Silicon Optix HQV Question [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Silicon Optix HQV Question



nightflier
05-27-2008, 04:23 PM
Is there an advantage to having a TV with Silicon Optix HQV processing (such as Olevia's 747i) as well as a player (such as the Samsung BD-P1500) with the same chipset?

elapsed
05-27-2008, 07:11 PM
I can't see an advantage to both devices having HQV video processing - my preference would be towards the TV having HQV, this will benefit all of your sources. Then be sure to output native resolution from your sources to get the strongest video processing (for instance, output 480i from your DVD player if at all possible, and allow the set to perform the upconversion and processing).

Mr Peabody
05-27-2008, 08:17 PM
Does the 1500 have the Silicon Optix chip? The generation after the 1200 did not. It would be great if Samsung went back to using the chip but I have my doubts they did. The 1500 is still very new and I haven't seen a feature list that gives the video chip or chips used. The newer machines all went with a single video chip that did both HD and SD made by Sigma Design and the SD playback suffered.

nightflier
05-28-2008, 03:39 PM
Does the 1500 have the Silicon Optix chip?

Oops, I meant the 1200. Here's a partial list of supported hardware:

http://www.hqv.com/products.cfm

I'm leaning towards the Denon DVD-2500BT, but at $1K, that's still a bit steep, especially since I can buy Toshiba's XA2 for $50, although I would then only use it for DVD upscaling.

Maybe I'm not asking the right question.

What is so special about the Silicon Optix HQV chip? And if it is special, then why would I want it in the TV and not the source? Also, are there lesser versions of the chip that I should stay clear of?

bobsticks
05-28-2008, 04:06 PM
I'm under the impression that as long as the television has a native resolution of 1080p that it won't rescale anything that's fed to it. This may be cost effective depending on how often you upgrade, especially since the newest VXP/Gennum chip reportedly outdoes the SO.

I recognize elapsed point but, at the same time, if you're insistent on being cutting edge it may or may not be more cost effective to replace the player rather than the TV. In other words you might wait a minute and see if SO-based chip machines become less expensive through the trickledown process.

Mr Peabody
05-28-2008, 04:24 PM
The Silicon Optix chip does very good DVD playback. The 1200 has separate chips for HD and SD. You should check Amazon.com for the 1200, I bought a refurb for $266.00. The 1200 lacks the newest HD audio decoding and you will need to make sure the firmware is up to date but it's DVD playback is unrivalled in BR players. You might be able to find the CNET review of the 1200. The upscaling and where it is best done is a mystery to me and all I can say is one just has to experiment. I can say that the 1200's I have look excellent in both HD and SD with my Sony tube and Toshiba DLP.

The only chip I'd say be weary of, and this is only for DVD playback, is the Sigma Design. Reviews of all current machines show the Sigma fails many DVD video tests on test discs. The Sigma is a single chip used now that does both HD and SD. The Sigma seems to do very well on BR discs but one reviewer when talking about the DVD playback said, "I've seen better pictures on a sub $99.00 DVD player".

Sir T and I have been debating this DVD playback thing, I maintain BR players should still do good DVD playback, while ST says it's not necessary and ain't going to happen anymore. So are you willing to buy a $399.00 or so BR player and buy a separate DVD player like the Oppo to get good DVD playback? Another consideration for me and I'd think others as well is simple shelf space. In today's multi-media world space is important. I just don't understand why it's such a problem to go back to good DVD playback.

pixelthis
05-28-2008, 10:25 PM
The Silicon Optix chip does very good DVD playback. The 1200 has separate chips for HD and SD. You should check Amazon.com for the 1200, I bought a refurb for $266.00. The 1200 lacks the newest HD audio decoding and you will need to make sure the firmware is up to date but it's DVD playback is unrivalled in BR players. You might be able to find the CNET review of the 1200. The upscaling and where it is best done is a mystery to me and all I can say is one just has to experiment. I can say that the 1200's I have look excellent in both HD and SD with my Sony tube and Toshiba DLP.

The only chip I'd say be weary of, and this is only for DVD playback, is the Sigma Design. Reviews of all current machines show the Sigma fails many DVD video tests on test discs. The Sigma is a single chip used now that does both HD and SD. The Sigma seems to do very well on BR discs but one reviewer when talking about the DVD playback said, "I've seen better pictures on a sub $99.00 DVD player".

Sir T and I have been debating this DVD playback thing, I maintain BR players should still do good DVD playback, while ST says it's not necessary and ain't going to happen anymore. So are you willing to buy a $399.00 or so BR player and buy a separate DVD player like the Oppo to get good DVD playback? Another consideration for me and I'd think others as well is simple shelf space. In today's multi-media world space is important. I just don't understand why it's such a problem to go back to good DVD playback.


Afraid you're tilting at a windmill.
It seems that the industry has already decided the issue.
it may seem wrong headed now, but a few years down the road, when everything
is blu and dvd has taken the place of other obsolete formats you will wonder what you were fussing about.
I HAVE A CLOSET full of laserdiscs, some costing upwards of 60 bucks each,
thought once that one of those cheap players off of ebay might allow me to enjoy them some, but finally decided to say bye to that format.
Someday my DVD collection will be parked next to it, just a matter of time.
Remember the "HQ" improvements in VCR'S that came out a few years after the vcr came out?
They were incorporated into the format quite seamlessly.
Seems like blu will be the same way, incorporated into the dvd format .
Or maybe be like SVHS, ignored completely.:1:

nightflier
06-03-2008, 02:53 PM
The Silicon Optix chip does very good DVD playback. The 1200 has separate chips for HD and SD. You should check Amazon.com for the 1200, I bought a refurb for $266.00. The 1200 lacks the newest HD audio decoding and you will need to make sure the firmware is up to date but it's DVD playback is unrivalled in BR players. You might be able to find the CNET review of the 1200. The upscaling and where it is best done is a mystery to me and all I can say is one just has to experiment. I can say that the 1200's I have look excellent in both HD and SD with my Sony tube and Toshiba DLP.

The only chip I'd say be weary of, and this is only for DVD playback, is the Sigma Design. Reviews of all current machines show the Sigma fails many DVD video tests on test discs. The Sigma is a single chip used now that does both HD and SD. The Sigma seems to do very well on BR discs but one reviewer when talking about the DVD playback said, "I've seen better pictures on a sub $99.00 DVD player".

Sir T and I have been debating this DVD playback thing, I maintain BR players should still do good DVD playback, while ST says it's not necessary and ain't going to happen anymore. So are you willing to buy a $399.00 or so BR player and buy a separate DVD player like the Oppo to get good DVD playback? Another consideration for me and I'd think others as well is simple shelf space. In today's multi-media world space is important. I just don't understand why it's such a problem to go back to good DVD playback.

So it seems the best option is to have the chip in the TV, then? That way, no matter what I feed it, the TV will do the conversion. I guess that leads me back to the Olevia 747i. At $1100, it's just a screaming deal. It's motion blur is very minimal so eventhough it does not have 120Hz, it's still at the top of my list. And this way I can wait a little while before I buy the BR player (currently I'm borrowing a PS3, but everything else I have is either component or DVI - so I haven't been doing much with it).

I agree that it makes little sense having two players. I've been giving serious thought to the latest Panasonic player just because it has such good audio support, but there are a other issues with that player. Since I also still don't have the pre/pro I want, I suppose I still have some research to do.

natronforever
06-03-2008, 03:03 PM
So Nightflier, have you seen the 747i? What are your thoughts? Man, I've been looking at it a lot lately, because of it's low price, but I can't bring myself to pull the trigger, so to speak. It's hard for me to buy something so big online. If something goes wrong, it's such a hassle. Are you going to be purchasing it soon?

Mr Peabody
06-03-2008, 07:23 PM
Buying online you want to try to use a reputable site. Read the site to see if there are any restocking fees on returns and what their return policy is. Down the road problems are usually taken care under warranty and can be done locally. Most any retailer on or off line is usually more than willing to sell you an extended warranty for more protection.

