your tools, and apparently your sixth sense. Could you be more conceited?

I could be ALOT more conceited. What other instruments do you need to speaker balance other than a SPL meter? I do not use my ears to calibrate, I use measuring equipment. That is what they are there for. I use my ears to listen to the result.




I never dismsissed sales figures and measurable trends so stop with that rant already, it's stale. You know full well that any good executive wants all the facts, not just what's from "official sources." Stop trying to twist around what I'm saying.

When someone says that it does not tell the whole picture, they are dismissing them. So now you are flip flopping again? Did you not dismiss NDP as a unreliable source that is biased, and didn't Wooch have to come and put you back in your box? Your word here is crap, I have already busted saying things you couldn't even remember you said.




Again more bloated arrogance. You conveniently dismiss organ music, when you know that is exactly what my primary focus was. Don't try and spin this your way. You have no argument so you dismiss mine. Very mature, lil't. Now as far as orchestral music, there's plenty of it that actually includes Organ. As a matter of fact I'm listening to Saint Saens' third right now. Then there's Cochereau, Vierne, Preston, Widor, Liszt, Franck, Trotter, Copland, Glass to name but a few I have in the bookcase in front of me.

I dismissed organ music, but said this on page three.

Aside from organ pedals and huge bass drums, there is not much audio below 40hz in most classical and jazz music

So much for my dismissal! I do not care about what your personal focus is, your personal focus still is not a reason to use LFE for music. While there maybe some music focused around the organ, it does not make up a majority of recorded classical music. If you are going to sit there and tell another lie, do not make it be this one. The overwhelming majority of classical music does not feature the organ, or any musical information below the fundemantal frequency of most acoustical instruments, which would be 40hz. I gave you three links that support that, you have given none supporting yours. You have named a few of hundreds of composers, majoring in minors AGAIN!




See the examples above. And this shows how absolutely limitted your knowledge of modern classical music is. I'm sorry but Bach and Liszt aren't everything that falls under classical. It's another glaring example of how narrow-minded and limitted your little mind is. For your information, Organ isn't the only instrument that goes down lower than a Piano - take a look at Von Kessels - I just played the SACD last night. And there is a lot more modern music and world-music-influenced classical that also applies. Just because your knoweledge is stunted, doesn't mean there isn't a whole world of music outside your minuscule reality. Expand your mind, already. Like I said, I collect the stuff, so don't try and convince anyone you know what I have. You don't know what I have and you certainly aren't entitled to dismiss it outright, just because it doesn't fit your pathetic case.

Where is your damn proof? Show me some links that prove your point. Where are the frequency vs amplitude plots? Rather than sit here and make claims and stupid insults, prove your point. How do you measure what is below 40hz without measurement tools? Don't insult my knowledge, prove your point. The bottom line is you can't. All you can do is hurl insults and make baseless claims that you cannot prove. That is childs play, prove to everyone that is reading this post that a great majority of classical music has fundementals below 40hz.

http://www.soundinstitute.com/article_detail.cfm/ID/106

Look at the charts, do you see any acoustical instruments aside from the piano with fundementals below 40hz? Do you see the comments that a speaker that has a frequency response of 40-18khz would cover mostly all acoustical instruments. Are you saying this information is not true? Well prove it is not.




OK, so let's talk around the white elephant in the room. My whole point was that the Internet is the single biggest difference and you see fit to dismiss that too. How convenient, whatever weakens your argument, you just dismiss. Well in this case, you'd have to be a complete moron to dismiss the impact of the Internet. And don't even go off on this tangent that the Internet filled the void of failing B&M stores, that's ludicrous - the Internet grew exponentially and the B&M stored dwindled very slowly. Oh and regarding your examples of how CD growth compares, it's hogwash if you consider the impact the Internet has had. No, lil't, marketing, sales, searching, and cross-advertising are nothing like they were in 1997, so stop majoring in minors, here. You lost this point well before you started finding "examples" to support your non-case.

Both Woochifer and I have already checked you stupid butt on this, not give it a rest. You have supplied nothing to support your claims Mr Internet expert (or not!)




Typical lil't. Can't formulate a good argument so you just don't want to read the responses. Kind of like how you dismiss everyone else from Groundbeef to Pixel. Real mature, lil't.

You and Peruviansky(I have no problem with Pixel) are as dumb as a wood stick. Both of you make stupid assinine claims that neither of you can prove. You both lie through your teeth, you both have stuck your stupid feet in your mouth too many times. Two birds flocking together.




Again exposing your limitted knowledge. I gave several examples of technologies that were not software, but since those didn't agree with you, you decided to ignore them. Want more? How about all the hardware Microsoft is now manufacturing? Ever heard of xBox? Oh, is that still too much software-ish? How about their inroads into art, the medical industry, financials, copyrights, music, your living room, and yes, lil't, even movies. No, they are not major players in all those industries yet, but they are gaining and it's scaring alot of smaller companies. To think of Microsoft as only a software company shows how little you really know. You say you work in movie sound production, right? Well guess what, you're using Microsoft technologies and copyrighted hardware and software. You may not even know it, but hey, that wouldn't be the first thing you didn't know.

If they are not major players, then you have not proven your point. Majoring in minors AGAIN!! Again a stupid comment. Microsoft does not make audio processing software used in most studio unless they make pro tools. They don't. They do not make mixing boards, D/A converters, compression software or hardware, limiters software of hardware or any other audio tools. They make software based video codecs. And they make the XBOX to support their gaming division which conviently is run by software. Why if they are so HD DVD gun ho don't they make their own HD DVD drive?




I never said they played fair. Hell, my whole argument was about how they've been hitting below the belt to get their way - that is why they are scarry. Talk to anyone who's received a letter from their legal department, and you'll know what scared means.

Well, they are not suceeding in helping HD DVD, they have to give away players(of which microsoft does not make) to help their cause. And if they are such a threat, then why are so scared of BD+? Did they get their way in set top boxes for cable? No! The public rejected interactive TV. Did they get their way with Bluray? No, Bluray accepted BD-java instead. Has studios embraced their download plan? No, they are still choosing to sell disc. Your **** is overblown foo, go set down somewhere and dream you know more than you actually do. That is really the best that you can do right now.




Microsoft could buy Google out tomorrow, and Google knows that. They practically own Apple, Adobe, and can stand toe-to-toe with IBM, CA, and Oracle. Trust me, Microsoft isn't afraid of Google.

Why don't they then? And why is google kicking the crap out of them? Practically own, and own are two different things right? More muck.




Again, exhibiting your narrow mind. Microsoft is first and foremost about profits. Supporting HDDVD, and all the decisions they've made in that direction, are good for their bottom line. What you're describing is what Microsoft itself uses to justify it's corporate greed - it's basically their own press-release that you're repeating. Kind of ironic, that this should come from you, isn't it? Again, you're only considering official sources. By the way, I've never been called a "sole" before, is that a new insult?

And just how can Microsoft make a huge profit? By A) tweaking their VC-1 codec for maximum efficency to support downloads. B) Using HD DVD encoding to forward that practice in the field. This word came from Amirs mouth on AVS, and you can get off your lazy azz and look it up. They do not give a rats ass about HD DVD unless it can further their own cause.




So let me get this straight: for me to have an opinion or even the right to say anything about either format, I first have to buy into one or the other? What kind of doublespeak logic is that? Are you sure you are not the schitzo, here? If anything, for you to have settled on BR as your favorite medium, and to be working for a BR-only company (your words), makes you far less capable to be impartial and even-keeled about the formats. I'm amazed people still listen to you. You're a shill, as we've determined in the last thread.

If you do not own either of them, then what the hell can you tell me about them? Nothing, not one damn thing. How do you offer an opinion if you have never experienced either? What would you draw from, your empty and bankrupt useless gut? A wild guess?

Have you forgotten that this person who works for a bluray exclusive has more than 140 HD DVD titles? Even though my company supports bluray, I bought a HD DVD player first. Unlike yourself, my company does not decide what choices I make for my home.

And please, WE have not determined anything. You have determined your opinion, and if I was a shill, then why do I own more disc on the other format than you do?




Oh, so BR is not an HD format? Funny you should harp on this when Groundbeef and others seem to be perfectly happy referring to both formats as HD. I guess it's OK for them, but when I happen to do so, heaven forbid, I must have offended the mightly lil't's sensibilities. I'm sorry, is that too confusing for you to wrap your little head around? Well, if this is the only argument you can make, you better quit while you still have your diaper on, lil't.

Don't give me that other crap. You are the only idiot that refers to bluray as HD. Talk about a way to created confusion. If bluray is referred to as HD, then how do you distinguish it from HD DVD? You are a unadulterated dummy, with a 30ft dunce cap. And don't bring Beef into this, he has shown far more intelligence on what he has debated than you have.




Bullpuckey? Did you hear that one in pre-school and thought you could slip it in here? You are such a pathetic jack*ss. Let me say this is in no uncertain terms; this is straight from Tom McConville, at Classe, coppied verbatem, from the email that my friend forwarded to me:

"A degree of uncertainty continues to cloud the future of the new blue laser disc formats and it remains unclear which, if any, of these formats will become the dominant technology.

Therefore, while we are committed to developing reference quality components for the HD era, Classe is not commiting to a single format at this time. Please be assured that we are closely following developments in this area and are well placed to react as the future becomes more clear.

I hope this information is helpful. Best wishes.

Tom"

You have already been busted in a lie on this, give it a rest. First its your friend, then its their customer service, now its Tom. Who is it going to be next, Felix the cat?


Oh, I'm sorry are you going to try and say that Tom's not as knowledgeable as you, so his opinion doesn't matter? He works there, lil't. It's his job to inform little nitwits like yourself how little you know about their own product line. And just so you don't try and change the subject or find something else to discredit, I took it upon myself to contact a number of other manufacturers (Cambridge Audio, Arcam, Primare, etc.) and while I have't received replies from all of them yet, every single one that did reply had pretty much the same response - they're going to wait. So far only Denon is releasing a BR player in December, although it will probably be too late for x-mas.

Oh you contacted some other manufacturers huh? Did you contact Sharp? Or how about Daewoo, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Lite-on, Sony Lowe, Pioneer, Fanai, philips, JVC and Hitachi? They are all releasing bluray players in 2008 The only reason the European manufacturers do not jump into this, is because they are small, and do not have the capital resources to get in without a clear winner. They did not get into DVD until way late in the game either. These are small specialized companies appeal to a very small market share. Sony dwarfs them all. These european audio companies do not invent formats, they copy and improve on them in their own way(which may or may not be an actual improvement)


So I ask you, lil't, if all these manufacturers are going to wait it out, don't you think it's a bit pre-mature to start flag-waiving for BR? Unless, of course, you have a stake in this - it's good for your wallet, right? You're a shill and the more you deny it, the more it becomes obvious.

