Blu-ray Price Dropping.

[Smokey]

Since Blu-ray is going to be the standard for HD discs, this might be a good time to wonder as how far the price of blu-ray players&discs will drop ..let say...in next five years?

Will the price dropping ever reach current regular DVD players ($59) and SD DVD discs $7.5 (not to mention Walmart Bargain Bin :D)

[kexodusc]

Since Blu-ray is going to be the standard for HD discs, this might be a good time to wonder as how far the price of blu-ray players&discs will drop ..let say...in next five years?

Will the price dropping ever reach current regular DVD players ($59) and SD DVD discs $7.5 (not to mention Walmart Bargain Bin :D)
I'm going out on a limb and saying no. Think the manufacturers have learned from their mistakes. A lot of the Apexes of the world won't be so eager to dive into the discount BluRay player business after having watched the discount DVD companies take a few baths.
The discs might drop that low over time. I've got a feeling that BluRay will be better at protecting its margins than DVD was though. Not basing this on anything other than gut feeling.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm going out on a limb and saying no. Think the manufacturers have learned from their mistakes. A lot of the Apexes of the world won't be so eager to dive into the discount BluRay player business after having watched the discount DVD companies take a few baths.
The discs might drop that low over time. I've got a feeling that BluRay will be better at protecting its margins than DVD was though. Not basing this on anything other than gut feeling.

Your gut is very accurate. Actually disc prices have dropped. They are not $7.50, but they are not the $30-35 dollars they were.

[L.J.]

Dang, I read the title of this this thread and thought prices were dropping :incazzato:

Smoke,where's the ? That's it, no bargin bins for a week :)

[Smokey]

That's it, no bargin bins for a week :)


You can punish me, but don’t end my life :mad5:

Thanks Kex and Sir T for comments and it is a valid point that Apexes of world might be reluctant to jump in (or not allowed to). But on the same note it might be worth mentioning that if proprietor of Blu-ray try to keep it under a tight wrap might actually hurt its chances of succeeding DVDs (they still have that hill to climb).

Are they willing to learn as to what happened to SACD/DVD-audio where a tight leash caused those formats to fail in mass market?

[kexodusc]

You can punish me, but don’t end my life :mad5:

Thanks Kex and Sir T for comments and it is a valid point that Apexes of world might be reluctant to jump in (or not allowed to). But on the same note it might be worth mentioning that if proprietor of Blu-ray try to keep it under a tight wrap might actually hurt its chances of succeeding DVDs (they still have that hill to climb).
Succeeding DVD's shouldn't be hard. They'll do that the same way every business gets you to upgrade - planned obsolescence. As they scale back DVD you'll have no choice but to buy BluRay. Patience is all that's required - remember VHS was being scaled back at a time when it still had the largest installed-user base. It could be a year or two more before you see it happen - BluRay is still comparatively young.

Perhaps Sir T could chime in, but most of the talk/print I've heard/seen suggests BluRay's goals aren't nearly as ambitious as DVD's. They will be the dominant format, but they're not expecting to sell as many as DVD. To offset this, the margins will remain higher. It won't take much of a price premium over DVD to make BluRay pretty darn profitable. Now, if it does match or exceed DVD in sales, well that's just gravy.



Are they willing to learn as to what happened to SACD/DVD-audio where a tight leash caused those formats to fail in mass market
People keep referring to that botched format war when talking about BluRay. From my point of view, I don't see any relevant comparisons other than the fact each had a competitor.
Below the surface we can see many differences immediately:
1) BluRay has sold millions of hardware units
2) BluRay has support of all the studios, and are releasing considerably more titles than SACD/DVD-A ever did
3) BluRay isn't being positioned as a niche/audiophile only product
4) BluRay no longer has any high-rez competition complicating matters

#2 is probably the most significant - mainstream movies are being released in BluRay. Mainstream audio titles are not available in SACD for the most part. Hard to win a format war when you're not even trying to appeal to 99.9% of the market. These format wars have little in common really. BluRay may fail, but it won't be for the same reasons as SACD/DVD-A.

[Feanor]

I'm going out on a limb and saying no. Think the manufacturers have learned from their mistakes. A lot of the Apexes of the world won't be so eager to dive into the discount BluRay player business after having watched the discount DVD companies take a few baths.
The discs might drop that low over time. I've got a feeling that BluRay will be better at protecting its margins than DVD was though. Not basing this on anything other than gut feeling.

It will certainly be the preference of all the major players to retain the market stratification that BluRay represents, that is to say, DVD low end, BluRay high end.

I speculate that we will see a trend to lower BluRay disc prices however, and lower DVD prices too.

Of course high-end DVD players will very promptly vanish from the market. This was the case for VCRs as DVDs became more popular.

[Groundbeef]

This is purely my opinion, and mostly speculation.

People like competition. They may perfer a brand over another, but they want something to keep prices in check.

HD-DVD wasn't perfect, nor would it be the "standard". However, much to both the Blu crowd (Hardware side) chagrin, it was the turd in the punchbowl of higher prices and margins.

It doesn't matter to J6P that HD-DVD didn't enjoy support from differnent hardware suppliers, because the prices were lower than Blu. Obviously not enough of a draw, but that may have been studio support. If the player is cheaper, but I cant get the movie I want, so what. I won't buy. Good move on Blu for wrapping up studio support.

However, people have gotten an idea that HD playback (HD-DVD OR Blu) doesn't have to be super expenisve. And now that Blu is the only game in town, I am willing to bet that although its better than DVD, many people will NOT buy because of cost.

The perception is that it CAN be cheaper, but now without competition mfgs are "screwing" us, and since its not needed technology, why pay 4X what an "upconverted" DVD does?

I think that Blu will hold steady for 6 months, then around holiday time the blood letting will begin. I don't see movie prices dropping much though. They will hover around $20-25.

Just my opinon.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is purely my opinion, and mostly speculation.

I hate you beef. LOL


People like competition. They may perfer a brand over another, but they want something to keep prices in check.

Beef, do not worry about this. Prices may still be high, but they are much cheaper than a year ago, and you are starting to get all of the features the standard specs lists. For instance Panasonic, Sony and Daewoo are coming out with players that are 2.0 profile and are $500 and under. Two years into the DVD format, players that could read dual layers and do Dts were still far more expensive than this.


HD-DVD wasn't perfect, nor would it be the "standard". However, much to both the Blu crowd (Hardware side) chagrin, it was the turd in the punchbowl of higher prices and margins.

And becuase of the premature price reduction, they slashed and burned the market. Way too soon I might add. You cannot force prices down by taking a loss on every player this early in the game. You have to allow prices to drop by economy of scale, a natural force, not a forced force. Plus at the prices Toshiba charge, you could not get decent quality control.


It doesn't matter to J6P that HD-DVD didn't enjoy support from differnent hardware suppliers, because the prices were lower than Blu. Obviously not enough of a draw, but that may have been studio support. If the player is cheaper, but I cant get the movie I want, so what. I won't buy. Good move on Blu for wrapping up studio support.

Look at it this way beef, Toshiba had no competition either. They made or designed every player HD DVD ever released. That meant the consumer didn't have a large choice of quality players available, they had Toshiba's player, and all of its faults as well.


However, people have gotten an idea that HD playback (HD-DVD OR Blu) doesn't have to be super expenisve. And now that Blu is the only game in town, I am willing to bet that although its better than DVD, many people will NOT buy because of cost.

Yeah, but now most folks realize that the cheaper prices actually came at a cost to the format. New formats cost, that is a reality, and has been reality over the course of the history of consumer electronics. The VHS was over a thousand dollars for several years after it released, but prices came down as the manufacturers sold more players. Same with the DVD, and this will continue with bluray. When bluray launched, almost all of the players were a thousand dollars or just under it. Now a majority of the players are around $500.


The perception is that it CAN be cheaper, but now without competition mfgs are "screwing" us, and since its not needed technology, why pay 4X what an "upconverted" DVD does?

But upconverted DVD does not do what bluray can do. upconverted DVD is still just 480i, and once upconverted is still just 480i worth of information. Bluray is 1080p, and to all but the legally blind, it will look better than upconverted DVD. Upconverting some poorly mastered DVD's can actually make them look worse than before upconversion. I think the folks that have followed this war understand now that you cannot lose $600 million dollars just to give the consumer a cheap player. You will never make it that way.


I think that Blu will hold steady for 6 months, then around holiday time the blood letting will begin. I don't see movie prices dropping much though. They will hover around $20-25.

Just my opinon.

There is a chain reaction when the players prices drop, the software usually follows because both enjoy the efficiencies of economy of scale. The net result of what the BDA wants to do with bluray which is replace the DVD cannot be realized of the manufacturers, the studio, replicators do not pass along the cost savings derived from efficiencies. They have learned this from the CD.

[Groundbeef]

I hate you beef. LOL



I noticed you didn't touch the "turd in the punchbowl" comment. Makes a nice visual no?

[Smokey]

Perhaps Sir T could chime in, but most of the talk/print I've heard/seen suggests BluRay's goals aren't nearly as ambitious as DVD's. They will be the dominant format, but they're not expecting to sell as many as DVD. To offset this, the margins will remain higher.

I would say that prediction is probably the fairest one (at least for next five years).

And the main reason agree with your statement is unlike VHS vs DVD scenario where everybody were replacing their VHS library with same DVD titles (thus the price plunge), most everybody might be too reluctant to replace their DVD collection with Bluray discs.

So for foreseeable future, Bluray disc sales most likely be limited to new movie titles as economy of scale will take hold at slower speed than DVDs--thus higher price (hope I don't sound like Pixelthis :D)

[pixelthis]

Succeeding DVD's shouldn't be hard. They'll do that the same way every business gets you to upgrade - planned obsolescence. As they scale back DVD you'll have no choice but to buy BluRay. Patience is all that's required - remember VHS was being scaled back at a time when it still had the largest installed-user base. It could be a year or two more before you see it happen - BluRay is still comparatively young.

Perhaps Sir T could chime in, but most of the talk/print I've heard/seen suggests BluRay's goals aren't nearly as ambitious as DVD's. They will be the dominant format, but they're not expecting to sell as many as DVD. To offset this, the margins will remain higher. It won't take much of a price premium over DVD to make BluRay pretty darn profitable. Now, if it does match or exceed DVD in sales, well that's just gravy.


People keep referring to that botched format war when talking about BluRay. From my point of view, I don't see any relevant comparisons other than the fact each had a competitor.
Below the surface we can see many differences immediately:
1) BluRay has sold millions of hardware units
2) BluRay has support of all the studios, and are releasing considerably more titles than SACD/DVD-A ever did
3) BluRay isn't being positioned as a niche/audiophile only product
4) BluRay no longer has any high-rez competition complicating matters

#2 is probably the most significant - mainstream movies are being released in BluRay. Mainstream audio titles are not available in SACD for the most part. Hard to win a format war when you're not even trying to appeal to 99.9% of the market. These format wars have little in common really. BluRay may fail, but it won't be for the same reasons as SACD/DVD-A.


ITS HAPPENING NOW.
Went into crockbuster to get 30 days of night, an exelent horror movie, and it was in Blu, as were four other sections of "new" releases devoted to blu.
Used to be two just a few weeks ago.
Sir talky and other monopolists might not like it but the free market WORKS.
I have been watching HD quite a bit, was surprized when I watched Gone baby gone
a few days ago, the picture on DVD was very pedestrian.
Its what your brain gets used to. My teacher said that NTSC was quite bad, but the almost unlimited amount of colors helped, and the brain filled in a lot.
After watching DVD for awhile it was almost impossible to go back to even S-VHS.
And after watching a lot of HD, WELL, I guess I know where my rebate check is going,
to a new BLU player.
But the "victory" scored by the Blu group will be short lived.
Blu will supplant DVD, backward compatibility will help a great deal.
But people will get bored with their old DVD'S, and soon BLU will the major if not only form of disc.
With the same price structure.
like on Invasion of the body snatchers the industry wont change much, they will just offer a much higher q, at just about the same price

[Feanor]

Succeeding DVD's shouldn't be hard. They'll do that the same way every business gets you to upgrade - planned obsolescence. As they scale back DVD you'll have no choice but to buy BluRay. Patience is all that's required - remember VHS was being scaled back at a time when it still had the largest installed-user base. It could be a year or two more before you see it happen - BluRay is still comparatively young.

Perhaps Sir T could chime in, but most of the talk/print I've heard/seen suggests BluRay's goals aren't nearly as ambitious as DVD's. They will be the dominant format, but they're not expecting to sell as many as DVD. To offset this, the margins will remain higher. It won't take much of a price premium over DVD to make BluRay pretty darn profitable. Now, if it does match or exceed DVD in sales, well that's just gravy.
...

#2 is probably the most significant - mainstream movies are being released in BluRay. Mainstream audio titles are not available in SACD for the most part. Hard to win a format war when you're not even trying to appeal to 99.9% of the market. These format wars have little in common really. BluRay may fail, but it won't be for the same reasons as SACD/DVD-A.

It is always the case that those delivering innovative technology hope to "skim the market". That is, first grab big money from those willing to pay big money, and lower prices only after this has happened. Other factors are competition and value as perceived by consumers including, "how do I get there from here", i.e. backwards compatibility.

SACD failed largely because Sony hoped to stretch out the "skimming phase", viz. intitial Sony offerings were DSD only and players were very expensive. At the same time perceived values was low: high prices, limited selection; marginal or even no sound improvement for most people. The other factor, (which I've mentioned often), is that hard-core audiophiles (who might have heard the better quality) retained their bias for vinyl and continued to reject digital media.

The BluRay scenario is somewhat similar but much less extreme than the SACD situation was, (and is). SACD survives so far as a niche market for audiophile classical music lovers. I suspect BluRay will go main stream, however we need to see decent players for $200 plus at most a 30% premium for BluRay discs.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir talky and other monopolists might not like it but the free market WORKS.

What the hell are you talking about grandfather christmas? Step away from the beer toothless. I believe in the free market, and always have.


But the "victory" scored by the Blu group will be short lived.
Blu will supplant DVD, backward compatibility will help a great deal.
But people will get bored with their old DVD'S, and soon BLU will the major if not only form of disc.

You should never post when drunk on moonshine hicky. You contridicted yourself in one sentence. If bluray supplants the DVD, then its not a short lived victory. Nobody believes it is going to happen tomorrow. So how can bluray victory be short lived? And don't bring up downloads, you will be dead from alchohol abused before downloads ever overtake the disc.


With the same price structure.
like on Invasion of the body snatchers the industry wont change much, they will just offer a much higher q, at just about the same price

Umm, the pricing structure for both disc and players has already changed. The first generation Samsung BDP-1000 is a profile 1.0 player that was available for $1000. Panasonics first player $1300. Pioneers first player $1200, Philips $899. All were profile 1.0 players with no second audio or video codec, and no ability to to upgrade to either profile 1.1 or 2.0.

Panasonics new player coming out, $749 and its a profile 1.1. Samsung has a new players coming out are bonus view (1.1) for $499. Sharp bonus view Profile 1.1 $499, PS3 40gb bonus view upgradeable to profile 2.0 $399. Daewoo profile 2.0 $499. So Ray Charles can see the pricing structure of the second and third generation players is much lower than the pricing structure of the first generation players.

When I first started purchasing both HD DVD and bluray, all disc were over $30, mostly between $34.99 and $39.99. Now most disc prices land between $20-27 dollars. Things change pixelneck, prices go down as manufacturing efficiencies are realized.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It is always the case that those delivering innovative technology hope to "skim the market". That is, first grab big money from those willing to pay big money, and lower prices only after this has happened. Other factors are competition and value as perceived by consumers including, "how do I get there from here", i.e. backwards compatibility.

SACD failed largely because Sony hoped to stretch out the "skimming phase", viz. intitial Sony offerings were DSD only and players were very expensive. At the same time perceived values was low: high prices, limited selection; marginal or even no sound improvement for most people. The other factor, (which I've mentioned often), is that hard-core audiophiles (who might have heard the better quality) retained their bias for vinyl and continued to reject digital media.

The BluRay scenario is somewhat similar but much less extreme than the SACD situation was, (and is). SACD survives so far as a niche market for audiophile classical music lovers. I suspect BluRay will go main stream, however we need to see decent players for $200 plus at most a 30% premium for BluRay discs.

Feanor, I think it is not good for many to expect a $200 player this early in the formats life. That is unreasonable, and has no precedent in the history of consumer electronics. I now have to look at things from both sides of the coin. As a consumer, I would like to see disc prices lower certainly, but I also believe in charging a premium for a higher quality product. The same with players, as long as the DVD is around, then there should be a premium price for bluray players. Bluray players have already exceeded the sales of all Laserdisc players through its entire life. It did this in less than 18 months. Bluray has sold more disc than SACD, by a long shot! So I think bluray has gone beyond a SACD comparison. Prices will come down, they already have. But this has to be a natural force of the market, not forced down by some hidden agenda.

[GMichael]

There is talk of the PS3 having yet another price drop by the end of this year.

[Rich-n-Texas]

If I read "economy of scale" one more time I'm going to reach through the internet and CHOKE YOU!!! :incazzato:

[ldgibson76]

Hello "SirT". (Or anyone who cares to comment)

I have a question for you regarding the Blu-ray and it's presumed dedication to maintaining/increasing the quality of the disc despite the demise of HD DVD. We all know that because of the format war, BD was compelled to increase the quality of it's PQ to help maintain it's market share lead over HD DVD. Now that standard DVD's create the only competition for BD, do you think there is a chance that quality could drop a couple of pegs on the priority list. Even the most publicized BD offering lacking PQ, (5th Element) looks better than your standard DVD. In most instances, competition dictates the level of quality required to stay on top. In other words, on a scale from 1 - 10, if your competitor rates a "6", and although you are capable of producing a "10", do you have to maintain the "10" or can you get away with an "7, 8 or 9"?! And now that HD DVD is dead for the most part, there's now no alternative for the consumer. I hope you are able to understand my inquiry. I know it's highly unlikely that BD's quality will slip, but the fore mentioned scenario has been known to happen.

