Hi-Res Audio Formats on BR & HDDVD

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=PeruvianSkies][QUOTE]

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

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

Anyone can say THIS too.

Whatever.

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

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

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

[PeruvianSkies]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PeruvianSkies]

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

[PeruvianSkies]

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

You told, I don't have to.

[PeruvianSkies]

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

You told, I don't have to.

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

[kelsci]

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

[L.J.]

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

[PeruvianSkies]

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

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

[kelsci]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

[nightflier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kelsci]

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

[nightflier]

From his own mouth:

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

...Another declarative statement that is flat wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LFE is completely unnecessary in music.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pixelthis]

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

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

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

Thats one theory

[Feanor]

Thats one theory

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

[Groundbeef]

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

Hey, Lesbians are good. No hate here!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

From his own mouth:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You insulted yourself by just mentioning it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2007/...te-in-5-years/

Bill Gates words again;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read number seven

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

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

http://www.allbusiness.com/informati.../850930-1.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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