Well, Just named nearly a dozen that decided to jump in, so I think its high time for flag waving. If I am a shill(and we have been over this air head) prove that I make a profit if bluray wins. I cannot believe that you want any crediblity. I design soundtracks for THEATRICAL release, I record film scores for THEATRICAL release, and I tweak and remix for bluray release. If bluray failed tomorrow, I would still be mixing soundtracks and recording film scores for THEATRICAL release. If I am a shill, I would not have purchased two HD DVD players, and 140 titles would I. You are about as bright as a minus 1000 watt bulb




Because nobody will fund such a survey. First of all, the manufacturers, if they consider it at all, will think it's a minor factor (I don't agree with that, of course). Second the results of such a survey may not help their sales in any way. And third, even if they did find out that it was confusing, what would they be able to do about it? HDMI is going through revisions continuously, that is how it was designed, so that it could grow and change with the times. And just when pointy headed little imps like yourself think they can explain HDMI 1.0, HDMI 1.1, HDMI 1.2, and HDMI 1.3 to everyone reasoneable well, they came up with HDMI 1.3a and HDMI 1.3b designations. What's next HDMI 1.3b.1?

If there is no survey, then just is the basis for your claims of confusion? Your own stupidity? Do you know what each designation supports? Because I tell ya, only 1.1 through 1.3 is truely necessary, the other have features that are not supportable with current formats. They are future based improvements, not for current hardware.


And while we're on the subject, maybe you should let people know that only HDMI 1.3 and above supports Dolby TrueHD bitstream, and DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream. This is significant because lower versions of HDMI down the chain will require a player that can transmit the audio as LPCM (not all do, and even if they do, it's no garantee people will know to engage this, i.e. because of the confusion). And it was this nagging question about HDMI that led me to start this thread in the first place. So no lil't, it's not OK to tell people that HDMI 1.1 or 1.2, which is what most current HD players support, is enough. The confusion about HDMI alone should be a darned good reason to wait a little while longer before buying in. So I'll say it here, just so that people aren't fooled by your shilling:

Wow, the breath of your ignorance is truely astounding. You really do not know what you are talking about. Dolby TrueHD does not require HDMI 1.3. If the player does the decoding, it converts the audio back to what is was before DTHD encoding, which is PCM. ALL bluray and HD DVD support this so keep your ignorant FUD to yourself. Both Dts MA lossless and DTHD are encoded from PCM soundtracks, and are used as variable bit carriers to more effeciently pack and transport PCM audio from the player to the receiver. Any product with a HDMI 1.1 connection can support 8 channels of 24/192khz audio, so there is no need for a 1.3 connection. Now if you want to send the Dts and Dolby bitstream directly to the receiver for decoding, then 1.3 is necessary, but it defeats all commentary, IME audio, and any audio connected with the extra's on the disc. Since you have not been keeping current, Panasonic has released a player that can output both codecs in a bitstream form, and there are now receivers that can receive and decode it. It is not now, or ever necessary to send either codec as a bitstream to a reciever


If you want to hear DD TrueHD and DTS-HD from your BR & HDDVD disks, you may find that currently selling hardware doesn not support it.

Either wait until all the hardware is at a minimum HDMI 1.3 or make sure you read the specs for each piece of gear in the chain very carefully. Lil't would like everyone to ignore this tidbit so that they all just blindly buy into an outdated component because that will help his pocket book (and he hopes it will one day prove him right on these forums, LOL).

Rather than just being ignorant, and spouting your ignorant stupidity all over this site, you need to read just a bit before posting.



http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Explained/1064

Read where is says Dolby TrueHD and notice this sentence under HDMI

Some players may decode the TrueHD to PCM and transmit it over any version of HDMI

This also applies to Dts HD MA lossless.




Funny you should mention that, because I actually went down to my local CC to see what this A2 was all about and I struck up a conversation with the sales manager. And guess what the most common question was that the sales reps were asked about the A2? That's right: "what version of HDMI does it support?" Some people even decided not to buy one because of this. Now I'm sure you'll dismiss this as not representative of the larger marketplace. So? It's still a matter of some confusion, and that was my whole point. Sorry, lil't, but no amount of spin or "insider info" is going to change the fact that all these HDMI versions are indeed confusing people. Just because you don't think that's significant, doesn't mean that it isn't - the universe does not revolve around you.

Now you believe all of us are as stupid as you. Anyone who has visited BB or CC knows that these guys no very little about the product they sell. And since one of my close friends is a store manager for BB in one of the cities close to me tells me the number one question their sales folks get is " can I get X movie, or Y movie to play on this player, I know that you are full of the brownest crap on this earth. You are making this **** up, and I am sick of you and you stupid ignorant crap.

In all of the years of posting here, I have never seen a person lie, make up stuff just to support a point, argue when it is apparent they do not know what they are talking about, make claims and provide zero support for it, call so many names to hide the fact they are dumb as dirt, argue with people who know far more than they'll ever know, and flip flop like you do. I cannot believe after you have been caught in lie after lie, you would be stupid enough to resurrect this post, and continue over and over again with the same crap. Either you are a stupid young kid playing stupid games here, or you are a person who thoroughly enjoys getting the crap stomped out of him Whatever it is, you need to go back and crawl into whatever you came out of, before you kill yourself from humiliation. You and Perv, are the dumbest two guys that have ever graced this forum.

[PeruvianSkies]

Pompous, arrogant, selfish, etc etc etc....



Let us not base our attacks on racial prejudices.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Pompous, arrogant, selfish, etc etc etc....

These are just some of the reasons that my wife (who is Puerto Rican) married me (a white American) and always told me that she couldn't stand the typical latino male who was all of these things and more. She basically said she could never tolerate a guy and more importantly a husband who couldn't admit when they were wrong, always thought they were better than anyone else, and made every effort to try and prove others wrong. Sir T lives up to the description quite well wouldn't you say?

You be very careful about bringing up race man, be really careful. You are really treading on some very bad ground here.

[pixelthis]

You be very careful about bringing up race man, be really careful. You are really treading on some very bad ground here.

This is funny as hell, that description of "latinos" fits PS to a T!:p

If she went with a different ethnic group to get away from certain characteristics
she was kinda wasting her time, doncha think?:1:

[pixelthis]

For what its worth, the latinos I have met (quite a few) are always polite, well mannered
and work their asses off.
But they don't mix with gringos much except in the workplace maybe.
Most of the ones I met came from a temp agency specializing in imigrants, there was probably some training involved as far as functioning in this country was concerned,
hence the almost uniform way they acted

[PeruvianSkies]

You be very careful about bringing up race man, be really careful. You are really treading on some very bad ground here.

The race card hardly works here since I am married to a latino I am simply stating what she has said about her own race.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The race card hardly works here since I am married to a latino I am simply stating what she has said about her own race.

You may be married to a latino, but that might not stop you from making this statement here on behalf of yourself. You could be harboring this bias, and as long as you don't mention all latinos, or females, you might think this will pass.

Only a fool would place those characteristic on a race or ethnic group. Remember, George Bush fits exactly those characteristics and he is white as a sheet. That is why your immature, passive, or tape recorder duplicated biases whether they come from you, or your wife are at there very foundation ignorant as hell.

If she says this about here own race, she is a self hater, hardly a person with a solid foundation to make a judgement. She does have a dad right?

Classless, plain classless(walks away in disgust)

[nightflier]

Revive this thread? I started it! Somehow you managed to crap all over it when your diaper fell off. Now let me hose down this mess to rid us of your offending presence.


I stuck with it because he was my friend, and he gave it to me in a tongue and cheek way.

The point is you stuck with it. Yes, lil't. it's an inferiority complex. Look it up. And now you've added that cavaliers avatar - as if there was something noble about you, LOL. I guess the green plume was just a little too effeminate for you? You've got insecurity and gender issues that it would take a psychologist a good tome to sort out, not to mention some pretty defensive ethnic issues. And I'm not even going to address the "tongue and cheek" comment.


I illistrated a point ... I juxstiposed that against your bald face lie... contridicted yourself and said that you did.

Funny from someone who beats the typo horse to death when it suits his argument. Let me illustrate the point that your juxtapositions do nothing but contradict your own argument...


You said that you do not do level matching(which is a lie and you know it)

I said that for the purpose of keeping your from getting your diaper in a bunch, I didn't do level matching. I'm just trying to keep you from crapping all over the place here. Of course I've tried it with level matching, but for the sake of this argument, let's say I did not do level matching and that for my purposes (the room is fairly evenly laid out, I have the acoustic panels, and the speakers are positioned as good as they can be), the level matching is not necessary. So don't call me a liar. Until you've actually been to my house (that is after you get your a** whoopin'), don't try and tell me what I have and have not set on the setup menu on my components. You're not in my house, so don't tell me I'm a liar about how it's set up.


I illistrated that as well matched as my speaker package is, it requires level matching. Then you turned around and said you use a SPL meter to get a balance that meets your needs, as opposed to level matching with precision. Your purist approach (which turns out to be not so purist) does not match your calibration approach. Kinda of schetzoprenic I would say.

I said I used the SPL meter and it was decent for my needs. Then when I had the opportunity to add the acoustic panels I had a professional come it and do some more tweaking. You know lil't, there are lots of other ways to get more precise level matching than just tweaking the channel volumes in the receiver. Anyhow, my level matching, when I did try it, was inside the player. And for Pete's sake, it's spelled illustrated, lil't - something else you'll probably have to look up - do you even own a dictionary? You know you can look it up on dictionary.com, too.


Are you sure this is not a self analysis? I think it is.

No, I'm pretty sure it isn't. You're the one with the schizo personality issues, bub.


Its says Onkyo on the front panel, but much of the guts do not belong to Onkyo... Perhaps you should worry more about telling the truth so you do not get busted in any more of your lies.

It's still Onkyo - and that's the truth (no lies, here). And looking at it's blue-book value, it's not keeping up with other amps in its class. That's kind of like putting a 12-cylinder German-engineered engine in a Mitsubishi - that also didn't keep the blue book on those cars up either - now you know why that's not a popular thing to do. Even if someone wanted to send them back to Germany for "upgrades," they still would never be able to recoup the hit from that badge on the hood. You like your amps and don't mind the necessary upgrades? Good for you. It's still an Onkyo, and valued accordingly, even if the insides were solid gold and designed by Einstein himself. That's truth, lil't, not lies. Can't handle it? Well that's because there's a lot of reality you can't handle apparently.


A Onkyo chassis with John Curl chosen parts and internal redesign will run circles around anything you have, or will probably own in the future.

You don't know what I have, so this is an invalid statement from the start. And what's with the one-upsmanship again? You really should stop trying to compare yourself so much, it's really childish. Yes, lil't that's an inferiority complex example.