[Feanor]

Feanor, I think it is not good for many to expect a $200 player this early in the formats life. That is unreasonable, and has no precedent in the history of consumer electronics. I now have to look at things from both sides of the coin. As a consumer, I would like to see disc prices lower certainly, but I also believe in charging a premium for a higher quality product. The same with players, as long as the DVD is around, then there should be a premium price for bluray players. Bluray players have already exceeded the sales of all Laserdisc players through its entire life. It did this in less than 18 months. Bluray has sold more disc than SACD, by a long shot! So I think bluray has gone beyond a SACD comparison. Prices will come down, they already have. But this has to be a natural force of the market, not forced down by some hidden agenda.

Right: I don't expect a <$200 player very soon. I'm just saying that will be necessary to go mainstream. Meanwhile makers are quite happy with the DVD => BluRay stratification, that is, they expect and hope to milk the well-heeled buyers for a time. Let it be know, though, that I personally am holding out for mainstream. ;)

Absolutely true that BluRay has gone beyond SACD comparison. Frankly, Joe Average puts video quality above sound quality so BR has a leg up there. Plus BluRay doesn't have an equivalent to the vinyl albatross to contend with.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I noticed you didn't touch the "turd in the punchbowl" comment. Makes a nice visual no?

I was eating Rocky Road ice cream, so I didn't want to touch that!

[Woochifer]

Who knows where the market will go. It's all contingent on whether Blu-ray makes any inroads against the DVD format. And that format war's outcome is a lot less certain than the format war with HD-DVD, where the outcome could have been predicted before the first Blu-ray players even hit the street.

If Blu-ray successfully gains the majority of the home video market, then the DVD format will be well on its way out within five years. Under that scenario, I'd expect Blu-ray players to come close to the commodity level prices that you currently see with DVD players, and the new releases themselves will probably hit price points a few dollars higher than the current DVD prices (I don't see the studios ever pricing new releases the exact same as DVD), with the older titles hitting those favorite bargain bin diving spots where Smoke hangs out.

However, if Blu-ray's market share plateaus out at around 25%, then I can see something similar to a Laserdisc scenario emerging, where hardware prices remain somewhat higher than DVD player prices, and the premium pricing on all Blu-ray titles. I doubt that Blu-ray will get relegated as a collector's niche format like Laserdisc was, but there's no guarantee that it will achieve mainstream success at anywhere near the level of the DVD either.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hello "SirT".

I have a question for you regarding the Blu-ray and it's presumed dedication to maintaining/increasing the quality of the disc despite the demise of HD DVD. We all know that because of the format war, BD was compelled to increase the quality of it's PQ to help maintain it's market share lead over HD DVD.

Lawrence,
Since the poor quality really only envolved a few titles, and the reason those titles didn't look so hot was a quality control issue, I do not think HD DVD was the reason for the increase in PQ on bluray. I am only aware of House of Flying Daggers and the Fifth Element as being particularly bad, and only two or three more that looked only marginally better than the DVD. Overall, the most mediocre looking titles came from the neutral studios that did HD DVD encodes, and ported them over to bluray. When you look at PQ scores from the top reviewing sites on the internet, bluray just kicks HD DVD butt, and that is no joke. It was reviewers that prompted Sony to check the quality of those two titles that had dirty digital intermediaries that prompted Sony to do a better job of QC on their titles, not HD DVD. Disney has always turned out well done titles, and their PQ scores reflect that. Sony has as well, and so has Fox, so I thinks its arguable that HD DVD has any influence on bluray PQ.



Now that standard DVD's create the only competition for BD, do you think there is a chance that quality could drop a couple of pegs on the priority list. Even the most publicized BD offering lacking PQ, (5th Element) looks better than your standard DVD. In most instances, competition dictates the level of quality required to stay on top. In other words, on a scale from 1 - 10, if your competitor rates a "6", and although you are capable of producing a "10", do you have to maintain the "10" or can you get away with an "7, 8 or 9"?! And now that HD DVD is dead for the most part, there's now no alternative for the consumer. I hope you are able to understand my inquiry. I know it's highly unlikely that BD's quality will slip, but the fore mentioned scenario has been known to happen.

I do not think any studio will turned out substandard blurays just because HD DVD is gone. If anything you will see even better looking and sounding titles with more features and interactivity because the format is beginning to see players that can take advantage of all the features the bluray spec allows for. I do not buy this whole idea that HD DVD was the main factor for the increase in PQ of bluray. I look at things like better encoders being used by bluray studios, larger bandwidth that is finally being utilized, and better quality control during authoring and replication. None of this is done because of another format, it is done to increase the value of the product.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Who knows where the market will go. It's all contingent on whether Blu-ray makes any inroads against the DVD format. And that format war's outcome is a lot less certain than the format war with HD-DVD, where the outcome could have been predicted before the first Blu-ray players even hit the street.

If Blu-ray successfully gains the majority of the home video market, then the DVD format will be well on its way out within five years. Under that scenario, I'd expect Blu-ray players to come close to the commodity level prices that you currently see with DVD players, and the new releases themselves will probably hit price points a few dollars higher than the current DVD prices (I don't see the studios ever pricing new releases the exact same as DVD), with the older titles hitting those favorite bargain bin diving spots where Smoke hangs out.

However, if Blu-ray's market share plateaus out at around 25%, then I can see something similar to a Laserdisc scenario emerging, where hardware prices remain somewhat higher than DVD player prices, and the premium pricing on all Blu-ray titles. I doubt that Blu-ray will get relegated as a collector's niche format like Laserdisc was, but there's no guarantee that it will achieve mainstream success at anywhere near the level of the DVD either.

When I look at the manufacturing base of both players and discs, the amount of investment in replication facilities, the amount of vendors and designers offering authoring tools, and the amount of investment being poured into this new format, it is very difficult to imagine that bluray will be reduced to niche status. It may look that way now, but remember when the DVD looked that way as well?

[Woochifer]

Hello "SirT". (Or anyone who cares to comment)

I have a question for you regarding the Blu-ray and it's presumed dedication to maintaining/increasing the quality of the disc despite the demise of HD DVD. We all know that because of the format war, BD was compelled to increase the quality of it's PQ to help maintain it's market share lead over HD DVD.

That's a false presumption. Any new format will have its share of teething pains. Just look at how many lousy DVD releases came out during the format's first couple of years. And the competition with Blu-ray certainly didn't prod Universal into putting out quality HD-DVD releases. If any side had the most to gain by issuing quality releases, it was HD-DVD.


Now that standard DVD's create the only competition for BD, do you think there is a chance that quality could drop a couple of pegs on the priority list. Even the most publicized BD offering lacking PQ, (5th Element) looks better than your standard DVD. In most instances, competition dictates the level of quality required to stay on top. In other words, on a scale from 1 - 10, if your competitor rates a "6", and although you are capable of producing a "10", do you have to maintain the "10" or can you get away with an "7, 8 or 9"?! And now that HD DVD is dead for the most part, there's now no alternative for the consumer. I hope you are able to understand my inquiry. I know it's highly unlikely that BD's quality will slip, but the fore mentioned scenario has been known to happen.

An issue you're overlooking though is that many of the early Blu-ray releases were single-layer releases encoded using MPEG-2. Once the encoding tools for MPEG-4 AVC became more widely available, and duplicators began working more with dual-layer Blu-ray media, these issues have gone away. This would have happened regardless of whether HD-DVD existed. Sony wound up remastering The Fifth Element and made the reissued version available to anyone who has one of the inferior original versions.

This is no different than the DVD format's infancy. Warner's first releases used single-layer disc media, transferred from inferior sources, and used lower bitrate 384k DD soundtracks. Once the studios figured out how to work with the new format, and prepare better archive masters, the overall quality of DVD releases has increased across the board. Just compare the 1997 DVD release of Batman with the 2005 reissue -- the video and audio quality improvements are huge.

DVD releases have continually improved despite the format having basically no real competition since about 2003 when the DVD format supplanted VHS. There's no reason why Blu-ray releases won't achieve similar consistency with the picture and audio quality, as the format ramps up.

[GMichael]

From the perspective of the average Joe Consumer (that's me), I see Blu-Ray as already being way more prevalent than Laser Disk ever was. You can't watch any sports without seeing adds for BR several times during a game. A walk through Best Buy and you'll see BR advertisement in every direction. It may never hit the heights that DVD has hit, only because DVD's are so cheap and do have a decent quality of their own. The step from VHS to DVD was a bigger step than the one from DVD to BR. But I do think it will take over more than 50% of the market in the next 2 to 3 years.

But that's just my business gut telling me that.:idea:

[Woochifer]

When I look at the manufacturing base of both players and discs, the amount of investment in replication facilities, the amount of vendors and designers offering authoring tools, and the amount of investment being poured into this new format, it is very difficult to imagine that bluray will be reduced to niche status. It may look that way now, but remember when the DVD looked that way as well?

I doubt that it was be a Laserdisc-sized sliver of the market, but Blu-ray does face a different market than the one that the DVD format entered 11 years ago.

Blu-ray's benefits are most apparent if you own a HDTV, and currently less than half of U.S. households own one. Within five years, I'm sure HDTV households will be solidly in the majority since right now it's getting difficult to find a non-HDTV. The DVD's benefits applied to everyone who owned a color TV, regardless of how old the unit was.

The other issue is simple inertia. I've read that about half of HDTV owners have no HD sources hooked up to their TV, and about half of those owners think that they are watching HD! These are the same people who right now are saying that upconverted DVD is "good enough."

The upcoming digital TV transition might confuse enough of these HDTV owners into ordering HD service "by accident" and maybe then they'll see the inferiority of upconverted DVD. Or maybe it will still be good enough. We just don't know that yet.

I don't doubt that the industry is ramping up, but there's no guarantee that enough Joe6p consumers will go along for the ride. I think Blu-ray can eventually gain enough adoption just by people replacing their broken DVD players with Blu-ray units, but that might be a ways off, and in the meantime you got retail stores once again having to maintain dual inventories, something they have very little patience for.

[ldgibson76]

I doubt that it was be a Laserdisc-sized sliver of the market, but Blu-ray does face a different market than the one that the DVD format entered 11 years ago.

Blu-ray's benefits are most apparent if you own a HDTV, and currently less than half of U.S. households own one. Within five years, I'm sure HDTV households will be solidly in the majority since right now it's getting difficult to find a non-HDTV. The DVD's benefits applied to everyone who owned a color TV, regardless of how old the unit was.

The other issue is simple inertia. I've read that about half of HDTV owners have no HD sources hooked up to their TV, and about half of those owners think that they are watching HD! These are the same people who right now are saying that upconverted DVD is "good enough."

The upcoming digital TV transition might confuse enough of these HDTV owners into ordering HD service "by accident" and maybe then they'll see the inferiority of upconverted DVD. Or maybe it will still be good enough. We just don't know that yet.

I don't doubt that the industry is ramping up, but there's no guarantee that enough Joe6p consumers will go along for the ride. I think Blu-ray can eventually gain enough adoption just by people replacing their broken DVD players with Blu-ray units, but that might be a ways off, and in the meantime you got retail stores once again having to maintain dual inventories, something they have very little patience for.

Wow! "Wooch" is on top of his game today!
All points stated are valid. At the sake of stating the obvious, this market is now one of a volatile nature. Folk are hurting out there. Unlike when dvd was introduced in the mid 90's. The average consumer's buying power was much stronger, so transitioning to the new dvd technology was not only a no-brainer but, financially feasible. If the economy continues to deteriorate, joe6pac won't be converting to anything for a long while. Blu ray will become a product only accessible to the well-to-do. (Buy the new Beowulf in Bluray movie or buy groceries or gas for the car?!!:idea: ) And don't think that that couldn't become a reality because some are already there!......The question is, will the economic conditions dictate Blu ray pricing?! Yes, manufacturing cost usually decrease with time. They find cheaper ways to make the product. Both momentum and timing are crucial to making a product affordable. But, if the consumer is too broke to make the initial purchase of the player and/or the software, then how does bluray obtain dominance in this wrecked economy. The statements regarding/assuming Blu ray's path to becoming the standard is at best suspect right now. Regardless of how much has been invested into the technology, bad global economic timing could be Bluray's demise or at least slow it down to a snails pace. Anyone dare to respond?!!!!
I'm not a fan of today's economic condition! Obvious, ya think?!!:incazzato:

[blackraven]

The ultimate electronics store near me, sold about 400 Sony BDP 300 BRP's last month!
BR is heare to stay!

[ldgibson76]

The ultimate electronics store near me, sold about 400 Sony BDP 300 BRP's last month!
BR is heare to stay!

"BR"!

Please understand, I'm not trying to predict the demise of Bluray. The contrary, for real!
But check out the trends! Consumer spending is tanking right now and I'm sorry, if joe6pac has to choose between a Bluray player and his electric bill, guess who wins?! Those of us that can afford to enjoy the benefits of Bluray technology in the grand scheme of things, as of right now, are the minority. Oh that's right, the American consumer is waiting for that rebate check in May to purchase their new blu ray player!:nonod:
By the way, was the Sony on sale!?! I'm sure it wasn't the normal $399, especially with the new models poised to hit the shelves soon. I just purchased the new Panny DMBD30K model and I've yet to buy or rent a bluray movie. Now I must say, that I haven't un-boxed it yet, but, I'm in no rush either. I may return it for the incoming new Sony BDP-330 model, and use the extra $99 to purchase 3 or 4 BD movies. I'm cheap like that.:cornut:

[Woochifer]

Wow! "Wooch" is on top of his game today!
All points stated are valid. At the sake of stating the obvious, this market is now one of a volatile nature. Folk are hurting out there. Unlike when dvd was introduced in the mid 90's. The average consumer's buying power was much stronger, so transitioning to the new dvd technology was not only a no-brainer but, financially feasible. If the economy continues to deteriorate, joe6pac won't be converting to anything for a long while. Blu ray will become a product only accessible to the well-to-do. (Buy the new Beowulf in Bluray movie or buy groceries or gas for the car?!!:idea: ) And don't think that that couldn't become a reality because some are already there!......The question is, will the economic conditions dictate Blu ray pricing?! Yes, manufacturing cost usually decrease with time. They find cheaper ways to make the product. Momentum and timing is one of the keys to making a product affordable. But, if the consumer is too broke to make the initial purchase of the player and/or the software, then how does bluray obtain dominance in this wrecked economy. The statements regarding/assuming Blu ray's path to becoming the standard is at best suspect right now. Regardless of how much has been invested into the technology, bad global economic timing could be Bluray's demise or at least slow it down to a snails pace. Anyone dare to respond?!!!!
I'm not a fan of today's economic condition! Obvious, ya think?!!:incazzato:


I doubt that economic conditions will affect Blu-ray uptake all that much. In recessionary times, people tend to spend more time at home and that's where home entertainment comes in. Despite the stagnant wages over the past decade, you notice any slowdown in the transition over to flat screen TVs? I certainly haven't, and if the market was strictly dictated by price, it would stand to reason that CRTs would have remained viable as the price points on those TVs bottomed out years ago.

People might hold back on extravagances or big ticket purchases, but I don't think that a $350 Blu-ray player (and likely $200 by year's end) is extravagant or a big ticket purchase. The challenge is not the cost per se, but rather the perception of value. Do people really value watching everything in HD? Or is upconverted SD good enough? For people who see HD and value the improved picture quality, they will go for Blu-ray soon enough regardless of the economic conditions.

[Smokey]

Who knows where the market will go.
If Blu-ray successfully gains the majority of the home video market, then the DVD format will be well on its way out within five years. Under that scenario, I'd expect Blu-ray players to come close to the commodity level prices that you currently see with DVD players, and the new releases themselves will probably hit price points a few dollars higher than the current DVD prices (I don't see the studios ever pricing new releases the exact same as DVD), with the older titles hitting those favorite bargain bin diving spots where Smoke hangs out.

However, if Blu-ray's market share plateaus out at around 25%, then I can see something similar to a Laserdisc scenario emerging, where hardware prices remain somewhat higher than DVD player prices, and the premium pricing on all Blu-ray titles. I doubt that Blu-ray will get relegated as a collector's niche format like Laserdisc was, but there's no guarantee that it will achieve mainstream success at anywhere near the level of the DVD either.

Wow, that is a somber post from Wooch regarding Bluray. And it might be worth exploring.

You said Bluray face different scenario DVD did 11 years ago as it enter main stream and that is not too far fetched. First difference would be one have to have HDTV to enjoy HD discs, second is Internet (although I don't think downloading a movie is attractive option) and finally VOD from cable companies.

For example before I had cable, use to buy 3 or 4 DVDs everyweek. But since got [comcast] cable three months ago, I'm down to buying may 1 or 2 if any. The VOD (Video On Demand) pretty much killed that urge as I get to watch most of movies for free.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I doubt that economic conditions will affect Blu-ray uptake all that much. In recessionary times, people tend to spend more time at home and that's where home entertainment comes in. Despite the stagnant wages over the past decade, you notice any slowdown in the transition over to flat screen TVs? I certainly haven't, and if the market was strictly dictated by price, it would stand to reason that CRTs would have remained viable as the price points on those TVs bottomed out years ago.

People might hold back on extravagances or big ticket purchases, but I don't think that a $350 Blu-ray player (and likely $200 by year's end) is extravagant or a big ticket purchase. The challenge is not the cost per se, but rather the perception of value. Do people really value watching everything in HD? Or is upconverted SD good enough? For people who see HD and value the improved picture quality, they will go for Blu-ray soon enough regardless of the economic conditions.

To your last statement, I think education is going to be the key. Disney has gone a long way towards educating folks about the advantages of bluray in a traveling kiosk that is traveling from mall to mall. I saw it at the Westfield Mall in Downtown SF, and was really impressed with the crowds that gathered around the display, and who were attentively listening to the presentation. The last time I spoke to the touring group, they told me that post Warner annoucement, crowds were getting larger and larger with each stop. So that is good news(where I work is pretty close to the marketing department).