I bought my 62" DLP from www.crutchfield.com as well as a host of other things and can highly recommend them. I bought a Sharp LCD from some place online and that transaction went smoothly, I saved enough to get an extra warranty on it. It goes against my grain to promote online buying but anymore a local store don't do anything more for you. They don't help with warranty, or anything. The only thing you get is a pimply face, minimum wage, poor individual forced to hear the wrath of disgruntalled customers.

If you buy online with a good credit card company it gives you a bit more added protection. Discover usually doesn't have the lowest rate but they have been great on detecting credit card theft and taking a charge back report right on the phone. Some credit cards want you to fill out a form and send it back.

What I'm trying to say is buying online from an established retailer is not a big deal and shouldn't be a concern. Look around many will even give you free shipping. Amazon.com is another good place to buy online, if they don't sell it themselves you can still buy through them and the other site ships it. So establishing an account with them is an option.

pixelthis
06-04-2008, 12:14 AM
Buying online you want to try to use a reputable site. Read the site to see if there are any restocking fees on returns and what their return policy is. Down the road problems are usually taken care under warranty and can be done locally. Most any retailer on or off line is usually more than willing to sell you an extended warranty for more protection.

I bought my 62" DLP from www.crutchfield.com as well as a host of other things and can highly recommend them. I bought a Sharp LCD from some place online and that transaction went smoothly, I saved enough to get an extra warranty on it. It goes against my grain to promote online buying but anymore a local store don't do anything more for you. They don't help with warranty, or anything. The only thing you get is a pimply face, minimum wage, poor individual forced to hear the wrath of disgruntalled customers.

If you buy online with a good credit card company it gives you a bit more added protection. Discover usually doesn't have the lowest rate but they have been great on detecting credit card theft and taking a charge back report right on the phone. Some credit cards want you to fill out a form and send it back.

What I'm trying to say is buying online from an established retailer is not a big deal and shouldn't be a concern. Look around many will even give you free shipping. Amazon.com is another good place to buy online, if they don't sell it themselves you can still buy through them and the other site ships it. So establishing an account with them is an option.


Crutch is a good company but they charge retail.
AND some bad news MR. P, just read a review of Pannys new blu player,
and it was rather, shall we say estatic?
THE 1.1 PLAYER loads faster, looks great, but guess what?
STANDARD DVD playback sux.
So it looks like the trend is continuing.
Sorry Mr P :1:

nightflier
06-04-2008, 01:03 PM
So Nightflier, have you seen the 747i? What are your thoughts? Man, I've been looking at it a lot lately, because of it's low price, but I can't bring myself to pull the trigger, so to speak. It's hard for me to buy something so big online. If something goes wrong, it's such a hassle. Are you going to be purchasing it soon?

The 747i is selling at MicroCenter in Tustin, CA at $1100, even with tax, it still cheaper than Tiger or Amazon. Also, Syntax Brillian which makes Olevias, is right here in SoCal as well, so I can always shlep the TV over there if I need to. Who knows maybe I'll buy it this weekend...

The 747i, by the way, is a friggin' 123 lbs. monster. The image is 47" exactly (I measured it), but the glass plate in front of it adds another 2" all the way around (kind of like the Sony XBR). The speakers are removable, and hanging on a wall w/o the speakers it makes for a truly stunning screen. Next to the other LCDs in the store, it looks a bit less bright, but that won't matter inside the home and that SO chip really does work miracles, at least from everything the sales reps let me throw at it. I'll tell you weighing the Samsung A650 40 inches against the Olevia's 47 inches, not to mention that the latter costs $400 less, makes me wonder why I don't just buy it. I was considering this TV back when it was $2500, so now it's really hard to resist.

FYI: if the 747i is a bit too large, Olevia also has a 42 inch 742i, that has identical specs and weighs less, too. Shipping should be less expensive and will probably experience less problems with the shippers.

If you're worried about buying online, the absolute best customer service I've ever received was from Crutchfield, but you pay for that, though. They also don't offer extended warranties, if that's important to you, but they do honor their own warranty extremely well. As Pix said, you'll pay retail for that, but if you care about service, then there are few places that have as good of a reputation.

(And they carry Thiel and PS Audio as well.)

natronforever
06-04-2008, 02:13 PM
Tiger is now selling it for $999. Now I'm really thinking.

Mr Peabody
06-04-2008, 04:34 PM
I've seen links for extended warranty through Crutchfield you have to click on the item and go into the particulars. They do mostly stick to retail but run some deals on stuff, you just have to shop them.

Pix, I've got two 1200's to hold me over for a while. If I upgrade my processor some day then I will keep my eye out for one of the higher end units with the realto to come down in price or some one to give a deal.

nightflier
06-10-2008, 01:58 PM
So just to bring this to a close, there is no communication between two devices using the HQV chipset, not even over HDMI 1.3+?

Mr Peabody
06-11-2008, 03:31 PM
I'm not exactly sure of the particulars of the communication problem, I think it's just a quirky thing between only certain brands. I've been told that when 2 pieces connect via HDMI that they share over 20 signals to see what each other can handle etc. So far this is just things I've been told, I haven't had a chance to really do much research on the matter. I thought our resident insider know-it-all might chime in. You know there have been problems in the past with certain brands working with Denon receivers and such I think it's a similar situation. It's a pain for those who have to deal with it but the companies usually iron it out eventually. I'll try to find out more and post back.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-12-2008, 11:07 AM
I'm not exactly sure of the particulars of the communication problem, I think it's just a quirky thing between only certain brands. I've been told that when 2 pieces connect via HDMI that they share over 20 signals to see what each other can handle etc. So far this is just things I've been told, I haven't had a chance to really do much research on the matter. I thought our resident insider know-it-all might chime in. You know there have been problems in the past with certain brands working with Denon receivers and such I think it's a similar situation. It's a pain for those who have to deal with it but the companies usually iron it out eventually. I'll try to find out more and post back.

Peabody, why should I chime in? The vast amounts of information that you and boy in dress have between you would far overshadow what I know. By the way, no there is not 20 signals in a HDMI handshake. There is a simple protocol authentication, authentication key check, and a new key assigned and exchanged. That does not take 20 signals to do.

To the boy in dress. There is always a communication between two devices when connected through HDMI or the handshake would fail. What version of HDMI is irrelevant. The HQV chip has nothing to do with the process, it is just a scaling chip and not part of the HDMI protocol. If you had just given you original question some forethought, you probably wouldn't have asked it. The best place for a HQV chip is where it would benefit the most sources. That would be the television if you just thought about it. If the 1200 doesn't function correctly(and there is that chance with that player) you still have a good upscaler in your television. Also the HQV chip is not going to help you much with bluray playback, its is already mastered at 1080p, so there is nothing to scale. Besides, the PS3 does a very good job of upscaling DVD's, so I am not sure you even need the HQV processing with it.

Sticks, thanks for holdin this one down. If you had not chimed in, the amount of educated discourse would have been near zero. Even Pixie made some sense here! Go Pixie!!!

Mr Peabody
06-12-2008, 06:06 PM
Well you know your name, or who is being referred to when you hear it.

I still need to do some checking but I think you are wrong on this, my BR player and HD satelite receiver automatically set themselves to the display, if there isn't any exchange how do they do that. I was told there are also other communications between the two pieces being connected via HDMI. The key thing you refer to is just HDCP, that's not the only reason for HDMI.

Mr Peabody
06-12-2008, 07:31 PM
Here's a laudry list of communications that will be done:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:gym1zffjExkJ:www.hdmi.org/devcon/presentations/2007_DevCon_SiliconImage_English.pdf+hdmi+communic ates&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

The patent for HDMI seems to indicate a mess of commincating going on:
http://www.freshpatents.com/Solution-for-consumer-electronics-control-dt20060504ptan20060095596.php

Good interview, notice Steve Venuti says HDMI is a "two way communication between devices".
http://www1.electronichouse.com/info/specials/hdmi_basics.html

I'm under the impression there's a whole lot of communicating between digital devices via HDMI. I'll assume ST may have misunderstood the question.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-13-2008, 10:16 AM
Well you know your name, or who is being referred to when you hear it.

The model of maturity. I guess if I say Resident idiot, you'll answer.


I still need to do some checking but I think you are wrong on this, my BR player and HD satelite receiver automatically set themselves to the display, if there isn't any exchange how do they do that.