My Sony receiver as a pre/pro performs as well, if not better than any outlaw pre/pro ever designed.

And as I said with the Onkyo, it's a mass-market brand with all it's associated consumer-level value-engineered compromises. $15K, well I guess you're not that smart as you want everyone to believe you are. I think you're the one who's the but of that joke, LOL LOL LOL... Disagree? Well let's see what your little switcher fetches on the used market, when you do finally decide to upgrade.


Your outlaw doesn't even support HDMI, and DVI to HDMI connection is iffy at best. So before you cast critisize anyone stuff, look in your own backyard.

Hey, I don't "cast critisize" my stuff in the backyard - is that what you do? Not too bright, lil't. Regarding the Outlaw, maybe it's because when they designed it, HDMI was still a very unsure technology; and given how much it still is in flux (more on that below), I don't exactly blame them. It's a bit outdated, and I'll be the first to lament the lack of HDMI, but I don't use any of that - I'm strictly component right now, so no adapters needed. And besides, what does that have to do with a discussion about sound (DVI is video-only, didn't you know that)? Completely unrelated - cheap shot that got you nowhere. Weak, lil't, even for you.

And as far as the Outlaw as a pre-pro, it has better configuration options than any pre/pro in its price-range and many above it (your pathetic Sony included, probably). And the sound isn't that bad at all, so don't even start on this comparison nonsense - we've already established how childish that is and how it makes your argument so much weaker (if there was an argument in this at all). You're so weak, lil't, I'm surprised you can lift your baby hands onto a computer keyboard.

You know for someone who claims he's got a solid argument about everything he says, I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. Funny... and sad, really.


You are still a liar. Why would a DVD player allow the option of either DSD or PCM when it can only pass through its DAC a PCM stream?...You need to go straight to the bathroom, you are full of the brown stuff. Your Outlaw cannot pass it, and your DVD player cannot decode it, and you and I both know this. There is no DVD player that can pass a DSD stream in its native form.

More FUD. Lil't , you asked me about PCM. My DVD player is currently set to pass PCM straight out. That's what I said in the first place - I never said it was trying to decode DSD in its native form. I am telling you what it's set for, and I'm a liar? Again, you're not in my home, so don't tell me that what I have selected on my menu screen is not selected.


Well you can't say it outputs DSD can you? Are you saying that you player has the necessary conversion to do DSD in its native stream? How do you do that if you are level matching?

Never said that it was decoding DSD in its native form, so get off of it already. I said that I am passing PCM out, that the pre/pro is not doing any processing (yes the Outlaw has a setting for that, look it up), and that the ICBM then does the analog bass management before the remaining 5.0 channels are passed to the amp.

Now I'm not saying I'm an expert at this or that I understand everything that's going on. What I expect is that any digital processing is only done in the player in this setup. If I am missing something, or if I don't understand this correctly, then let me know. I never claimed to be an expert at this - hence the reason I started a thread on sound output and how it relates to SACD settings.

Now before I open that door, do yo think you can offer some constructive input without insults? Because if you're going to litter your post with insults and attempts at showing off how much smarter you are, then don't bother. I don't have the patience, and I doubt anyone else still reading this does either.


Well it wouldn't be that hard if you didn't say you use the ICBM for bass management. It wouldn't be if you didn't say you didn't do delay, or level matching. So what is it liar? Do you do it in player, or by ICBM or a little of both? How do you do this in DSD if there are not post processing tools native to DSD? Liar!!

So enlighten us, lil't. How exactly am I a liar? I am simply explaining how I have it set up for the purpose of this example. Stop the name-calling and explain to me how exactly this makes me a liar. Can you actually be mature or will you forever remain an child?


You don't, or you wouldn't need a professional installer. You could have done it yourself... It just seems kind of strange a person would purchase a sub $1k processor, but have a professional installer put his room together and calibrate his equipment. Something smells fishy, or you are simply telling more lies.

How deep do you wana dig that hole, lil't? Again, you're making assumptions about my setup and my procedures w/o knowing enough about them. As I am saying for the umptieth time, you haven't been to my house, so don't go around calling me a liar. You really come off as a jerk when you do that, not just to me, but to everyone else who suffers through your ramblings. The professional installer is a friend of mine, so it didn't cost me anything except the cost of the panels and corner pieces, which, by the way, I got at cost.


Secondly, saying you went to a professional installer means nothing to me. I have spent a fair amount of my installation career...

Let's put the bragging aside and think about this for a minute. Now you also have a career as an installer, too? I thought you worked at mixing sound for a BR-only company? Well which is it? I guess with your other career as a clair-voyant, that's pretty much a trifecta no one can argue against. With keeping current on all your certifications, I'm amazed you find the time to bore us with your long-winded nonsense on this forum on top it all off. You are such a braggart, it's obvious you're trying to compensate for something. What is this nagging insecurity, lil't? I mean really...


I would rather be knowledgeable and arrogant, than a retarded name calling wanna be. I am scared you have a kid!

You know, you better stop bringing my family into this... What with your other peripheral topics ranging from your sexuality to your ethnic background, I can't say I'm surprised. Anything to deflect meaningful commentary, right? Well at least you're admitting that you are arrogant - accepting the problem is a first step, I suppose. And just for the record, you're the one who started with the name calling, both here and elsewhere. Stop it already.


I could be ALOT more conceited.

Really, I find that hard to believe. Care to enlighten us on that little gem of a claim? Got some links for us? Some insider info? How about some stats? LOL.


I do not use my ears to calibrate, I use measuring equipment. That is what they are there for. I use my ears to listen to the result.

I don't think you use your ears at all. You certainly don't seem to hear the stampede of people wanting you to stop being such a blow-hard.


When someone says that it does not tell the whole picture, they are dismissing them. So now you are flip flopping again?...Your word here is crap, I have already busted saying things you couldn't even remember you said.

When someone says it's not the whole picture, it's not the same as dismissing them outright. Making mountains out of mole-hills again. Amazing how you twisted that one around. No, I'd say your word so far has been crap - amazing how it got from your diaper into your mouth. How does that taste? And regarding not remembering something I wrote previously, that happened once, just once lil't, and I fessed up to it. Again, making more mountains out of mole-hills. So infantile, lil't, really.


I dismissed organ music, but said this on page three.Aside from organ pedals and huge bass drums, there is not much audio below 40hz in most classical and jazz music

Yes in your shallow, narrow little world. You don't know music as well as you claim you do - for someone who mixes sound tracks for a living (well we presume that's still your career), you really aught to broaden your musical horizons. I listed lots of examples, so maybe you should start your education there...


I do not care about what your personal focus is, your personal focus still is not a reason to use LFE for music. While there maybe some music focused around the organ, it does not make up a majority of recorded classical music. If you are going to sit there and tell another lie, do not make it be this one.

How is that a lie? Never mind... Actually what I listen to is relevant here, because I'm the one who started this thread, using my own musical taste as example. That you don't care about what this thread is about, is painfully obvious, so the only question left is what the hell are you still doing here? Go! Leave! With your attitude, you're not wanted. Can't you take a hint?


The overwhelming majority of classical music does not feature the organ, or any musical information below the fundemantal frequency of most acoustical instruments, which would be 40hz. I gave you three links that support that, you have given none supporting yours. You have named a few of hundreds of composers, majoring in minors

Even if there was only one symphony that featured the organ, it would be enough to make the argument. Actually there are far more than that and I don't need to provide links because I provided dozens of actual examples of composers and artists, not just classical artists by the way, who do make music that goes well below 40Hz. And, as I explained above, I brought up the example specifically because it is my musical preference. After all, it's my thread remember? If you don't want to talk about the topic, then don't squat here, you might crap through your diaper again, and frankly I've had enough of your crap. Stop trying to hijack this thread and make it your own - either contribute to the topic or get the hell out.


Where is your damn proof? Show me some links that prove your point. Where are the frequency vs amplitude plots? Rather than sit here and make claims and stupid insults, prove your point.

Why don't you just check out the artists I listed? You should listen to them, you might learn something.


Look at the charts, do you see any acoustical instruments aside from the piano with fundementals below 40hz? Do you see the comments that a speaker that has a frequency response of 40-18khz would cover mostly all acoustical instruments. Are you saying this information is not true? Well prove it is not.

I never disputed that much of the recorded classical music out there is above 40Hz. I only said that there is music that does go below, especially in my collection because I tend to collect that. Stop trying to make something out of this. In this thread, it's a non-issue. As usual, you have no real argument so you try to invent one. Why did you even bother pointing out in the first place that much classical music doesn't go down below 40Hz? It's like you just wanted to dismiss my whole thread outright. And why are you still harping on this point? Is it really that hard to deal with a differing view-point? You really are transparent, you know. Either contribute to the topic at hand or leave, your choice is pretty simple.


I have already checked you stupid butt on this [that the internet had a significant impact on changing the movie industry], not give it a rest. You have supplied nothing to support your claims Mr Internet expert

You have proven nothing. I've pointed out numerous ways that makes your comparison of the market share growth of DVDs in 1997 with the market share growth of HD disks today, pretty weak. The Internet has changed sales, advertising, and distribution methods so much that the two can't be compared. Remember it was you who said that HD disks have grown faster than DVD disks. And it was you who said that this is an indication of the superiority of the HD format. Ludicrous. The impact that the internet has had makes this claim seriously flawed. And nobody needs to see any stats to understand that. You simply cannot say that the Internet had the same impact as it did in 1997. LOL. If you're going to draw a line in the sand, at least try to be standing on some.


You and Peruviansky(I have no problem with Pixel) are as dumb as a wood stick. Both of you make stupid assinine claims that neither of you can prove. You both lie through your teeth, you both have stuck your stupid feet in your mouth too many times. Two birds flocking together.

I can't speak for Peru (although he certainly does speak for himself well enough), but you have yet to show anyone here that I'm a liar. I'm sorry, is it because I said that what my SACD player's menu is set for, isn't what you believe it's set for? Is it because I said that you are driving your setup with an Onkyo receiver? Or is it because you claimed that I know less about the music that I own than you do? Or that you are the belligerent one on my thread? Or that you claimed that you were never wrong? Or that you are arrogant? Or that you are compensating for something? How many other truths do I have to bring up?

Sounds to me like you are much more of a liar than I am. Fact is, you have yet to point out a single time that I lied (and that one time that I forgot having written something and then fessing up to it isn't a lie, by the way). Well, Mr. I'll-prove-everything? Do you have a single example of when I lied? Didn't think so. Now stop with that rant.


If they are not major players, then you have not proven your point. Microsoft does not make audio processing software used in most studio unless they make pro tools. They don't. They do not make mixing boards, D/A converters, compression software or hardware, limiters software of hardware or any other audio tools. They make software based video codecs.