The acceptance of bluray is no slam dunk. The BDA announced at their last meeting they were going to put on a full advertising blitz worldwide for bluray. This is not just for bluray standalone players either, but for computer drives, the PS3, and the movies as well.

I remember when DVD was first introduced. VHS was firmly in place, VHS prices were low, and folks said that DVD would never take off. I think the uncertainty of bringing any new audio/video format to the consumer has this element of doubt and negativity. Bluray will be no different.
I think the big boost for bluray is the fact that Europe has certainly embraced the format via the PS3, and it is predicted that Europe will overtake the US in disc sales by the end of the year. It took several years for DVD to get this wide of an acceptance in Europe. Bluray has proliferated way quicker all over the world than DVD was at this same period in its life.

When you start to see things that bluray can do being fully advertised(like D-Box support, BD live downloads, superior interactivity) and the DVD just becoming a bare bones format, I think to some degree it will compell some folks to opt in in due time. Nobody is in a hurry to develope the market, they just want to do it well.

[blackraven]

I think that you can look at HD TV sales and get an Idea about how BR sales will go. At least the people I know who have bought an HD TV have also bought BR players or have a PS3. I think that many people that buy an HD TV want to get the best picture they can when watching movies and therefore are investing in BR players.

The BR players at my local store were not on sale.

Many HD TV's are 1080p and the people that buy them want to take advantage of the 1080p.

[Feanor]

Who knows where the market will go. It's all contingent on whether Blu-ray makes any inroads against the DVD format. And that format war's outcome is a lot less certain than the format war with HD-DVD, where the outcome could have been predicted before the first Blu-ray players even hit the street.

....

There are lots of people out there who don't own an HDTV, to wit, myself. There is no way I'm going to buy BluRay before I've got one. My first one is likely to be a 42" plazma with 768p, nothing larger or fancier than that.

But like I said, the BluRay makers and industry in general are will be content with a DVD / BluRay stratification for a while since it will allow them higher margins on BluRay, (longer period of market "skimming"). But I don't doubt that BluRay will gradually take over.

[blackraven]

The benefit of a BRP is that it also plays DVD's and upconverts them. This will almost certainly help with sales and the conversion to BR.

[Woochifer]

Wow, that is a somber post from Wooch regarding Bluray. And it might be worth exploring.

You said Bluray face different scenario DVD did 11 years ago as it enter main stream and that is not too far fetched. First difference would be one have to have HDTV to enjoy HD discs, second is Internet (although I don't think downloading a movie is attractive option) and finally VOD from cable companies.

For example before I had cable, use to buy 3 or 4 DVDs everyweek. But since got [comcast] cable three months ago, I'm down to buying may 1 or 2 if any. The VOD (Video On Demand) pretty much killed that urge as I get to watch most of movies for free.

Gee Smoke, hard for DVD to compete with that new fangled cutting edge cable TV thing to contend with! :lol:

As I've posted before, I don't see downloading as anything but a substitute for video rentals and PPV. There are too many restrictions and not a whole lot of selection for anyone who wants to archive and collect their movies.

Conceptually, I see VOD as simply a new wrinkle on time shifting -- conceptually not all that different from a VCR or DVR. As with downloading, VOD is not an archive format, which makes it fundamentally different from DVDs, which are a purchase-driven product.


To your last statement, I think education is going to be the key. Disney has gone a long way towards educating folks about the advantages of bluray in a traveling kiosk that is traveling from mall to mall. I saw it at the Westfield Mall in Downtown SF, and was really impressed with the crowds that gathered around the display, and who were attentively listening to the presentation. The last time I spoke to the touring group, they told me that post Warner annoucement, crowds were getting larger and larger with each stop. So that is good news(where I work is pretty close to the marketing department).

The acceptance of bluray is no slam dunk. The BDA announced at their last meeting they were going to put on a full advertising blitz worldwide for bluray. This is not just for bluray standalone players either, but for computer drives, the PS3, and the movies as well.

Agree that educating the public is key, and I would go further that education needs to involve not only Blu-ray, but HD in general. The public is still fuzzy as to what's really needed to get HD all the way up and down the chain, and Blu-ray's but one component among many that consumers need to be aware of when they buy HDTVs.


I remember when DVD was first introduced. VHS was firmly in place, VHS prices were low, and folks said that DVD would never take off. I think the uncertainty of bringing any new audio/video format to the consumer has this element of doubt and negativity. Bluray will be no different.
I think the big boost for bluray is the fact that Europe has certainly embraced the format via the PS3, and it is predicted that Europe will overtake the US in disc sales by the end of the year. It took several years for DVD to get this wide of an acceptance in Europe. Bluray has proliferated way quicker all over the world than DVD was at this same period in its life.

When you start to see things that bluray can do being fully advertised(like D-Box support, BD live downloads, superior interactivity) and the DVD just becoming a bare bones format, I think to some degree it will compell some folks to opt in in due time. Nobody is in a hurry to develope the market, they just want to do it well.

At the time of the DVD introduction, I thought there was plenty of pent up demand for a non-tape based video format. The public seems to have a natural aversion to tape media -- it can wear out, break, tangle easily, and is a linear format. Once CDs made their way into portable and mobile devices, cassettes disappeared in a hurry. A current example is in the camcorder market where the MiniDV format is rapidly getting displaced by 3.5" DVD-R, even though MiniDV is cheaper, with superior image quality, higher data capacity, and better editing capability. The CD had already gotten the public used to the 5.25" disc size and random track access, and it made too much sense to move that form factor over to the video side.

I know that before the DVD came out, I was looking into Laserdisc because of its bias towards widescreen and the inclusion of supplemental features. But, the hardware and disc prices never came down to my level, so I stayed on the sidelines. Generally though, I was getting tired of renting worn out tapes, the lack of widescreen support with VHS releases, the high list prices when titles first come out on video (i.e., the VHS rental pricing schedule), and the need to rewind before returning something.

The DVD brought a lot of new things to the table for a multitude of consumers, and it was easy to see the value in DVD, even if you're not a stickler for picture and audio quality. The discs didn't wear out, DVDs had a lot of new multimedia capabilities, they took less room on the bookshelf, and they carried relatively low new release prices.

Blu-ray is an evolutionary step that pins its hopes almost entirely on improvements to the video and audio quality, and consumer demand for that quality. It remains to be seen if that demand is enough to carry the day against the entrenched DVD format. Fortunately, the picture improvements with Blu-ray are fairly obvious, even in a Costco warehouse, so this won't be repeat of SACD/DVD-A where the differences were only apparent under much more controlled conditions.

I think the real acid test will be when consumers have to replace a broken DVD player after the Blu-ray player prices dip below $200 -- will they replace their DVD player with a Blu-ray player or go with a commodity-priced DVD player, even if the price difference is less than $100 or even $50? If enough consumers choose to spend a little extra for the Blu-ray capability, then it's not a huge leap for those same consumers to then choose a Blu-ray version over a DVD when purchasing videos. The key though is keeping the retailers on board during this transition period. If demand at any point starts to plateau, then I can see retailers cutting back their Blu-ray support, which can create its own downward momentum.

[GMichael]

It would be a big help if Blu-Ray and HD TV's would come with HD cables instead of composite cables. Mr Average Joe will assume that the cables it comes with is all it needs, unless Mr Best Buy explains to him how he needs an $80 HDMI cable.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Gee Smoke, hard for DVD to compete with that new fangled cutting edge cable TV thing to contend with! :lol:

As I've posted before, I don't see downloading as anything but a substitute for video rentals and PPV. There are too many restrictions and not a whole lot of selection for anyone who wants to archive and collect their movies.

Conceptually, I see VOD as simply a new wrinkle on time shifting -- conceptually not all that different from a VCR or DVR. As with downloading, VOD is not an archive format, which makes it fundamentally different from DVDs, which are a purchase-driven product.



Agree that educating the public is key, and I would go further that education needs to involve not only Blu-ray, but HD in general. The public is still fuzzy as to what's really needed to get HD all the way up and down the chain, and Blu-ray's but one component among many that consumers need to be aware of when they buy HDTVs.



At the time of the DVD introduction, I thought there was plenty of pent up demand for a non-tape based video format. The public seems to have a natural aversion to tape media -- it can wear out, break, tangle easily, and is a linear format. Once CDs made their way into portable and mobile devices, cassettes disappeared in a hurry. A current example is in the camcorder market where the MiniDV format is rapidly getting displaced by 3.5" DVD-R, even though MiniDV is cheaper, with superior image quality, higher data capacity, and better editing capability. The CD had already gotten the public used to the 5.25" disc size and random track access, and it made too much sense to move that form factor over to the video side.

I know that before the DVD came out, I was looking into Laserdisc because of its bias towards widescreen and the inclusion of supplemental features. But, the hardware and disc prices never came down to my level, so I stayed on the sidelines. Generally though, I was getting tired of renting worn out tapes, the lack of widescreen support with VHS releases, the high list prices when titles first come out on video (i.e., the VHS rental pricing schedule), and the need to rewind before returning something.

The DVD brought a lot of new things to the table for a multitude of consumers, and it was easy to see the value in DVD, even if you're not a stickler for picture and audio quality. The discs didn't wear out, DVDs had a lot of new multimedia capabilities, they took less room on the bookshelf, and they carried relatively low new release prices.

Blu-ray is an evolutionary step that pins its hopes almost entirely on improvements to the video and audio quality, and consumer demand for that quality. It remains to be seen if that demand is enough to carry the day against the entrenched DVD format. Fortunately, the picture improvements with Blu-ray are fairly obvious, even in a Costco warehouse, so this won't be repeat of SACD/DVD-A where the differences were only apparent under much more controlled conditions.

I think the real acid test will be when consumers have to replace a broken DVD player after the Blu-ray player prices dip below $200 -- will they replace their DVD player with a Blu-ray player or go with a commodity-priced DVD player, even if the price difference is less than $100 or even $50? If enough consumers choose to spend a little extra for the Blu-ray capability, then it's not a huge leap for those same consumers to then choose a Blu-ray version over a DVD when purchasing videos. The key though is keeping the retailers on board during this transition period. If demand at any point starts to plateau, then I can see retailers cutting back their Blu-ray support, which can create its own downward momentum.

The T-man grabs Wooch by the head, does a double finger poke in his eyes, and says..."take that you brotha from another father!" LOL.

I was reading on the insiders forum that those chinese players that were supposed to save HD DVD, were actually bluray players which will be announced very soon, and delivered to consumer by the end of the year. These players will be priced at less than $250 (estimated), and will include the smaller drive, smaller laser assembly, and fewer parts which makes it cheaper to manufacture. I think the BDA is going to try and woo consumer away from DVD when they look to replace that DVD player. I do not think retailers are going to be much of an issue in supporting bluray. They are looking at this as their next money train like the DVD was.

Waits for Wooch's reply...

[kexodusc]

Think you guys are missing a pretty big variable in all of this.

DVD will exist as long as the studios allow it to - if they choose to scale back the releases, even by delaying the DVD release date to something after BluRay, just to ween the world of DVD and onto BluRay, we'll be addicted to BR before you can say H.264.

Last I checked, new releases still carried some pull. I'm guessing the studios that get a spiff of the BluRay royalties already have a big carrot dangled in front of them to start the transition process.

[GMichael]

Think you guys are missing a pretty big variable in all of this.

DVD will exist as long as the studios allow it to - if they choose to scale back the releases, even by delaying the DVD release date to something after BluRay, just to ween the world of DVD and onto BluRay, we'll be addicted to BR before you can say H.264.

Last I checked, new releases still carried some pull. I'm guessing the studios that get a spiff of the BluRay royalties already have a big carrot dangled in front of them to start the transition process.

I don't think that this will happen this year, but it probably will happen next.

[Woochifer]

The T-man grabs Wooch by the head, does a double finger poke in his eyes, and says..."take that you brotha from another father!" LOL.

Ah, been a while since you last directed them flamethrowers in my direction! Memories of good times ... just catch me if you can old dude! :cool:


I was reading on the insiders forum that those chinese players that were supposed to save HD DVD, were actually bluray players which will be announced very soon, and delivered to consumer by the end of the year. These players will be priced at less than $250 (estimated), and will include the smaller drive, smaller laser assembly, and fewer parts which makes it cheaper to manufacture. I think the BDA is going to try and woo consumer away from DVD when they look to replace that DVD player. I do not think retailers are going to be much of an issue in supporting bluray. They are looking at this as their next money train like the DVD was.

I thought that the BDA was going to more tightly control to whom they issue licenses. Part of the problem with the DVD format's drunken sailor approach to licensing is that so many fly-by-night plants became DVD licensees and cranked out millions of cheap but poorly made players. This in turn rapidly commodified the DVD player, and made it a barely profitable venture for retailers and manufacturers alike.

The market seems headed towards the $200 price point by Christmas, no matter what any Chinese companies might have in mind. Might be a foolhardy move by the BDA to bring the bottomfeeders into the market, and flood store shelves with millions of second rate Blu-ray players.

I can see the profit motive with the retailers, but I wonder how long they will stay with Blu-ray if the adoption rate plateaus at some point. Blu-ray's off to a decent start, all things considered, but it will take a lot to displace the DVD. It's not an easy long-in-the-tooth target like VHS, which had already been on the market for 22 years by the time the DVD format came out.


Think you guys are missing a pretty big variable in all of this.

DVD will exist as long as the studios allow it to - if they choose to scale back the releases, even by delaying the DVD release date to something after BluRay, just to ween the world of DVD and onto BluRay, we'll be addicted to BR before you can say H.264.

Last I checked, new releases still carried some pull. I'm guessing the studios that get a spiff of the BluRay royalties already have a big carrot dangled in front of them to start the transition process.

Plausible scenario, and definitely one that would steer the market towards Blu-ray. But, it also has the potential of backfiring with frustrated consumers opting out of the DVD and Blu-ray markets altogether.

The studios milked the VHS cow for as long as they did because they could still make money off of it, and I don't see them abandoning the DVD or neutering DVD releases so long as there's still plenty of revenue potential left in that format. Unless the studios maintain the higher price points for Blu-ray (which is entirely possible), it won't matter if new releases come out on Blu-ray or DVD. The gravy train for the studios is in the library titles by getting collectors to repurchase older movies. Problem here is that most of the heavily requested library titles only came to DVD within the past 5 or 6 years. The studios do have a financial incentive to promote Blu-ray, but I'm not sure that it's enough to start relegating the DVD to second-class status.

[Smokey]

I thought that the BDA was going to more tightly control to whom they issue licenses. .

That is what I thought too, and now Sir TT said that chinese blu-ray players are on the way. What happened here??

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ah, been a while since you last directed them flamethrowers in my direction! Memories of good times ... just catch me if you can old dude! :cool:

Old dude?? Why you young chicken eatin whippersnapper!




I thought that the BDA was going to more tightly control to whom they issue licenses. Part of the problem with the DVD format's drunken sailor approach to licensing is that so many fly-by-night plants became DVD licensees and cranked out millions of cheap but poorly made players. This in turn rapidly commodified the DVD player, and made it a barely profitable venture for retailers and manufacturers alike.

Actually this is not a liscense to manufacture, its an order by BB and Walmart and will be their house brand player. The BDA wants to cover all price points, and have something for everyone. The Walmarts and BB cover the lower end, and the major players take the mid and high end. This is to keep the majors from having to use their names attached to a budget player.


The market seems headed towards the $200 price point by Christmas, no matter what any Chinese companies might have in mind. Might be a foolhardy move by the BDA to bring the bottomfeeders into the market, and flood store shelves with millions of second rate Blu-ray players.

These will not be bottom feeders. These chinese manufacturers have worked with Sigma designs, Pioneer, and Sony to create players with less parts, less complexity of design, and more standard type chipsets. The will probably only support DTHD, DD+, and PCM(so far no word on Dts MA lossless) will be profile 1.1, and will eschew things like the ethernet port, and the complex laser assembly currently being used. The bluray drive will be smaller as well the laser assembly, so the whole player will be alot smaller.


I can see the profit motive with the retailers, but I wonder how long they will stay with Blu-ray if the adoption rate plateaus at some point. Blu-ray's off to a decent start, all things considered, but it will take a lot to displace the DVD. It's not an easy long-in-the-tooth target like VHS, which had already been on the market for 22 years by the time the DVD format came out.

Granted, you are correct. However there is a big motivation by everyone for bluray to succeed. If downloading becomes the norm, the retailers are shut out of that business in both hardware and software. Retailers like BB and Walmart do not want to be shut out of one of their most lucrative business. So they are well motivated to sell bluray. The manufacturers and the studio need bluray to succeed because there really is no effective business model for digital sell through. Both the studios and the manufactuers see this as a way of going back to profitability, something they have not seen in years. The manufacturers want it to succeed because they will be shut out as well if downloads take off. Based on the minutes of the last meeting of the BDA, it seems everyone stands to gain if bluray becomes widely accepted, and they are very enthused about the format in general.




Plausible scenario, and definitely one that would steer the market towards Blu-ray. But, it also has the potential of backfiring with frustrated consumers opting out of the DVD and Blu-ray markets altogether.

While this is possible, it seems unlikely. It seems that this war has created a pent up demand of some sorts. When I got my NDP report last wednesday, one of the things I noticed is that bluray exclusive titles were selling very well, as were players. It used to be the least selling titles had numbers in the single digits. Now the entire top ten is in the twenties, and that is a good sign that all titles(instead of just the new releases) are starting to see a sales increase. Every title in the top 15 was in the twenties.


The studios milked the VHS cow for as long as they did because they could still make money off of it, and I don't see them abandoning the DVD or neutering DVD releases so long as there's still plenty of revenue potential left in that format. Unless the studios maintain the higher price points for Blu-ray (which is entirely possible), it won't matter if new releases come out on Blu-ray or DVD. The gravy train for the studios is in the library titles by getting collectors to repurchase older movies. Problem here is that most of the heavily requested library titles only came to DVD within the past 5 or 6 years. The studios do have a financial incentive to promote Blu-ray, but I'm not sure that it's enough to start relegating the DVD to second-class status.