That is not part of the handshake, that is a completely different process within HDMI


I was told there are also other communications between the two pieces being connected via HDMI. The key thing you refer to is just HDCP, that's not the only reason for HDMI.

You are apparently mixing up too many processes. There is the handshake, their are bitstream latency processes(which is completely different from the handshake), their are bitstream control functions, and many other communication AFTER the handshake takes place. But it is not even close to 20 different things, even after the handshake has taken place.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-13-2008, 12:15 PM
Here's a laudry list of communications that will be done:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:gym1zffjExkJ:www.hdmi.org/devcon/presentations/2007_DevCon_SiliconImage_English.pdf+hdmi+communic ates&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

The patent for HDMI seems to indicate a mess of commincating going on:
http://www.freshpatents.com/Solution-for-consumer-electronics-control-dt20060504ptan20060095596.php

Good interview, notice Steve Venuti says HDMI is a "two way communication between devices".
http://www1.electronichouse.com/info/specials/hdmi_basics.html

I'm under the impression there's a whole lot of communicating between digital devices via HDMI. I'll assume ST may have misunderstood the question.

No I didn't misunderstand the question. The HDMI specs that are listed are what HDMI CAN DO, not what it is doing now. HDMI 1.3 and 1.3a are forward looking updates. I said it was two way communication between two components in the first place, that what the handshake is. You seem to have got it in your thick head that all this communication is going on all the time, and that is not the case at all.

For instance. The increase in bandwidth is a look forward spec, as there is nothing right now that challenges the old bandwidth of 165mhz. No product uses deep color, and there is no video format that support deep color. It would require a huge amount of storage space on disc to do it. xvYCC extended color is also not used in any current video format, and most television sold today couldn't support it anyway. Lip sync compensation will only kick in if the dialog gets out of sync with the picture. That will only occur if there are two different processing SOURCES handling audio and video, like my system has. Most folks just pass both audio and video through the receiver, so there are no latency issues to deal with.

At any given time while watching a movie, the only thing going on through HDMI is the video stream and metadata, the audio stream and metadata, and latency checking, that is it. That is not 20 signals no matter how you slice it.

Presenting information without context is misinformation. If you do not understand what you are reading(which is your case), then maybe you should not post it. You won't know what you are talking about(which is your case)

Mr Peabody
06-13-2008, 04:25 PM
The articles speak for themselves and those who read them can interpret for themselves.

You embellish and twist things to cover your own stupidity. That's why you always have to be the first to start name calling and attaching adjectives. The article clearly makes a distinction between what HDMI is now and what may be down the road. I also was clear that the "20" figure was something that was communicated to me. You also added your comment about the communication between devices would not be constant when no one said it would be. From the first article the communication is more significant than you are willing to admit. You are clearly a "wanna be", a poser. I gave you an opening, you could have said you misunderstood, or nothing at all would have been great but not you, you have to spin, misquote and embellish to try to save face. The article and interview are from those who are truly in the industry I will tend to believe them if that's alright with you. You can go back to sweeping the floors for whatever company you claim to work for. It's interesting you have a bald head, a common thing amongst you penuses.

nightflier
06-14-2008, 03:56 AM
Gee another thread lil'terry is going to smear his stench all over. 'Wonder if FA is reading this one?

It just never stops with you, does it lil'terry? Again, you start with the insults and the name calling. Look, if you can't be civil, stay out of threads others start with a ligit question. Or is it not allowed to ask questions anymore either? Does everyone who asks a question about anything remotely related to HDMI risk getting run over with your insults?

Bottom line, if your insults make your contributions to the discussion a pain to read through, stay the hell away! If you cared at all about the topic, you'd take care not to debase your own point of view with attacks that turn everyone off. If no one reads your posts anymore, what's the point of participating?

Aren't there any moderators here?
______________________________________

For what it's worth, nothing said so far has convinced me that two components having bi-directional communication capability are not communicating about the video processing in each. For example, maybe the two components could be deciding which one has the better video processing capability and hand the processing to the better one? With chipsets produced from the same source, such as HQV, that is even more likely. This concept isn't exactly rocket science and I know it is implemented in other industries (ie computers).

Mr Peabody
06-14-2008, 05:30 AM
NF did you read any of the links yet? The components definitely communicate and HDMI was designed for that two way exchange.

nightflier
06-15-2008, 06:38 PM
NF did you read any of the links yet? The components definitely communicate and HDMI was designed for that two way exchange.

Yes, but the links did not specifically address the question of this post. I realize HDMI is capable of bi-directional communication, but does that extend to video processing?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-18-2008, 10:58 AM
The articles speak for themselves and those who read them can interpret for themselves.

You embellish and twist things to cover your own stupidity. That's why you always have to be the first to start name calling and attaching adjectives. The article clearly makes a distinction between what HDMI is now and what may be down the road. I also was clear that the "20" figure was something that was communicated to me. You also added your comment about the communication between devices would not be constant when no one said it would be. From the first article the communication is more significant than you are willing to admit. You are clearly a "wanna be", a poser. I gave you an opening, you could have said you misunderstood, or nothing at all would have been great but not you, you have to spin, misquote and embellish to try to save face. The article and interview are from those who are truly in the industry I will tend to believe them if that's alright with you. You can go back to sweeping the floors for whatever company you claim to work for. It's interesting you have a bald head, a common thing amongst you penuses.

Peabody, you cannot cover your ignorant tracks with this sorry azz post. The fact is, you do not know what the heck HDMI does or doesn't do. This shows in the fact you do not know embellishment from fact, or you azz from a hole in the ground when it comes to this stuff. Stop being a little girl, and just admit you do not know what you are talking about and call it a day.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-18-2008, 11:23 AM
Gee another thread lil'terry is going to smear his stench all over. 'Wonder if FA is reading this one?

You looking for her shoulder to cry on. Passive/aggressive on steriods!


It just never stops with you, does it lil'terry? Again, you start with the insults and the name calling. Look, if you can't be civil, stay out of threads others start with a ligit question. Or is it not allowed to ask questions anymore either? Does everyone who asks a question about anything remotely related to HDMI risk getting run over with your insults?

No problem with legit questions. Question where the OP wants us to think for him are troublesome. Especially when the OP doesn't have the capacity to understand the answer in the first place. If you just sat and thought this out, there would be no need to ask it.


Bottom line, if your insults make your contributions to the discussion a pain to read through, stay the hell away! If you cared at all about the topic, you'd take care not to debase your own point of view with attacks that turn everyone off. If no one reads your posts anymore, what's the point of participating?

I asked you to stay out of my posts, you refused. So now do not expect any grace from me. If you continue to ask stupid questions, and people stop reading them, what's the point of your participation?


Aren't there any moderators here?

Looking for another shoulder to cry on?
______________________________________


For what it's worth, nothing said so far has convinced me that two components having bi-directional communication capability are not communicating about the video processing in each. For example, maybe the two components could be deciding which one has the better video processing capability and hand the processing to the better one? With chipsets produced from the same source, such as HQV, that is even more likely. This concept isn't exactly rocket science and I know it is implemented in other industries (ie computers).

You are just clueless little boy in dress, just freakin clueless. Between you and peahead there isn't an ounce of good information between you.

This is not computers, so leave whatever information you seem to want to superimpose on to audio and video out of the equation; it will do you no good.

Scaling has nothing to do with HDMI, NOTHING. No, the HDMI connection does not address which component has the better scaling than the other, that is something you have to know about yourself(yes you have to think). It just passes the video stream as it is post processed from the chipset itself. This process is NOT part of the two way communication between to HDMI based components.

When you own audioreview, then you can tell me when and where to post. Since you don't, you'll just have to face the fact that I can post wherever I choose on this site. If you don't like that, let the door hit you on the way out.

nightflier
06-18-2008, 12:24 PM
When you own audioreview, then you can tell me when and where to post. Since you don't, you'll just have to face the fact that I can post wherever I choose on this site. If you don't like that, let the door hit you on the way out.

Funny coming from someone who doesn't want me to post anywhere and who stalks my threads. Contrary to what you suggest, If I owned this site, I would do no such thing. I guess that's the difference between a control freak like yourself and us normal folks. I guess we can all be glad you don't have that kind of power. You do realize that the more insults you throw about, the less people pay attention to you, or does that concept escape you?