So because they are not a major player in some sectors, they are insignificant? What kind of logic is that? Not only are they major players in several key industries, their reach into other industries makes them very significant across the board. I guess their expansion into banking, medical records, art, etc. are just insignificant, right? Maybe they shouldn't be part of the Dow Jones, either? You're are so ignorant. Just because Wells Fargo isn't the largest bank in the finance industry doesn't make them insignificant. And in case you didn't know, being a second-tier player isn't always a position of weakness either, but I know this is getting way over your head. Let me see if I can bring it down to your level and see if we can get your little mind to understand the concept. Just because a guard on a basketball team isn't big enough to beat the whole opposing team, doesn't mean he's not significant. Still too hard? How about this one: just because a fart in your diaper isn't the whole poop, it doesn't mean a big poop isn't on the way. Clear enough for you? I can't explain it any better. If you are too dumb to follow, maybe you should go learn a thing or two about analogies.

Bottom line is that Microsoft, through it's patents, cross-licensing, encryption, copyrights, financial positions and dominance in several key industries (i.e. computers), has access to just about every industry and this makes it a significant player. And yes, they are a significant player in the BR/HDDVD war too. You're the only slow-poke who wants to pretend they aren't. Even Sony considers them a threat, but the mighty lil't thinks otherwise. Sheeeez, I mean really, what kind of shovel are you using to dig that hole you're in?


Well, they are not suceeding in helping HD DVD, they have to give away players(of which microsoft does not make) to help their cause.

You are stumbling over yourself so much I can't even understand what you're saying. But let me see if I can sort this nonsense out. You're saying they are not helping HDDVD? Really, that's certainly news to me. They have to give away players? Haven't seen any for free yet, but maybe you have... And even if they aren't making a profit there, they more than make up for it with software sales and royalties. Trust me, they aren't loosing their shirts on this one. They certainly are doing a whole lot better that Sony on the PS3 gaming front. I'm sure Groundbeef can fill in the holes in my understanding of this as it isn't what I know a lot about, but it certainly obvious you know far less.


And if they are such a threat, then why are so scared of BD+? Did they get their way in set top boxes for cable? No! The public rejected interactive TV. Did they get their way with Bluray? No, Bluray accepted BD-java instead. Has studios embraced their download plan? No, they are still choosing to sell disc.

If there is one thing about Microsoft that most everyone can agree on is that they don't give up. They aren't scared of BD+, they just haven't found a way to beat it. Microsoft was never about winning early, but they always seem to win in the end. It's the nature of large companies, they can take a few punches and keep going. That's what makes them such a threat, lil't. But from down there, I doubt you can see the whole picture - after all you're so small.


Why don't they then? And why is google kicking the crap out of them? Practically own, and own are two different things right? More muck.

Ever heard of monopolyism? Microsoft doesn't want to be seen as a monopoly and does what it can to keep the government off it's back. Buying Google would not be in its interest - but they certainly have enough financial leverage to buy them out tomorrow, if they wanted to, that we all know (well everyone except you, apparently). Besides, Microsoft doesn't need to own Google right now. They are better off with Google in play because Google is also a threat to some of Microsoft's other competitors. And no, you dim-wit, Google isn't kicking the crap out of them. What kind of stupid statement is that? Care to back that up with a few links? Yeah, I didn't think so.


And just how can Microsoft make a huge profit? By A) tweaking their VC-1 codec for maximum efficency to support downloads. B) Using HD DVD encoding to forward that practice in the field.

Again showing off your limited understanding of this industry. Microsoft isn't just about software (although that's all you seem to want to grasp about them). If Microsoft just continues to push the HDDVD button enough just to keep people from buying enough BR, they will have just the effect they need to have. Microsoft is competing with Sony in the home electronics sector and anything that can hurt Sony (even if it is to boost HDDVD) is a win for them. No need for another long tirade about codecs to see that (although the VC-1 codec, certainly doesn't hurt them).


They do not give a rats ass about HD DVD unless it can further their own cause.

Never said otherwise, but thanks for furthering my point.


If you do not own either of them, then what the hell can you tell me about them? Nothing, not one damn thing. How do you offer an opinion if you have never experienced either? What would you draw from, your empty and bankrupt useless gut? A wild guess?

I'll repeat what I said before since you don't seem to read:

"So let me get this straight: for me to have an opinion or even the right to say anything about either format, I first have to buy into one or the other? What kind of doublespeak logic is that?"

No, lil't. For me to have an opinion, I do not need to own either format. I read. I study, I listen. I also happen to have several friends who own one or the other, so I do get to experience them. And just so you know I almost bought that Sharp BR player last week, but decided against it since I would want to own an Aquos TV to go with it, and I'm not entirely settled on that TV brand.


and if I was a shill, then why do I own more disc on the other format than you do?

Owning and watching are two different things. Since you're now such a flag-waiver for BR, I'm going to presume you watch those more. Nice try lil't. We both know you bought the HDDVD titles when you were in that camp. Lately you've been in the BR camp. I bet the HDDVD titles are much older, too.

And yes, we have determined that you are shill. You work for a BR-only company, so obviously you'll make out if the format wins out. Just because your company could go back to doing sound for standard DVD, or heaven forbid, even HDDVD, doesn't mean that is going to happen. No, if BR wins, you win. That makes you a shill and hardly someone who is impartial, regardless of how many HDDVDs you own.


Don't give me that other crap. You are the only idiot that refers to bluray as HD. Talk about a way to created confusion. If bluray is referred to as HD, then how do you distinguish it from HD DVD?

No, plenty of others have too, including Groundbeef. But somehow, when I do it I'm the anti-Christ? Give me a break. Oh, yes, HD has only two letters, HDDVD/HD DVD/HD-DVD is 5 letters. Or have you forgotten how to count too?


And don't bring Beef into this, he has shown far more intelligence on what he has debated than you have.

LOL, yeah he wiped the floor with your *ss. I guess you barked up the wrong tree on that one. And if he handed your *ss to you, and I'm so much less intelligent, won't it be a kick in the pants when you walk out of this thread with your tail between your legs?


You have already been busted in a lie on this, give it a rest. First its your friend, then its their customer service, now its Tom. Who is it going to be next, Felix the cat?

Now here's a perfect example of how you can't handle reality, lil't. Read this carefully: I told you exactly what was in the email from Classe. It's you who needed so much more clarification about who said what (about 5 posts' worth). The fact is, it came straight from Classe's marketing rep, and you didn't believe it until it was right in front of you. Now you can't accept that you got slapped in the face on this one. You pathetic little child, take your dunce hat and go sit in the corner, already.


Oh you contacted some other manufacturers huh? Did you contact Sharp? Or how about Daewoo, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Lite-on, Sony Lowe, Pioneer, Fanai, philips, JVC and Hitachi? They are all releasing bluray players in 2008

Mostly consumer-level manufacturers. By the way, it's spelled Funai, and Philips is capitalized. You know very well that I am in the market for something a little more upscale, so that's who I contacted.


The only reason the European manufacturers do not jump into this, is because they are small, and do not have the capital resources to get in without a clear winner. They did not get into DVD until way late in the game either. These are small specialized companies appeal to a very small market share. Sony dwarfs them all. These European audio companies do not invent formats, they copy and improve on them in their own way(which may or may not be an actual improvement)

Funny, last time I checked Philips was based in Eindhoven, Netherlands. By the way you left out quite a few Asian-based companies, above, how convenient. Anyhow, just because the higher-end companies are smaller, doesn't make them insignificant. As a matter of fact, given that they are more careful makes their word that much more important since they aren't going to flip-flop once they make a choice. They are waiting this out because there is no clear winner - my whole point from the beginning. You're making such a weak argument, here, and you know it. Just drop it, before you hurt yourself.


If I am a shill(and we have been over this air head) prove that I make a profit if bluray wins. I cannot believe that you want any crediblity. I design soundtracks for THEATRICAL release, I record film scores for THEATRICAL release, and I tweak and remix for bluray release. If bluray failed tomorrow, I would still be mixing soundtracks and recording film scores for THEATRICAL release. If I am a shill, I would not have purchased two HD DVD players, and 140 titles would I. You are about as bright as a minus 1000 watt bulb

As bright as minus 1000W bulb? Yeah, that's a real put-down lil't. At the very least come up with something more creative. You remind me of Jeff Albertson, the Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons. Kinda fits the whole musketeers and the green plume thing. Do you attend midieval fairs in full garb, too? LOL.

So let's dissect what you're trying to wiggle out of. So you "tweak and remix for BR release" right? So what percentage of your job is tweaking and remixing? Whatever that is, that's the amount of a shill you are. Just because you could make a living if BR went the way of SACD (and that's still a very real possibility), it doesn't mean that's the case now. As it stands, you're making money off BR disks, so that means you have a financial stake in the format winning out over HDDVD. Hence, you are a flag-waver for the BR camp and your opinion is far from unbiased. As far as you owning a bunch of HDDVDs and a player, well that's because that's were you started and we've already covered that. You are now definitely a shill for the BR camp, so just admit it already. You're not going to weasel out this one.

You know I have to wonder, have you actually made any argument stick? I haven't seen one yet that has. Are you sure you even want to keep up your charade? You might just want to quit, lil't. After all, you've got a lot of work to do to get out of that hole...


If there is no survey, then just is the basis for your claims of confusion? Your own stupidity?

Hey, I can't make the studios go out and do surveys. And if these are not in their interest (as I pointed out), I doubt any will be forthcoming. The fact is that all the HDMI versions are confusing. It's a mess, and worst of all is that it's a mess by design. They decided to use computer notation for every new version (.1, .2, etc.) which means that it will continue to change. As a matter of fact HDMI 1.4 is just around the corner, isn't it? How are manufacturers supposed to keep up? And what are consumers supposed to settle on? It's a mess, and you know it.


Do you know what each designation supports? Because I tell ya, only 1.1 through 1.3 is truely necessary, the other have features that are not supportable with current formats. They are future based improvements, not for current hardware.

BS. Since I started this thread I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject, and yes, I do now know what they support (no thanks to you). I also happen to know that this distant future that you're referring to is already here with manufacturers now using 1.3 as the standard in their marketing campaigns (just read Sharp, Oppo and Denon's press releases). Only problem is there's a new number just around the corner and so far no one has promised any products that are 1.4 compliant. This only means that come April 2008, consumers will not want 1.3 anymore, even if that's all they need. It's a confusing mess. I can't tell you if it's hurting sales of all HDMI products, but it can't possibly be helping them.