They see this a bit differently. When the DVD came to market, VHS sales were already starting to slow down a bit. This is currently happening with DVD, as all of the studio are running out of library titles to release to the format. They are currently relying on television programs on DVD to keep sales from dropping dramatically. I do see them releasing DVD's without all of the extra material in a bare bones style while heavily promoting blurays extras and interactive features. If you can produce a player that hits the sweet spot ($200) along with a very effective marketing campaign, you chance for sucess goes up dramatically. You will see bundling of players and HDTV by the majors, and players at many different price points. I think when Paramount, Universal start releasing titles, there is going to be a huge jump in disc sales. Especially for Universal who has not released a thing in bluray. When all of the studio stop releasing titles to HD DVD, and this whole thing is officially over, I think there is going to be a real push for the format. This is just my opinion. We will see how this plays out. But I think everyone is going to see what bluray is really capable of in the coming months. I think there is going to be a steady increase in interest in bluray, but it will not be quick or a short term gain. The studio and manufacturers are going to have to work their collective a$$e$ off to make this happen. That was the general mood at the BDA meeting a week ago. Nobody thinks this is a slam dunk, and nobody is ready to take their foot off the accelerator.

[Woochifer]

Old dude?? Why you young chicken eatin whippersnapper!

Yah, like I'm one to talk! We'll both be getting fitted for walkers around the same time! :cool:


Actually this is not a liscense to manufacture, its an order by BB and Walmart and will be their house brand player. The BDA wants to cover all price points, and have something for everyone. The Walmarts and BB cover the lower end, and the major players take the mid and high end. This is to keep the majors from having to use their names attached to a budget player.

These will not be bottom feeders. These chinese manufacturers have worked with Sigma designs, Pioneer, and Sony to create players with less parts, less complexity of design, and more standard type chipsets. The will probably only support DTHD, DD+, and PCM(so far no word on Dts MA lossless) will be profile 1.1, and will eschew things like the ethernet port, and the complex laser assembly currently being used. The bluray drive will be smaller as well the laser assembly, so the whole player will be alot smaller.

That sort of makes sense for the short-term, but given how rapidly the price points on Blu-ray have dropped, I wonder how long this type of Chinese strategy can remain profitable. It can work if BB and Wal-Mart contract with an outsource manufacturer for a one-off production run, but then that truly would be not all that different from how bottomfeeding off-brands like Apex Digital operated. The need for these types of cheap Chinese players exists only as long as the brand-name manufacturers keep their price points above about $200. Once the price point dips below $200, then I think demand for these types of generic players goes away.

And these types of manufacturing short-cuts that you're talking about, how long before the Sonys and Panasonics of the BDA begin to adopt those practices for their own players?


Granted, you are correct. However there is a big motivation by everyone for bluray to succeed. If downloading becomes the norm, the retailers are shut out of that business in both hardware and software. Retailers like BB and Walmart do not want to be shut out of one of their most lucrative business. So they are well motivated to sell bluray. The manufacturers and the studio need bluray to succeed because there really is no effective business model for digital sell through. Both the studios and the manufactuers see this as a way of going back to profitability, something they have not seen in years. The manufacturers want it to succeed because they will be shut out as well if downloads take off. Based on the minutes of the last meeting of the BDA, it seems everyone stands to gain if bluray becomes widely accepted, and they are very enthused about the format in general.

Right now, they are definitely motivated to promote Blu-ray. I only wonder how long they'll wait for Blu-ray to reach critical mass. In terms of shelf space, BB has expanded their Blu-ray sections quite a bit since the format went online. The question though is what would happen to those Blu-ray sections if the format's adoption rate begins to stall and plateau somewhere around the 20% mark. At that point, then they would need to revisit whether that floor space for Blu-ray would be better served going to other product lines. So long as there's steady growth, then I can see retailers staying on board.


They see this a bit differently. When the DVD came to market, VHS sales were already starting to slow down a bit. This is currently happening with DVD, as all of the studio are running out of library titles to release to the format. They are currently relying on television programs on DVD to keep sales from dropping dramatically.

One difference is that VHS was primarily driven by rentals, and the accompanying two-tiered pricing structure that saw the majority of new releases priced around $80 to $100, and then later lowered to around $20 for retail sell-through. The DVD completely turned the home video business model upside down when the studios saw that they could make a lot more money by selling large quantities of new releases directly to consumers, rather than relying on inflated margins paid on copies purchased by video rental stores.

Blu-ray definitely allows the studios to mine their libraries for another round of double-dipping, but I don't see anywhere near the same buildup of video collections with Blu-ray that we saw with the DVD. The studios might be able to maintain higher margins with Blu-ray releases by simply keeping the list prices $5-$10 higher than the DVD version, like we see now. But, that kind of two-tiered pricing would also slow down Blu-ray adoption.


I do see them releasing DVD's without all of the extra material in a bare bones style while heavily promoting blurays extras and interactive features. If you can produce a player that hits the sweet spot ($200) along with a very effective marketing campaign, you chance for sucess goes up dramatically. You will see bundling of players and HDTV by the majors, and players at many different price points.

Putting the better features into the Blu-ray version would make sense for trying to get consumers to choose that version over the DVD version. But, getting consumers to pay a higher list price might be a harder sell.

I'm already seeing a lot of player/HDTV bundles out there. Makes a lot of sense for manufacturers to promote the hell out of this approach, since it encourages adoption of Blu-ray, but doesn't accelerate the already steep price declines for standalone players.

I read about an analyst report today that projects Blu-ray player prices down to $300 by Christmas and $200 by the end of next year. I don't see how Blu-ray can hold up those hardware price points -- I actually think that Blu-ray player prices will be closer to $200 than $300 this Christmas, and won't be that much higher than DVD players by the end of next year. Where things will really start to take off is in the higher end market, where Blu-ray players from the likes of Denon are only now beginning to come out.


I think when Paramount, Universal start releasing titles, there is going to be a huge jump in disc sales. Especially for Universal who has not released a thing in bluray. When all of the studio stop releasing titles to HD DVD, and this whole thing is officially over, I think there is going to be a real push for the format. This is just my opinion. We will see how this plays out. But I think everyone is going to see what bluray is really capable of in the coming months. I think there is going to be a steady increase in interest in bluray, but it will not be quick or a short term gain. The studio and manufacturers are going to have to work their collective a$$e$ off to make this happen. That was the general mood at the BDA meeting a week ago. Nobody thinks this is a slam dunk, and nobody is ready to take their foot off the accelerator.

In a way, the studios have to make the big push. Most of the sought-after titles have already come out on DVD, and I doubt that downloads will make the studios' libraries any more valuable. Blu-ray is probably the most lucrative opportunity left for the studios to try squeezing new revenue out of their backcatalog. I hope that Blu-ray can make a compelling enough case to keep the studios and retailers on board, while consumers struggle to figure this whole thing out.

[drseid]

It is always the case that those delivering innovative technology hope to "skim the market". That is, first grab big money from those willing to pay big money, and lower prices only after this has happened. Other factors are competition and value as perceived by consumers including, "how do I get there from here", i.e. backwards compatibility.

SACD failed largely because Sony hoped to stretch out the "skimming phase", viz. intitial Sony offerings were DSD only and players were very expensive. At the same time perceived values was low: high prices, limited selection; marginal or even no sound improvement for most people. The other factor, (which I've mentioned often), is that hard-core audiophiles (who might have heard the better quality) retained their bias for vinyl and continued to reject digital media.

The BluRay scenario is somewhat similar but much less extreme than the SACD situation was, (and is). SACD survives so far as a niche market for audiophile classical music lovers. I suspect BluRay will go main stream, however we need to see decent players for $200 plus at most a 30% premium for BluRay discs.

I agree for the most part here... The sub $200 HD DVD *pricing* model *was* what most mainstream consumers were looking for and will be necessary for Blu-ray's mainstream success now that consumers have had a taste. That said, a bit of skimming by the BD manufacturers for the next 12 months or so may be the best way to go for them profitability-wise (they just will sell fewer players that way). After a year of skimming, they can gradually lower the prices until they hit the $199 price point. I do agree with previous comments though that a $50-$99 price level may not be seen at all, or at least not for a *very* long time. That price point should not be necessary to attract the vast majority of users... sub $200 retail is the key (in many cases that would mean a street price in the $150 range someday).

Disc pricing definitely has come down, and I believe it will come down further still. I don't think BD will be successful long-term with the mainstream buyers if the average street price for a disc is much more than $14.99 - $15.99. In many cases on sale at least, discs are selling for close to this already... it would not be difficult (and would still be quite profitable) for manufacturers to lower the retail pricing of discs to $19.99 (in effect lowering the street prices to the "magic" level) as disc sales increase and economies of scale can be obtained.

---Dave

[pixelthis]

The moneys in the software, the idea is to give the players away, practically.
Of course sir talky says that the BR camp will do the opposite and go for a profit on
the players.
Typical.
Well, the great unwashed arent as thrilled with Blu as most geeks.
This format will have to be sold
And with the likes of sir talky working in the blu camp (which I somehow doubt)
its not surprizing that they are going the wrong way.
Not that it matters. Blu will eventually supplant DVD.
It will cost about the same.
The discs will cost about the same.
And history will look back and see blue laser tech as an "improvement" in the DVD format
that was quickly asorbed:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The moneys in the software, the idea is to give the players away, practically.
Of course sir talky says that the BR camp will do the opposite and go for a profit on
the players.
Typical.
Well, the great unwashed arent as thrilled with Blu as most geeks.
This format will have to be sold
And with the likes of sir talky working in the blu camp (which I somehow doubt)
its not surprizing that they are going the wrong way.
Not that it matters. Blu will eventually supplant DVD.
It will cost about the same.
The discs will cost about the same.
And history will look back and see blue laser tech as an "improvement" in the DVD format
that was quickly asorbed:1:

Old stupid one. How in the hell does Samsung afford to make a player if they just give them away? They do not make software, and this is not the gaming industry. If you give the damn player away, then they'll be no players to play the software in. The same companines that make the software do not make the hardware, and visa versa. What kind of burntpixel comment is that? You must have been the idiot in charge of marketing HD DVD. Give your players away, and exit the market with half a billion in losses. Thats the old pixeless way.

I do not think the BDA needs a welfare collecting old fool to tell them how to do business. If you could do better than they are, then why are you sitting here complaining about everything, and they are making millions? Perhaps you should realize that you are better cleaning crap out of a toilet than running a business. Giving players away, what an idiot.

As far as believing where I work, I could not care any less. Whatever I am doing, I am not dumpster diving like you, I am not scraping the bottom of the barrel like you, and I have all of my original teeth in my mouth, unlike you. So go back to your moonshine, and opine about what it was like when you actually had a functioning brain to use, and I am sure that was never.

[GMichael]

This thread brings back such fond memories for me.

[kexodusc]

Old stupid one. How in the hell does Samsung afford to make a player if they just give them away? They do not make software, and this is not the gaming industry. If you give the damn player away, then they'll be no players to play the software in. The same companines that make the software do not make the hardware, and visa versa. What kind of burntpixel comment is that? You must have been the idiot in charge of marketing HD DVD. Give your players away, and exit the market with half a billion in losses. Thats the old pixeless way.

I do not think the BDA needs a welfare collecting old fool to tell them how to do business. If you could do better than they are, then why are you sitting here complaining about everything, and they are making millions? Perhaps you should realize that you are better cleaning crap out of a toilet than running a business. Giving players away, what an idiot.

As far as believing where I work, I could not care any less. Whatever I am doing, I am not dumpster diving like you, I am not scraping the bottom of the barrel like you, and I have all of my original teeth in my mouth, unlike you. So go back to your moonshine, and opine about what it was like when you actually had a functioning brain to use, and I am sure that was never.

There you go making sense again, Sir Talky...

[Rich-n-Texas]

This thread brings back such fond memories for me.
The true definition of "Head-bangers Ball". :lol:

[Rich-n-Texas]

Ya know, it IS a lot easier on my fingers and brain to type Sir Talky than his full moniker. :ihih:

[Woochifer]

Old stupid one. How in the hell does Samsung afford to make a player if they just give them away? They do not make software, and this is not the gaming industry. If you give the damn player away, then they'll be no players to play the software in. The same companines that make the software do not make the hardware, and visa versa. What kind of burntpixel comment is that? You must have been the idiot in charge of marketing HD DVD. Give your players away, and exit the market with half a billion in losses. Thats the old pixeless way.

Hmmm, hardware manufacturers trying to make a profit by manufacturing hardware, you don't say! :2: The concept of profitably operating a core business makes sense to me, but for whatever reason it seems to elude pixelhead. Then again, he's still convinced that $300 Macs exist, regardless of the fact that the parts alone would run well over $300. I guess in his so-called libertarian view, hardware makers exist solely to lose money and subsidize the media companies -- smart! :lol:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ya know, it IS a lot easier on my fingers and brain to type Sir Talky than his full moniker. :ihih:

(Goes after Rich and Kex with a thirty day old bean burrito), Rich, Kex, I am going to beat the gas into both of you!!

[GMichael]

(GM steps into the room) (Kex and Tex are bent over a table and Sir T is sticking a couple of burritos up their, their... uh, let's just say, where the sun never shines)
WTF is going on here? And why is Tex smiling? NEVER MIND! I don't need to know.
(GM leaves mumbling something about Blu-Ray, HD and how some things are better off in std def.)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

(GM steps into the room) (Kex and Tex are bent over a table and Sir T is sticking a couple of burritos up their, their... uh, let's just say, where the sun never shines)
WTF is going on here? And why is Tex smiling? NEVER MIND! I don't need to know.
(GM leaves mumbling something about Blu-Ray, HD and how some things are better off in std def.)

LOLOLOL.....

[Rich-n-Texas]

(Goes after Rich and Kex with a thirty day old bean burrito), Rich, Kex, I am going to beat the gas into both of you!!
Now THAT'S just nasty! :yikes:

Uhhh... guys. Can we please try to stay on topic? :ciappa:

[E-Stat]

Hmmm, hardware manufacturers trying to make a profit by manufacturing hardware, you don't say! :2: The concept of profitably operating a core business makes sense to me...
Absolutely. I don't get the "they're for giveaway" concept at all. I'm not envisioning $39.95 BR players any time soon, but I anticipate a certain price drop now that the market is stabilizing and the volume of production will likely increase. I think there are many others like myself who were fence sitters waiting for the victor to emerge.

rw

[pixelthis]

There you go making sense again, Sir Talky...


YOU would think this prattling "makes sense", you think it takes less energy to produce higher frequencies than low ones.
THINK ABOUT IT FOR A MINUTE , HOW MUCH DO YOU SPEND ON SOFTWARE
VS PLAYERS?
I have about 600 bucks in TWO dvd players.
And about three GRAND in my rather modest DVD collection.
Sony didnt buy into motion pictures and music for no reason.
Sir talky got it wrong, backwards, as usual, no wonder you agree with him.
Birds of a feather flock together, and in this case its a couple of cookoos:crazy: :1:

[pixelthis]

Ya know, it IS a lot easier on my fingers and brain to type Sir Talky than his full moniker. :ihih:

Thats why I nicknamed him that, certainly fits better.
THE ONLY THING "terrible" about him is his total ignorance on all things HT.
And his "inside" info? His "buddy" over at new line told him about warner buying out
new line.
Of course it was on the front page of USA TODAY's business section the same day...:nono:

[pixelthis]

(Goes after Rich and Kex with a thirty day old bean burrito), Rich, Kex, I am going to beat the gas into both of you!!


YOU HAVE PLENTY TO SPARE, thats for sure:thumbsup:

[kexodusc]

YOU would think this prattling "makes sense", you think it takes less energy to produce higher frequencies than low ones.

Wrong again. I said in a speaker, woofers (low frequencies) generally require more power than tweeters (high frequencies) to achieve a given sound pressure level. Go back and read the thread, junior.I'm disappointed you still haven't learned.

[E-Stat]

Sir talky got it wrong, backwards, as usual, no wonder you agree with him.

So do I.

Mr. Pixel, as marketing director for our Blue Ray product here at [fill in the blank: Sharp,Denon,LG, Panasonic, Pioneer, Samsung], please explain the business case behind your "aggressive" pricing model to the board. The shareholders meeting is next week and we need to have a good answer as to why you believe we should not participate in any revenue recognition with this important new product.

rw

[GMichael]

So do I.

Mr. Pixel, as marketing director for our Blue Ray product here at [fill in the blank: Sharp,Denon,LG, Panasonic, Pioneer, Samsung], please explain the business case behind your "aggressive" pricing model to the board. The shareholders meeting is next week and we need to have a good answer as to why you believe we should not participate in any revenue recognition with this important new product.

rw

(In my best Pixie voice)

Because we'll make it up in volume.
Someday you people will learn to listen to me, and then you'll know that I told you so.
But I doubt that anyone on this forum is smart enough to learn anything.:dita: :1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

YOU would think this prattling "makes sense", you think it takes less energy to produce higher frequencies than low ones.
THINK ABOUT IT FOR A MINUTE , HOW MUCH DO YOU SPEND ON SOFTWARE
VS PLAYERS?
I have about 600 bucks in TWO dvd players.
And about three GRAND in my rather modest DVD collection.
Sony didnt buy into motion pictures and music for no reason.
Sir talky got it wrong, backwards, as usual, no wonder you agree with him.
Birds of a feather flock together, and in this case its a couple of cookoos:crazy: :1:

You are too stupid to be believed, are you for real?? I cannot believe you are 50 y/o and as dumb as a used sock. How is a manufacturer supposed to make money to keep manufacturing if they are giving product away? Just think about it stupid(or maybe that is the problem). Samsung, Panasonic, and Pioneer are not in the movie making business, how do they keep afloat with no ROI?