The door, for you, lil'terry, was never even open. So stay outside, will you.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-18-2008, 12:48 PM
Funny coming from someone who doesn't want me to post anywhere and who stalks my threads. Contrary to what you suggest, If I owned this site, I would do no such thing. I guess that's the difference between a control freak like yourself and us normal folks. I guess we can all be glad you don't have that kind of power. You do realize that the more insults you throw about, the less people pay attention to you, or does that concept escape you?

I personally do not care where you post. Wherever you do, you are not much help anyway. How do you know someone is a control freak when you have never spent a second watching their actions or interactions? This is what I mean boy in dress, you take a shred of information, and turn it into a conclusion. You did that with the HD DVD and Bluray thread, you did it in my personal thread, and guess what, you were wrong on both accounts. Who is stalking who? You saw my post, and up pops your ignorant self with your ignorant analysis and conclusions front and center. Stick to what you know boy in dress. Since that is not much, it should not be all that taxing on you.


The door, for you, lil'terry, was never even open. So stay outside, will you.

Who is the control freak? Or would that be coward?

How do you know what everyone is doing? You talk to them all, just like you have read all 2000+ of my post?

You think you are normal? LOLOLOL, that's a laugh!!

nightflier
06-19-2008, 12:35 PM
I personally do not care where you post.

Then why say: "I asked you to stay out of my posts" just before that? I mean, it's not like this is from a whole other thread or seven posts back, like it often is with you. No this one just rolled off your tongue in the previous post. Are you just not aware of what you're saying anymore? Or are you just flip-floppin' like Dubious, our Commander in Thief? I don't know, lil'terry, this reads like insanity to me....


How do you know someone is a control freak when you have never spent a second watching their actions or interactions?

Well, as much as I sense a sick penchant for someone watching your every move, no, I do not sit there and watch you - eeeck. But I actually do get plenty of examples just from seeing you stumble all over yourself in just about every thread. Your posts are exemplary of a control freak, lil'terry; you should read them, really!


you take a shred of information, and turn it into a conclusion.

This past half year's worth of your arrogant self-aggrandizing, denigrating and insulting posts are more than what I would call a "shred of information," lil'terry.


Who is stalking who?

You! That's who. I bet you won't be able to let this thread go either, you'll have to have the last word ad infinitum, won't you? You can't let things go, lil'terry, because you're a control freak, just like I've said so many times already.


You saw my post, and up pops your ignorant self with your ignorant analysis and conclusions front and center.

Ignorant? I think I was pretty spot on. However you want to spin it, your ex has issues with your controlling nature and the tat was proof of that. More importantly, your inflexibility in dealing with it and your search for vindication from the rest of us here (well certainly not from me), speaks volumes about your obsessive personality. But let's leave your personal life off this site, shall we? It has nothing to do with this thread. And don't even start criticizing my bringing it up here, you opened that door first, lil'terry. Now I'm closing it and I hope to god you leave it closed - it's way too sick and twisted for general readership.


Stick to what you know.... Since that is not much, it should not be all that taxing on you.

More insults. Look lil'terry, I know plenty, but unlike you, I don't need to brag about it. Nor do I need to show others how much more I think I know than them. This is becoming routine with you, lil'terry, and it's becoming a joke to read your posts. I'm sure the people here are going to open up their browsers over their lunch breaks and say: " 'wonder how much deeper lil'terry is going to dig himself now.... Should be entertaining."

Isn't this getting through your thick chrome-dome? The more you throw insults, the more people dismiss you. Wana continue, fine, keep digging, lil'terry.


Who is the control freak? Or would that be coward?

Well, I've already pointed out in a dozens ways how you're a control freak. And since you want to go further with the psychological analysis: yes, most control freaks are cowards too. I guess if the shoe fits....


How do you know what everyone is doing? You talk to them all...?

No I don't talk to them all, but I get enough PMs to know that you are one disturbed little freak. More importantly, the one recurring theme is that the more insults you throw out, the less people consider you an authority on anything. You debase your own arguments with insults, and that must be terribly frustrating to a control freak like yourself, now isn't it?


Between you and peahead there isn't an ounce of good information between you.

Actually I think Mr. P. has had some very useful information not just for my questions but also for others who've had the guts to ask questions on this forum. You know, there's another thread elsewhere, started by the webmaster asking people for comments on the website (there's been a few of these), and here's one comment I have: can we get people to stop insulting each other? I'm all for a lively debate, but the insults, the off-color comments, and the threats aren't necessary. And yes, I'm talking about your belligerent attitude.


You think you are normal? LOLOLOL, that's a laugh!!

Compared to you? Hey look, I don't insult anyone who disagrees with me. I don't call people liars. I don't try to control the discussions. I don't brag about my "John Curl personally customized amps". I don't have shady relationships with industry insiders. I don't insult and disparage women, children, people with same gender-preferences, people with different cultural backgrounds, or people who may not know as much about a topic as I do. I don't threaten, harass and stalk others on this board or promise to harm their families. I could go on but most exemplary: I don't air my private life on an audio-specific forum looking for my imaginary friends to vindicate my impulsive decisions.

Yeah, and all that represents a model of normalcy? OK, lil'terry, you go on with your bad self. Let me get you a shovel....

____________________________________________

So now that we have that out of the way, let's get back to the topic.


This is not computers, so leave whatever information you seem to want to superimpose on to audio and video out of the equation; it will do you no good.

You know you've been trying to throw that in everybody's face as far back as I can remember. The only reason for such an ignorant statement is that I think you are afraid of computers. The reality is that computers and yes, even your dreaded boogie man, the Internet, are converging with traditional audio technology in more ways than you are willing to acknowledge. I guess that's one topic of discussion you can't seem to get complete control over, so you pretend it's a non-issue, right? Don''t believe me? Let's review your "lively" debates about the X-box with GB and others who according to you "don't have a clue...."


Scaling has nothing to do with HDMI, NOTHING. No, the HDMI connection does not address which component has the better scaling than the other, that is something you have to know about yourself(yes you have to think). It just passes the video stream as it is post processed from the chipset itself. This process is NOT part of the two way communication between to HDMI based components.

OK, now here I will grant you I don't know enough about this topic. But just because I don't know, does not mean I should not be allowed to ask the question. You see, that's a control-freak kind of behavior, lil'terry. But let's look deeper at this issue, as that is the crux of why I started this thread. Since HDMI does transfer information related to color, bit-depth, and general picture quality, is it not possible for two HDMI components to decide , through their HDMI-standard-sanctioned bidirectional communication, which one would be the best at it? Perhaps video scaling isn't part of that decision making communication, but it's entirely possible that some decision is being made across that HDMI connection.

(And I sincerely hope you haven't scared off truly knowledgeable people that might have been reading this thread and had something truly useful to contribute to the discussion, especially since I don't consider you an authority on this, and I certainly don't care for your delivery of any possibly interesting information about it.)

You see, with HDMI, we have for the first time two computer chips (yes computer chips, lil'terry, no need to get scared), talking to each other and making decisions based on that discussion. Before, with analog connections (composite, s-video, and component), everything was one-directional and no recipient computer chips were there to send a message back across the wire saying: "hey buddy, you're a lot better at this, why don't you handle that?" So before we get so absolute and start with the absolutes and shouting the word "NOTHING" around (more control-freak behavior), let's consider, at the very least, the possibility that something does get sent back and forth.

Now, I'll admit, I'm way out of my league in understanding the communications over HDMI, but isn't it true that HDCP does in fact performs exactly the behavior we are discussing, albeit, very primitively? That is: if a specific security bit is not found on any one segment of the HDMI chain, the HDCP tells all devices in both directions in the communication line: "Homey don't play dat!" Now if HDCP makes that possible, then why is it not possible to send other info back and forth? Maybe it's possible to have, instead of just a security bit on said device, also an "image quality" bit, of maybe a "color depth" bit that travels the HDMI chain and decides which one of the devices should handle the processing of the bit in question.

And while I don't want to get lil'terry more upset about this, the reasoning behind this comes from the computer industry. With Firewire connections, this type of information can indeed be transfered back and forth. Now I'm not at all saying that Firewire is an adequate alternative, but I am saying that the capability is there and that what we can learn about this example is also applicable to the audio/video industry. And while Firewire may be more computerese than lil'terry can stomach right now, the fact is that this communication medium also exists in some home-electronic devices (albeit less an less so) and that it also supports HDCP (via DTCP). Ironic how this is just such an example of an already existing convergence between computers and audio/video? Of course, this is also exemplary of how an understanding of technology in one industry can be applied to another industry, but I think lil'terry soiled himself from his head spinning so much, so I'll stop there.

____________________________________________

And lil'terry, if you can't stay on topic now, please don't post. It's really becoming so juvenile to watch you flip-floppin', throwing tantrums, and just plain debasing yourself on this thread. It's only funny up to a point, and I'm really getting tired of having to re-quote your own stupidity back to you. I started this thread with a ligit question, and if you can't contribute maturely, then just stay out of it. And yes, I took some punches here, too, but let's remember who started with the unnecessary insults.

Mr Peabody
06-19-2008, 06:24 PM
It probably depends on the receiver how it treats video but most upconversion there will be to a resolution that can be passed through the HDMI. I don't think you will get companies to conceed who is the better chip maker for conversion. My guess is if your video source is already the resolution of the TV it will bypass any other conversion. For instance, if your BR player is 1080p already it won't need any changes and if your TV has a 1080p native rez then you are fine. Let's watch a VHS it may hit your receiver get stepped up to 1080p and then hit the TV at 1080p and not need any other conversion. If the VHS goes to the TV directly or your receiver only goes up to 1080i, then your TV may have to step it up a notch to hit 1080p. I guess the best path will require some experimenting.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-22-2008, 05:03 PM
Then why say: "I asked you to stay out of my posts" just before that? I mean, it's not like this is from a whole other thread or seven posts back, like it often is with you. No this one just rolled off your tongue in the previous post. Are you just not aware of what you're saying anymore? Or are you just flip-floppin' like Dubious, our Commander in Thief? I don't know, lil'terry, this reads like insanity to me....

Everything sounds like insanity to you boy in dress. Hit the needle and move on to something else, you sound like a broken record.


Well, as much as I sense a sick penchant for someone watching your every move, no, I do not sit there and watch you - eeeck. But I actually do get plenty of examples just from seeing you stumble all over yourself in just about every thread. Your posts are exemplary of a control freak, lil'terry; you should read them, really!

Your weak amatuerish online analysis is laughable if not just a little immature. If you want to be a psychologist, go to school and stop faking it. Or is being a fake what you are really after? Sure seems like it:yesnod:



This past half year's worth of your arrogant self-aggrandizing, denigrating and insulting posts are more than what I would call a "shred of information," lil'terry.

And this half years worth of your uneducated, uniformed, ill analyzed, amatuerish and naive opinions are far more torture than anyone deserves. You think you know me from posting on Audioreview. What about the other 23 hours I don't? This is how shallow and full of crap your comments are. You take a little posting here, and think you know all about somebody. You are about as deep as a pool of spit on a sidewalk boy in dress.




You! That's who. I bet you won't be able to let this thread go either, you'll have to have the last word ad infinitum, won't you? You can't let things go, lil'terry, because you're a control freak, just like I've said so many times already.

No, I will not have the last word. You will, and you have proven it with over 10 pages in one thread where you knew you didn't have a leg to stand on, and another 8 pages in another where you admitted that you didn't know anything, but continued to argue like you did. You are a poser, a faker, and you just hate anyone that pulls the wool off of your cover.




Ignorant? I think I was pretty spot on. However you want to spin it, your ex has issues with your controlling nature and the tat was proof of that. More importantly, your inflexibility in dealing with it and your search for vindication from the rest of us here (well certainly not from me), speaks volumes about your obsessive personality. But let's leave your personal life off this site, shall we? It has nothing to do with this thread. And don't even start criticizing my bringing it up here, you opened that door first, lil'terry. Now I'm closing it and I hope to god you leave it closed - it's way too sick and twisted for general readership.

You advance this, and still have not answered my question. How can you give the detailed analysis without even meeting her, meeting me personally, or watching us both interact? You can't and you know you can't. In that very thread, most folks acknowledged that you really cannot KNOW a person online, yet you seem superhuman and can do things that no human can do. So either you are a liar, a fake, or both. I go for that latter.

Your closing it, and you call me a control freak? You cannot close a damn thing, and you have proven that time and time again. Even though nothing you said was even close to the truth, you continue to attempt to FORCE it to be the truth to satisfy some weak passive/aggressive agenda you seem to be on. Boring. That tat had nothing to do with me, as much as it had to do with her bending to peer pressure. You read this, but yet you do not want to believe it because it does not fit into your Sir T is a(name your poison) person. All of this personalizing everything is an attempt to hide the fact that you do not know a damn thing about audio and video, and you certainly do not want me around to point that out.:yesnod:




More insults. Look lil'terry, I know plenty, but unlike you, I don't need to brag about it.

Oh you know plenty alright. Can you teach us all how to balance the level of you speakers using acoustical foam? Or how to get a pure DSD stream from a DVD player incapable of passing one? Or maybe this one; how to increase the value of your bluray player sitting in your home. You just sink a ship carry some bluray players, and all of a sudden your bluray players value goes up! Or, this priceless one, how to create the cleanest path for SACD playback. You stick a analog bass manager into the path even though there is digital bass management already there. Yeah, you can teach us alot:rolleyes:

Do you know the difference between bragging and demonstrating? If you can demonstrate you have the knowledge through posts, then you don't need to brag about it.



Nor do I need to show others how much more I think I know than them.

You can't possibly do this even if you tried. You actually have to know more than someone else to do this. Even pixie knows more than you, and that ain't sayin anything:nonod:


This is becoming routine with you, lil'terry, and it's becoming a joke to read your posts. I'm sure the people here are going to open up their browsers over their lunch breaks and say: " 'wonder how much deeper lil'terry is going to dig himself now.... Should be entertaining."

Actually, I would think this would better apply to you. I mean really boy in dress, acoustical foam to balance the speakers level? Upscaling chips talking to each other? To any knowledgeable person, this is pretty entertaining. :yesnod:


Isn't this getting through your thick chrome-dome? The more you throw insults, the more people dismiss you. Wana continue, fine, keep digging, lil'terry.

You just threw another insult yourself just now. So I guess you are dismissed yourself. That is all.....skidaddle little boy in dress


Well, I've already pointed out in a dozens ways how you're a control freak. And since you want to go further with the psychological analysis: yes, most control freaks are cowards too. I guess if the shoe fits....

Put it on boy in dress, it fits you just fine.....nice snug fit:yesnod:.......:lol:


No I don't talk to them all, but I get enough PMs to know that you are one disturbed little freak. More importantly, the one recurring theme is that the more insults you throw out, the less people consider you an authority on anything. You debase your own arguments with insults, and that must be terribly frustrating to a control freak like yourself, now isn't it?

This is how you know a liar. Oh, I get support for my sickness through PM's(where nowbody can see or verify the truth), this is where everyone aggrees with my assessment(yeah, all sixty of your different personalties do aggree there). Oh, and there is the deflection technique, you know, ignore that I throw out equal numbers of insults, but throw the whole thing on the other party. You are hardly free from the insult game little boy in dress. Follow your own advice, or stuff it. I do not care which you do.

Once again the "people" thing. So audioreview has thousands of users, all of them have PM'ed you to tell you that I am not an authority on anything just because I return insults that are dished out to me. How many people are really in that space between your ears? Fifty, one hundred, one thousand? Not much room for a brain if this is true. Your attempts to validate your weak and tired assements are really quite laughable. So here you go, you have earned it:lol:


Actually I think Mr. P. has had some very useful information not just for my questions but also for others who've had the guts to ask questions on this forum. You know, there's another thread elsewhere, started by the webmaster asking people for comments on the website (there's been a few of these), and here's one comment I have: can we get people to stop insulting each other? I'm all for a lively debate, but the insults, the off-color comments, and the threats aren't necessary. And yes, I'm talking about your belligerent attitude.