Any product with a HDMI 1.1 connection can support 8 channels of 24/192khz audio, so there is no need for a 1.3 connection. Now if you want to send the Dts and Dolby bitstream directly to the receiver for decoding, then 1.3 is necessary, but it defeats all commentary, IME audio, and any audio connected with the extra's on the disc. Since you have not been keeping current, Panasonic has released a player that can output both codecs in a bitstream form, and there are now receivers that can receive and decode it. It is not now, or ever necessary to send either codec as a bitstream to a reciever

Passing 8 channels of 24/192khz audio isn't everything, lil't. You're flinging FUD again. HDMI 1.3 and above support higher bandwidth, higher video resolutions, have a higher color depth, are capable of updated CEC communications (Sharp uses this between their Aquos player and TVs), and this was important for me: SACD support only came in HDMI 1.2a (DVD-A in 1.1).

And getting back to your suggestion that sending DTS and DD bitstreams to the receiver for decoding being inconsequential, I'm not so sure it's completely useless. After all, isn't that one of the advantages for sending SACD audio digitally to the pre/pro? This allows one to adjust audio settings (channel balance, distance, cross-over, etc.) digitally, so I'm only guessing here, but then the same logic could apply to the ability to do this for DTS and DD, right? Certainly we can agree that not every single players out there has all the necessary settings built-in to their own decoders, especially not the lowest-priced players. Maybe none of the manufacturers are making use of this feature yet, and maybe there are some trade-offs, but then why add the feature? Certainly it took some extensive engineering to add that in, so I doubt it was done for no reason. But I'm just guessing about this, so I'm sure you'll point that out soon enough, with a whole barrage of unnecessary insults to boot. Go ahead, it's not like everyone reading this isn't expecting it - so let's have it...


Now you believe all of us are as stupid as you. Anyone who has visited BB or CC knows that these guys no very little about the product they sell. And since one of my close friends is a store manager for BB in one of the cities...

I wonder if your friend falls under those employees who know so little about the products they sell? Are you making this blanket statement about every BB and CC employee? If so, I think there will be a long line of people waiting to kick your pompous *ss. Now I'm not going to make any such blanket statements, but the sales rep I did speak to knew a whole lot about the formats, and even explained to me the difference between 1.3a and 1.3b. I guess out where you live the sales reps come a little dumber, is that what you're saying? If that's true, do you measure yourself up to them too? Is that why you think you're so smart? You know, for a little feather-waving green-caped snot-nosed little mousqueteer-wanabe in diapers, you sure come off as one unpleasant little fella. If that's your gauge, than that certainly would go a long way to explaining your incessant whining on this forum.



You are making this **** up, and I am sick of you and you stupid ignorant crap.

I have made nothing up. Everything I have stated has been true. You just can't deal with it. And as far as being sick of crap, hey, you're the one who keeps flinging it about. Keep your diaper on already.


In all of the years of posting here, I have never seen a person lie, make up stuff just to support a point, argue when it is apparent they do not know what they are talking about, make claims and provide zero support for it, call so many names to hide the fact they are dumb as dirt, argue with people who know far more than they'll ever know, and flip flop like you do. I cannot believe after you have been caught in lie after lie, you would be stupid enough to resurrect this post, and continue over and over again with the same crap. Either you are a stupid young kid playing stupid games here, or you are a person who thoroughly enjoys getting the crap stomped out of him Whatever it is, you need to go back and crawl into whatever you came out of, before you kill yourself from humiliation. You and Perv, are the dumbest two guys that have ever graced this forum.

You have yet to point out a single lie. Every time I back up my statements you can't handle it. You deflect, you add FUD, and you dismiss anything you don't agree with. To top it off you litter every one of your posts with incessant insults that only weaken your case and your reputation here. You have wasted so much time with belligerent and insulting statements that you've shot your own credibility right in the foot. And the best part is, you don't even see it. That is why I feel sorry for you. You really are pathetic. I think you're the one who should quit.

And just so you know, I'm not that young, I've been around the internet probably longer than you have. I may not have been an audio enthusiast as long as many people here, but I know my way around a message board. So stop trying to turn this around by making me out to be younger than I am. You're the one who's shown his true maturity, or lack thereof, here. In the last three threads I've had the displeasure of having to read through and respond to your childish tantrums, it was always you who started with the petty insults and juvenile behavior. You're an offensive troll and if this forum was only better monitored your account would long have been suspended already.

And as far as "reviving" this thread. It was mine to begin with. You just came here to fling some crap around. For your information, I actually have a life and have spent the holidays with friends and relatives. I guess with the kind of attitude you've demonstrated, you have a lot more free time on your hands. Well take up another hobby, 'cause this one only adds to everyone's dislike of you.

[Rich-n-Texas]

The posts in this thread are... HUGE!!! :eek:

[GMichael]

The posts in this thread are... HUGE!!! :eek:

Thanks, I've been told that my... uh... oh! You didn't mean ......?

Nevermind.

[Groundbeef]

There have been longer, but not many. I usually grab a beverage, and a snack, and watch. Usually there is a gem buried in the crap that makes everyone chuckle.

I've been known to participate as well.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Thanks, I've been told that my... uh... oh! You didn't mean ......?

Nevermind.
:rolleyes: again.

Oh look everyone another meat reference. Does everyone hear the crickets chirping at yet another "Beef" joke...
Wasn't there a ground beef recall sometime back? Have you registered at the local FDA office Beefy? :biggrin5:

[pixelthis]

:rolleyes: again.

Wasn't there a ground beef recall sometime back? Have you registered at the local FDA office Beefy? :biggrin5:
GROUNDBEEF isnt called that because of the hambuger between his ears.
It because his BEEFS are usually GROUNDLESS.
And yes the "posts" (what they call the Gideon Bibles on this thread) do have some good info, if you can dig em out of the B.S, hissyfits, mudslinging, etc.
I need to step up the pace or I'll lose the much coveted "pain in the arse of the board"
standing:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Revive this thread? I started it! Somehow you managed to crap all over it when your diaper fell off. Now let me hose down this mess to rid us of your offending presence.

You crapped all over your own thread liar. You have lied, twisted facts, invented other, been caught in your own lies, and have been proven to know less than your kid when it comes to audio. As so far the only thing you have hosed is your own sorry ass reputation.



The point is you stuck with it. Yes, lil't. it's an inferiority complex. Look it up. And now you've added that cavaliers avatar - as if there was something noble about you, LOL. I guess the green plume was just a little too effeminate for you? You've got insecurity and gender issues that it would take a psychologist a good tome to sort out, not to mention some pretty defensive ethnic issues. And I'm not even going to address the "tongue and cheek" comment.

Wow, you must have been the smartest stupid kid in your class. The Cavaliers are a drum and bugle corps stupid azz. And what you need to do is stop projecting your inadequencies on other folks. If you cannot debate based on the topic and facts, go back to your kiddy sandbox and play with the other boys.




Funny from someone who beats the typo horse to death when it suits his argument. Let me illustrate the point that your juxtapositions do nothing but contradict your own argument...

Wow, has so little to add to the discussion you have resorted to correct typos and judging the accuracy of what one said. All this from somebody that has been busted in lies(hence the name nightliar), and has shown how smartly he can be stupid.




I said that for the purpose of keeping your from getting your diaper in a bunch, I didn't do level matching. I'm just trying to keep you from crapping all over the place here. Of course I've tried it with level matching, but for the sake of this argument, let's say I did not do level matching and that for my purposes (the room is fairly evenly laid out, I have the acoustic panels, and the speakers are positioned as good as they can be), the level matching is not necessary. So don't call me a liar. Until you've actually been to my house (that is after you get your a** whoopin'), don't try and tell me what I have and have not set on the setup menu on my components. You're not in my house, so don't tell me I'm a liar about how it's set up.

Damn, I am talking to a retarded foo. Level matching has nothing to do with acoustical panels. The two serve two different things. Level matching is required to get proper soundstaging, and forming a even soundfield. Acoustical panels take care of flutter echo and room resonances at mid to high frequencies. Just because you have acoustical panels does not mean you omit speaker level matching. Where do you get your ass backwards information. I have bass traps, diffusive material, reflective material, and absoptive material in my listening room, and speaker level matching still had to be done on my speakers. The two are not interelated, but both are required for accurate playback.



I said I used the SPL meter and it was decent for my needs. Then when I had the opportunity to add the acoustic panels I had a professional come it and do some more tweaking. You know lil't, there are lots of other ways to get more precise level matching than just tweaking the channel volumes in the receiver. Anyhow, my level matching, when I did try it, was inside the player. And for Pete's sake, it's spelled illustrated, lil't - something else you'll probably have to look up - do you even own a dictionary? You know you can look it up on dictionary.com, too.

Sorry nightliar, there is only one way to get level matching between speakers. It does not matter if the player does it, or the reciever does it, there is only one way for it to be done, at that does not include the addition of acoustical panels. Amplitude and frequency are quite difference. Level matching deals with amplitude, and acoustical panels deal with frequency response. Duh!!!




No, I'm pretty sure it isn't. You're the one with the schizo personality issues, bub.

Nothing to do with audio nightliar.




It's still Onkyo - and that's the truth (no lies, here). And looking at it's blue-book value, it's not keeping up with other amps in its class. That's kind of like putting a 12-cylinder German-engineered engine in a Mitsubishi - that also didn't keep the blue book on those cars up either - now you know why that's not a popular thing to do. Even if someone wanted to send them back to Germany for "upgrades," they still would never be able to recoup the hit from that badge on the hood. You like your amps and don't mind the necessary upgrades? Good for you. It's still an Onkyo, and valued accordingly, even if the insides were solid gold and designed by Einstein himself. That's truth, lil't, not lies. Can't handle it? Well that's because there's a lot of reality you can't handle apparently.

The shell still says Onkyo, very few parts inside are Onkyo. You cannot use a blue book value on a amp that has been custom redesigned. What does this have to do with anything? I am not selling my amps, they were redesign so they sound better, and play louder and cleaner.




You don't know what I have, so this is an invalid statement from the start. And what's with the one-upsmanship again? You really should stop trying to compare yourself so much, it's really childish. Yes, lil't that's an inferiority complex example.

I don't care what you have, who you are, where you live, or what color your living room furniture is. I REALLY do not care of your opinion of me, or what you think of my character. A liar is in no position to judge anyone.




And as I said with the Onkyo, it's a mass-market brand with all it's associated consumer-level value-engineered compromises. $15K, well I guess you're not that smart as you want everyone to believe you are. I think you're the one who's the but of that joke, LOL LOL LOL... Disagree? Well let's see what your little switcher fetches on the used market, when you do finally decide to upgrade.

Onkyo has some mass market products, but they also have high end ones as well. My upgrade and resdesign was meant to address any shortcomings the amps had, and they were well addressed. You know absolutely nothing about my switcher, so any comments on it are at best ignorant as hell, and at worst stupid as hell.




Hey, I don't "cast critisize" my stuff in the backyard - is that what you do? Not too bright, lil't. Regarding the Outlaw, maybe it's because when they designed it, HDMI was still a very unsure technology; and given how much it still is in flux (more on that below), I don't exactly blame them. It's a bit outdated, and I'll be the first to lament the lack of HDMI, but I don't use any of that - I'm strictly component right now, so no adapters needed. And besides, what does that have to do with a discussion about sound (DVI is video-only, didn't you know that)? Completely unrelated - cheap shot that got you nowhere. Weak, lil't, even for you.

And just what DVD player on any other video or audio related product supports DVI? Not many to zilch! They could have at least support basic HDMI 1.1 and would have been compatible with all upconverting DVD players, HD DVD and Bluray. It was a cheap low budget solution that does not solve a single problem with HDMI, and you are not so bright for mentioning that as a excuse for its lack of HDMI support. Its a bit dated? Its totally outdated and unuseful. And yes I know that DVI is video only, which makes your little Outlaw even less useful going forward into the future. Having component hook ups mean that you cannot get upconverted DVD, and only 1080i from any HD on disc. So if anything is weak, its your pre-pro.




And as far as the Outlaw as a pre-pro, it has better configuration options than any pre/pro in its price-range and many above it (your pathetic Sony included, probably). And the sound isn't that bad at all, so don't even start on this comparison nonsense - we've already established how childish that is and how it makes your argument so much weaker (if there was an argument in this at all). You're so weak, lil't, I'm surprised you can lift your baby hands onto a computer keyboard.

Your pre-pro does not support HDMI, mine does Your Outlaw does not upconvert video signals to 1080p, mine does. My Sony does all the things your Outlaw does and more. So since you started down the comparison road, then if that arguement is weak, you start it, its your weakness.


You know for someone who claims he's got a solid argument about everything he says, I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. Funny... and sad, really.

For a person asking for credibility, you lie too much.




More FUD. Lil't , you asked me about PCM. My DVD player is currently set to pass PCM straight out. That's what I said in the first place - I never said it was trying to decode DSD in its native form. I am telling you what it's set for, and I'm a liar? Again, you're not in my home, so don't tell me that what I have selected on my menu screen is not selected.

You are lying once again and here is proof.

Terry says "If you use bass management, delay, or level settings, the signal must be converted to PCM. There are no post processing tools in DSD except on the ultra high end SACD only players."

Nightliars response. "Well, then my Sony player (not too expensive) must be pretty high end." That is in post #66.

You are isinuating that your player has post processing tools for DSD, when in fact it does not. You are a liar plain and simple. Then you turn around and state this

My player has the option of converting to PCM or not. But I prefer not to do any any bass management in the player. That is out of post #69.



Never said that it was decoding DSD in its native form, so get off of it already. I said that I am passing PCM out, that the pre/pro is not doing any processing (yes the Outlaw has a setting for that, look it up), and that the ICBM then does the analog bass management before the remaining 5.0 channels are passed to the amp.

See above, because you did say your player has that option when in fact no DVD player has that option. You are tripping over your own lies nightliar.


Now I'm not saying I'm an expert at this or that I understand everything that's going on. What I expect is that any digital processing is only done in the player in this setup. If I am missing something, or if I don't understand this correctly, then let me know. I never claimed to be an expert at this - hence the reason I started a thread on sound output and how it relates to SACD settings.

Now you saying you are not an expert, yet for ten pages you are arguing as if you know what you are talking about, and asking me to say I am wrong when in fact you are. What an about face.


Now before I open that door, do yo think you can offer some constructive input without insults? Because if you're going to litter your post with insults and attempts at showing off how much smarter you are, then don't bother. I don't have the patience, and I doubt anyone else still reading this does either.

Offer constructive advice to someone who believes they know all about nothing. HELL NO! You bask in your own stupid ignorance for all I care.




So enlighten us, lil't. How exactly am I a liar? I am simply explaining how I have it set up for the purpose of this example. Stop the name-calling and explain to me how exactly this makes me a liar. Can you actually be mature or will you forever remain an child?

Easy. You said your player has the option of passing both DSD and PCM. No player has that option in existance. You lied.

You said Classe is thinking about releasing a player(and didn't specify which) and you read this in stereophile. Another lie because it was never stated in stereophile.

You made this outrageous statement that the single most important question that consumers are asking about the new format is what HDMI version the players are, which is a lie because the single most asked question is "does it play x movie?". Best buy did the survey, and it was reported in NDP.



How deep do you wana dig that hole, lil't? Again, you're making assumptions about my setup and my procedures w/o knowing enough about them. As I am saying for the umptieth time, you haven't been to my house, so don't go around calling me a liar. You really come off as a jerk when you do that, not just to me, but to everyone else who suffers through your ramblings. The professional installer is a friend of mine, so it didn't cost me anything except the cost of the panels and corner pieces, which, by the way, I got at cost.

You have lied so much, I do not even believe this.




Let's put the bragging aside and think about this for a minute. Now you also have a career as an installer, too? I thought you worked at mixing sound for a BR-only company? Well which is it? I guess with your other career as a clair-voyant, that's pretty much a trifecta no one can argue against. With keeping current on all your certifications, I'm amazed you find the time to bore us with your long-winded nonsense on this forum on top it all off. You are such a braggart, it's obvious you're trying to compensate for something. What is this nagging insecurity, lil't? I mean really...

Anyone who has been around this website for any amount of time has known that I mix full time, and have done installation as a side job for over 16 years.

You do not like what I post because you cannot lie and not be called on that lie. You are a pathological liar, and you need some help with that.

Green is not your best color is it?



You know, you better stop bringing my family into this... What with your other peripheral topics ranging from your sexuality to your ethnic background, I can't say I'm surprised. Anything to deflect meaningful commentary, right? Well at least you're admitting that you are arrogant - accepting the problem is a first step, I suppose. And just for the record, you're the one who started with the name calling, both here and elsewhere. Stop it already.

I have stated this over and over. I do not care about you, your family, your dog reggie, your aunts, uncles, or your hamster. I care about the words you post. I do not care if you throw your hamster into the microwave and eat it.



Really, I find that hard to believe. Care to enlighten us on that little gem of a claim? Got some links for us? Some insider info? How about some stats? LOL.

Funny, we do not need any of that to prove how ignorant you are when it comes to audio.




I don't think you use your ears at all. You certainly don't seem to hear the stampede of people wanting you to stop being such a blow-hard.

Your imagination is too active, I only see one liar begging me to stop uncovering his lies.




When someone says it's not the whole picture, it's not the same as dismissing them outright. Making mountains out of mole-hills again. Amazing how you twisted that one around. No, I'd say your word so far has been crap - amazing how it got from your diaper into your mouth. How does that taste? And regarding not remembering something I wrote previously, that happened once, just once lil't, and I fessed up to it. Again, making more mountains out of mole-hills. So infantile, lil't, really.

More backpeddling huh? The rest of this in nothing more than just blah blah blah to me.




Yes in your shallow, narrow little world. You don't know music as well as you claim you do - for someone who mixes sound tracks for a living (well we presume that's still your career), you really aught to broaden your musical horizons. I listed lots of examples, so maybe you should start your education there...

Since you have proven to be such a liar, just listing them is not enough. I want to see frequency versus amplitude plot that prove what you are saying. You word in bantha fodder.




How is that a lie? Never mind... Actually what I listen to is relevant here, because I'm the one who started this thread, using my own musical taste as example. That you don't care about what this thread is about, is painfully obvious, so the only question left is what the hell are you still doing here? Go! Leave! With your attitude, you're not wanted. Can't you take a hint?

Your own musical taste is no basis for an opinion. Your "taste" in music represents such a small sampling of ALL the acoustical music recorded, that it is impossible to use it to represent acoustical music as a whole.

Do you really think I am going to leave just because you say so? LOLOLOLOLOL, no way, I am having the time of my life uncovering your rediculous lies.



Even if there was only one symphony that featured the organ, it would be enough to make the argument. Actually there are far more than that and I don't need to provide links because I provided dozens of actual examples of composers and artists, not just classical artists by the way, who do make music that goes well below 40Hz. And, as I explained above, I brought up the example specifically because it is my musical preference. After all, it's my thread remember? If you don't want to talk about the topic, then don't squat here, you might crap through your diaper again, and frankly I've had enough of your crap. Stop trying to hijack this thread and make it your own - either contribute to the topic or get the hell out.

We are talking about acoustical music only here. That is what has been previously stated and debated. One symphony DOES NOT make you point at all. I am sorry, because you have not told the truth, you list does not mean $hit. I want links, and amplitude versus frequency charts, because that is the only way to get to the truth. If you cannot or do not want to provide this, then it just becomes another one of your lies.




Why don't you just check out the artists I listed? You should listen to them, you might learn something.

I want to see amplitude versus frequency charts. You are no teacher to anyone, so you have no right to pass out homework. It is up to you to prove what you say, and the only way to do so is to provide the charts so EVERYONE reading this can see.




I never disputed that much of the recorded classical music out there is above 40Hz. I only said that there is music that does go below, especially in my collection because I tend to collect that. Stop trying to make something out of this. In this thread, it's a non-issue. As usual, you have no real argument so you try to invent one. Why did you even bother pointing out in the first place that much classical music doesn't go down below 40Hz? It's like you just wanted to dismiss my whole thread outright. And why are you still harping on this point? Is it really that hard to deal with a differing view-point? You really are transparent, you know. Either contribute to the topic at hand or leave, your choice is pretty simple.

I do not have a problem with a different point of view as long as it is factual. You point of view is not factual at all. Now you are backpeddling once again away from previous statements.

Here is why I pointed out that

Nightliar "Anyhow, your ignorant statement: there is not much audio below 40hz in most classical and jazz music is just that, ignorant, and nothing more." post #69

Also from post #69

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
LFE is completely unnecessary in music.

Nightliar response "Tell that to everyone else here. It's an ignorant statement, and you know it."

Did you forget you said this? That is why I stated what I stated. Selective memory, how convient.

Let's add in the classe releasing a player. First you said this.

" I also think that companies like Classe are already ramping up to release a HD player, but they will do like most other companies and wait out this holiday season"

Then it comes to this

"Classe is thinking about releasing a high-def player sometime early next year (I read that in Stereophile)."

Then this

'I'm pretty sure I read that in Stereophile, or one of my other print magazines. I don't remember exactly were, but I was pretty sure it was in one of the reports from one of the recent shows. I'll see if I can dig it up."

To this

"I asked one of my friends to inquire what if anything they had in the works. He is a long time Classe fanatic, owns several components, and is also waiting to see if Classe will release something."

Then it turns to this

"Now regarding that quote about Classe, it did not come from my friend, it came straight from Classe's sales department."

This is just a evolving lie that just keeps getting more twisted by the response.





You have proven nothing. I've pointed out numerous ways that makes your comparison of the market share growth of DVDs in 1997 with the market share growth of HD disks today, pretty weak. The Internet has changed sales, advertising, and distribution methods so much that the two can't be compared. Remember it was you who said that HD disks have grown faster than DVD disks. And it was you who said that this is an indication of the superiority of the HD format. Ludicrous. The impact that the internet has had makes this claim seriously flawed. And nobody needs to see any stats to understand that. You simply cannot say that the Internet had the same impact as it did in 1997. LOL. If you're going to draw a line in the sand, at least try to be standing on some.

Both Wooch and I have put you down like a lame dog on this one, so there is not point in going over it again.




I can't speak for Peru (although he certainly does speak for himself well enough), but you have yet to show anyone here that I'm a liar. I'm sorry, is it because I said that what my SACD player's menu is set for, isn't what you believe it's set for? Is it because I said that you are driving your setup with an Onkyo receiver? Or is it because you claimed that I know less about the music that I own than you do? Or that you are the belligerent one on my thread? Or that you claimed that you were never wrong? Or that you are arrogant? Or that you are compensating for something? How many other truths do I have to bring up?

Blah blah blah blah yawn!


Sounds to me like you are much more of a liar than I am. Fact is, you have yet to point out a single time that I lied (and that one time that I forgot having written something and then fessing up to it isn't a lie, by the way). Well, Mr. I'll-prove-everything? Do you have a single example of when I lied? Didn't think so. Now stop with that rant.

Read above, you lies are well documented.


So because they are not a major player in some sectors, they are insignificant? What kind of logic is that? Not only are they major players in several key industries, their reach into other industries makes them very significant across the board. I guess their expansion into banking, medical records, art, etc. are just insignificant, right? Maybe they shouldn't be part of the Dow Jones, either? You're are so ignorant. Just because Wells Fargo isn't the largest bank in the finance industry doesn't make them insignificant. And in case you didn't know, being a second-tier player isn't always a position of weakness either, but I know this is getting way over your head. Let me see if I can bring it down to your level and see if we can get your little mind to understand the concept. Just because a guard on a basketball team isn't big enough to beat the whole opposing team, doesn't mean he's not significant. Still too hard? How about this one: just because a fart in your diaper isn't the whole poop, it doesn't mean a big poop isn't on the way. Clear enough for you? I can't explain it any better. If you are too dumb to follow, maybe you should go learn a thing or two about analogies.

Microsoft has been a complete failure in trying to get into the television and movie business with their windows platform. Their shop while you watch was a disaster, interactive set top boxes featuring Micosoft software never got out of the gate. Their movie D/L business is at best paltry. They may be powerful in other areas, but they have been a complete failure in trying to get into the film and television business. Software is their games, and the only hardware they build is to support the software(games).


Bottom line is that Microsoft, through it's patents, cross-licensing, encryption, copyrights, financial positions and dominance in several key industries (i.e. computers), has access to just about every industry and this makes it a significant player. And yes, they are a significant player in the BR/HDDVD war too. You're the only slow-poke who wants to pretend they aren't. Even Sony considers them a threat, but the mighty lil't thinks otherwise. Sheeeez, I mean really, what kind of shovel are you using to dig that hole you're in?

So far their influence in the HD DVD/bluray war is not helping the cause much. There support of HD DVD is not helping the format sell disc, or players. So in this area, their influence is very questionable. Besides, Apple is eating their lunch in the mobile phone market, and Google is threatening their PC software package with a online package of their own. Google is beating their search engine, and Vista is an absolute disaster when compared to their other windows releases. Overplayed argument when carefully scrutinized.




You are stumbling over yourself so much I can't even understand what you're saying. But let me see if I can sort this nonsense out. You're saying they are not helping HDDVD? Really, that's certainly news to me. They have to give away players? Haven't seen any for free yet, but maybe you have... And even if they aren't making a profit there, they more than make up for it with software sales and royalties. Trust me, they aren't loosing their shirts on this one. They certainly are doing a whole lot better that Sony on the PS3 gaming front. I'm sure Groundbeef can fill in the holes in my understanding of this as it isn't what I know a lot about, but it certainly obvious you know far less.

Microsoft does no sell HD DVD players, or movies on disc. They do get royalties from the use of VC-1. They want to keep HD DVD alive for that reason, as they get nothing else out of HD DVD but a way to slow Sony down. In the end, they are not going to win this either.

You do not know $hit about audio, and know less than $hit about the gaming industry. So the best thing you can do for the benefit of all of us, is to insert your big fat foot in your mouth before you spread another lie, or another piece of FUD.




If there is one thing about Microsoft that most everyone can agree on is that they don't give up. They aren't scared of BD+, they just haven't found a way to beat it. Microsoft was never about winning early, but they always seem to win in the end. It's the nature of large companies, they can take a few punches and keep going. That's what makes them such a threat, lil't. But from down there, I doubt you can see the whole picture - after all you're so small.

You do not know what you are talking about, and that is usually the case. Microsoft is scared as hell of BD+, because if BD+ get's traction amoung the studios, their downloading business is history and they know it.




Ever heard of monopolyism? Microsoft doesn't want to be seen as a monopoly and does what it can to keep the government off it's back. Buying Google would not be in its interest - but they certainly have enough financial leverage to buy them out tomorrow, if they wanted to, that we all know (well everyone except you, apparently). Besides, Microsoft doesn't need to own Google right now. They are better off with Google in play because Google is also a threat to some of Microsoft's other competitors. And no, you dim-wit, Google isn't kicking the crap out of them. What kind of stupid statement is that? Care to back that up with a few links? Yeah, I didn't think so.

If you do not provide links to support your arguments, then you have no right to ask for them. Google search engine is kicking the $hit out of Microsofts attempt in that area.




Again showing off your limited understanding of this industry. Microsoft isn't just about software (although that's all you seem to want to grasp about them). If Microsoft just continues to push the HDDVD button enough just to keep people from buying enough BR, they will have just the effect they need to have. Microsoft is competing with Sony in the home electronics sector and anything that can hurt Sony (even if it is to boost HDDVD) is a win for them. No need for another long tirade about codecs to see that (although the VC-1 codec, certainly doesn't hurt them).

Microsoft is all about software, every who know anything about anything knows this. What is Vista? Software. What is Microsoft Office? Software. What does their gaming division do? Software. Why does microsoft build the XBOX? To support their gaming divisions software. If they were not in the gaming business, they would not make any hardware. Outside of the gaming business, all they make is software.

If Microsoft is so influential, then why couldn't their influence get Warner to go HD DVD exclusive when Warner was offered $225 million for their support by the HD DVD PG?



Never said otherwise, but thanks for furthering my point.




I'll repeat what I said before since you don't seem to read:

"So let me get this straight: for me to have an opinion or even the right to say anything about either format, I first have to buy into one or the other? What kind of doublespeak logic is that?"

No, lil't. For me to have an opinion, I do not need to own either format. I read. I study, I listen. I also happen to have several friends who own one or the other, so I do get to experience them. And just so you know I almost bought that Sharp BR player last week, but decided against it since I would want to own an Aquos TV to go with it, and I'm not entirely settled on that TV brand.

How do you listen when you do not have a player? This is more bull and nonsense.




Owning and watching are two different things. Since you're now such a flag-waiver for BR, I'm going to presume you watch those more. Nice try lil't. We both know you bought the HDDVD titles when you were in that camp. Lately you've been in the BR camp. I bet the HDDVD titles are much older, too.

So now you are the foremost expert on my viewing habits. You are now the foremost expert on my buying habit, and when I purchased my disc. Now you are the foremost expert on the age of my HD DVD collection. Shreik the Third is not very old is it? Transformers is not very old is it? Bourne Ulitmatum hasn't been released yet, but I have it on pre-order. So much for you expert knowledge. Now wasn't it you who said you have never been in my house, so you do not know about my stuff? Take to heart what you expouse yourself.


And yes, we have determined that you are shill. You work for a BR-only company, so obviously you'll make out if the format wins out. Just because your company could go back to doing sound for standard DVD, or heaven forbid, even HDDVD, doesn't mean that is going to happen. No, if BR wins, you win. That makes you a shill and hardly someone who is impartial, regardless of how many HDDVDs you own.

I work for a movie studio that support BR exclusively stupid. If BR does not win, we go on making movies stupid. We do not make movies exclusively for disc release, it is for theatrical release stupid. They still do release DVD's stupid. I get paid to mix movies for theatrical release stupid. If it happens that the movies are released on BR, great, but if there was no BR, we would still be making movies for theatrical, and DVD release stupid. My future, nor my paycheck is based on ANY FORMAT stupid. I have said this time and time again. I am hoping if I ended each sentence with the word stupid, you would know I am talking directly to you again.




No, plenty of others have too, including Groundbeef. But somehow, when I do it I'm the anti-Christ? Give me a break. Oh, yes, HD has only two letters, HDDVD/HD DVD/HD-DVD is 5 letters. Or have you forgotten how to count too?

Ground beef does not call Bluray HD, he calls it bluray. You are the only idiot that is calling bluray HD. You the anti-christ. Nope, you are not that smart.




LOL, yeah he wiped the floor with your *ss. I guess you barked up the wrong tree on that one. And if he handed your *ss to you, and I'm so much less intelligent, won't it be a kick in the pants when you walk out of this thread with your tail between your legs?

blah blah blah blah blah blah.




Now here's a perfect example of how you can't handle reality, lil't. Read this carefully: I told you exactly what was in the email from Classe. It's you who needed so much more clarification about who said what (about 5 posts' worth). The fact is, it came straight from Classe's marketing rep, and you didn't believe it until it was right in front of you. Now you can't accept that you got slapped in the face on this one. You pathetic little child, take your dunce hat and go sit in the corner, already.

You posted a bunch of words that support exactly what you have been posting here, claim its from classe, and expect people to believe you? You lie too much for that. I want to see the letter scanned, with Classe company logo on the letter, and with it signed by a classe employee. Otherwise it is just another of the many lies you have already told. If these are a bunch of words spoken, I want to hear it from Classe, not from a pathological liar like yourself.




Mostly consumer-level manufacturers. By the way, it's spelled Funai, and Philips is capitalized. You know very well that I am in the market for something a little more upscale, so that's who I contacted.

Sorry, once again. The manufacturers you listed are not trendsetters. The Japanese companies are. They are the ones creating new formats, not the Europeans. If you are so into upscale, then why do you have to wait for everything because of your kid? Sounds like wine taste on a beer budget to me.




Funny, last time I checked Philips was based in Eindhoven, Netherlands. By the way you left out quite a few Asian-based companies, above, how convenient. Anyhow, just because the higher-end companies are smaller, doesn't make them insignificant. As a matter of fact, given that they are more careful makes their word that much more important since they aren't going to flip-flop once they make a choice. They are waiting this out because there is no clear winner - my whole point from the beginning. You're making such a weak argument, here, and you know it. Just drop it, before you hurt yourself.

Philips works in concert with Sony. They did on the CD, they did on their version of the DVD, and they have also done it with Bluray. I did not feel a need to list all 170 companies that are part of the BDA. The higher end companies are followers, not leaders and not trendsetters. Has any of the companies you stated you contacted ever created or developed a format? No, they are usually late to the game.




As bright as minus 1000W bulb? Yeah, that's a real put-down lil't. At the very least come up with something more creative. You remind me of Jeff Albertson, the Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons. Kinda fits the whole musketeers and the green plume thing. Do you attend midieval fairs in full garb, too? LOL.

Blah blah blah blah blah, when you cannot debate the subject matter, you change the subject. A cowards game.


So let's dissect what you're trying to wiggle out of. So you "tweak and remix for BR release" right? So what percentage of your job is tweaking and remixing? Whatever that is, that's the amount of a shill you are. Just because you could make a living if BR went the way of SACD (and that's still a very real possibility), it doesn't mean that's the case now. As it stands, you're making money off BR disks, so that means you have a financial stake in the format winning out over HDDVD. Hence, you are a flag-waver for the BR camp and your opinion is far from unbiased. As far as you owning a bunch of HDDVDs and a player, well that's because that's were you started and we've already covered that. You are now definitely a shill for the BR camp, so just admit it already. You're not going to weasel out this one.

This logic would be stupid for an intelligent person. For you, par for the course. You do not know anything about the film industry, so I guess I can expect more ignorant statements like this.


You know I have to wonder, have you actually made any argument stick? I haven't seen one yet that has. Are you sure you even want to keep up your charade? You might just want to quit, lil't. After all, you've got a lot of work to do to get out of that hole...

Maybe you should stand in front of a mirror and say this to yourself. It would be the smartest thing you have done since you started this thread.


Hey, I can't make the studios go out and do surveys. And if these are not in their interest (as I pointed out), I doubt any will be forthcoming. The fact is that all the HDMI versions are confusing. It's a mess, and worst of all is that it's a mess by design. They decided to use computer notation for every new version (.1, .2, etc.) which means that it will continue to change. As a matter of fact HDMI 1.4 is just around the corner, isn't it? How are manufacturers supposed to keep up? And what are consumers supposed to settle on? It's a mess, and you know it.

There is no HDMI 1.4 stupid! How does a person who knowns nothing about HDMI and its versions make a judgement on it? Oh I know, their confusion is everyone confusion. Their stupidity and ignorance is everyones stupidity and ignorance. Now I get it, If you don't know anything about it, everyone must be as dumb as you. Bingo! (sarcasm off)




BS. Since I started this thread I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject, and yes, I do now know what they support (no thanks to you). I also happen to know that this distant future that you're referring to is already here with manufacturers now using 1.3 as the standard in their marketing campaigns (just read Sharp, Oppo and Denon's press releases). Only problem is there's a new number just around the corner and so far no one has promised any products that are 1.4 compliant. This only means that come April 2008, consumers will not want 1.3 anymore, even if that's all they need. It's a confusing mess. I can't tell you if it's hurting sales of all HDMI products, but it can't possibly be helping them.

Since I listed what HDMI supports what in this thread, and you say you didn't learn anything from it, perhaps you are just too stupid to comprehend plain english. Not my fault, that yours.

As far as HDMI 1.4 there is no April 2008 roll out of that version. Can you provide a link that says something different. I googled it, nothing. I went to HDMI website, no mention of it. There is nothing but rumors about it. Another one of you lies, probably, as evidence points in that direction.




Passing 8 channels of 24/192khz audio isn't everything, lil't. You're flinging FUD again. HDMI 1.3 and above support higher bandwidth, higher video resolutions, have a higher color depth, are capable of updated CEC communications (Sharp uses this between their Aquos player and TVs), and this was important for me: SACD support only came in HDMI 1.2a (DVD-A in 1.1).

Sorry nightstupid, but 24/192khz is the best you are going to get. This exceeds the resolution of vinyl, and is all anyone is every going to need. 1.3 does not support any audio resolution higher than that. HDMI it may support more video bandwidth in terms of transfer rate, but that is not needed to transmit 1080p from a player to a television. It does not support any higher resolution than 1080p. It does support deep color, but we will not see that on any current format because of bandwidth and disc space issues. It does support xvYCC, but that is not supported on any current video format. CEC has been in the HDMI specification since version 1.0, but has only begun to be used in CE products with HDMI version 1.3. So much for you studying!




And getting back to your suggestion that sending DTS and DD bitstreams to the receiver for decoding being inconsequential, I'm not so sure it's completely useless. After all, isn't that one of the advantages for sending SACD audio digitally to the pre/pro?

You do not know anything about this, so how do you know if it is useless or not? I am talking about Dts master audio lossless, and Dolby trueHD, these are both lossless, not lossy like Dts and DD. If the player does the decoding, both are transcoded to PCM with no losses. All commentary dialog, IME, and any mixed multiplexed audio is transferred along with the PCM stream. If the player sends out the undecoded bitstream to a receiver for decoding, then all commentary, IME, and any multiplexed audio is not transmitted along with the bitstream. You lose your interactive features. Since there is no improvement in the audio resolution, but a loss of extra value features, there is no benefit in having the receiver do the decoding. SACD is trancoded within the player to PCM,and transferred to the player via HDMI to a receiver that can do bass management, level matching, and delay which are all PCM based. No additional A/D or D/A is needed.



This allows one to adjust audio settings (channel balance, distance, cross-over, etc.) digitally, so I'm only guessing here, but then the same logic could apply to the ability to do this for DTS and DD, right? Certainly we can agree that not every single players out there has all the necessary settings built-in to their own decoders, especially not the lowest-priced players. Maybe none of the manufacturers are making use of this feature yet, and maybe there are some trade-offs, but then why add the feature? Certainly it took some extensive engineering to add that in, so I doubt it was done for no reason. But I'm just guessing about this, so I'm sure you'll point that out soon enough, with a whole barrage of unnecessary insults to boot. Go ahead, it's not like everyone reading this isn't expecting it - so let's have it...

You sure do try and pass yourself off as smarter than you are huh? Whether the player, or the receiver does the decoding, channel balance, delay, and crossover are still active. These tools are PCM based, and as long as the signal is transmitted via HDMI, the signal remains digital throughout the process. All player I know of have all the necessary bass management tools for proper reproduction. We are talking HD DVD and Bluray, not DVD. Since both HD format recommend decoding within the player, delay, crossever, and level is a part of every player except the PS3. That is not a problem for the PS3 as the signal can be sent via HDMI to a receiver that can perform these functions on its behalf. The feature is being used by Pioneer, and Samsung currently, with other players coming to market with this feature as well. It is nothing more than a marketing tool as there is no added resolution with the receiver doing the decoding.




I wonder if your friend falls under those employees who know so little about the products they sell?

Do you mean is he like you? Nope, he know exactly what he is talking about.


Are you making this blanket statement about every BB and CC employee? If so, I think there will be a long line of people waiting to kick your pompous *ss. Now I'm not going to make any such blanket statements, but the sales rep I did speak to knew a whole lot about the formats, and even explained to me the difference between 1.3a and 1.3b. I guess out where you live the sales reps come a little dumber, is that what you're saying? If that's true, do you measure yourself up to them too? Is that why you think you're so smart? You know, for a little feather-waving green-caped snot-nosed little mousqueteer-wanabe in diapers, you sure come off as one unpleasant little fella. If that's your gauge, than that certainly would go a long way to explaining your incessant whining on this forum.

Blah blah blah blah blah, somebody wake me when the bull$hit is over. What were you saying about insult?

More stupid blather not worthy of a response.





I have made nothing up. Everything I have stated has been true. You just can't deal with it. And as far as being sick of crap, hey, you're the one who keeps flinging it about. Keep your diaper on already.

To a pathological liar, yep, everything you said is true. Liars usually believe their own lies.




You have yet to point out a single lie. Every time I back up my statements you can't handle it. You deflect, you add FUD, and you dismiss anything you don't agree with. To top it off you litter every one of your posts with incessant insults that only weaken your case and your reputation here. You have wasted so much time with belligerent and insulting statements that you've shot your own credibility right in the foot. And the best part is, you don't even see it. That is why I feel sorry for you. You really are pathetic. I think you're the one who should quit.

Now hear is the pot calling the kettle black. You have called more names in one post, than I have done in this whole thread. Stop the freakin whining, if you dish it out, you should be able to take it. If you cannot take it, do not dish it out.

You have not posted a single link, chart, article, or even a old brownie to support your points. If you say you are backing up your statements, you are just telling another lie. Where is the amplitude versus frequency to support your music signals under 40hz comment? Where is the link that supports your Microsoft comments? We are still waiting on all of this. You have insisted that you do not need to supply any proof to your statements, not you are saying you have. Either you are confused as hell, or you are hella lying.


And just so you know, I'm not that young, I've been around the internet probably longer than you have. I may not have been an audio enthusiast as long as many people here, but I know my way around a message board. So stop trying to turn this around by making me out to be younger than I am. You're the one who's shown his true maturity, or lack thereof, here. In the last three threads I've had the displeasure of having to read through and respond to your childish tantrums, it was always you who started with the petty insults and juvenile behavior. You're an offensive troll and if this forum was only better monitored your account would long have been suspended already.

Cry me a river. This is classic passive aggressive crap. You have called twice as many names, and now you are crying victim. The problem you have is that you have lied, and been busted. You think you know more than you do, and you have been uncovered as a dummy. You have made claim after obsurd claim, and never support any of it with verifiable facts and links. You claim that you know so much about music, but have not supported your supposed knowledge with any links or charts. When links and charts have been provided to you, you dismiss them and continue with you ignorance.

If the moderation was better here, they would ban you for being too stupid to participate in an intelligent arguement.


And as far as "reviving" this thread. It was mine to begin with. You just came here to fling some crap around. For your information, I actually have a life and have spent the holidays with friends and relatives. I guess with the kind of attitude you've demonstrated, you have a lot more free time on your hands. Well take up another hobby, 'cause this one only adds to everyone's dislike of you.

Well goody goody for you (rolls eyes). Maybe you should continue reading and studying instead of giving out advice. Maybe you should learn to tell the truth, instead of lying to hide your ignorance. Maybe you should stop insulting and calling names if you do not like it coming back to you. And maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself did you not have every insult, or name called coming to you.

[johnny p]

My finger hurts from scrolling..........

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My finger hurts from scrolling..........

Your eyes and head should hurt as well! LOLOL