I really wish you would just go away. You are so retarded I am afraid all of will be infected by just reading your stupid insipid posts. If birds of a feather flock together then your household IQ must be -271

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thats why I nicknamed him that, certainly fits better.
THE ONLY THING "terrible" about him is his total ignorance on all things HT.
And his "inside" info? His "buddy" over at new line told him about warner buying out
new line.
Of course it was on the front page of USA TODAY's business section the same day...:nono:

When I made that announcement the details had not even been finalized let alone in the USA today. That was the following day stupid. Besides, I did not know you could read, what did you do look at the pictures and figure out the story from there?

[pixelthis]

(In my best Pixie voice)

Because we'll make it up in volume.
Someday you people will learn to listen to me, and then you'll know that I told you so.
But I doubt that anyone on this forum is smart enough to learn anything.:dita: :1:


THE only THING YOU HAVE IN "VOLLUME IS YOUR rather extensive ASS:1:

[pixelthis]

So do I.

Mr. Pixel, as marketing director for our Blue Ray product here at [fill in the blank: Sharp,Denon,LG, Panasonic, Pioneer, Samsung], please explain the business case behind your "aggressive" pricing model to the board. The shareholders meeting is next week and we need to have a good answer as to why you believe we should not participate in any revenue recognition with this important new product.

rw


don't worry about it. because if you are THIS ignorant of basic business practices
you're gonna be thrown out on your keister by said shareholders.

Sure you should make some money off of your "important" new product
(which isn't going to be quite as "important" as gas and food in the coming depression)

And you better hurry, because you will only make it at the start of the business cycle.
My first VCR was 850 bucks in 81 dollars (close to three grand in todays funny money)
MY last one, a SVHS HI-FI , cost fifty bucks.
THE history of your "important" (kinda full of yourself arent ya?) product will be as follows.
A few years of making maybe 10 % off of mainstream players, then a few decades of making 1 to 5 %.
SEARS MADE A TON of money off of a new product, the wristwatch, because few had one. Then everybody had one and the price dropped.
Now most on this board are concerned with more higher line players, and theres more
profit in those, but the price will always be pulled down by what the great unwashed are buying.
SOFTWARE is an entirely different kettle of fish.
At the end of the eighties I HAD over a thousand CD'S , at least 16 grands' worth.
I now have over 300 DVD's, at ten bucks apiece (which is rediculously low) they are worth three grand.
IN OTHER WORDS THE MONEYS IN THE SOFTWARE.
So the name of the game is to get as many players out there in order to give the masses something to play their discs on.
you'll make some money on players at first , and good for you, but eventually they will become commodity products , like other mass produced items.
You may think your new product is "important" but like kex's woofer it cant defy they laws of nature, or in this case, economics.
Your "important" new product will replace DVD, means that in a few years the players will be under a hundred bucks, and the discs around 20 bucks
SO TELL YOUR "SHAREHOLDERS" TO GET INTO SOFTWARE.
Thats where the REAL money is:1:

[pixelthis]

Wrong again. I said in a speaker, woofers (low frequencies) generally require more power than tweeters (high frequencies) to achieve a given sound pressure level. Go back and read the thread, junior.I'm disappointed you still haven't learned.

Its wrong so why "learn" it?
I have a new pair of Axioms (new to me) and the woofers work at lower vollume levels just
fine, but the tweeters ( four of the suckers) dont even kick in until I crank it.
THEY REQUIRE A lot MORE JUICE .
But why am I wasting my time explaining jet engines to a shadetree mechanic:1:

[kexodusc]

Its wrong so why "learn" it?
I have a new pair of Axioms (new to me) and the woofers work at lower vollume levels just
fine, but the tweeters ( four of the suckers) dont even kick in until I crank it.
THEY REQUIRE A lot MORE JUICE .
But why am I wasting my time explaining jet engines to a shadetree mechanic:1:

The tweeters don't kick in unless cranked? Something's broken then. LOL.
You'll say anything just to desperately maintain the appearance of being right, won't you.

What's the sensitivity of the drivers in question? What crossover componenets are being used? What is the value of the resistors on the tweeter's L-Pad? (you know those things that are actually choking off the current to the tweeter to lower it's output to match the woofer...ooops, there I go schooling you again). When is it time for you medicine?

I don't expect you to answer those directly, because that would make my point. Instead you'll martyr yourself to arrogance and rhetoric and stay awake till the wee hours of the morning thinking of something clever to say.

Stay off the ovaltine though.

[GMichael]

THE only THING YOU HAVE IN "VOLLUME IS YOUR rather extensive ASS:1:

Work on your aim there buddy. I'm one of those guys with almost no butt at all. But I do have plenty of "plenty-O" in other areas.

Keep shooting though. You make me laugh what little butt I do have off.:ciappa:

[GMichael]

don't worry about it. because if you are THIS ignorant of basic business practices
you're gonna be thrown out on your keister by said shareholders.

Sure you should make some money off of your "important" new product
(which isn't going to be quite as "important" as gas and food in the coming depression)

And you better hurry, because you will only make it at the start of the business cycle.
My first VCR was 850 bucks in 81 dollars (close to three grand in todays funny money)
MY last one, a SVHS HI-FI , cost fifty bucks.
THE history of your "important" (kinda full of yourself arent ya?) product will be as follows.
A few years of making maybe 10 % off of mainstream players, then a few decades of making 1 to 5 %.
SEARS MADE A TON of money off of a new product, the wristwatch, because few had one. Then everybody had one and the price dropped.
Now most on this board are concerned with more higher line players, and theres more
profit in those, but the price will always be pulled down by what the great unwashed are buying.
SOFTWARE is an entirely different kettle of fish.
At the end of the eighties I HAD over a thousand CD'S , at least 16 grands' worth.
I now have over 300 DVD's, at ten bucks apiece (which is rediculously low) they are worth three grand.
IN OTHER WORDS THE MONEYS IN THE SOFTWARE.
So the name of the game is to get as many players out there in order to give the masses something to play their discs on.
you'll make some money on players at first , and good for you, but eventually they will become commodity products , like other mass produced items.
You may think your new product is "important" but like kex's woofer it cant defy they laws of nature, or in this case, economics.
Your "important" new product will replace DVD, means that in a few years the players will be under a hundred bucks, and the discs around 20 bucks
SO TELL YOUR "SHAREHOLDERS" TO GET INTO SOFTWARE.
Thats where the REAL money is:1:

But if a company doesn't sell s/w then why would they care about.... Oh skip it. It's not worth it.

[E-Stat]

don't worry about it. because if you are THIS ignorant of basic business practices
you're gonna be thrown out on your keister by said shareholders....
SO TELL YOUR "SHAREHOLDERS" TO GET INTO SOFTWARE.
Thats where the REAL money is:1:
Well, Mr. Pixel that is an interesting point of view. So you think that despite our forty plus years of profitable manufacturing experience in the audio-visual industry, we should now abandon our core competency and compete in the movie making industry?

http://static.flickr.com/55/150664947_5a64267303_o.jpg

rw

[E-Stat]

What is the value of the resistors on the tweeter's L-Pad? (you know those things that are actually choking off the current to the tweeter to lower it's output to match the woofer...
You're merely confusing the issue with facts, kex.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, Mr. Pixel that is an interesting point of view. So you think that despite our forty plus years of profitable manufacturing experience in the audio-visual industry, we should now abandon our core competency and compete in the movie making industry?

http://static.flickr.com/55/150664947_5a64267303_o.jpg

rw

E,
It is going to be a while before he answers this question. He is going to have to look up 75% of the words in your post before he comes up with a bass ackwards answer.

[E-Stat]

E,
It is going to be a while before he answers this question. He is going to have to look up 75% of the words in your post before he comes up with a bass ackwards answer.
All one can do is simply smile as to his lack of business acumen. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Its wrong so why "learn" it?
I have a new pair of Axioms (new to me) and the woofers work at lower vollume levels just
fine, but the tweeters ( four of the suckers) dont even kick in until I crank it.
THEY REQUIRE A lot MORE JUICE .
But why am I wasting my time explaining jet engines to a shadetree mechanic:1:

Did it ever occur to you that your old stupid butt has lost some of his hearing in the upper frequencies? Everybody does, and folks that drink pig piss like milk will probably lose more.

[pixelthis]

Work on your aim there buddy. I'm one of those guys with almost no butt at all. But I do have plenty of "plenty-O" in other areas.

Keep shooting though. You make me laugh what little butt I do have off.:ciappa:

No butt?

Look in the mirror.
SEE THAT THING YOUR NOSE IS HANGING ON?:1:

[pixelthis]

Did it ever occur to you that your old stupid butt has lost some of his hearing in the upper frequencies? Everybody does, and folks that drink pig piss like milk will probably lose more.


bETTER THAN LOSING SO MANY BRAIN CELLS
that I prattle on about pig piss all the time.
You seem kinda stuck on this, did those mean old boys on the peewee football team make you drink pig piss?
AWWWWW!

[pixelthis]

The tweeters don't kick in unless cranked? Something's broken then. LOL.
You'll say anything just to desperately maintain the appearance of being right, won't you.

What's the sensitivity of the drivers in question? What crossover componenets are being used? What is the value of the resistors on the tweeter's L-Pad? (you know those things that are actually choking off the current to the tweeter to lower it's output to match the woofer...ooops, there I go schooling you again). When is it time for you medicine?

I don't expect you to answer those directly, because that would make my point. Instead you'll martyr yourself to arrogance and rhetoric and stay awake till the wee hours of the morning thinking of something clever to say.

Stay off the ovaltine though.


lOOK UP THE SPECS YOURSELF. (AXION M80)
I just got these speakers, I am not about to take them apart for a numbskull with no training in electronics.
And you do have no training , because if you did you'd know I am right.
And dont talk about the "speakers" you put together, a trained monkey (or even sir talky)
could put a speaker together:1:

[kexodusc]

lOOK UP THE SPECS YOURSELF. (AXION M80)
I just got these speakers, I am not about to take them apart for a numbskull with no training in electronics.
And you do have no training , because if you did you'd know I am right.
And dont talk about the "speakers" you put together, a trained monkey (or even sir talky)
could put a speaker together:1:
There you go avoiding the science and the truth again. Wake me up when you have something factual to present.

[Woochifer]

And you do have no training , because if you did you'd know I am right.

Judging from the idiocy of your points about tweeter v. woofer power loads, you don't have much training either. I've never heard of anyone who actively biamps their speakers using a higher powered amp on the tweeter than the woofer, but I know about plenty of people using lower powered amps (and even SET amps) on the tweeters. Self-powered speakers like the Paradigm Active 40 that use separate amps for the tweeter and woofer sections will also typically use a lower powered amp for the tweeter. I guess that Paradigm, a company that makes its own amp and driver components, never had any "training" and doesn't know that you're right either, eh? :lol:


And dont talk about the "speakers" you put together, a trained monkey (or even sir talky)
could put a speaker together:1:

So I guess that you've just been schooled by a trained monkey, since I don't see you building your own speakers or even demonstrating the basic knowledge of where to start. :ciappa:

[ldgibson76]

So, I guess we have maxed out on the subject of Blu ray becoming affordable to the masses!?!:aureola:

Has anyone seen the article from Electronic House?!: http://www.electronichouse.com/article/blu_ray_prices_staying_high/C175

Comments anyone?!!!!

Regards!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So, I guess we have maxed out on the subject of Blu ray becoming affordable to the masses!?!:aureola:

Has anyone seen the article from Electronic House?!: http://www.electronichouse.com/article/blu_ray_prices_staying_high/C175

Comments anyone?!!!!

Regards!

All I can say about this, is welcome to reality. We have spent the last two years living in an artificial environment of pushed down prices thanks to Toshiba, that everyone has lost touch with reality. New technology is not cheap, it demands a premium at the beginning of its life. It is important for the health of the industry that SOME profit is made on each player. It is important for the health of the industry if the CE companies get a ROI. Toshiba has basically turned this on its head, and they have paid a VERY heavy price for it. How heavy? Well I just read they have lost nearly 1 billion dollars($977 million) on this HD DVD venture, and suffered a major drop in their stock price as well. They torched their market, forced other manufacturers out, and set themselves up to subsidize HD DVD for an indeterminate amount of time. You cannot sustain a loss of this magnitude unless you were subsidizing every player you sold. These losses prevent you from increasing the quality of your players over time(which explains why the third generation players have just as many playback issues as the first generation), and enhancing quality control(why some players do fine, and others are DOA)

The reason that Bluray has the support it has, is because manufacturers make a profit on every bluray product they sell. This creates a environment ripe for innovation(which we are seeing with smaller cheaper bluray drives, less complicated bluray assemblies, and low cost high quality chipsets) which helps it maintain a forward momentum in the market.

We now have to live in reality, and I do not think a whole lot of folks like it all that much.

[E-Stat]

We now have to live in reality, and I do not think a whole lot of folks like it all that much.
And yet, $400 for new video technology is a small amount as compared with many an audio component or cabling for that matter. As our now-looking-for-a-new-job-ex-marketing-guy has already pointed out, the first VHS decks cost more and in pre-inflated dollars.

I'm just glad there is now a single format, but I certainly won't be holding my breath waiting for a $39.99 player in the near future. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And yet, $400 for new video technology is a small amount as compared with many an audio component or cabling for that matter. As our now-looking-for-a-new-job-ex-marketing-guy has already pointed out, the first VHS decks cost more and in pre-inflated dollars.

I'm just glad there is now a single format, but I certainly won't be holding my breath waiting for a $39.99 player in the near future. :)

rw

E,
I wouldn't want you to kill yourself, but yes, it is going to be a while, and a long while at that.

[GMichael]

I don't mind waiting at all.

By they way, how do the new BR audio formats stack up against something like SACD?

[pixelthis]

Judging from the idiocy of your points about tweeter v. woofer power loads, you don't have much training either. I've never heard of anyone who actively biamps their speakers using a higher powered amp on the tweeter than the woofer, but I know about plenty of people using lower powered amps (and even SET amps) on the tweeters. Self-powered speakers like the Paradigm Active 40 that use separate amps for the tweeter and woofer sections will also typically use a lower powered amp for the tweeter. I guess that Paradigm, a company that makes its own amp and driver components, never had any "training" and doesn't know that you're right either, eh? :lol:



So I guess that you've just been schooled by a trained monkey, since I don't see you building your own speakers or even demonstrating the basic knowledge of where to start. :ciappa:



SO YOU'RE SAYING that lower frequencies require MORE power?
So why didnt they start out with 5 gig portable phones?
Wouldn't that have been easier than a 900 mhz, since they are higher frequencies?
AND i just can't figure out why we started out with AM (khz) instead of FM(mhz).
Would have been a lot easier.
THE MOST COMMON MISCONCEPTION IN the amatur realm of HT is this.
BECAUSE SOME NIMROD can build a plywood speaker cabinet from a kit, he suddendly thinks hes' an expert in physics.
Do tweeters really seem as loud as woofers to you? ASK ANY LAYMAN,
which is louder, bass or treble? THEY WILL ALL GIVE YOU THE SAME ANSWER.
This is because moving a bass speaker cone 28 times a second is NOTHING compared to moving a tweeter 12,000 times a second.
Bass waves are longer, and it does take energy to move that much air, but anybody that knows will tell you that ANY frequency requires more energy the higher the vibration.
You think I am sticking to this because of stubborness , you think I REALLY CARE
about your opinion?
I am mearly stating not only what I learned in class but what can be readily observed
by any moron.
I guess you dont qualify for moron status:1:

[pixelthis]

ONE MORE LAST TRY.
Try to break a glass with a LOW frequency, other than knocking it over you won't have much luck.
THEY DON'T IMPART ENOUGH ENERGY.
Thats why the chick in the old MEMOREX COMMERCIALS broke HER glass
with a HIGH note
a TREBLE note.
And THat is all I am going to say on the matter, your yellow school bus is here

[pixelthis]

I'd better not bring up the fact that the earth is round for awhile, the hillbillies around here get awfully uppity when you mess with their cherished misconceptions:1:

[kexodusc]

SO YOU'RE SAYING that lower frequencies require MORE power?
So why didnt they start out with 5 gig portable phones?
Wouldn't that have been easier than a 900 mhz, since they are higher frequencies?
AND i just can't figure out why we started out with AM (khz) instead of FM(mhz).
Would have been a lot easier.
The problem here is you don't understand that there's a difference between the conversion of electrical energy into radio waves and a conversion of electrical energy into sound through a transducer (speaker). Here's some basic undergrad physics for you junior...a speaker isn't a very efficient machine, lots of power loss between the electrical source and the output. Where does that energy go? Moving air, heat loss via DC resistance in the voice coil, etc.

This is because moving a bass speaker cone 28 times a second is NOTHING compared to moving a tweeter 12,000 times a second.
Bass waves are longer, and it does take energy to move that much air, but anybody that knows will tell you that ANY frequency requires more energy the higher the vibration. It would be great if the real world was like your world where the impedance in a tweeter was equal to that of a 15" woofer.
Pix, it's not as simple as your limited intelligence is trying to force it to be. The mass of the tweeter is so much lower than the mass of the woofer. Moving a tweeter 12,000 times a second requires less energy than moving a much heavier woofer 12,000 times per second. And moving a woofer 12,000 times/second requires MORE energy than moving the tweeter 12,000 times per second. So obviously, for the same amount of energy that moves a tweeter 12,000 times/second, the woofer is moved fewer times/second. Duh. Of course there's a point where moving a heavier object fewer times still requires more energy than moving a ligther object more times. Example:

- let's put you on the bench press...start at 10 lbs. How many times per minute can you do the motion? I'm guessing 30 times per minute. It won't require that much energy. Now, let's crank the weight up 200 times to correspond with the increased size of the woofer cone and air resistance.. How many times per minute can you bench press 2000 lbs? According to your trailer park physics, it should be easier to bench press it only 29 times per minute than pressing 10 lbs 30 times per minute. What do you think requires more energy? Lol.

Also consider that the resistance of the woofer voice coil is a lot lower! That means more current is required to satisfy Ohm's law. More energy to required to produce output X in the woofer.