Peabody doesn't know anymore than you do, which means zero!

Why you are trying to deflect your comments elsewhere, look in the mirror and examine yourself. Control freak, lil terry and all these other "insults" put you in the line of fire of your own comments.




Compared to you? Hey look, I don't insult anyone who disagrees with me.

Your one million lie on this board. You have TRIED to insult me more times than I can count.


I don't call people liars.

That is because you dominate in this catagory. Its really difficult to call a kettle black when you are the blackest kettle in the bunch


I don't try to control the discussions.

No, you muddy them up with irrelevant information, lies, naive assesments not based in reality, and uneducated guesswork.


I don't brag about my "John Curl personally customized amps".

You can't. You don't have any!


I don't have shady relationships with industry insiders.

Shady? In what way little boy in dress? Care to explain this lie?


I don't insult and disparage women, children, people with same gender-preferences, people with different cultural backgrounds, or people who may not know as much about a topic as I do.

You are gonna have to prove this lie rather than just state it. You really are going overboard to make your point:lol: I have never said anything about children,I have two myself. I have always supported same gender causes as stated right here http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=27390 post #22. Never disparaged women, but have pointed out weak men like yourself(so lets not get this twisted) http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=27223&page=4 post #79

Besides, a boy in a dress is not in any position to disparage anyone, or anything.




I don't threaten, harass and stalk others on this board or promise to harm their families. I could go on but most exemplary: I don't air my private life on an audio-specific forum looking for my imaginary friends to vindicate my impulsive decisions.

You are too busy being a drama queen to do any of this. You do not have to come to this board to do the latter, and nobody has done the former. You have enough imaginary friends parked right in that pea head of yours(you know those "all people" and "everybodies" you always talk about that back your position) You don't need to come to this board, not with a head full of agreeable people on your side.


Yeah, and all that represents a model of normalcy? OK, lil'terry, you go on with your bad self. Let me get you a shovel....

No need, I had the shovel already. I had ten pages of shoveling your bulcrap from the truth in one post, and eight pages in another. I am going to hold on to the shovel, because I am sure I will need it again in further interactions with you.

____________________________________________

So now that we have that out of the way, let's get back to the topic.




You know you've been trying to throw that in everybody's face as far back as I can remember. The only reason for such an ignorant statement is that I think you are afraid of computers. The reality is that computers and yes, even your dreaded boogie man, the Internet, are converging with traditional audio technology in more ways than you are willing to acknowledge. I guess that's one topic of discussion you can't seem to get complete control over, so you pretend it's a non-issue, right? Don''t believe me? Let's review your "lively" debates about the X-box with GB and others who according to you "don't have a clue...."

Rehash, next! GB and I have not had issues with one another in months. So if this is the only evidence to support what you say, then its as weak as you are as a person. Where is all of the talk about convergence now? I heard a peep from any CE about it since CES, where they talk about alot of things that never happen. You are afraid of straight audio and video, that is why you attempt to mesh it with computers, so at least you do not appear as stupid on the surface as you are in reality.


OK, now here I will grant you I don't know enough about this topic. But just because I don't know, does not mean I should not be allowed to ask the question. You see, that's a control-freak kind of behavior, lil'terry. But let's look deeper at this issue, as that is the crux of why I started this thread. Since HDMI does transfer information related to color, bit-depth, and general picture quality, is it not possible for two HDMI components to decide , through their HDMI-standard-sanctioned bidirectional communication, which one would be the best at it? Perhaps video scaling isn't part of that decision making communication, but it's entirely possible that some decision is being made across that HDMI connection.

WOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!! We are making progress here.

Your first mistake. HDMI connection transfers absolutely no information about general picture quality. ZERO. It is too variable throughout the entire movie to do that The HDMI connection does not make decisions, does not dance, sing, or play the piano. HDMI is not here to stop us from using our heads or to think for us. The bi-direction communication is limited to the handshake, after that, its one way communication all the way. It is up to you to decide(based on doing some homework) which components do the best processing, not the HDMI standard.


(And I sincerely hope you haven't scared off truly knowledgeable people that might have been reading this thread and had something truly useful to contribute to the discussion, especially since I don't consider you an authority on this, and I certainly don't care for your delivery of any possibly interesting information about it.)

Now who is calling who a control freak?. You just uncovered yourself RIGHT HERE. Well its too damn bad boy in dress, I am answering anyway CONTROL FREAK!!


You see, with HDMI, we have for the first time two computer chips (yes computer chips, lil'terry, no need to get scared), talking to each other and making decisions based on that discussion.

This sentence shows how quickly you transition from this(OK, now here I will grant you I don't know enough about this topic) to Mr. I know what I am talking about. Wrong boy in dress, HDMI does not make decisions at all. Its transmits data, and verifies that a component is HDCP enabled and compliant. The COMPONENT may send out data pings to verify the displays resolution, but that is part of the handshake, and is not a decision made by HDMI.



Before, with analog connections (composite, s-video, and component), everything was one-directional and no recipient computer chips were there to send a message back across the wire saying: "hey buddy, you're a lot better at this, why don't you handle that?" So before we get so absolute and start with the absolutes and shouting the word "NOTHING" around (more control-freak behavior), let's consider, at the very least, the possibility that something does get sent back and forth.

Everyone, gather around. Little boy in dress is starting his little narrative about how he went from neophyte to expert in one paragraph:out:
So here he goes into his informative storyline, which of course still is wrong as two left shoes. We still do not have recipient chips that say" hey buddy(like it has some kind of personality) your better at this, why don't you handle it". Jovial, but not fact or realistic. This is not what bi-directional communication is going on. The bi-directional communication goes like this.

Player to television: Here is my authentication key
Television to player; Here is mine(which includes the TV's native resolution)
Player to television: Here is your new key to play this encypted material(which sends the data in that native resolution to the display device)

That is the ONLY two way communication that takes place PERIOD! I prefer with dealing with the facts and reality, rather than your unrealistic possibilities.
.


Now, I'll admit, I'm way out of my league in understanding the communications over HDMI, but isn't it true that HDCP does in fact performs exactly the behavior we are discussing, albeit, very primitively?

No it does not. If you are out of your league, then why are you still making stupid assumptions?


That is: if a specific security bit is not found on any one segment of the HDMI chain, the HDCP tells all devices in both directions in the communication line: "Homey don't play dat!"

Sorry, but the HDMI connection is not a mouthpiece for Homey the clown. Colorful, but not accurate. Security is not in bits, its in a packet of bits. The HDCP content is in a packet, and it that packet is not identified, then the handshake is not complete. The entire package must be verified, not the small pieces within it.


Now if HDCP makes that possible, then why is it not possible to send other info back and forth?

Because you are adding a variable complexity that is not necessary and is just plain wasteful. The problem with this is that you want the component to think for you, and that is not their job. I do not know about you, but I do not want a computer to make decisions I can make myself, unless perhaps you are too stupid to make them for yourself. It is not up to a specific component to make decisions like that, its up to you. This is lazy, and only serves to keep you in the present state you are in..ignorant. How would HDMI make this determination? It would have to know what chips are better than others, right? How would it determine which chip is better at 3:2 pulldown, or if it is needed at all without playing the video and doing real time analysis? How would it determine which is better, guesswork? You apparently have not thought this through very well(like you don't most things you mention on this board) or you would realize the difficulty in implementing this in a player that has price points.


Maybe it's possible to have, instead of just a security bit on said device, also an "image quality" bit, of maybe a "color depth" bit that travels the HDMI chain and decides which one of the devices should handle the processing of the bit in question.

Color depth is already tackled in HDMI by providing the larger pipeline and faster transmission rate to accomodate that. Once again, what perimeters would the HDMI protocol use to determine image quality, and how would it monitor what was coming out of the display devices outputs?

Once again, its not the HDMI connection's job to think for us. We have to decide based on what we know about our components which handles scaling better. Can you imagine the amount of processing power it would take to analyze image quality over 60 frames a second over an entire movie? In order to do forward and backwards analysis for motion compensation in video, my video processor (which uses four cell processors) require at least 4 of the 8 processing units in a single Cell broadband processor working in real time. That is alot of power, and something the HDMI connection does not have the juice for, and for that matter, not many components. When you understand the entire process, and how much power and complexity it requires, it becomes very easy to understand why certain flights of fancy are not possible.


And while I don't want to get lil'terry more upset about this, the reasoning behind this comes from the computer industry. With Firewire connections, this type of information can indeed be transfered back and forth. Now I'm not at all saying that Firewire is an adequate alternative, but I am saying that the capability is there and that what we can learn about this example is also applicable to the audio/video industry.

While firewire may have been great for computers, the audio and video industry would not support it because it is less secure and easily hacked. VC-1 and AVC video codecs cannot be utilized because no devices based on firewire that know what to do with it. Audio is more suseptible to jitter using firewire, and there is no internal clocking to re-sync data like there is in HDMI. There is no lip sync features, deep color would overwhelm it as would xycc. HDMI has a far larger tranfer rate than firewire, and tailored especially for use with HD signals from bluray and HD DVD players, so there is no need for a retread from the computer industry to support bluray players transmitting data between it and the display device. That is why it is not there in the first place.

What works for computers may not work for audio and video devices. Said that before, and will say it again.



And while Firewire may be more computerese than lil'terry can stomach right now, the fact is that this communication medium also exists in some home-electronic devices (albeit less an less so) and that it also supports HDCP (via DTCP). Ironic how this is just such an example of an already existing convergence between computers and audio/video? Of course, this is also exemplary of how an understanding of technology in one industry can be applied to another industry, but I think lil'terry soiled himself from his head spinning so much, so I'll stop there.

There are no current televisions, bluray players, and not many DVD players that included firewire as a connection. It was never accepted by the home consumer electronics companies because it is easily hacked, and the film industry wants to stay far away from computer based connections for that reason. While it can handle HDCP via DTCP, its does not handle BD+, or BD watermarking which are the conerstone of bluray copy protection. It also does not handle Bluray's version of Java. So your little promotion on behalf of the computer industry has failed. They tried firewire, and it failed in the A/V marketplace. You have not invented anything new here but how to hyjack a thread and turn it from HQV processing to a tired been there done that promotion of the computer industry. One thing you are going to have to get through your corsetts, the film industry wants NOTHING to do with the computer industry. Hence why you see no computer based connections in home based consumer electronics.



____________________________________________


And lil'terry, if you can't stay on topic now, please don't post. It's really becoming so juvenile to watch you flip-floppin', throwing tantrums, and just plain debasing yourself on this thread. It's only funny up to a point, and I'm really getting tired of having to re-quote your own stupidity back to you. I started this thread with a ligit question, and if you can't contribute maturely, then just stay out of it. And yes, I took some punches here, too, but let's remember who started with the unnecessary insults.

I will post when I please little boy in dress, you cannot CONTROL that no matter how much you try. If you cannot deal with that, let the door hit your little panties on the way out.

I am getting tired of pointing out your lies to you as well. So we are both tired of each other huh?

The insults started with you in this thread

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=24507&page=3&highlight=HD+DVD+bluray post #69.

I pointed out flaws in your so called thought process, and you began post 69 with the name calling. If anyone reads this thread, its almost a copycat of all the other threads we have engaged in. You lying, me pointing it out. Your unrealistic and uneducated conclusions, my challenge of that foolishness. It has carried over to every interaction on this website we have had. Same old $hit over and over again starting here

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=24507&highlight=HD+DVD+bluray

To here

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=25630&highlight=HD+DVD+bluray

and this is just a small sample. Personally, I think you are totally jealous that you do not know all that much, and just wish I would go away so you can maintain the illusion that you do. Not going to happen. Either you bone up on your game, or you become the game. Sorry its that way, but you created the monster that you now have to deal with.

Mr Peabody
06-22-2008, 05:51 PM
Nightflier, if I were you I'd be very very nervous about Lil' Terry's fantasys of you in dresses and panties. I think he may be sicker than we suspected.

I also can't believe he fancys himself as some industry expert and actually put in writing no consumer based equipment have computer connections. That seems to be the push, my BR player has ethernet with more becoming available for this BD live garbage, there are several brands and types of music servers that connect to the net to download music, cover art. etc, Denons CI series receivers have internet connections for installer adjustments from remote sites, not to mention all the TV's, camcorders and DVR's that have IEEE connections for video transfer. I think Terry was on a roll and over shot his target. Or, just talking crap as usual. Interesting statement he made for some one who supposedly knows so much more than us.

And talking about kettles, Terry's the one who consistently says "everyone" at BR.com agrees with him, or "everyone" in the "industry". Terry if you want to condemn some body for saying "everyone" or falsely claiming support, you, little weasel should be the one looking in the mirror.

And, Lil' Terry, you are also the one who first started giving people pet names. You are so pathetic, your entire post was just a twist and distortion of the facts, your typical style of posting we've unfortunately have grown so accustom to seeing from you.

elapsed
06-22-2008, 06:01 PM
What on earth are you guys arguing about? This thread has turned into a cluster f***, I couldn't be bothered to read it

Enough guys, you're all grown men I would hope.. go enjoy a scotch, watch some football.. shag your wife for christs sake, this is just an Internet forum

Sir Terrence the Terrible
06-22-2008, 06:31 PM
Nightflier, if I were you I'd be very very nervous about Lil' Terry's fantasys of you in dresses and panties. I think he may be sicker than we suspected.

Not nearly as sick as you Peabody. You and boy in dress have about a IQ of minus 9000 between youon this subject matter, so I would stick to whining and crying upscaling rather than sticking your fat nose in this debate.


I also can't believe he fancys himself as some industry expert and actually put in writing no consumer based equipment have computer connections. That seems to be the push, my BR player has ethernet with more becoming available for this BD live garbage, there are several brands and types of music servers that connect to the net to download music, cover art. etc, Denons CI series receivers have internet connections for installer adjustments from remote sites, not to mention all the TV's, camcorders and DVR's that have IEEE connections for video transfer. I think Terry was on a roll and over shot his target. Or, just talking crap as usual. Interesting statement he made for some one who supposedly knows so much more than us.

So just what do these components plug their IEEE connection into Peabody, their brains. Can you tell me a CURRENT plasma, or LCD that have IEEE connections? Or how about bluray players? New HD camcoders? Bluray camcoders? In this context(which is something you have a difficult time understanding) we are not talking about connections to the web, we are talking about connections between player and television that transfer video and audio data between them. And since their are no new LCD or Plasma's that support IEEE 1394, then even bringing it up is disengenous at best. Just another example of your misunderstanding the information you are analyzing. That's what happens when emotions drive you, and context leaves you. So quick to get a personal dig, that you cannot even vett information before you stupid face correctly.

Denon is ONE manufacturer out of many, the CI line is just one line of their receiver products(in only two receivers) that by the way, is directed towards installers, not consumers. So since when is this represent a sea change towards computer connections? IEEE inputs in DVR's are not even operational in most products from what I understand, so what purpose would they serve? Again, what do you connect them to? Ethernet is the exception granted, if you are connecting to a computer based technology, you are going to need a computer based connection. However, do you see any other computer based connections on home CE devices passing data from the component to the television via IEEE 1394? No stupid, so when does a tiny minority(or virtually none either way) of products become a major push toward computer connections? Peabody's and boy in dress's way of distributing and vetting information=just throw it out there, and see if somethin sticks. Oh brother's mother!!

I looked up Canon HD camcoders. Wow, no IEEE output, just HDMI. Hitachi Bluray camcoder, errrr no IEEE output, just HDMI. IEEE is yesterdays technology, not the future Peahead. What you mention is in the past, not now, and not the future, and no context whatsoever.

Weren't you the idiot that said that there were 20 different communications happening through HDMI at any given time?


And talking about kettles, Terry's the one who consistently says "everyone" at BR.com agrees with him, or "everyone" in the "industry". Terry if you want to condemn some body for saying "everyone" or falsely claiming support, you, little weasel should be the one looking in the mirror.

Old man Peabody, I never said they agreed with me, get your **** straight. I said they were not crying over upscaling like you old man in a diaper, they are more worried about getting good encodes and lossless audio on BLURAY, not DVD upscaling. There are not that many people here crying about it either. You are the lone idiot walking forward, but looking backwards. Most Bluray owners are buying Bluray disc for their players, not DVD's. Most folks who understand upscaling know you are not getting any additional information, just a bunch of interpolated frames, so whats the point in supporting a parlor trick in the player when you already got the real deal? You are really a backwards individual. A dumb backwards individual who couldn't critically think their way out of a greasy bag with a hole in it, and a arrow pointing towards exit.

When I say somebody supports me, I can prove it out in the open for everyone to see. You couldn't do that with your upscaling argument could you? I invited you to go to Bluray.com and check out the posts to see if another little whiner and moaner was complaining about upscaling. I invited you to find the hoards here that are complaining, you obviously have refused, so you need to shut the hell up, and go back to your rocking chair. The DVD format is toast, its over. So why invest resources that could be used for today and tomorrows products into yesterday's products. Doesn't make much sense does it old man? The majors CE companies(with the exception of Toshiba) have moved on to Bluray and have left the DVD format to the liscense cheating Chinese OEM's to have. Have you seen a DVD player with major audio and video upgrades lately?


And, Lil' Terry, you are also the one who first started giving people pet names. You are so pathetic, your entire post was just a twist and distortion of the facts, your typical style of posting we've unfortunately have grown so accustom to seeing from you.

You don't even know what HDMI does, so how can you say ANYTHING is twisted and distorted. Your little 20 different communications comment is twisted and distorted if anthing is. It is irresponsible to even mention such a thing if you don't truely know you head from your a$$ on the subject matter at hand. Why don't you learn about what HDMI really does, instead of posting out of contexted white papers to try and bolster what would be a profound case of misinformation. Call me pathetic if you like, but I know what HDMI does, and you are just an old man who thinks he does. You cannot even understand the crap you post yourself LOL

You seem to have a very bad habit of mentioning things with no context, is this for wiggle room Peabrain? When I see a wholesale march towards(not backwards) computer based connections for transferring data between a player and television(that is the context we are discussing here, stay with the topic), then you have a point. But to mention one manufacturers line of products as an example, take this connection point out of context(remember, player and television), and to use IEEE interface which has largely disappeared from everything from televisions to computer themselves, you are a joke, and a very old joke at that.

Now about those 20 different communications through HDMI.......

nightflier
06-24-2008, 09:39 AM
What on earth are you guys arguing about? This thread has turned into a cluster f***, I couldn't be bothered to read it

Enough guys, you're all grown men I would hope.. go enjoy a scotch, watch some football.. shag your wife for christs sake, this is just an Internet forum

Elapsed, I started this thread with a question about whether two devices could benefit from the same video processing chip. This eventually led to whether information could be transmitted through the link between the two devices, which is HDMI. Unfortunately, lil'terry (this is the name I've given "Sir Terrence the Terrible," as he likes to call himself, for his incessant immaturity), is incapable of staying out of any discussion related to HDMI, or discussions involving people that he has had past disagreements with, for that matter. Obviously, I'm one of the many people he has permanently targeted for attack, hence the reason you are reading through his drivel. As you've noticed it was a civil and pleasant thread until he arrived, and well, things devolved from there.

Lil'terry likes to twist things around and belittle people. It's unfortunate that we can't have a civilized discussion about technology anymore without lil'terry putting his stink all over it in the most lengthy, circumlocutious, and FUD-induced wording. Most of us just wish he would stay away, but he can't seem to get the hint (how many times do we have to whack that mole?). I can't speak for the others, but over the past six months, ever since I dared disagree with one of his "absolute" statements, he has stalked my threads, insulted, berrated, and belittled me in the most colorful language, threatened to come to my house and injure my family, my children, even my pets, totally twisted my posts out of context, insulted women, people who are gay, effeminate, or just not "manly" enough, and has permeated this forum with a culture of fear that is unprecedented. He'll probably try to convince you otherwise, but I'll just point out that in all the threads that I have read where he was a participant in, he was most often the instigator that allowed the discussion to deteriorate (this thread being a case-in-point).

So with that, I must apologize for how this thread has degenerated as a result of his meddling, and I will try and steer this back to a meaningful discussion about the topic. We can only hope he will be more mature from here on out.

(lil'terry, I'll deal with you later - some of us actually have lives outside of this forum).

Mr Peabody
06-24-2008, 06:04 PM
Speaking of Silicon Optix, my nephews were over Saturday, they are about 15, twins, they have never seen The 3 Stooges before. We were watching some movies on the ole BR so between movies I dropped a DVD of The 3 Stooges in. I was quite impressed with the sharpness of the B&W images. I've never seen B&W look so crisp and defined. The only other upsampling DVD player I've used was an LG. The performance of the BD-P1200 on DVD playback is so much better than the LG. I mean by a long shot. In fact, I put my second 1200 in the living room with my Sony tube HDTV where the LG formerly was, the kids were watching Nemo the other night and as I walked through the picture caught my eye and I had to stop and marvel at how much better it looked with the 1200 over the LG. If Samsung could change their attitude toward customer service they would be a force to be recconed with.

pixelthis
06-24-2008, 11:14 PM
I personally do not care where you post. Wherever you do, you are not much help anyway. How do you know someone is a control freak when you have never spent a second watching their actions or interactions? This is what I mean boy in dress, you take a shred of information, and turn it into a conclusion. You did that with the HD DVD and Bluray thread, you did it in my personal thread, and guess what, you were wrong on both accounts. Who is stalking who? You saw my post, and up pops your ignorant self with your ignorant analysis and conclusions front and center. Stick to what you know boy in dress. Since that is not much, it should not be all that taxing on you.



Who is the control freak? Or would that be coward?

How do you know what everyone is doing? You talk to them all, just like you have read all 2000+ of my post?

You think you are normal? LOLOLOL, that's a laugh!!

NO, its a laugh that you think you're "normal".
As for control freak, that is an understatement.
I am glad others are having trouble with your smart a***, mr peruvian skys the 2ND:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-05-2008, 01:13 PM
NO, its a laugh that you think you're "normal".
As for control freak, that is an understatement.
I am glad others are having trouble with your smart a***, mr peruvian skys the 2ND:1:

Pixie, its already been firmly established that you do not know our azz from a hole in the ground, so blow off before you processed and end up the the gas tank of somebodies car.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-05-2008, 01:16 PM
Elapsed, I started this thread with a question about whether two devices could benefit from the same video processing chip. This eventually led to whether information could be transmitted through the link between the two devices, which is HDMI. Unfortunately, lil'terry (this is the name I've given "Sir Terrence the Terrible," as he likes to call himself, for his incessant immaturity), is incapable of staying out of any discussion related to HDMI, or discussions involving people that he has had past disagreements with, for that matter. Obviously, I'm one of the many people he has permanently targeted for attack, hence the reason you are reading through his drivel. As you've noticed it was a civil and pleasant thread until he arrived, and well, things devolved from there.

Lil'terry likes to twist things around and belittle people. It's unfortunate that we can't have a civilized discussion about technology anymore without lil'terry putting his stink all over it in the most lengthy, circumlocutious, and FUD-induced wording. Most of us just wish he would stay away, but he can't seem to get the hint (how many times do we have to whack that mole?). I can't speak for the others, but over the past six months, ever since I dared disagree with one of his "absolute" statements, he has stalked my threads, insulted, berrated, and belittled me in the most colorful language, threatened to come to my house and injure my family, my children, even my pets, totally twisted my posts out of context, insulted women, people who are gay, effeminate, or just not "manly" enough, and has permeated this forum with a culture of fear that is unprecedented. He'll probably try to convince you otherwise, but I'll just point out that in all the threads that I have read where he was a participant in, he was most often the instigator that allowed the discussion to deteriorate (this thread being a case-in-point).

So with that, I must apologize for how this thread has degenerated as a result of his meddling, and I will try and steer this back to a meaningful discussion about the topic. We can only hope he will be more mature from here on out.

(lil'terry, I'll deal with you later - some of us actually have lives outside of this forum).

blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabl ab

After all of this, you still do not know a dang thing about HDMI, or what the HQV chip does and does not do. Lots of posturing, very little knowledge. Been like that a while for you little boy in dress?