I am mearly stating not only what I learned in class but what can be readily observed
by any moron.

You are definitely stating what was observed by any moron. Awaiting some evidence to the contrary...

[Rich-n-Texas]

- let's put you on the bench press...start at 10 lbs. How many times per minute can you do the motion? I'm guessing 30 times per minute. It won't require that much energy. Now, let's crank the weight up 200 times to correspond with the increased size of the woofer cone and air resistance.. How many times per minute can you bench press 2000 lbs? According to your trailer park physics, it should be easier to bench press it only 29 times per minute than pressing 10 lbs 30 times per minute. What do you think requires more energy? Lol..
See? If more of you audio eggheads would use analogies like this one I would easily ace any test put before me. :yesnod:

[bfalls]

ONE MORE LAST TRY.
Try to break a glass with a LOW frequency, other than knocking it over you won't have much luck.
THEY DON'T IMPART ENOUGH ENERGY.
Thats why the chick in the old MEMOREX COMMERCIALS broke HER glass
with a HIGH note
a TREBLE note.
And THat is all I am going to say on the matter, your yellow school bus is here

I believe this has more to do with glass' resonant frequency.

[GMichael]

SO YOU'RE SAYING that lower frequencies require MORE power?
So why didnt they start out with 5 gig portable phones?
Wouldn't that have been easier than a 900 mhz, since they are higher frequencies?
AND i just can't figure out why we started out with AM (khz) instead of FM(mhz).
Would have been a lot easier.
THE MOST COMMON MISCONCEPTION IN the amatur realm of HT is this.
BECAUSE SOME NIMROD can build a plywood speaker cabinet from a kit, he suddendly thinks hes' an expert in physics.
Do tweeters really seem as loud as woofers to you? ASK ANY LAYMAN,
which is louder, bass or treble? THEY WILL ALL GIVE YOU THE SAME ANSWER.
This is because moving a bass speaker cone 28 times a second is NOTHING compared to moving a tweeter 12,000 times a second.
Bass waves are longer, and it does take energy to move that much air, but anybody that knows will tell you that ANY frequency requires more energy the higher the vibration.
You think I am sticking to this because of stubborness , you think I REALLY CARE
about your opinion?
I am mearly stating not only what I learned in class but what can be readily observed
by any moron.
I guess you dont qualify for moron status:1:

Dude, you so must be saying these things just to be controversial. No one with as much experience as you've said to have would make these claims unless they were trying to stir others up.
An electrical wave is different than a physical wave as Kex stated. They don't have to move any real mass like a speaker does. Tweeters "sound" louder because it takes less energy to get them to that level. That's why they have crossovers to even out the component's levels. That's why the manufacturer of my speakers saw fit to build an amp into it, to drive the woofer (not the tweeter). It's because the woofer takes more energy to drive. Without this extra amp, my receiver would struggle to hit those low notes and explosions. That's why people have separate subwoofers to begin with. Unless you have huge amps, you need the extra amps that are built into them to handle all that load. Tweeters are only moving a fraction of the surface area, a fraction of the distance.

As far as the glass thing, let me try to explain. Everything has a natural resonance. That is, if a certain frequency is around it, it will start to vibrate at that same frequency. The glass has a certain natural frequency. Can you guess what that frequency is? Well, it's very high. To match this frequency, a singer needs to hit that same note or frequency. A low note won't do, unless you are trying to affect something much larger. Think crazy bridge. Ever see those old videos of that bridge that would sway and bounce all over the place when the wind blew? It wasn't because the wind was so strong that it was blowing the bridge around. The wind was causing a howling sound. When that sound hit the right note (the bridge's natural resonance) it would start to flap like a leaf in the wind (no pun). How much energy do you think that took?

I know that if you think about it and do some research you'll see that what I'm saying is true. If not, it is fun watching you stir up trouble. Have at it either way.

[GMichael]

By they way, how do the new BR audio formats stack up against something like SACD?

I know that answering this question is not as much fun as Pixie bashing, but I also know that some of you know the answer. Are you really
going to make me Google it?

[E-Stat]

Bass waves are longer, and it does take energy to move that much air, but anybody that knows will tell you that ANY frequency requires more energy the higher the vibration.
Take a step back from the speculation, take a deep breath and look around at the many powered speakers on the market, usually pro. Back in the 70s, I had triamped Braun LV-1020s with built in amps. What everyone is saying is true. Lighten up. Here's but one example, but you can find dozens quickly

Tri amped pro system (http://www.jblpro.com/pages/cinema/5000.htm)

On the other hand, you will have quite a challenge to find a single instance of the reverse situation. The question is really whether or not you want to learn or if you'd rather just stubbornly ignore the truth. You don't have to back yourself in a corner.

rw

[Rich-n-Texas]

I know that answering this question is not as much fun as Pixie bashing, but I also know that some of you know the answer. Are you really
going to make me Google it?
You know I don't have an answer. Irregardless, how many people who have a BR player also have the processor to decode it (assuming you're talking about Tru-HD, DTS ma...etc), and are able to do a side-by-side with an SACD? Only person here who comes to mind is... L.J.!!! :smilewinkgrin:

[GMichael]

You know I don't have an answer. Irregardless, how many people who have a BR player also have the processor to decode it (assuming you're talking about Tru-HD, DTS ma...etc), and are able to do a side-by-side with an SACD? Only person here who comes to mind is... L.J.!!! :smilewinkgrin:

I'm sure LJ knows. I'm betting people like Wooch, Sit T, and Kex know too. Also, put me down for a dozen or so others as well..

[Woochifer]

SO YOU'RE SAYING that lower frequencies require MORE power?
So why didnt they start out with 5 gig portable phones?
Wouldn't that have been easier than a 900 mhz, since they are higher frequencies?
AND i just can't figure out why we started out with AM (khz) instead of FM(mhz).
Would have been a lot easier.
THE MOST COMMON MISCONCEPTION IN the amatur realm of HT is this.
BECAUSE SOME NIMROD can build a plywood speaker cabinet from a kit, he suddendly thinks hes' an expert in physics.

Judging by your responses, you're not even an amateur in physics! :lol:


Do tweeters really seem as loud as woofers to you? ASK ANY LAYMAN,
which is louder, bass or treble? THEY WILL ALL GIVE YOU THE SAME ANSWER.

The factor that you ignore is that human hearing sensitivity varies by frequency. A loudness switch boosts the high and low frequencies precisely to compensate for this at low volume levels. This is a case where you tell a half-truth, but still come to the wrong conclusion. Has nothing to do with the "juice" required to drive a tweeter versus a woofer -- it has to do with how humans hear. Of course, you'd know nothing about this since you prove time and time again an inability to listen.


This is because moving a bass speaker cone 28 times a second is NOTHING compared to moving a tweeter 12,000 times a second.
Bass waves are longer, and it does take energy to move that much air, but anybody that knows will tell you that ANY frequency requires more energy the higher the vibration.

And as Kex pointed out, a speaker is a mechanical transducer that has to overcome more inertia with a larger driver and move a lot more air with a lower frequency. Woofers are more susceptible to energy losses from heat disipation. Ever compare the heat emanating from the motor unit on a woofer with a tweeter?

Like I asked you before, how come nobody has ever designed a biamped speaker that uses a higher powered amp for the tweeter than the woofer? Are they all missing something that ONLY YOU understand? If you're the only expert on this subject, then why aren't you building speakers? :lol:


You think I am sticking to this because of stubborness , you think I REALLY CARE
about your opinion?

I don't care about your opinions one way or another. It's obvious that you don't care much about facts either.


I am mearly stating not only what I learned in class but what can be readily observed
by any moron.
I guess you dont qualify for moron status:1:

It seems that you learned just as little in "class" as you have from time and time again being on the losing side of repeated arguments on this board. :out:


ONE MORE LAST TRY.
Try to break a glass with a LOW frequency, other than knocking it over you won't have much luck.
THEY DON'T IMPART ENOUGH ENERGY.
Thats why the chick in the old MEMOREX COMMERCIALS broke HER glass
with a HIGH note
a TREBLE note.
And THat is all I am going to say on the matter, your yellow school bus is here

as others have deftly pointed out, I guess you were absent from "class" the day your physics instructor covered resonant frequencies? :lol:

[Feanor]

Judging by your responses, you're not even an amateur in physics! :lol:

:lol:

You'e only encouraging him, Wooch. ;)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I know that answering this question is not as much fun as Pixie bashing, but I also know that some of you know the answer. Are you really
going to make me Google it?

Alright, Alright!! I am going to answer your question cause I do not have any more thirty day old bean burritos.

Dts MA lossless and DTHD are able to do 24/96khz in 7.1(which is actually more channels than can be coded on SACD). In theory SACD has more bandwidth than the other lossless audio codecs, as it can code signals as high as 100khz. However in practice most SACD players have filters that limit that output to 50khz, and most noise shaping routines do the same thing. So when you look at what the lossless codecs can do, it is comparable to SACD. In the end though, its the mix that determines how good the sound quality actually is, SACD and DTS MS and DTHD are just carriers of the data.

[GMichael]

Alright, Alright!! I am going to answer your question cause I do not have any more thirty day old bean burritos.

Dts MA lossless and DTHD are able to do 24/96khz in 7.1(which is actually more channels than can be coded on SACD). In theory SACD has more bandwidth than the other lossless audio codecs, as it can code signals as high as 100khz. However in practice most SACD players have filters that limit that output to 50khz, and most noise shaping routines do the same thing. So when you look at what the lossless codecs can do, it is comparable to SACD. In the end though, its the mix that determines how good the sound quality actually is, SACD and DTS MS and DTHD are just carriers of the data.

Thank you Sir T. I look forward to the day that I can take advantage of these new audio options.:arf:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thank you Sir T. I look forward to the day that I can take advantage of these new audio options.:arf:

And the releases are coming as well. They will have high resolution audio tracks with either DTHD or DTS MA lossless, and a slide show to keep your eyes busy while listening. Nine Inch Nails has a 24/96khz release coming out. I also know some classical music I mixed last year will be coming to bluray as well. I worked on three titles, but I do not know which is going to be the first released.

[GMichael]

And the releases are coming as well. They will have high resolution audio tracks with either DTHD or DTS MA lossless, and a slide show to keep your eyes busy while listening. Nine Inch Nails has a 24/96khz release coming out. I also know some classical music I mixed last year will be coming to bluray as well. I worked on three titles, but I do not know which is going to be the first released.

I'm sure that somehow, someway, they will find, yet another way, to get me to buy another frickin copy of DSOTM.:12:

[Rich-n-Texas]

And the releases are coming as well. They will have high resolution audio tracks with either DTHD or DTS MA lossless, and a slide show to keep your eyes busy while listening. Nine Inch Nails has a 24/96khz release coming out. I also know some classical music I mixed last year will be coming to bluray as well. I worked on three titles, but I do not know which is going to be the first released.
I'm going to buy a copy and send it to you so's you can autograph it, okay? :thumbsup:

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'm sure that somehow, someway, they will find, yet another way, to get me to buy another frickin copy of DSOTM.:12:
I feel your pain GM, I feel your pain. :yesnod:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm going to buy a copy and send it to you so's you can autograph it, okay? :thumbsup:

When I found out which title is coming out first, I'll let you know Rich.

Geeeze, you want my autograph(or just my auto)? I'm famous...woooohooo, finally hit the big time. Movin on up to the East side!!!

[GMichael]

When I found out which title is coming out first, I'll let you know Rich.

Geeeze, you want my autograph(or just my auto)? I'm famous...woooohooo, finally hit the big time. Movin on up to the East side!!!

2 a D' lux appartment in the shy hi hi...:15:

[pixelthis]

The problem here is you don't understand that there's a difference between the conversion of electrical energy into radio waves and a conversion of electrical energy into sound through a transducer (speaker). Here's some basic undergrad physics for you junior...a speaker isn't a very efficient machine, lots of power loss between the electrical source and the output. Where does that energy go? Moving air, heat loss via DC resistance in the voice coil, etc.
It would be great if the real world was like your world where the impedance in a tweeter was equal to that of a 15" woofer.
Pix, it's not as simple as your limited intelligence is trying to force it to be. The mass of the tweeter is so much lower than the mass of the woofer. Moving a tweeter 12,000 times a second requires less energy than moving a much heavier woofer 12,000 times per second. And moving a woofer 12,000 times/second requires MORE energy than moving the tweeter 12,000 times per second. So obviously, for the same amount of energy that moves a tweeter 12,000 times/second, the woofer is moved fewer times/second. Duh. Of course there's a point where moving a heavier object fewer times still requires more energy than moving a ligther object more times. Example:

- let's put you on the bench press...start at 10 lbs. How many times per minute can you do the motion? I'm guessing 30 times per minute. It won't require that much energy. Now, let's crank the weight up 200 times to correspond with the increased size of the woofer cone and air resistance.. How many times per minute can you bench press 2000 lbs? According to your trailer park physics, it should be easier to bench press it only 29 times per minute than pressing 10 lbs 30 times per minute. What do you think requires more energy? Lol.

Also consider that the resistance of the woofer voice coil is a lot lower! That means more current is required to satisfy Ohm's law. More energy to required to produce output X in the woofer.

You are definitely stating what was observed by any moron. Awaiting some evidence to the contrary...


Its really fun to come here and be talked down to by a real numbskull who doesnt
understand much if anything AT all about the subject on "hand".

FIRST place you don't have to move that woofer 12,000 TIMES A SECOND,
if you did it would be producing treble frequencies.
Depending on crossover cutoff that sub is only going to be moving at most 80 times a second, sometimes less than 40 times a second.
Low freqs are sometimes longer than the room (actually most of the time)
and make things rumble, but they are STILL less energetic than higher frequencies.
treble has all of its energy in a much more focused beam that doesnt carry as far, this is because it requires much more energy to produce.
THE BIG PROBLEM IS THAT MOST HAVE no comprehension of just how fast 12,000
times a second actually IS, and tweeters go up to 20,000 times a second.
A twelve inch sub has a much larger surface area than a 1 in tweeter true, but you're only moving that sub less than a 100 times a second, with the tweeter it adds up to MORE surface area moved in a given time, because its moving FASTER, a LOT faster.
Putting big amps on woofers is a marketing decision because manufacturers
know about this common miscomception, that a "big ol woofer cone" needs more energy,
OR course it does, but it really doesnt come close to what a tweeter needs.
misconceptions like this are common among the great unwashed.
But it doesnt change a basic fact, higher frequencies require MORE energy than lower ones.
If not than the crawler that takes the shuttle to the pad at a few miles an hour requires more energy than boosting the shuttle to 17,000 miles an hour.
And your car would burn less gas at 7400 rpm than 2000 rpm.
AND YOU WOULD GET LESS TIRED RUNNING THAN WALKING.
In other words for a woofer to use more power than a tweeter the world as you know it would have to be upside down.
Enjoy spring break Sir talky, and when you get back to your JR high school tell them
they need a better science class :1:

[kexodusc]

Its really fun to come here and be talked down to by a real numbskull who doesnt
understand much if anything AT all about the subject on "hand".

FIRST place you don't have to move that woofer 12,000 TIMES A SECOND,
if you did it would be producing treble frequencies.
There you go avoiding my points again. The fact you don't "have" to move the woofer 12,000 times per second is irrelevant (and for the record, there are woofers out there that extend well into the treble range, boy you really know so little), bottom line is you KNOW that IF you moved a woofer 12,000 times per second (and any object can be moved 12,000 times per second if enough energy is used) it will require FAR more energy than moving a smaller tweeter 12,000 times per second. My example holds, thanks for proving my point Pix.




Depending on crossover cutoff that sub is only going to be moving at most 80 times a second, sometimes less than 40 times a second.
Low freqs are sometimes longer than the room (actually most of the time)
and make things rumble, but they are STILL less energetic than higher frequencies.
treble has all of its energy in a much more focused beam that doesnt carry as far, this is because it requires much more energy to produce. Not when electrical energy is input into an inefficient device like a speaker. This continues to be the concept you are too limited to grasp. Look it up.


THE BIG PROBLEM IS THAT MOST HAVE no comprehension of just how fast 12,000
times a second actually IS, and tweeters go up to 20,000 times a second.
A twelve inch sub has a much larger surface area than a 1 in tweeter true, but you're only moving that sub less than a 100 times a second, with the tweeter it adds up to MORE surface area moved in a given time, because its moving FASTER, a LOT faster.
Not all woofers are subs! Pick a frequency common to both tweeters and woofers, say 2000 Hz. Have them both produce a 2000 Hz tone. Which do you think will require more energy? The little tweeter or the big woofer. LOL.


Putting big amps on woofers is a marketing decision because manufacturers
know about this common miscomception, that a "big ol woofer cone" needs more energy,
OR course it does, but it really doesnt come close to what a tweeter needs.
Poor Pixie. If you knew what driver sensitivity was, and what the sensitivity of a tweeter and a woofer was, you would have apologized for all your nonsense long ago. Driver sensitivity is proof woofers require more power to play a given volume level than tweeters. Period. You're just incapable of understanding such things.

But keep clinging to your absurdity, we're all having a real laugh.

[E-Stat]

Not all woofers are subs! Pick a frequency common to both tweeters and woofers, say 2000 Hz. Have them both produce a 2000 Hz tone. Which do you think will require more energy? The little tweeter or the big woofer. LOL.
Now there you go using logic again. :)

As for me, I know the answer because I have a speaker that illustrates the point even more directly. The tweeter and woofer are one. One driver reproduces both the top and the bottom. So which range is more taxing, power-wise? There is no question that the panel in each Sound LAB electrostat requires far more peak power reproducing a Telarc concert drum or synth bass at high levels than do triangles, bells, cymbals, upper brass, etc. Pix was kinda sorta right about the role of frequencies, but alas got the concept bass ackwards (no pun intended). It is all about the energy required to move lots of air, visible as excursion. I can clip 300 watt amps in a heartbeat, if not for just an instant, with the bass content from something like The Rite of Spring or Carmina Burana.

Aside: I went to a program at the local Arkansas Symphony last night. The program was patriotic music from Sousa, Copland and Barber along with other American standards. I was seated center in the mezzanine a bit above the orchestra level, but not at a balcony level loge. The sound of the concert drum was incredible. Not so much with the level (although it was a bit louder than I can achieve at home), but with its complex envelope and timbre. You feel the wave pulse. I find those characteristics quite a challenge to get right with a speaker.

rw

[kexodusc]

Now there you go using logic again. :)

As for me, I know the answer because I have a speaker that illustrates the point even more directly. The tweeter and woofer are one. One driver reproduces both the top and the bottom. So which range is more taxing, power-wise? There is no question that the panel in each Sound LAB electrostat requires far more peak power reproducing a Telarc concert drum or synth bass at high levels than do triangles, bells, cymbals, upper brass, etc. On a side note...heard my first Sound LAB speaker the other day. I've seen plenty, but the few stores I've seen them in wouldn't let me listen to them unless I was interested in purchasing...could have lied, but...this model had a 10" driver for lower frequencies. Dynastat I believe was the model. My friend refused to tell me what he paid for them because he got them at some estate auction. Came with a very weird diffusor panel array by the same company. Anyway, interesting product. Certainly did justice to Gorecki.


Pix was kinda sorta right about the role of frequencies, but alas got the concept bass ackwards (no pun intended). It is all about the energy required to move lots of air, visible as excursion. I can clip 300 watt amps in a heartbeat, if not for just an instant, with the bass content from something like The Rite of Spring or Carmina Burana.

If we were talking about broadcasting and not converting electrical energy into sound through speakers, well, I wouldn't disagree with him. He's just not making the connection that his position only holds up ceteris parabus, and we ain't ceterus parabus when talking about conventional drivers.


Aside: I went to a program at the local Arkansas Symphony last night. The program was patriotic music from Sousa, Copland and Barber along with other American standards. I was seated center in the mezzanine a bit above the orchestra level, but not at a balcony level loge. The sound of the concert drum was incredible. Not so much with the level (although it was a bit louder than I can achieve at home), but with its complex envelope and timbre. You feel the wave pulse. I find those characteristics quite a challenge to get right with a speaker.

rw
I was at a big band competition of sorts a few weeks back - I remember arriving at a similar conclusion with respect to what I could only call impact and decay of each instrument - probably not the right terms. There's a certain presence, very real an defined in space and size, as well as instrument separation that live performances deliver without compromise unlike recordings - at some point there's a certain blending of frequencies when two instruments have ranges that overlap. Live performances just sound considerably different in that range than I've heard through recordings on playback equipment. I haven't heard any system at any price even remotely compete with reproducing the real damn thing. Kinda made me laugh - the ticket was $15. The performances were great.
i'm sure there's a few audiophile types out there that could spend less money and more time at the actual live performances of their favorite musicians than what they spend on gear in a year. But that'd be no fun.

[E-Stat]

On a side note...heard my first Sound LAB speaker the other day....this model had a 10" driver for lower frequencies. Dynastat I believe was the model.
Yes. The Dynastat and the Marquis center channel are the hybrids whereas the other seven models are full range. Mine has twelve times the panel area of the Dynastat. The largest model, the 945, has nearly eighteen. Same family sound, but I've always found the coherence of full range models seductive. The previous concert drum is a perfect example of where I find that difference can be heard as its harmonics are usually reproduced with a different driver than its fundamentals.


Came with a very weird diffusor panel array by the same company.
That could have been the Sallie. (http://soundlab-speakers.com/accessories.htm#SALLIE)


i'm sure there's a few audiophile types out there that could spend less money and more time at the actual live performances of their favorite musicians than what they spend on gear in a year. But that'd be no fun.
That is the best fun!

rw

[pixelthis]

kexodusc]There you go avoiding my points again. The fact you don't "have" to move the woofer 12,000 times per second is irrelevant (and for the record, there are woofers out there that extend well into the treble range, boy you really know so little), bottom line is you KNOW that IF you moved a woofer 12,000 times per second (and any object can be moved 12,000 times per second if enough energy is used) it will require FAR more energy than moving a smaller tweeter 12,000 times per second. My example holds, thanks for proving my point Pix.


THERE ARE NO WOOFERS that move 12,000 times a second, there are speakers that produce both sub , mid, and tweeter frequencies, sure, these are known asfull range speakers
And thanks for proving my point with your statement that "any object can move 12,000
times a second if enough energy is used



Not when electrical energy is input into an inefficient device like a speaker. This continues to be the concept you are too limited to grasp. Look it up.


You continue to misunderstand that laws of nature Dont make exceptions



Not all woofers are subs! Pick a frequency common to both tweeters and woofers, say 2000 Hz. Have them both produce a 2000 Hz tone. Which do you think will require more energy? The little tweeter or the big woofer. LOL.


THE BIG WOOFER WILL REQUIRE MORE ENERGYTO PRODUCE HIGHER FREQUENCIES.
]What I said , basically

Poor Pixie. If you knew what driver sensitivity was, and what the sensitivity of a tweeter and a woofer was, you would have apologized for all your nonsense long ago. Driver sensitivity is proof woofers require more power to play a given volume level than tweeters. Period. You're just incapable of understanding such things.


Poor Kex, product of a school system that fails to teach basic jr high school scienceTHE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 120HZ AND 12,000 HZ is so vast that such minor details
don't really matter


But keep clinging to your absurdity, we're all having a real laugh.



And keep clinging to your stupidity, you're a great case for increased funding and better science training in our nations schools
:1:

[pixelthis]

Adressing a few points...
Sure a woofer is bigger than a tweeter, but this isnt a disadvantage, indeed a woofer is bigger because it helps to move a larger vollume of air.
A tweeter has a much harder job, moving a sizable amount of air with a 1in dome.
Saw a pair of speakers in stereophile a few back, this guy built a pair of stereo speakers with full range speakers, claimed the sound of "full range" speakers from tabletop radios
was better, but it never caught on.
And Electrostat is talkiing about electrostatics, which are very inneficient by their nature,
which is why I THINK THEY ARE A STUPID IDEA.
Not only is it easier to drive an amp into clipping with an electrostatic, it s downright hard
not to sometimes

And Electrostat is right about "broadcast" that higher frequencies require more energy.
Hes' wrong when he says god makes exceptions for sound frequencies.
THE MAIN ARGUMENT is that this "big ol sub" cone requires a lot more energy to move
than a tweeter, and it does take quite a bit to move one, sure, but thats nothing
compared to moving a tweeter.
ACTUALLY a larger cone is an advantage, allows for more vollumes of air to be moved
for energy expended
WITH HIGHER FREQUENCIES you can break glass, because the energy is more concentrated and focused, the only way you can break a glass with a sub is knocking it off of a table with the rumble.
Finally get a spl meter, run a sub and a tweeter, see which draws more current
for spl level produced.
But more importantly, notice you can stand just about anywhere in the room when measuring bass, with a tweeter you have to stand just about in front of it.
The sub fills the room with more sound at lower relative current levels than a tweeter.
Its not that the tweeter requires less energy, it actually requires MORE to produce lower sound levels, thats why you can burn out a tweeter a lot faster than a sub.
A sub appears to be using more energy than a tweeter, but it only appears
so.
DO YOU THINK THE WORLD IS FLAT because it appears to be at first glance?:1:

[kexodusc]

Finally get a spl meter, run a sub and a tweeter, see which draws more current
for spl level produced.
But more importantly, notice you can stand just about anywhere in the room when measuring bass, with a tweeter you have to stand just about in front of it.
The sub fills the room with more sound at lower relative current levels than a tweeter.
Wrong. Much, much higher current levels in the woofer due to the lower impedance of the woofer and lower sensitivity. But you don't even know what that means. Ohm's law 101, look it up. They're usually not even close. Take a look at the impedance curves of woofers vs tweeters. Please. LOL. You make it too easy.

Voltage = current X resistance

Sensitivity of a driver = A measure of the acoustic output of a loudspeaker (SPL) resulting from the application of a fixed input power.
Take a look at the sensitivity of tweeters. Much higher per unit of power input than woofer sensitivities.

Pick a voltage..any voltage...and go. Until you can find a way to break the physical laws of the universe (in this case ohm's law) you will see the woofer using more current than the tweeter on account of its lower impedance, not to mention that in most cases, the sensitivity of a woofer is less than a tweeter, so you NEED more power to the woofer just to equalize sound pressure level.

If you had actually measured current on the tweeter and woofer you would be apologizing for all the misinformation you've posted.

Oh and in loudspeakers, we don't use the tweeter to fill the room completely with sound...That's not applicable here, we listen to speakers on axis give or take a few degrees. So no changing the rules of this game just because you're losing....

[GMichael]

Don't forget to keep those tweeters 12 feet apart.:out:

[E-Stat]

A tweeter has a much harder job, moving a sizable amount of air with a 1in dome...

Its not that the tweeter requires less energy, it actually requires MORE to produce lower sound levels, thats why you can burn out a tweeter a lot faster than a sub...

A sub appears to be using more energy than a tweeter, but it only appears so...

We have our own Cliff Clavin here. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The more pixelneck keeps posting, the more his ignorance on so many things is revealed.

There is a reason that in large PA systems half to three quarters of the dedicated power to the system goes to the low end cabinets.

There is a reason that in movie theater systems, most of the power in the racks is loaded towards the subwoofer system.

In my own hometheater system I have 3k total power to the system, of which 2k of that is directed towards the subs that handle the LFE channel.

It is no secret that with powered studio monitors, the amp that drives the woofer section is more powerful than the amp that drives the tweeter section.

Why anyone has to take time out to explain this to pixelneckgeek is just puzzling. He has seen it all, and he knows it all. The funny thing is how ignorant he is on basic knowledge, and how suspect that makes ANYTHING he has said on this board he proports as factual.

[Ajani]

......As I've posted before, I don't see downloading as anything but a substitute for video rentals and PPV. There are too many restrictions and not a whole lot of selection for anyone who wants to archive and collect their movies..............

Ok, I'm too lazy to read the rest of this thread....I've only read up to page 2, so please forgive me if someone has made this point already....

The thing I wonder is what percentage of people who buy/rent/download movies are really collectors and how many just want to watch a flim.... Yes I know I can look up sales vs rental figures, but I'm not sure whether those figures are a true reflection of consumer's desire.....

The way I see it as that there are 2 major problems with renting:

1) It requires 2 trips to the store instead of just 1... 1 to rent and 1 to return... consumers are lazy/busy....

2) Sometimes the difference in price between renting and owning isn't that great, so people may just opt to buy and be done with it...

The reason I wonder these things is because I think of my own family's dvd buying habits... I have 2 brothers and all 3 of us buy DVDs but only 1 is really a collector... 2 of us only buy cuz renting is a P.I.T.A.

EDIT: To tie this back to BR... I wonder if the fact that Internet downloads and VOD eliminate at least one problem with old fashioned rental will impact on overall disc sales... could the market move more towards convenient rental with most disc sales being driven by hardcore collectors?

[kexodusc]

The more pixelneck keeps posting, the more his ignorance on so many things is revealed.

There is a reason that in large PA systems half to three quarters of the dedicated power to the system goes to the low end cabinets.

There is a reason that in movie theater systems, most of the power in the racks is loaded towards the subwoofer system.

In my own hometheater system I have 3k total power to the system, of which 2k of that is directed towards the subs that handle the LFE channel.

It is no secret that with powered studio monitors, the amp that drives the woofer section is more powerful than the amp that drives the tweeter section.

Why anyone has to take time out to explain this to pixelneckgeek is just puzzling. He has seen it all, and he knows it all. The funny thing is how ignorant he is on basic knowledge, and how suspect that makes ANYTHING he has said on this board he proports as factual.

I get the feeling that deep down inside he knows he's wrong but he just doesn't have the spaldings to fess up. His strategy now is to blather on clueslessly until everyone else tires of the discussion. I am having too much correcting his nonsense to stop however.

Schooling him isn't just easy, it's fun.

[Woochifer]

In my own hometheater system I have 3k total power to the system, of which 2k of that is directed towards the subs that handle the LFE channel.

It is no secret that with powered studio monitors, the amp that drives the woofer section is more powerful than the amp that drives the tweeter section.

Gosh, Terrence. Judging by his silence on this particular point, you'd think that he was AVOIDING it or something! :crazy:

It's amusing that the conclusion to draw from his rant is that EVERY speaker designer and DIY hobbyist out there that biamps their active speakers with the more powerful amp driving the woofer is WRONG!

And every designer that builds a speaker with the more powerful amp driving the tweet ... er ... WAIT! When pixel actually gets around to building a speaker like that, then he will be the FIRST and ONLY one who's right! Everybody else who makes active biamped speakers/monitors with higher powered amplification to the woofers -- from Paradigm to JBL to Mackie to Yamaha -- has been doing it ALL WRONG all these years!

Y'know, pixel's gotta be the expert since he spends ssssoooo much time talking about speakers. Guys like Kex have got to be the amateurs because they waste all that time actually BUILDING speakers.

[Woochifer]

Ok, I'm too lazy to read the rest of this thread....I've only read up to page 2, so please forgive me if someone has made this point already....

The thing I wonder is what percentage of people who buy/rent/download movies are really collectors and how many just want to watch a flim.... Yes I know I can look up sales vs rental figures, but I'm not sure whether those figures are a true reflection of consumer's desire.....

The way I see it as that there are 2 major problems with renting:

1) It requires 2 trips to the store instead of just 1... 1 to rent and 1 to return... consumers are lazy/busy....

2) Sometimes the difference in price between renting and owning isn't that great, so people may just opt to buy and be done with it...

The big change to the market that the DVD brought was the end of the VHS rental pricing structure. In the old VHS pricing structure, the studios implemented a rental window in which new release VHS titles would get priced at ~$80 for a certain time period. This price was way too high for sell-through, so it was a de facto exclusivity window for video stores, since only video rental stores would be willing to pay that high a price on those VHS titles. Few retail stores would ever display $80 VHS movies for sell-through. After that rental window lapsed, then the studios would re-release that VHS title with a price closer to ~$20 and those lower priced titles would show up at retail stores for sell-through. Only select blockbuster titles and special interest titles would get a lower list price on the date of release.

The DVD price structure is actually a carryover from Laserdisc, which had typically priced new releases at around $40 for retail sell-through. After the DVD format took off, the studios found that they could make a lot more money selling DVDs directly to consumers at $30 MSRP than they could marketing rental-priced titles exclusively to video rental stores.

The $15 week-of-release pricing that you see on DVDs is basically a loss leader -- the stores just want to get you through the doors and pick up some other high margin items while you're there. But, indeed buying the DVD is actually cheaper than two movie theater tickets, and it compares favorably to the time and trouble involved with renting.


The reason I wonder these things is because I think of my own family's dvd buying habits... I have 2 brothers and all 3 of us buy DVDs but only 1 is really a collector... 2 of us only buy cuz renting is a P.I.T.A.

EDIT: To tie this back to BR... I wonder if the fact that Internet downloads and VOD eliminate at least one problem with old fashioned rental will impact on overall disc sales... could the market move more towards convenient rental with most disc sales being driven by hardcore collectors?

Like I said, I think that downloads and other online VOD services are a parallel market shift away from on demand and rental services that already exist. They would not impact on the market for home video sales. The only scenario where you would see consumers turn away from purchasing Blu-ray discs would be if the studios decide to maintain the $5-$10 price premium that currently exists. Remember that DVDs originally had street prices around $30, and have now settled into that $20 price point on new releases and $15 for catalog titles. I would guess that Blu-ray will eventually get down into that range as the number of titles expands, and you have more differentiation in the market between new releases and older titles like you currently see with DVDs.

[E-Stat]

...that biamps their active speakers with the more powerful amp driving the woofer...
No such qualification required because that is the way all active speakers are power biased. The Braun LV1020s I used when I was a teenager were tri-amplified with 50 watts to the woofer, 35 to the midrange, and 15 to the dome tweeter. It has always been that way.

rw

[pixelthis]

Wrong. Much, much higher current levels in the woofer due to the lower impedance of the woofer and lower sensitivity. But you don't even know what that means. Ohm's law 101, look it up. They're usually not even close. Take a look at the impedance curves of woofers vs tweeters. Please. LOL. You make it too easy.


WHAT IT MEANS IS that you dont know what you're talking about
For instance

Voltage = current X resistance

A more accurate representation would be e= I x R

But voltage doesnt matter much, a crt high voltage rectifier puts out 30,000 volts but little current

What about I= e/r?

In other words devide that high "impedance" (resistance) by the voltage, you'll be surprized at how little current a sub actually pulls



Sensitivity of a driver = A measure of the acoustic output of a loudspeaker (SPL) resulting from the application of a fixed input power.Take a look at the sensitivity of tweeters. Much higher per unit of power input than woofer sensitivities.

All this "sensitivity " claptrap means is that a tweeter is smaller and requires a lot less
energy to push, a professional way of saying the same thing, "this big ol woofer takes a LOT more power than that little tweeter"

you're still ignoring the fact that that tweeter moves (depending on xover) anywhere from
10 to 20 thousand times a second.
Part of the problem is that most people dont have any comprehension of just how FAST THAT THAT IS


Pick a voltage..any voltage...and go. Until you can find a way to break the physical laws of the universe (in this case ohm's law) you will see the woofer using more current than the tweeter on account of its lower impedance, not to mention that in most cases, the sensitivity of a woofer is less than a tweeter, so you NEED more power to the woofer just to equalize sound pressure level.

AND YET YOU NEVER EQUALIZE sound pressure levels, bass always sounds "louder"
People pump more power into woofers because they mostly like a lot of bass.
And you get more vollume because its easier to produce lower freqs.
What people like you keep looking over , well, is just about EVERYTHING.
Stand behind a tweeter, the sound drops off to just about nothing, all of the energy of a tweeter goes into making a somewhat narrow beam of energy that, compared to the
room filling sound of a sub is very weak..
Back in the seventies they came out with an omnidirectional tweeter that put out high freqs in a 360 degree pattern, but they didnt last, the high frequency response was low, turn it up loud enough and it would blow Amps.
And yet, while reletively weak they still pump out a lot of power.
THATS WHY TWEETERS BURN OUT AND SUBS DONT.
And thats why a high freq aimed at a piece of glass will break it.
A low freq could never do that




If you had actually measured current on the tweeter and woofer you would be apologizing for all the misinformation you've posted.

LET ME GUESS, you played some bass heavy material with almost NO treble, and you measured current pull for about ten seconds.
Get an average over days


Oh and in loudspeakers, we don't use the tweeter to fill the room completely with sound...That's not applicable here, we listen to speakers on axis give or take a few degrees. So no changing the rules of this game just because you're losing....

Its not applicable ANYWHERE, such a tweeter doesnt exist, and for good reason.
The power requirements would burn out the AMP , tweeter, or both.
Remember the linarium tweeter? A rather wide dispersion tweeter based on
electrostatics, they were pulled in spite of rave reviews because they kept burning OUT.
A tweeter that couild fill a room with sound would require an amp the size of a small building. You KNOW this.
So why are you arguing with me? YOU know I am right .
And changing what "rules", you're the one trying to change the laws of PHYSICS
just because YOU'RE losing.
As for "apologising " to anybody, your high school science teacher should be apologising to YOU:1:

[kexodusc]

WHAT IT MEANS IS that you dont know what you're talking about
For instance

Voltage = current X resistance

A more accurate representation would be e= I x R

But voltage doesnt matter much, a crt high voltage rectifier puts out 30,000 volts but little current

What about I= e/r?

In other words devide that high "impedance" (resistance) by the voltage, you'll be surprized at how little current a sub actually pulls


You silly, sillly boy, there you go cutting and pasting symbols you found on google without taking the time to actually learn what they mean.

You don't divide the impedance by the voltage to arrive at anything relevant, you can't even get through a paragraph without butchering your own arguments. What does that say about your teachers? Not much, they didn't have anything to work with.

To calculate the current you divide the voltage by the resistance. End of lesson.

And there you go lying again - woofer impedance is far lower than tweeter impedance, almost always.
Case in point:
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=295-404&ctab=2#Tabs
A well respected 12" woofer

and
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=277-014
A fairly common, well respected tweeter.

Notice the sub's impedance: 4 ohms and sensitivity: 87.0 dB at 2.83 volts, 83.4 at 1 watt into it's 4 ohm load.
The tweeter's impedance: 8 ohms, the sensitivity - 90 db at 1 watt - about 4 times as much output per 1 watt of input.
The woofer's DC resistance - 3.3 ohms, the tweeters 5.2 ohms. And so it goes, you have no clue whatsoever.

Hell there's even impedance curves so you can track the impedance across each drivers usuable range - the tweeter never falls below 6 ohms above 1000 Hz. The woofer spends most of it's time between 5 and 6 ohms across it's usuable range.

More proof of your ignorance. Denying the truth doesn't make it any less true.
Throw in the towel, man. Your blood is staining the floor.

[GMichael]

All this "sensitivity " claptrap means is that a tweeter is smaller and requires a lot less
energy to push, a professional way of saying the same thing, "this big ol woofer takes a LOT more power than that little tweeter"

you're still ignoring the fact that that tweeter moves (depending on xover) anywhere from
10 to 20 thousand times a second.
Part of the problem is that most people dont have any comprehension of just how FAST THAT THAT IS



Duh, that's what everyone is trying to tell you. Why are you arguing against yourself?

Yeah, tweeters move more times per second. But they move far less mass, with far less excursion.
Tweeters are more directional due to the nature of shorter wave lengths. It has nothing to do with the power they draw.
Try to think of it this way. As you move farther away from a speaker, the highs drop off much faster that the lows. This is because the have less energy to begin with. And as you pointed out, the highs are only in one direction while the bass can be heard in every direction. More power = more sound.

Oh, and 12,000 is 120 times faster than 100. But when the 100 takes 1000 times more energy to start, stop, accelerate the other way, decelerate, etc etc etc, then the 120 times faster become nil.

[Woochifer]

AND YET YOU NEVER EQUALIZE sound pressure levels, bass always sounds "louder"
People pump more power into woofers because they mostly like a lot of bass.
And you get more vollume because its easier to produce lower freqs.

If that's the case, then how come NO speaker manufacturer or DIY hobbyist I'm aware of uses a lower powered amp to drive the woofer in a biamped speaker? Terrence, E-stat, and I have all pointed this out, yet you seem afraid to address this point. I WONDER WHY? :lol:


THATS WHY TWEETERS BURN OUT AND SUBS DONT.

Oh really? If tweeters burn out and subs don't, then wouldn't it stand to reason that tweeters cannot handle more "juice" than subs? I guess that blown voice coils on subs don't exist too, eh? And you claim to be the physics authority!


And thats why a high freq aimed at a piece of glass will break it.
A low freq could never do that

Once again ignoring what everybody's been telling you about resonant frequencies. Different materials have different resonating characteristics. Ever wonder why a tweeter won't shatter wood or even cause resonant vibrations, yet frequencies within the midbass can create audible resonances? I guess not!


So why are you arguing with me? YOU know I am right .

Judging by the number the credible responses that contradict your "scientific" findings, nobody thinks you're right. Maybe because you're WRONG? :lol:


And changing what "rules", you're the one trying to change the laws of PHYSICS
just because YOU'RE losing.

Kex isn't changing anything. You just don't understand the laws of physics.


As for "apologising " to anybody, your high school science teacher should be apologising to YOU:1:

At least he had a high school science teacher! Your science education seems to have ended with those old Memorex commercials. :out:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is an excellent example of perfectly knowledgeable people trying to teach a dummy, when the dummy really does not want to learn anything. It is more important for this dummy to be perceived as knowledgeable, than it is for the dummy to not be a dummy any more.

[pixelthis]

This is an excellent example of perfectly knowledgeable people trying to teach a dummy, when the dummy really does not want to learn anything. It is more important for this dummy to be perceived as knowledgeable, than it is for the dummy to not be a dummy any more.


YOU need to get back to spring break junior, jr high starts back next week.

AND you are exactly right, I AM wasting my time trying to teach a dummy
the simplest laws of physics:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

YOU need to get back to spring break junior, jr high starts back next week.

AND you are exactly right, I AM wasting my time trying to teach a dummy
the simplest laws of physics:1:

No, you are just a stupid old man who is too stupid to realize that he is stupid. It is apparent that you know nothing about physics, not even a little bit. You are so far off on this topic, so wrong that it is just pitful. That is all.....you are dismissed.

[L.J.]

***opens door......duck before getting hit with a pie.....closes door***

[GMichael]

(Sees LJ peeking in through door. Pushed LJ the rest of the way into room and pulls door closed)

SLAM!
BANG!
POW!

(re-opens door to see if LJ is ok)

POW!

(gets hit in face with pie. LJ is on the floor laughing, but covered in pie himself)
(closes door and heads to the wash room laughing)

Tweeters need more power than woofers? That's some funny chit!
What this has to do with the price of BR's dropping is anyone's guess.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

(Sees LJ peeking in through door. Pushed LJ the rest of the way into room and pulls door closed)

SLAM!
BANG!
POW!

(re-opens door to see if LJ is ok)

POW!

(gets hit in face with pie. LJ is on the floor laughing, but covered in pie himself)
(closes door and heads to the wash room laughing)

Tweeters need more power than woofers? That's some funny chit!
What this has to do with the price of BR's dropping is anyone's guess.

Some how we will segway back to the prices of BR, maybe after a brain cell tranfusion on pixelneckgeek.

[pixelthis]

Some how we will segway back to the prices of BR, maybe after a brain cell tranfusion on pixelneckgeek.


You first sir talky, you need one much worse than I.
While they're at it they can let out some of that hot air:1:

[GMichael]

The duck strikes again.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The duck strikes again.

I would describe him as a huge wind bag full of hot air.

[GMichael]

I would describe him as a huge wind bag full hot air.

I think he's quackers.
A reincarnation of RL without the knowledge.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think he's quackers.
A reincarnation of RL without the knowledge.

He is more like a lonely old man looking for attention. That is why all of the stupidity, he wants us to pay him some attention. I guess there are not that many people in Willacoochy Alabama to give his stupid a$$ some company.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I think he's quackers.
A reincarnation of RL without the knowledge.
Hey HEY HEY!!! That's my mentor yer talkin' about buster! :incazzato:

[GMichael]

Hey HEY HEY!!! That's my mentor yer talkin' about buster! :incazzato:
Attaway to aim low.

[Woochifer]

I think he's quackers.
A reincarnation of RL without the knowledge.

Or Lexperv without the sunshiney personality! :cornut:

[pixelthis]

Or Lexperv without the sunshiney personality! :cornut:


look at the pot calling the kettle black.
You're just pissed because you NEVER win an argument with me.
But don't worry, few do:1:

[Rich-n-Texas]

Attaway to aim low.
So you're saying RL was low? Not likely. :rolleyes5:

[GMichael]

So you're saying RL was low? Not likely. :rolleyes5:

You are correct in assuming that this is not what I was saying.

[Woochifer]

look at the pot calling the kettle black.
You're just pissed because you NEVER win an argument with me.
But don't worry, few do:1:

Failed in your impersonation of a "scientist" so now you're trying your hand at comedy, eh? :lol: It might actually work, because you're making me laugh! (of course, I'm not exactly laughing WITH you ...)

[pixelthis]

Failed in your impersonation of a "scientist" so now you're trying your hand at comedy, eh? :lol: It might actually work, because you're making me laugh! (of course, I'm not exactly laughing WITH you ...)

I guess I need to be "laughed at" since I have been arguing relative power usage with a
silly nimrod who doesnt even understand what a stepup transformer is.
MY BAD:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I guess I need to be "laughed at" since I have been arguing relative power usage with a
silly nimrod who doesnt even understand what a stepup transformer is.
MY BAD:1:

You need to be laughed at because you are a buffoon, or better, a bafoon

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bafoon

[Woochifer]

I guess I need to be "laughed at" since I have been arguing relative power usage with a
silly nimrod who doesnt even understand what a stepup transformer is.
MY BAD:1:

And I'm trying to explain power usage to an accidental comedian whose grasp of logic and the English language is tenuous at best! :lol:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And I'm trying to explain power usage to an accidental comedian whose grasp of logic and the English language is tenuous at best! :lol:

Man, you think he was off on this arguement, he says that high frequencies are amplified when speakers are placed behind you. Without a direct path to the inner ear, and with a big fat pinna in the way, how do we accomplish that? This man knows more about nothing than any nobody should.

[pixelthis]

Man, you think he was off on this arguement, he says that high frequencies are amplified when speakers are placed behind you. Without a direct path to the inner ear, and with a big fat pinna in the way, how do we accomplish that? This man knows more about nothing than any nobody should.


try TO BE NICE to a silly little nimrod...
I know of the post of which you speak, and was so tempted to just tell the poster
that you didnt have a clue and was just talking BS outta the side of your mouth.
higher freqs will sound lower from the rear, but like einsteins theory (and your wife)
its all relative.
And higher freqs from a straight line path will sound louder than those shooting out from a corner.
A 7.1 system acts like a 5.1, just with more channels, the extra channel is just as discrete as the rest, unless its a fake 7.1 summed from 5.1 material.
THE REASON the sound "dropped" off when this poster kicked in his back channel was an illusion, that back channel was just louder, probably closer, and needed adjusting.
And had NOTHING to do with that BS you were makin up.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

try TO BE NICE to a silly little nimrod...
I know of the post of which you speak, and was so tempted to just tell the poster
that you didnt have a clue and was just talking BS outta the side of your mouth.
higher freqs will sound lower from the rear, but like einsteins theory (and your wife)
its all relative.

Its not relative, its fact, scientific fact. Your response shows that you are hedging and are not sure, but are pretending that you are. This is pretty typical for you, trying to fake that you know something you don't. You are the ultimate fake.


And higher freqs from a straight line path will sound louder than those shooting out from a corner.

I think I already said that in that post, do you have any information of your own to add?


A 7.1 system acts like a 5.1, just with more channels, the extra channel is just as discrete as the rest, unless its a fake 7.1 summed from 5.1 material.
THE REASON the sound "dropped" off when this poster kicked in his back channel was an illusion, that back channel was just louder, probably closer, and needed adjusting.
And had NOTHING to do with that BS you were makin up.:1:

Your explaination if as sorry as your a$$ is. What makes a channel that is louder be percieved as dropping off if it was not doing exactly that, dropping lower in volume? Even if what you say is plausible, what would caused a perceived dullness in the channel? Adjusting the volume will not make the channel any less dull will it?

[pixelthis]

Its not relative, its fact, scientific fact. Your response shows that you are hedging and are not sure, but are pretending that you are. This is pretty typical for you, trying to fake that you know something you don't. You are the ultimate fake.



I think I already said that in that post, do you have any information of your own to add?



Your explaination if as sorry as your a$$ is. What makes a channel that is louder be percieved as dropping off if it was not doing exactly that, dropping lower in volume? Even if what you say is plausible, what would caused a perceived dullness in the channel? Adjusting the volume will not make the channel any less dull will it?


I DUNNO, will graduating from high school make YOU any less dull?
You come up with this complicated answer when its probably just a question of level.
Lower frequencies drop off at lower levels of vollume.
It took some adjusting when I RIGGED UP MY 7.1 SYSTEM:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I DUNNO, will graduating from high school make YOU any less dull?
You come up with this complicated answer when its probably just a question of level.
Lower frequencies drop off at lower levels of vollume.
It took some adjusting when I RIGGED UP MY 7.1 SYSTEM:1:

If it was nothing more than level, then why didn't the original poster mention that the rear surrounds were louder than the sides? He said when he turns on the EX decoding, the side channels get dull, and they DROP in volume. He makes no mention of the volume of the center rear channels. That is not a issue of the level of the center rear at all, its an issue of the steering of the matrixing curcuits, and the level compensation algorythm within the Dolby digital decoding. Sometimes its a very audible process, and sometimes it is completely transparent to the listener.

Your mouth is too big, and your brain is too small. Go back to dumpster diving.

[pixelthis]

And you go back to talking outta both sides of your...
OH WAIT, YOU'RE DOING THAT ALREADY.
Alot of people think a drop in vollume is a drop in frequency, when they make this claim,
and a freq drop ONLY is quite rare , its usually levels.
Just need to check that first.
ALWAYS check the obvious first:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And you go back to talking outta both sides of your...
OH WAIT, YOU'RE DOING THAT ALREADY.
Alot of people think a drop in vollume is a drop in frequency, when they make this claim,
and a freq drop ONLY is quite rare , its usually levels.
Just need to check that first.
ALWAYS check the obvious first:1:

The poster did not mention a drop in frequency did he? He specifically mention a drop in level, and a rolling off of the high frequency. You are bull$hitting, and it's getting pretty damn sickening. Your stupid noise is a major distraction, and your inaccurate and often times purposefully wrong comments do not help this site one bit.

What is obvious in this case was beyond your technical know how, and you should not have ever responded. What was obvious is his receiver does not handle the switch to EX processing transparently like most receivers do. You can hear the compensation as he engages the switch, and he noticed the steering of the highs towards the EX channels. If things were operating properly, you should never hear these things.

[GMichael]

If things were operating properly, you should never hear these things.

This explains why after switching back and forth between 5.1 and 7.1 about a billion times, I hear very little difference. Just a bit more of an airiness in 7.1. Is that a word?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This explains why after switching back and forth between 5.1 and 7.1 about a billion times, I hear very little difference. Just a bit more of an airiness in 7.1. Is that a word?

Meh, replace it with "air" and you are all set. You should not know EX is there until something is hard steered to the rear. Its presence should be subtle until you reach that point.

[GMichael]

Meh, replace it with "air" and you are all set. You should not know EX is there until something is hard steered to the rear. Its presence should be subtle until you reach that point.
You mean like while playing a video, the fool shooting at me keeps hitting our expensive hutch behind me?

[pixelthis]

This explains why after switching back and forth between 5.1 and 7.1 about a billion times, I hear very little difference. Just a bit more of an airiness in 7.1. Is that a word?

My experience exactly with the latest gimmick to sell gear.
Once you get past 5.1 you are getting into the realm of deminishing returns as far as adding channels.
AND the latest 11 channel monstrosity from yamaha?
GEEEEZE:1:

[basite]

Lower frequencies drop off at lower levels of vollume.
It took some adjusting when I RIGGED UP MY 7.1 SYSTEM:1:


that is with cheap underpowerd gear, I hear every frequency wether the volume is quiet or earthshaking loud.

And I bet it took me more time to rig up my 2 channel system than you spent on your 7.1 system.

[GMichael]

My experience exactly with the latest gimmick to sell gear.
Once you get past 5.1 you are getting into the realm of deminishing returns as far as adding channels.
AND the latest 11 channel monstrosity from yamaha?
GEEEEZE:1:

I still think we need one speaker above and one below. Great for the next Star Wars movie.

[pixelthis]

I still think we need one speaker above and one below. Great for the next Star Wars movie.

This is what gets me about 7.1, theres a speaker on top and bottom
in the back

SEEMS LIKE MORE VALUE TO HAVE TWO IN THE FRONT:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I still think we need one speaker above and one below. Great for the next Star Wars movie.

The one above has already been tried. The Patriot was remixed by yours truely to be played back in one theater in Arizona as a test for a overhead channel. The test was successful, however it crashed and burned in the face of processor costs for theater owners.

[GMichael]

The one above has already been tried. The Patriot was remixed by yours truely to be played back in one theater in Arizona as a test for a overhead channel. The test was successful, however it crashed and burned in the face of processor costs for theater owners.

Maybe next gen. Sure would be cool for dog fights ect.
It's bad enough when you hear a knock knock knock right behind you. What if that creepy alien comes up from under your seat.:yikes: