Hi-Res Audio Formats on BR & HDDVD

[nightflier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downloads are compressed BEFORE they are downloaded not during.

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

Decompression on the fly has already been tried in audio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BR represents just 3% of the market!

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

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

VOD Sales have stagnated

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

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

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

You cannot own it [VOD] right now.

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

Creates a culture of downloading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The market share for movies on disc far outstrippes VOD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must have really lit your panties and bra on fire

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

[PeruvianSkies]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You did say this right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BR represents just 3% of the market!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creates a culture of downloading

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

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

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

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

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

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

You did say this didn't you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://hdtv.engadget.com/2007/10/30/...y-exclusively/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




[

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

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

I see deflection, much deflection in the force.

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

[GMichael]

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

[Groundbeef]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only for the dishonest ones. I don't steal movies OR music, but I DO pay for my d/l content. Please don't lump everyone into the same basket.

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

Is that $120 just for internet? That seems really high! And again with the 1080p/Lossless. That may be what it's gonna take for YOU, but not for a majority of the US customer base. Live certainly doesn't offer that level of HD, but for its offerings, its blowing the doors off expectations. Disney has signed on, Lionsgate is releasing more and more, and more studios are taking note. Not everyone owns a BMW A/V setup.
.

Advertiser sell products that are advertised. If they did not, why advertise? Why spend the money? How large is the market for already viewed programming? I would say the quality of television now adays does not lend to more than one viewing. Very few television shows are viewed more than once, which is the reason why television on DVD is not selling all that well. DVR and PVR are the same thing (it would be too easy to call you an idiot, so I won't).
.

A small distinction here. Advertisers promote products that they HOPE to induce consumers to "Try" or "Buy". But there are no direct correlations between amount of $$ spent on advertising to actual products bought. I am not suggesting that advertising doesn't increase awareness of a product, highlight its features, and promote the brand. But to suggest that there is a $ to $ translation between ads and purchase is not right.

And DVR, and PVR are causing a huge shift in the way that advertisers are marketing to consumers. Many ads have gone from quick cuts, and fast action, to those of slow action, and long still shots of either the product or the name. Why? So when consumers zip over them, they are still "exposed" to the ad. Also, Nielson has begun tracking DVR use, especially with TiVO. Some TiVO users through a process of election, and "opting-in" have allowed Nielson access to their viewing habits via electronic tracking. Not of specific housholds, but how often shows are "time delayed", "commercials ff", "# of times watched", and other aspects.

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

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

http://hdtv.engadget.com/2007/10/30/...y-exclusively/

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

And its funny you keep bringing up the show you were at. How come you haven't addressed why BR hasn't been re-signed with Warner. Contract obligations lapsed 10/31/07. If BR and Warner are so much in "Love" why hasn't Warner re-signed with BR? At this point they are operating under the terms of the old agreement, but Warner could walk away, and there is NO penalty for them to do so.

I'm not suggesting that Warner is going to leave BR, and go HD-DVD exclusive, but it does seem a bit funny that they havn't re-signed w/ BR.

Everything may be peaches and cream at the trade show, but in business, it doesn't appear to be the love fest your talking about.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

People who are looking at youtube are not looking for Spiderman, or 2001 in HD. They are looking at video clips. These are too different segments of a market, and are not comparable. I look at youtube, and have found some very rare clips of my favorite Gospel group. However, I do not go there to find my favorite movies in high def, and neither would anyone else or they will be very disappointed. You are attempting to fuse together unrelated things.

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

TV programs and HD movies are not the same thing. The PS3 hard drive cannot just be accessed by a computer. The computer has to be connected via a copy protected HDCP protocol just like any other HD media device. So the xbox is no more protected than the PS3. What about reports that there is a huge piracy issue regarding the xbox in china?

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/new...hp?story=10232

Or about cheating on xbox live?

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/new...hp?story=16063

Or what about modded boxes that allow pirated games to work on the xbox?

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/new...php?story=6042

http://www.geek.com/three-people-fac...iracy/?rfp=dta

It seems that hacking via the motherboard is pretty popular. It seems that one guy advertised how to do the mod on Craigslist. Now what were you saying about security?

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

How can a market based on disc be merging with a market based on downloading? They appeal to different people looking for different things. Downloaders are mainly getting TV programs that are highly compressed (more compressed than DVD) HD on disc supporters are looking for high quality HD video with lossless audio and extra's. I can hardly see a merging in that.

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

If you do not have the current key, what condition is the data in at the point? Besides you are only speaking of xbox live. Other downloading services use a different kind of DRM. I am aware of the practice of some downloading services that use code to corrupt the files after a certain period.

Only for the dishonest ones. I don't steal movies OR music, but I DO pay for my d/l content. Please don't lump everyone into the same basket.

If you are not one of the dishonest ones, then this comment does not apply to you. I was not lumping anyone. There are some that do not pay for the content, and my comments apply to them. Do not be so defensive.

Is that $120 just for internet? That seems really high! And again with the 1080p/Lossless. That may be what it's gonna take for YOU, but not for a majority of the US customer base. Live certainly doesn't offer that level of HD, but for its offerings, its blowing the doors off expectations. Disney has signed on, Lionsgate is releasing more and more, and more studios are taking note. Not everyone owns a BMW A/V setup.

Ummm, no. $120 pays for HD cable AND internet. The HD content is heavily compressed and so is the audio. The audio is not even DVD quality at 384kbps for the 5.1 channels. The internet is the highest speed available on comcast. In my neighborhood, cable prices at around $100 is not all that usual, especially after the recent hike in prices. Alot of studios have signed up at Xbox live, but the content they are offering is not the same as their HD on disc content, and not even close in quality. More folks enjoy quality images and audio than you think.

A small distinction here. Advertisers promote products that they HOPE to induce consumers to "Try" or "Buy". But there are no direct correlations between amount of $$ spent on advertising to actual products bought. I am not suggesting that advertising doesn't increase awareness of a product, highlight its features, and promote the brand. But to suggest that there is a $ to $ translation between ads and purchase is not right.

Actually it is right. If an advertiser has committed a certain percentage of operating income to advertising on a certain media, there is an expectation of return of investment in the form of sales. If they see that the advertising on that media is not providing a return, they cut advertising on that media. If you were interested in just highlighting features, and promoting the brand without any expectation of return on your expendenture, then that would be wasting cash. How do you support an advertising budget without sales?

And DVR, and PVR are causing a huge shift in the way that advertisers are marketing to consumers. Many ads have gone from quick cuts, and fast action, to those of slow action, and long still shots of either the product or the name. Why? So when consumers zip over them, they are still "exposed" to the ad. Also, Nielson has begun tracking DVR use, especially with TiVO. Some TiVO users through a process of election, and "opting-in" have allowed Nielson access to their viewing habits via electronic tracking. Not of specific housholds, but how often shows are "time delayed", "commercials ff", "# of times watched", and other aspects.

Great information. But how does this address the issue at hand?

And its funny you keep bringing up the show you were at. How come you haven't addressed why BR hasn't been re-signed with Warner. Contract obligations lapsed 10/31/07. If BR and Warner are so much in "Love" why hasn't Warner re-signed with BR? At this point they are operating under the terms of the old agreement, but Warner could walk away, and there is NO penalty for them to do so.

Sorry, but nobody knows the terms of the contract obligations Warner has with the BDA. If Warner had no intention on supporting BR, then there would be no need to for them to attent the festival, or show off new BR releases. There would be no need to annouce new titles for 2008 would they? The BDA forbids releasing contract information, so this appears to be nothing more than FUD, or in other words, a bald face lie. Warner is not nearly stupid as Paramount. Why in the hell would they walk away from a format that provides them with a two to one sales advantage over the other format on all of the titles they released? Paramount is still smarting from their move. Transformers is a perfect movie for the PS3 crowd. Instead of just selling 89k worth of disc, they could have sold twice that or more had they stayed neutral. If Warner was going to walk away, then why did they bother attending the Bluray session at IFA? The did not attend the HD DVD session.

I'm not suggesting that Warner is going to leave BR, and go HD-DVD exclusive, but it does seem a bit funny that they havn't re-signed w/ BR.

Sorry, but you do not know if they signed, or they didn't. This is not public information, and even the insiders at Bluray.com have refused to discuss this because of legal restraints. Lying to advance a false point is a balless act.

Everything may be peaches and cream at the trade show, but in business, it doesn't appear to be the love fest your talking about.

That is a matter of perspective. You were not there, and you did not see or hear what was going on at the festival. Maybe you should refrain from spreading bull crap. Anyone selling 300k worth of HD disc on a single format should be having quite a love fest at this point.

[Groundbeef]

People who are looking at youtube are not looking for Spiderman, or 2001 in HD. They are looking at video clips. These are too different segments of a market, and are not comparable. I look at youtube, and have found some very rare clips of my favorite Gospel group. However, I do not go there to find my favorite movies in high def, and neither would anyone else or they will be very disappointed. You are attempting to fuse together unrelated things.

Not really. You seemed to be suggesting that people are ONLY going to D/L media when its 1080p and lossless. Clearly that is not the case. People are d/l lots of media at substancially lower quality, and doing it with gusto.

TV programs and HD movies are not the same thing. The PS3 hard drive cannot just be accessed by a computer. The computer has to be connected via a copy protected HDCP protocol just like any other HD media device. So the xbox is no more protected than the PS3. What about reports that there is a huge piracy issue regarding the xbox in china?

[It seems that hacking via the motherboard is pretty popular. It seems that one guy advertised how to do the mod on Craigslist. Now what were you saying about security?

No, but the PS3 drive can easily be pulled from the physical unit, and then attached to a PC via cables. An XBOX 360 Hard Drive would have to be physically broken out of the unit, then attached to a computer, making it unable to be-used in the 360. Pretty expensive way to access a $4.00 movie by destroying your $100 Hard Drive.

Your 1st article was written in July 26, 2006. There have been 3 major updates, and numerous minor updates. If you have no more current info on the topic, I would suggest that particular problem has been solved. If you notice, the article also stated that when units had re-established contact w/live the issue was fixed via an automatic update. This is not a "casual" break, nor something an everyday user is going to do to their console. Don't suggest it is.

Your 2nd article concerns cheating in "games" to boost GamerScores. Clearly you are unfamiliar as to what a GamerScore is, and what it's about. Completely unrelated to downloaded material, only related to playing games and getting "achievments". Stick to topics you understand, as gaming is clearly not your forte'. Blu-Ray, sure, Games? Not so much.

Your 3rd article is from 2005. 2005, and it dealt with THE ORIGINAL XBOX. Thats not even a valid console anymore. Games haven't been made for it in 2 years. GET A CLUE.
Why don't you write about Atari 2600 emulators next, and really show off your game knowledge.

How can a market based on disc be merging with a market based on downloading? They appeal to different people looking for different things. Downloaders are mainly getting TV programs that are highly compressed (more compressed than DVD) HD on disc supporters are looking for high quality HD video with lossless audio and extra's. I can hardly see a merging in that.

Depends upon what you are looking for. I don't have the money you most likely do. So I watch a HD D/L to decide if its a movie I would like for my collection. Is it 100% of the physical disc? No, of course not, but it sure does tell me if I like it. I can't afford the luxury of just buying every movie that comes out. To me, and apparently plenty of others, HD d/l is an excellent compromise before shelling out the bucks to buy the media.

If you do not have the current key, what condition is the data in at the point? Besides you are only speaking of xbox live. Other downloading services use a different kind of DRM. I am aware of the practice of some downloading services that use code to corrupt the files after a certain period.

Ok, I'll conceed to that. I just meant (at least on live) the movie isn't "corrupt". It just doesn't play until an updated key is provided after the license lapses.

If you are not one of the dishonest ones, then this comment does not apply to you. I was not lumping anyone. There are some that do not pay for the content, and my comments apply to them. Do not be so defensive.

In your original comment you were suggesting the studios are deathly afraid of people d/l product because they are only looking to do it for free. I'm suggesting thats not the case. Plenty of folks are willing to pay for it.

Ummm, no. $120 pays for HD cable AND internet. The HD content is heavily compressed and so is the audio. The audio is not even DVD quality at 384kbps for the 5.1 channels. The internet is the highest speed available on comcast. In my neighborhood, cable prices at around $100 is not all that usual, especially after the recent hike in prices. Alot of studios have signed up at Xbox live, but the content they are offering is not the same as their HD on disc content, and not even close in quality. More folks enjoy quality images and audio than you think.

I just wanted to be clear on your point. The way it was written, I thought you meant you were paying $120/month for internet. That's like T3 pricing. Again, not suggesting its the same content on the physical disc. People know that, but its renting/selling like hotcakes. More folks enjoy the convience/cost factor of living room HD D/L than you are willing to admit.

Actually it is right. If an advertiser has committed a certain percentage of operating income to advertising on a certain media, there is an expectation of return of investment in the form of sales. If they see that the advertising on that media is not providing a return, they cut advertising on that media. If you were interested in just highlighting features, and promoting the brand without any expectation of return on your expendenture, then that would be wasting cash. How do you support an advertising budget without sales?

No, your wrong. Take some business/marketing classes. Of course there is an EXPECTATION of ROI, but there isn't a direct $ to $ correlation between the two. There are so many other variables that affect a consumer that it is impossible to equate an ad running, and the ultimate purchase decision. Thats not to say there are not great advertsing campaigns, or bad campaigns, but in the end, the advertisment is just another vehicle for promoting your product. It doesn't "MAKE" consumers buy anything.

Great information. But how does this address the issue at hand?

You were suggesting some theories about TV and how many times shows are watched. Advertisers are interested, as well as studios about how DVR/TiVO has/is changing the market. So I was telling you how Neilson is addressing this need.

Sorry, but nobody knows the terms of the contract obligations Warner has with the BDA. If Warner had no intention on supporting BR, then there would be no need to for them to attent the festival, or show off new BR releases. There would be no need to annouce new titles for 2008 would they? The BDA forbids releasing contract information, so this appears to be nothing more than FUD, or in other words, a bald face lie.

That is a matter of perspective. You were not there, and you did not see or hear what was going on at the festival. Maybe you should refrain from spreading bull crap. Anyone selling 300k worth of HD disc on a single format should be having quite a love fest at this point.

So I guess you don't know either? I can't disprove a negative. If you want to call people liars, thats on you. I am just talking about what I hear away from this board. And the talk is that the contract has lapsed, and hasn't been renewed. Maybe they are holding out, who knows. I wasn't at your little party, but it doesn't sound like I missed much.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not really. You seemed to be suggesting that people are ONLY going to D/L media when its 1080p and lossless. Clearly that is not the case. People are d/l lots of media at substancially lower quality, and doing it with gusto.

Read this carefully. I am not saying that people are going to downloads when it is 1080p. I am saying the people who prefer to download are not interested in quality, they are interested in covinence. Those who are looking for quality will not look to downloads.

No, but the PS3 drive can easily be pulled from the physical unit, and then attached to a PC via cables. An XBOX 360 Hard Drive would have to be physically broken out of the unit, then attached to a computer, making it unable to be-used in the 360. Pretty expensive way to access a $4.00 movie by destroying your $100 Hard Drive.

So what is your point? Regardless of the fact that the PS3 drive can be removed, without the necessary HDCP hookup it is essentially useless. Even if you cannot remove the xbox's hard drive it does not appear the xbox is more safe than the PS3 against piracy.

Your 1st article was written in July 26, 2006. There have been 3 major updates, and numerous minor updates. If you have no more current info on the topic, I would suggest that particular problem has been solved. If you notice, the article also stated that when units had re-established contact w/live the issue was fixed via an automatic update. This is not a "casual" break, nor something an everyday user is going to do to their console. Don't suggest it is.

And you think that just because the article was written that things have changed? From what I have gotten reading some gaming boards, when they solder the motherboard for the hack, microsoft cannot touch them. They continue to play bootlegs. It really does not matter if its the everyday user doing it, or a bunch of game geeks, it does not futher you point that the PS3 is less secure than the xbox. The links prove that.

Your 2nd article concerns cheating in "games" to boost GamerScores. Clearly you are unfamiliar as to what a GamerScore is, and what it's about. Completely unrelated to downloaded material, only related to playing games and getting "achievments". Stick to topics you understand, as gaming is clearly not your forte'. Blu-Ray, sure, Games? Not so much.

You were talking about security. I gave two example of security problems concerning the xbox. I do not care what a gamerscore is, it is irrelevant. We were talking about security. Stay with your own comments and stop spinning this with irrelevant information.

Your 3rd article is from 2005. 2005, and it dealt with THE ORIGINAL XBOX. Thats not even a valid console anymore. Games haven't been made for it in 2 years. GET A CLUE.
Why don't you write about Atari 2600 emulators next, and really show off your game knowledge.

I have already told you a dozen times I am not interested in games. This all points to security. So the only thing that changes this is the xbox has not been secure for ages.

Depends upon what you are looking for. I don't have the money you most likely do. So I watch a HD D/L to decide if its a movie I would like for my collection. Is it 100% of the physical disc? No, of course not, but it sure does tell me if I like it. I can't afford the luxury of just buying every movie that comes out. To me, and apparently plenty of others, HD d/l is an excellent compromise before shelling out the bucks to buy the media.

Others have chosen netflicks and blockbuster rather than compromised their experience with a low quality downloads (remember I have seen them). I understand that you have your way of doing things, and others have their way.

In your original comment you were suggesting the studios are deathly afraid of people d/l product because they are only looking to do it for free. I'm suggesting thats not the case. Plenty of folks are willing to pay for it.

Actually that was nightfliers comment. I made no such comment that the studios were deathly afraid of downloads. I said that the studio executives have come out againist Bill Gates vision of the future of HD. Disc based media(DVD and HD media on disc) is a 6 billion dollar industry. NDP projects that downloading will be $200 million in 2008. Do you really think the studio will trade 6 bil for 200 mil?

What the studios do not like is P2P trading of movie files. That is piracy no matter how you slice it.

I just wanted to be clear on your point. The way it was written, I thought you meant you were paying $120/month for internet. That's like T3 pricing. Again, not suggesting its the same content on the physical disc. People know that, but its renting/selling like hotcakes. More folks enjoy the convience/cost factor of living room HD D/L than you are willing to admit.

Actually you are overstating your point. Downloads are a 200 million dollar business. VOD is estimated at 300 million for 2006 the same as it was in 2005. Once again the disc based media was 6 billion in 2006. I think most know that HD downloads which are only 720p heavily compressed video with heavily compressed audio is just a little better than regular DVD. I since I now know that ratio of DVD sales vs downloading, it is clear that each is serving very different people. Keep in mind, Comcast is getting sued for slowing down major downloaders. Internet providers are very aware that it just takes a few consistant downloaders to clog up a system, and they are working to slow them down.

No, your wrong. Take some business/marketing classes. Of course there is an EXPECTATION of ROI, but there isn't a direct $ to $ correlation between the two.

I never said there was a direct dollar to dollar correlation. I said there was a reasonable expectation of a return on investment. That is very different.

There are so many other variables that affect a consumer that it is impossible to equate an ad running, and the ultimate purchase decision. Thats not to say there are not great advertsing campaigns, or bad campaigns, but in the end, the advertisment is just another vehicle for promoting your product. It doesn't "MAKE" consumers buy anything.

Please find the word MAKE in any of my post. Businesses are not going to throw there money at something just to get an effect. They expect some result. If they advertise through radio and that does not help grow their business, they are not going back to radio. The same goes for television. Product placement is better suited to getting your brand noticed or raising brand awareness overall.

You were suggesting some theories about TV and how many times shows are watched. Advertisers are interested, as well as studios about how DVR/TiVO has/is changing the market. So I was telling you how Neilson is addressing this need.

Okay....

So I guess you don't know either? I can't disprove a negative. If you want to call people liars, thats on you. I am just talking about what I hear away from this board. And the talk is that the contract has lapsed, and hasn't been renewed. Maybe they are holding out, who knows. I wasn't at your little party, but it doesn't sound like I missed much.

Well since the party was not a HD DVD party, you did not miss much, and were not missed as well. Be careful about spreading FUD. If you cannot verify it, then you should not spread it. Nobody knows contract information except executives at the highest level. The BDA absolutely forbids any public discussion of contract talks. That is in the contract itself. You do not know ANYTHING regarding contract talks, who signed what and when. So there is no need to spread unsubstantiated rumors.

I never said I knew, I said NOBODY knows rather clearly. Save the rumors for the National Inquirer and The Globe.

[Groundbeef]

Read this carefully. I am not saying that people are going to downloads when it is 1080p. I am saying the people who prefer to download are not interested in quality, they are interested in covinence. Those who are looking for quality will not look to downloads. .

Blanket statement, and simply not true. While I will 100% agree with you that d/l is NOT the same quality as the physical media, for the majority folks that don't have your caliber of equipment its "satisfactory". If there is no difference in "quality" then why are HD downloads on XBOX Live the most popular form of HD D/L in the industry? It's killing ITunes, and cable/sat providers hands down. Keep in mind that the same material is ALSO availible in SD. So why are consumers paying more for the HD?

Why do you feel the need to draw a line in the sand about quality/convienece. It may not be up to YOUR standards, but millions of others disagree with you.

So what is your point? Regardless of the fact that the PS3 drive can be removed, without the necessary HDCP hookup it is essentially useless. Even if you cannot remove the xbox's hard drive it does not appear the xbox is more safe than the PS3 against piracy..

The "piracy" you pointed out with your out of date articles showcased the ablitiy to play bootleg GAMES, not d/l material. If you don't care about games fine, but don't confuse the 2 issues. Movie studios are not concerned about pirated games, but pirated movies.

And you think that just because the article was written that things have changed? From what I have gotten reading some gaming boards, when they solder the motherboard for the hack, microsoft cannot touch them. They continue to play bootlegs. It really does not matter if its the everyday user doing it, or a bunch of game geeks, it does not futher you point that the PS3 is less secure than the xbox. The links prove that.
.

The links only prove that you are content to dig up half the story. Then pretend that your ancient articles somehow end the arguement. Take a read on this site:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171135.html

MS has not only been issuing updates to quell the issue of modding, they have gone further. Now they are issuing updates that physically disable the units. Also known as "bricking". The important part about this is that for d/l material to get on the 360, one has to utilize "LIVE". So, if you have a modded XBOX 360, you need to get on Live. If you want to use Live, you need the latest update. Get the update, kills machine. If you "decline" the update, your booted off live. If you are not on live, YOU CANT GET MEDIA. So, in essence your movie studios are safe.

Game piracy, and movie piracy are 2 different animals.

You were talking about security. I gave two example of security problems concerning the xbox. I do not care what a gamerscore is, it is irrelevant. We were talking about security. Stay with your own comments and stop spinning this with irrelevant information.
.

No this is where you are out of your league. Honestly, as much crap as I give you, I admit you know FAR more than I do about BR/ HD-DVD. It may be fun to tweak your horn, but in the end, I realize you have more information, and expert information that I don't. However, in this arena, you are lost. The information you present is out of date, and unrelated to the issue of MEDIA piracy, and GAME piracy. The issue of security for the "GamerScore" cheating is related to PASSWORDS. Not, modding, or other hardware cracks. If I give someone a password to my account, that is completly different that writing code, or breaking the chips off the motherboard. But I wouldn't expect you to know that as you have already stated numerous times you don't care about gaming. So stop acting like you know anything about it. Because you don't.

I have already told you a dozen times I am not interested in games. This all points to security. So the only thing that changes this is the xbox has not been secure for ages.
.

You are aware of course that the XBOX, and the XBOX 360 are 2 different consoles right? So to dig up information on a dead console only showcases your total lack of knowledge about current issues, and the topic at hand. Your arguement would be akin to me digging up an article about the Ford Pinto, and saying that its olbvious that Ford only makes defective cars. Never mind that it was over 20 years ago, and a DEAD issue. If you can't make your argument relevent about the current system I suggest you troll elsewhere.

What the studios do not like is P2P trading of movie files. That is piracy no matter how you slice it. .

Agreed. But not all movie D/L are P2P. Thats why studios are flocking to Live, and to a lesser degree ITunes.

I never said there was a direct dollar to dollar correlation. I said there was a reasonable expectation of a return on investment. That is very different. .

So please explain to me how they determine the ROI on the ad campaign? How do they assign a value to the campaign. You can expect the world, but it doesn't make it so.

Please find the word MAKE in any of my post. Businesses are not going to throw there money at something just to get an effect. They expect some result. If they advertise through radio and that does not help grow their business, they are not going back to radio. The same goes for television. Product placement is better suited to getting your brand noticed or raising brand awareness overall. .

I'm not going to disagree with product placement, although the power of that is coming more into question as companies rush to place anything and everything. And how in the world do you quantify ROI on product placement? About the best product placement was Recee's Pieces in ET. After that the race was on, but results haven't been nearly as good as that case.

And as far as advertisement goes, business spend plenty of money "just to get an effect". Happens ALL THE TIME. Ever heard of the SuperBowl? Plenty of studies have been done showing that the money spent vs/return doesn't bear out. But lots of companies blow their entire ad budget for the year on 1-2 spots. Master Lock used to be one of them, but they have realized that they get a bigger bang for other promotions.

And just because an ad is placed, doesn't mean results. Let me ask you Mr. Bright guy, how many ads would it take to get you to buy Bose Speakers? I'd be willing to bet that you could watch 20 ads a day on TV, read 15 newspaper ads, see it in your subscription to AARP Monthly, and still never buy it. Why? Because regardless of the LEVEL of promotion, your not interested in the product. But according to your theory, its not because you don't want to buy the product, its because its not being promoted to YOU in the correct way. So should Bose call you every day? Maybe direct email you 3 times an hour, and stick flyers on the windshield of your car? No? What else can they do?

Nobody knows contract information except executives at the highest level. The BDA absolutely forbids any public discussion of contract talks. That is in the contract itself. You do not know ANYTHING regarding contract talks, who signed what and when. So there is no need to spread unsubstantiated rumors.

I never said I knew, I said NOBODY knows rather clearly. Save the rumors for the National Inquirer and The Globe.

Oh, I didn't realize they signed an agreement. Our Government can't keep secrets out of the hands of enemy states, but BY GOD THE BDA CAN!!! The only thing that "agreement" means is that now instead of names, they are called "unnamed sources within the BDA". Give me a break. The information is out there. If you can't comment on them fine. But there is A LOT of speculation on either side. You want to shill for BR based on some little party you attended, fine. If I want to present info I have come across, I will.

[nightflier]

This rest of your comments are not worth responding to. Its nothing but personal attacks and insults. This is audioreview, a website for audio not personalities.

Real mature, there lil't. I believe it was you who said:

Nightflier, you must be gay,

...in addition to myriad other insults and personal attacks. As a matter of fact, you're the one who started with the attacks both in this thread (that I started) and the last debate that you ruined with your diarrhea of the mouth. Now I'm sure people are fed up with all the point-for-point debates that really have little to do with the original topic, so since I started this thread, I'll see if I can get you to focus a little.

First of all, I have to come clean about one item. I did say that the "disk was dead." I had fogotten that I had said so, and you pointed that out. Fine. But I still stand by the context I was referring to. As a matter of fact, I disagree with every other argument you've made in your last response. But unlike you, apparently, I do have a life, and so for the sake of brevity and the sanity of anyone who has been kind enough to read through the pointless insults, I am going to try and reign this into the most significant points under discussion. I hope that you can be mature enough to stay on point with those, for the benefit of everyone here.

Point #1: My SACD setup is just fine, thank you
I'm not rehashing this because I want to be right, but it pertains directly to my point about comparing SACD to the new hi-res sound formats. The ICBM is the only processing I have in place. I pass the PCM signal directly from my player through the receiver unprocessed to the ICBM. My seating position is as close to the center of the room as possible and the five identical speakers are angled towards that spot. Granted I do not use distance processing, volume adjustment and the center channel is horizontal. And yes, my Outlaw pre/pro can do all this type of processing, but I choose to forgo it, for the sake of allowing the SACD signal to be as unprocessed as possible.

Now, if I had the funds to improve on this, I would, but right now, that is the best I can do. So now, stop being such an arrogant pr*ck and admit that while this is not perfectly according to spec, it is also not so far off as to skew my ability to make out good recordings from bad, whether the bass is adequate or not, and how different that sound is from other processed formats. Stop acting as if I don't know what I'm doing with my setup.

Point #2: Your opinion is too focussed on sales figures
Now this is pretty basic really. You base the success or failure of VOD solely on sales figures. Now several people here and in the other thread have tried to point out to you that paid VOD is not the whole picture, yet you've wasted a whole lot of time and space trying to prove that it is - give it up already - you are wrong. Free VOD content is significant because it occupies people when they could be watching other content (DVD, Cable, BR/HDDVD, etc.). Therefore it competes with these formats, even if the quality differs. Stop being so concerned about being right that you can't see the obvious truth in this and admit that sales figures are only part of the picture.

Point #3: Your contention that there is no music that uses bass below 40Hz
To begin, the idea that you would know every music disk and be able to tell us this is ludicrous - this is your own fantasy, maybe, but you're not that knowledgeable. Not only do I have a number of LPs, RBCDs, HDCDs, SACDs, DVD-As and concert DVDs that do actually make use of the lower frequencies below 40Hz, but I also happen to like and collect them. As I've mentioned, I used to play the organ and while I may not be able to claim having "perfect pitch" (which is highly subjective, anyhow), I do have a trained ear to this type of instrument.

So yes, I have a large collection of organ music from Bach to Franck to Dupre and even the lesser known modern experimental composers. I also have orchestral and religious works you've probably never heard of from Hofhaness to Von Kessels. I also have a decent selection of piano music, also including many unusual modern compositions you probably wouldn't know or care for. Then there's the music that is non-Western and experimental from Mongolian throat singing and percussion instruments outside of the "traditional" symphonic stable such as gongs and bells - yes, I do have some of that too. Finally there is the non-acoustic compositions in modern music from Massive Attack to Groove Armada.

And if you think I don't have the equipment to fully appreciate it, I've had subs in my home from Paradigm, Talon, SVS, Velodyne, and currently have two 5' tall subs gracing my HT room. You can pretty much say that bass is my passion. So before you come here and insult my knowledge about bass, you better check that attitude and rethink your argument.

Point #4: BR & HDDVD only make up 5% of the market - that makes BR just 3%
You've been trying to weasel out of that one from the beginning. No amount of spin or doublespeak will change this fact. And then you start up on this idea that BR/HDDVD went from 1% to 5% in something like a year and a half and you compare that to DVD's acceptance, what was that some 15 years ago? Only someone so focussed on only seeing his own side of the argument could miss the fact that the time difference makes this comparison completely irrelevant. Distribution, market factors, promotion technologies, and the internet make this completely inconsequential. Now either you know this and you;re just trying to spread FUD, or you're just not able to see the world outside of your own created reality.

Point #5: Downloading didn't start 3-4 years ago (in 2004)
Now this is another example of your focus on sales. You see, in your small little world downloading only started when $ was being made from it. That is completely false. Downloading music started on bulletin boards, decades ago, well before Napster. Granted it was not MP3 quality and took forever to download, but it existed and the cat was out of the bag. When MP3 and Napster spiked, that is when the problem became too great to ignore. But this was years before 2004. So when you suggest that downloading didn't affect CD sales, you're only looking at the last 3-4 years and that's quite misleading. It suits your argument because you can tie spikes in CD sales to it in 2005 & 2006, but that completely neglects to mention the sad state of affairs during the crucial 1998-2003 period.

Point #6: Microsoft's support of HDDVD is significant
You can dismiss Bill Gates all you want (he doesn't even run the company anymore), but the fact is Microsoft is a very important player here. When Microsoft says jump, everybody from Paramount, to Novell, to Steve Jobs, to everyone of its cross-licensing partners asks how high. Your contention that they are just a PC company is ignorant and short-sided. They would like nothing more than to beat Sony out of the HT market and it's probably the reason why they are pushing HDDVD. Now you may think you can troll around yacking about computers and game consoles with the same arrogance as you do with BR/HDDVD, but the fact is you knowledge about those is limited. Why don't you let others handle that before you really get embarrassed?

Point #7: Classe and Denon upcoming players
Now I think the fact that I did not say that Denon made an HDDVD player has been sorted out. You were wrong about that, won't admit that you were wrong, and are still trying to water it down. Granted, it's a minor point, but you're so bent on never having been wrong, that it's relevant to point it out.

Now the Classe issue is still festering. So let me repeat what I said: I read that Classe was considering the development of a new Universal player. It was in a show report that I thought was in Stereophile, and I have yet to find it, but I will. Now regarding that quote about Classe, it did not come from my friend, it came straight from Classe's sales department. If you'd have bothered to read my words a little better, you would not have been caught with your foot in your mouth, again. They said: "A degree of uncertainty continues to cloud the future of the new blue laser disc formats and it remains unclear which, if any, of these formats will become the dominant technology." So if Classe is saying "it's unclear which, if any, of these formats will become dominant," it's also pretty much what I've been saying too: they are going to wait it out a little longer, so maybe the consumers should too.

Point #8: Confusion about the HDMI spec could very well be deterring sales
First of all, not all players are HDMI 1.3. Second very few people know what the spec covers. Third only a few receivers and disk players are HDMI 1.3 compliant. Fourth, very few sales reps know enough to inform consumers. Fifth very few product boxes and store display specs specify this and if they do, it's not complete information. Sixth, the online and print media are also misinformed and printing contradictory information.

The fact is, there's a huge amount of confusion about it. So I would say those are some pretty strong deterrents to the average consumer. To continue to maintain that these deterrents have absolutely no impact on adoption is just absolutist and wishful thinking. The fact is these details are confusing the customer. But the best part is that you think that the average consumer would buy an earlier spec 1.1 or 1.2 over the 1.3 spec. The reality is, that no matter what the technological details are, people will most often choose the higher spec for the same money. Nobody will buy last year's model for the same money. Your contention that they wouldn't is just and uneducated deduction.

So what do you say lil't? Do you think you can spare us the useless hair-slitting and insults and just address these points? Since you've already hijacked this thread into another debate over BR/HDDVD, the least you can do is answer these important points by the OP. After all, it is his thread.

[PeruvianSkies]

Nightflier.....

2000 Posts in 5 years, about half of them meaningless, the other half useless. About 5% of them are just recently debating in the News&Rumors section.

Try 4500 posts in one year, then you can celebrate something...haha!

[L.J.]

Ps, still hatin' I see. Shouldn't you be creating 3rd & 4th screen names or something, so you can hit the people you don't like with red thingies?

Talking 'bout meaningless posts. Half of your posts are following people around taking cheap shots whenever you can. Well, at least you dropped that troll killer title..........

[PeruvianSkies]

Ps, still hatin' I see. Shouldn't you be creating 3rd & 4th screen names or something, so you can hit the people you don't like with red thingies?

Talking 'bout meaningless posts. Half of your posts are following people around taking cheap shots whenever you can. Well, at least you dropped that troll killer title..........

Really? Well, then explain to me the 183 threads that I started this past year? You try writing me off as this 'hater' when I have attempted to try and give this site some energy. I contribute quite a bit to this site, maybe if you read more of my posts you would realize this, they are usually found under the Favorite Films section.

Usernames? I only have one other one, which won't even let me log in anymore because it was hijacked and the Admins shut it down, which is the whole reason I had to start over with this screen name last October.

[L.J.]

Really? Well, then explain to me the 183 threads that I started this past year? You try writing me off as this 'hater' when I have attempted to try and give this site some energy. I contribute quite a bit to this site, maybe if you read more of my posts you would realize this, they are usually found under the Favorite Films section.

Usernames? I only have one other one, which won't even let me log in anymore because it was hijacked and the Admins shut it down, which is the whole reason I had to start over with this screen name last October.

Well let me get that trophy dusted off for ya and get ready for the presentation. I mean, what would AR be without PeruvianSkies and his 183 threads?

[Woochifer]

2,000 Posts in 5 years, about half of them meaningless, the other half useless.

Congrats! Aside from the post volume, you've once again written a perfect autobiography! You sure you're not reading your own posts when throwing your typically whiny accusations out at others?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Blanket statement, and simply not true. While I will 100% agree with you that d/l is NOT the same quality as the physical media, for the majority folks that don't have your caliber of equipment its "satisfactory". If there is no difference in "quality" then why are HD downloads on XBOX Live the most popular form of HD D/L in the industry? It's killing ITunes, and cable/sat providers hands down. Keep in mind that the same material is ALSO availible in SD. So why are consumers paying more for the HD?

Not a blanket statement, a proven fact. Studio after studio survey has proven the same audience going for downloads in general, are not the same audience looking for high quality audio and video. Survey after survey has proven that those who go for downloads generally are doing so for convience, and not for high quality because you and I know it is not high quality. Most hometheater hobbiest do not buy into "satisfactory" when they have access to much higher quality material. XBOX live is for those who own a XBOX game machine. What of those who do not own one? XBOX is useless to them. You cannot equate popularity with quality. MP3 is popular, and we both know it is not quality audio.
According to Microsoft's own survey of XBOX owners, many of them do not even own a HDTV, nor do they own TV with 40" or greater, so what quality can you ascertain from HD on a non HDTV or with one with a screen too small to see any real detail?

XBOX does allow you to get you low quality video from the box to a larger screen. Itunes still has no way to get HD images from the player to a larger screen. That is probably the main reason why it is not more popular. As far as cable/sat downloading, thanks for making my point. Now convey this to nightmare oops I mean nightflier.

Just to give you some perspective. According to NDP downloading will represent a 200 million dollar business 2008. HD DVD and Bluray generated more than 4 billion dollars in sales of players and media from October of 2006 to October of 2007. When compared to a small pond, downloading of any type can look big, but when compared to an overall larger picture, its just a really small fish.

Why do you feel the need to draw a line in the sand about quality/convienece. It may not be up to YOUR standards, but millions of others disagree with you.

It is to help you understand some perspective, and different market segments. Just smooshing things all together does not allow for any analysis. It has been proven in technology after technology that convience comes at the cost of quality. MP3, lossy Itunes files, low quality heavily compressed downloads, and heavily compressed VOD are convient delivery system. HD DVD and Bluray are high quality audio and video delivery system. They are very different, their goal is different, the quality is VERY different, and therefore must be analyzed differently.

The "piracy" you pointed out with your out of date articles showcased the ablitiy to play bootleg GAMES, not d/l material. If you don't care about games fine, but don't confuse the 2 issues. Movie studios are not concerned about pirated games, but pirated movies.

When you said this
The only differnce is that w/360 the HD cannont be attached or accessed by a computer. So its actually pretty safe from Piracy. The PS3 is a different animal because it uses a standard HardDrive, that can be removed and accessed by a computer. Perhaps thats why industry is slow to embrace the PS3 as a D/L solution for media?

You made a blanket assertion that the XBOX was more secure than the PS3. I have proven that you information is incorrect. The XBOX is not more secure than the PS3, based on the articles it is a very unsecure format in and of itself. No one has to compare it to anything. If you tried the same thing to the PS3(messing with its motherboard), you have bricked it before you could download your first game or movie.

The links only prove that you are content to dig up half the story. Then pretend that your ancient articles somehow end the arguement. Take a read on this site:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171135.html

MS has not only been issuing updates to quell the issue of modding, they have gone further. Now they are issuing updates that physically disable the units. Also known as "bricking". The important part about this is that for d/l material to get on the 360, one has to utilize "LIVE". So, if you have a modded XBOX 360, you need to get on Live. If you want to use Live, you need the latest update. Get the update, kills machine. If you "decline" the update, your booted off live. If you are not on live, YOU CANT GET MEDIA. So, in essence your movie studios are safe.

You are not addressing pirated discs and other media. If you do not sign on to XBOX live, they cannot install a update that can brick you player. If you play only pirated material, then MS cannot brick your player. From what I have read, these guys that do the mods avoid XBOX live like the plague. This keeps MS from touching them. The hole is still there, and alot of folks in the Asian territories know this and are expoliting it like crazy.

Game piracy, and movie piracy are 2 different animals.

Breaking the law is breaking the law. How it is done is irrelevant.

No this is where you are out of your league. Honestly, as much crap as I give you, I admit you know FAR more than I do about BR/ HD-DVD. It may be fun to tweak your horn, but in the end, I realize you have more information, and expert information that I don't. However, in this arena, you are lost. The information you present is out of date, and unrelated to the issue of MEDIA piracy, and GAME piracy. The issue of security for the "GamerScore" cheating is related to PASSWORDS. Not, modding, or other hardware cracks. If I give someone a password to my account, that is completly different that writing code, or breaking the chips off the motherboard. But I wouldn't expect you to know that as you have already stated numerous times you don't care about gaming. So stop acting like you know anything about it. Because you don't.

If you know I do not care, then you know you have just wasted time typing this. So going forward, I know when people have made up some of the crap you have that, they are tweaking. So be aware that I am unmoved by this immature practice. Adults do not have to tweak, they discuss and debate. Poking at people is childs play.

You are aware of course that the XBOX, and the XBOX 360 are 2 different consoles right? So to dig up information on a dead console only showcases your total lack of knowledge about current issues, and the topic at hand. Your arguement would be akin to me digging up an article about the Ford Pinto, and saying that its olbvious that Ford only makes defective cars. Never mind that it was over 20 years ago, and a DEAD issue. If you can't make your argument relevent about the current system I suggest you troll elsewhere.

What showcases my knowledge is I know the fact the Microsoft cannot design and implement a secure product. Windows, Windows media player, XBOX, XBOX360, explorer, have all been hacked in some shape or form. This is going back years and years to their first marketed product. So when some beefbrain tells me that any Microsoft product is safer from piracy than another, I know that they are tweaking my horn. Its either that or they don't know their butt from a hole in the ground. Which do you cop to?

Agreed. But not all movie D/L are P2P. Thats why studios are flocking to Live, and to a lesser degree ITunes.

Nobody is flocking to live. Studio are releasing selected movies and TV programming to xbox live. Not ALL studio support XBOX live am I correct? It is somewhat disengenious to use the word flocking since not all studio rushed to support live, nor are they releasing their most valuable content to it. I know for a fact Disney is not releasing their most prized movies to Xbox live

So please explain to me how they determine the ROI on the ad campaign? How do they assign a value to the campaign. You can expect the world, but it doesn't make it so.

Its called sales projections.

I'm not going to disagree with product placement, although the power of that is coming more into question as companies rush to place anything and everything. And how in the world do you quantify ROI on product placement? About the best product placement was Recee's Pieces in ET. After that the race was on, but results haven't been nearly as good as that case.

Thanks for making my point again. Now explain this to nightmare (oops) nightcrawler(dang did it again) nighflier.

And as far as advertisement goes, business spend plenty of money "just to get an effect". Happens ALL THE TIME. Ever heard of the SuperBowl? Plenty of studies have been done showing that the money spent vs/return doesn't bear out. But lots of companies blow their entire ad budget for the year on 1-2 spots. Master Lock used to be one of them, but they have realized that they get a bigger bang for other promotions.

Beefbrain, it is apparent you have never run a business. Anyone spending 2.6 million dollars for a 30 second spot is not looking for an effect. They are advertising in front of one of the largest audiences for a single event next to Nascar. It is irrelevant whether they get the return, but they sure in the hell expect it, and do sale projections to anticipate it. Thank you for making my point again with your Master Lock example. If it does not produce results, companies move on.

And just because an ad is placed, doesn't mean results. Let me ask you Mr. Bright guy, how many ads would it take to get you to buy Bose Speakers? I'd be willing to bet that you could watch 20 ads a day on TV, read 15 newspaper ads, see it in your subscription to AARP Monthly, and still never buy it. Why? Because regardless of the LEVEL of promotion, your not interested in the product. But according to your theory, its not because you don't want to buy the product, its because its not being promoted to YOU in the correct way. So should Bose call you every day? Maybe direct email you 3 times an hour, and stick flyers on the windshield of your car? No? What else can they do?

This is a lousy way to advance your point. Bose is not interested in me, they are interested in the millions and millions of ignorant NON audio folks who are much more subject to the suggestion of quality, than the reality of it. Even though I would not purchase a single product of theirs, the reality is they are the largest speaker company in the world by far. They are looking for people just like you who prefer "good enough" instead of excellent value for the money. They are looking for people too lazy and stupid to do comparison shopping or their audio homework. Piss poor example buddy.

Oh, I didn't realize they signed an agreement. Our Government can't keep secrets out of the hands of enemy states, but BY GOD THE BDA CAN!!! The only thing that "agreement" means is that now instead of names, they are called "unnamed sources within the BDA". Give me a break. The information is out there. If you can't comment on them fine. But there is A LOT of speculation on either side. You want to shill for BR based on some little party you attended, fine. If I want to present info I have come across, I will.

Groundbeef, you are nothing more than a liar. If there were unnamed sources giving out BR contract information, people like paidgeek, and several others at bluray.com would know all about it. Most all of the insiders there represent their companies at the highest level from all bluray supporting studios. They will not talk about it at all. What, your gamer friends told you this? There is no information being spread like this on any other hometheater website, or anywhere else you liar. If Paramount could keep the fact that they were going exclusive a secret from even their own employees, then the BDA can keep their contract information secret. To compare what our govenment does to what the BDA does, is a weak and faulty comparison. This is just a plain lie. This is grounds for nobody to believe a damn thing you have to say in the future. You have no credibility on this issue at all. Please go back to the pasture and eat grass. When a person lies like this, this shows the weakness of their point.

[Groundbeef]

You are not addressing pirated discs and other media. If you do not sign on to XBOX live, they cannot install a update that can brick you player. If you play only pirated material, then MS cannot brick your player. From what I have read, these guys that do the mods avoid XBOX live like the plague. This keeps MS from touching them. The hole is still there, and alot of folks in the Asian territories know this and are expoliting it like crazy. .

Thanks for making my point old man. The original discussion was on HD Movie Downloads. Of which XBOX Live is doing a booming business. Then you decide to introduce game piracy THAT IS TOTALLY UNRELATED. So, if you mod your 360, you cant get on live. If you cant get on LIVE, you CANT get movies. If you cant get movies, THERE IS NO DANGER OF PIRACY. Thanks for making MY point, and making yourself look like an even bigger ass than you already have. I'll let Nightflier know you said "Hi".

If you know I do not care, then you know you have just wasted time typing this. So going forward, I know when people have made up some of the crap you have that, they are tweaking. So be aware that I am unmoved by this immature practice. Adults do not have to tweak, they discuss and debate. Poking at people is childs play. .

Well, I've been waiting for you to debate. Instead you have once again gone to the gutter. Calling people liars, and other names only shows off how weak a position you are arguing from. Too bad your employers can't see what an ass you make of yourself here. Unless of course you do it at work also.

What showcases my knowledge is I know the fact the Microsoft cannot design and implement a secure product. Windows, Windows media player, XBOX, XBOX360, explorer, have all been hacked in some shape or form. This is going back years and years to their first marketed product. So when some beefbrain tells me that any Microsoft product is safer from piracy than another, I know that they are tweaking my horn. Its either that or they don't know their butt from a hole in the ground. Which do you cop to?.

Neither. The only thing you have proven is how clueless you are when it comes to consoles. The PS3 has been hacked as well, but the difference is that SONY is "working" on IPTV, and movie D/L and has been for 2 years. MS has a robust SD/HD movie download system, that has not been shown to be affected by nefarious activity. The best you can do is showcase a 2 year old article about gaming piracy, and another about persons sharing passwords. Nothing about movies/TV content because they are unaffected by this SEPARATE issue. When shown articles about MS combating the problem, you can only sputter about how an OLD Defunct Console proves your point. Go take a nap old man, and try again later.

Nobody is flocking to live. Studio are releasing selected movies and TV programming to xbox live. Not ALL studio support XBOX live am I correct? It is somewhat disengenious to use the word flocking since not all studio rushed to support live, nor are they releasing their most valuable content to it. I know for a fact Disney is not releasing their most prized movies to Xbox live.

Right, I forgot, they are "Flocking" to Sony to flood the market with d/l movies and TV content. Oh wait, Sony doesn't offer that service. My bad. Yes, I said "Flock". More and more content is being offered each day. Apple can't compete,and they are killing Sat/Cable. The fact that Disney is offering ANY HD content on MS is a pretty big step. After all, didn't Disney go on record NOT supporting HD-DVD, and only Blu-Ray? Kinda funny then, that they offer HD on a MS service. Great point about Disney, thanks for making my arguement!

Its called sales projections. .

If your basing sales projections soley on your Ad budget you got bigger problems. Good luck with that.

Beefbrain, it is apparent you have never run a business. Anyone spending 2.6 million dollars for a 30 second spot is not looking for an effect. They are advertising in front of one of the largest audiences for a single event next to Nascar. It is irrelevant whether they get the return, but they sure in the hell expect it, and do sale projections to anticipate it. Thank you for making my point again with your Master Lock example. If it does not produce results, companies move on. .

Yeah, your right. Pets.Com was really hoping the Superbowl would have worked out better for them. And certainly anyone else that spends that kind of money isn't looking for an 'effect'. Your an idiot. They ARE looking for an effect, but as you realize, it won't translate directly into sales. Sounds like your backpeddling here. Now it "It's irrelevant whether they get th return". I thought that was what they were so concerned about remeber the ROI? Master Lock only showed that plenty of companies blew their entire ad budget on 1 commercial for the year. For the "Effect" as you put it. It made my case, but I'll let your feeble mind think it helped you. You need all the help you can get.

This is a lousy way to advance your point. Bose is not interested in me, they are interested in the millions and millions of ignorant NON audio folks who are much more subject to the suggestion of quality, than the reality of it. Even though I would not purchase a single product of theirs, the reality is they are the largest speaker company in the world by far. They are looking for people just like you who prefer "good enough" instead of excellent value for the money. They are looking for people too lazy and stupid to do comparison shopping or their audio homework. Piss poor example buddy. .

No, they actually figured you into their ROI. So, if they only spent a bit more they might land you. And its not a bad example, just shows how little you understand the relationship between Advertising, and actual "Sales". Keep thinking there is a direct correlation. It's good that you make all of us laugh so hard. Keeps us coming back to learn more from Sir T "Terrible in Math, Debate, and Business".

Groundbeef, you are nothing more than a liar. If there were unnamed sources giving out BR contract information, people like paidgeek, and several others at bluray.com would know all about it. Most all of the insiders there represent their companies at the highest level from all bluray supporting studios. They will not talk about it at all. What, your gamer friends told you this? There is no information being spread like this on any other hometheater website, or anywhere else you liar. If Paramount could keep the fact that they were going exclusive a secret from even their own employees, then the BDA can keep their contract information secret. To compare what our govenment does to what the BDA does, is a weak and faulty comparison. This is just a plain lie. This is grounds for nobody to believe a damn thing you have to say in the future. You have no credibility on this issue at all. Please go back to the pasture and eat grass. When a person lies like this, this shows the weakness of their point.

More bloviation folks! Step right up, and gather 'round. Hear how the BDA can lock up secrecy where the US government can't. Perhaps BDA should give a course to the CIA, FBI, and NSA. They got that whole "secrecy" thing locked up. Apparently it only takes a signature on a non-disclosure agreement. AHHHHHH. When you belive that NO one will talk it only makes you look dumber than when you discuss game consoles. And belive me, thats pretty stupid.

Do I know what happens between closed doors? Nope. DO YOU? And if you comment on that, you better check your disclosure agreement closely. Because if you talk here, just imagine what others are saying elsewhere. It's human nature to share. Don't pretend some paper agreement will keep secrets. It wont.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Nightmare: Real mature, there lil't. I believe it was you who said:

Since I have been bringing things back to your memory let's discuss why I said this. Did you not make this statement;

Sir Terrence the Terrible, what is that, a small weenie complex?

When someone ask me this question on a audio website, I have to wonder if they are gay for focusing on my body parts, and not on the issue. When you can show me a compelling argument that effectively fuses audio and weenies together logically, then I will apologize for what I said. Otherwise the question stands. Cool?

If you have the life that you state you have, then maybe you should tend to it. Because you are not making any points here with the kind of mindless, unsupported, no history points you are attempting to advance in this debate. Let's get to the meat of your posts cause I am hungry.

Point #1: My SACD setup is just fine, thank you

So you are attempting to advance the arguement that you use no delay because all of your speakers are equidistant, and you use no volume balance for your speakers because all of your speakers were perfectly balance right out of the carton?

Well, then you system must sould like crap. I know of nobody who can just plop five speakers in a room, and they all just balance like magic. Every person in the world HAS to do speaker to speaker balance to achieve equal loudness from all speakers, so for you to say you do not makes you full of it. My speakers are frequency, time/phase correct, and tonally matched anechoically, but when I brought them into my room, they require SOME volume compensation from speaker to speaker to acheive identical output. Who are you trying to fool here?

Secondly the ICBM has to pass ALL audio frequencies through its curcuits to filter out the bass. It is not exactly the cleanest or most graceful way to handle SACD audio. Your player just like all universal players has to convert the DSD stream to PCM so it can pass through your players DAC. Even if your player could pass DSD to your receiver raw and untouched, the outlaw cannot process DSD signal to its outputs. They must be converted to PCM to output through its DAC. No matter where you turn my friend, the conversion is there. Then there is the fact that you send your output through another stage of analog processing. So much for the clean signal path. The only way to do what you THINK you are doing, is to have a player that passes a raw DSD stream to your reciever, which can process raw DSD to its outputs. Since all receiver DSP algorythms are built around PCM, there is no chance you are ever going to get what you THINK you already have. Lastly even if you do not use any form of processing including level matching(which I doubt you can get around without telling a fib), your SACD still has to be converted to PCM no matter what. You would be much better off using the internal bass management of you receiver to acheive a clean link to your speakers. One could also make the point that you have sacrificed audio purity for room contamination because you apparently use nothing to compensate for room resonances and standing waves. So much for the minimalist thinking huh? It is VERY difficult to tame these things with bass traps alone without creating other acoustical problems within the room. Can anyone say suckout?

Point #2: Your opinion is too focussed on sales figures

When a studio is going to look at its game plan, they are not goint to trust nightfliers gut feelings, what he thinks, his anecdotal opinions, and his made in a vaccum projections. They look at sales figures and trends. Unknows and things outside the realm of possibilty is not what they are interested in, that is what nightflier attempts to use to counter verfiable information. Your gut, your thoughts, your musing and rantings are not verifable, and when you are debating online, facts and figures are king, your opinion is not. Your opinion cannot be advanced as a fact, but a figure can.

Studios and Record companies are not interested in free material, it makes them no money. Money drives the machine, helps create, market, and distribute the product. Guts, your brain(which you openly admit has lapses), what you think cannot do this. Guts, brains and projections are only powerful when there are fact and figures to support it.

Nobody but you supports the notion that unknowns are important to anything except to you, so stop the lying, spinning and trying to make it look like there is broad support for your conclusions . Give up the several people support my opinion crap, because only you support your opinion. What you need to do is start to read more verifiable information instead of trying to advance your invented in a vaccum and gut information. I am reading what people who make the decisions read. You are reading your gut and brain which are very uniformed, and not verifiable. Do you think any Studio or Record company executive takes your approach, or mine? Think about his very carefully before you come up with another off the cuff stupid answer okay?

VOD=$200 million dollars worth of business to the studios and cable companies in 2006, less than 2005.
Bluray and HD DVD= $4 billion dollars in player and software sales for the year between October 2006 and 2007. Sales figures are the only thing that a decision maker want to see. Is this too hard for you to grasp? While unit sales are only show a 5% share against the DVD market, it is a 26% share in terms of revenue.

Point #3: Your contention that there is no music that uses bass below 40Hz

Nobody needs to listen to every peice of music to understand that acoustical(non amplified music) recordings sans organ have no useful information below 40hz. All one has to do is look at the chart that explains and shows the frequency response of instruments most used in acoustical orchestrial music.

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

The instrument with the lowest response is the double bass at 41.20hz. The only other instrument that goes lower is the C pedal on a large organ at 16hz(not 8hz as you assert) or a VERY huge bass drum which is not used in a majority of classical music. You can forget your LP's and very deep bass, because LP's cannot track any bass frequencies below 35hz without the needle jumping off the vinyl itself, especially at high levels. I also own quite a few CD, concert DVD, SACD and DVD-A as well. But I do not have to guess what frequencies are excited by the music. I can just look over at 6 RTA's that span from 20hz-20khz on each of my 5.1 channels and they can tell me EXACTLY what frequencies are being excited. You can only guess, and guess what? There ear is terrible at telling you exactly what frequencies you are hearing. It may sound deep to the ear, but not be below 50hz on a RTA. When it comes to deep bass, our ears are just not that sensitive to frequency or amplitude for that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson_curves

The only music that contains deep loud bass, is music that uses sample drums that have been EQ'd(like rap music) sythesized music(this can go as low as 10hz) and pop music(which is not acoustical by anyones standards). The piano which can go as low as 27.5hz cannot do that very loud at all. The bass pedals on a organ(the way it is recorded) can play audible signals down to 16hz, but not loud enough to overload any system electrically.

I really do not care if you have a 10' tall sub, it is only there to reproduce what is on the recording. If the acoustical recording does not have very deep bass(98% don't) then it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Oh and by the way, a cannon is not an acoustical instrument, it is an instrument of war. The rest of your useless musing have no relevance to the topic at hand, because you have no verifiable way of measuring what you think you hear.

Point #4: BR & HDDVD only make up 5% of the market - that makes BR just 3%

This point is only worthwhile if time stops right now. It does not. So let me once again point out facts to you. At one point CD sales where 1% of LP's. At one point SACD and DVD-A sales where 1% of CD's(and probably stayed that way throughout its lifetime). At one time DVD's were 1% of VHS, and HD DVD/BR sales where 1% of DVD's. All grew over time, because time does not stand still.

Artists create music either in a studio or live event. The music goes to post production for sweetening(some cases not). The record companies hear it and decide how to market it. It is distributed and purchased. This has not changed since the advent of the LP. The only thing that has changed is the distribution network with the addition of the internet. While marketing TOOLS have changed, the overall practice of marketing music has not. While promotional TOOLS have changed, the way music is promoted has not.

Movies are created in live locations or studio backlots. The elements of the movie are assembled in post production. The marketing department reviews the movie, and decide what marketing slant to take. The movie is distributed theatrically. When its run is over, the movie is prepared for encoding for at one time VHS, then DVD and now DVD and HD on disc. The TOOLS for this have gotten more sophisticated and better, and some practices for post preparation for encoding have changed. But fundementally the process has not changed much. What has changed is the distribution system with the introduction of the internet. Marketing TOOLS have change, but the practice of marketing a movie has not. Promotional TOOLS have changed, but the practice of promoting a movie theatrically or on disc has not. So to advance the theory that EVERYTHING has so drastically change that something that happen 15 years ago is irrelevant is as stupid as the thought that a ship full of players going down in the ocean effects the pricing structure of the players in the market. HD DVD and Bluray are following the same practice of adoption as the DVD. CD follow the same practice of adoption as the LP. DVD followed the same practice of adoption as VHS. The only change to the landscape has been the distribution of movies via the internet. That is only another TOOL for distribution, not a wholesale change of the way business is done. Only a person making a judgement based on his guts and feeling would advance this kind of theory. So much for your understanding of how things have been done for 30 years. Not much change, but alot of new tools to get a product out there.

Point #5: Downloading didn't start 3-4 years ago (in 2004)

Once again this points out that you do not read what I type. I did not say downloading began 3-4 years ago, I said LEGAL downloading did not began until 3-4 years ago. You have to read ALL the words to get a clear understanding nightmare. P2P started with ripping a disc to your computer, so a disc had to be purchased before a P2P trade took place, right?

In 1998 there were many other reason CD sales were slipping, and illegal downloading was not the major one, or even a minor one. Disc pricing was the major one, and this was indentified in a survey by Warner and Universal records. P2P was so small then, there was absolutely no evidence that it was the issue. I have already identified other reasons in this post.

Secondly, CD sales were suffering way before Itunes and any other downloading service was ever invented. Back in 2002 sales of the CD were slipping in favor of concert DVD's. Back in 2000 sales of CD were slipping because there was too much junk being recorded by the major labels who control the CD market.

There is ample evidence to support this notion. When a concert DVD was released, the sale of the identical audio CD fell dramatically. People wanted images to go with their music on their 5.1 system, and they bought the DVD in greater numbers than the CD. There was a direct correlation to this phenom. You could not download or trade concert videos back in that day right?

In the year 2000 the major record labels did a major year long study and survey as to why sales began to slip. The response came back from the consumer that audio quality, and content quality was the major problem, not downloading. As a matter of fact there is no evidence that even illegal downloads have any effect of sales at all. Here is one study that went back to 2002;

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html

As a matter of fact pirating can actually increase sales of music that is of good quality to the consumer;

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=748832003

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/

According to this report file sharing was at a all time high only as late as 2005

http://www.prohiphop.com/2006/01/improved_cd_sal.html

So much for your assertion that downloads effect sales of discs. And so much for your assertion that the 1998-2003 period was not covered. I did covered it, and quite well I might add. Poof! That was your argument going up in smoke bro.

Point #6: Microsoft's support of HDDVD is significant

Is it? Well, their support did not help HD DVD with the sell of tranformers versus nothing released by BR in the same week of its release did it? HD DVD was outsold that week even with a strong exclusive title. Should HD DVD thank Microsoft for that?

Microsoft support has not helped HD DVD much in terms of disc sold as BR is outselling HD DVD 2-1 since inception in America has it not? World wide it is more like 4.1, not much help there either is there?

It has not help HD DVD with player sales since standalones are neck and neck(inspite of the fact the BR players are more expensive), and overall HD DVD is being outsold world wide 5-1 when you include all players with a internal bluray drive and all players with a HD DVD drive.

Microsoft could not convince the BDA to go with HDi could it? The BDA chose BD-java

Microsoft could not convince the cable industry to include windows CE as the cable box operating system could they? Interactive television never got off the ground.

Microsoft does not own movies do they? The studios own those, so Microsoft is beholden to them, not the other way around.

It is a mistake to equate Microsoft sucess of their core business and transfer that outward to other business ventures. Microsoft cannot overcome the HD DVD problems with their might. The issues are much too profound. How does microsoft might address the fact that Toshiba is the only manufacturer making players? How does microsoft overcome the fact the Sony, Disney, Lionsgate, and Fox will not support HD DVD?

Your point is overstated, as usual.

Point #7: Classe and Denon upcoming players

I was wrong huh

Well, didn't I read on this forum that they are just about to release one? I also think that companies like Classe are already ramping up to release a HD player, but they will do like most other companies and wait out this holiday season

Now are you denying you said they are ramping up to release a HD player, as in HD DVD, because I must tell you, nobody calls a bluray player a HD player, they call it a bluray player. Now if this is just another one of your " I didn't mean that" responses, then maybe you should think before posting a response. I know this would be difficult for you, but give it a try. It will save you alot of headache in the long run.

Then you came back with this charmer;

I said that Denon had announced one, not Classe

Denon annouced a bluray player not a HD player. HD is usually associated with HD DVD not bluray.

You never mention that your friend work in the sales department at classe, here is what you said.

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

Now it is this;

Now regarding that quote about Classe, it did not come from my friend, it came straight from Classe's sales department. If you'd have bothered to read my words a little better, you would not have been caught with your foot in your mouth, again.

I think I read your words quite clear, and it just proves that your are either a pathological liar, or you have the disease called footinmouth. Your classe story has taken on all kinds of versions, it's no wonder anyone can keep track. Your lying, and you know you are lying, so stop, just stop the lying and spining nightliar. There was no annoucement in Stereophile period. I went through about a years worth of my stereophile mags just to see if you were telling the truth. You were not, so this is just a lie to make a point, a pointless point. So now that you have been caught in several lies, how does one believe a word you say in any of your posts?

Point #8: Confusion about the HDMI spec could very well be deterring sales

Where is your proof? I have been asking for this since page two. Where is it?. I do not want to read what you think, I want to read a link that proves your assertions. Mine are quite supportable. I have long said the format wars are the reason people are not jumping into either bluray or HD DVD like crazy. That is the main reason. Other reasons include they not ready to trade in my DVD player, and price. There is online article after another supporting this. There are absolutely no articles supporting that HDMI version are the reasons ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NIL. That may be YOUR reasons, and that is born out of pure ignorace to what each version does. When music is released to bluray or HD DVD, you can bet it will not be in the SACD format. You can get 8 channels of PCM 24/96khz audio uncompressed on HDMI 1.1 version, so if music is your bag, this is what you get. If you are choosing not to support it because it will not support your precious SACD collection, then good, don't. I do not think anyone cares except you.

So back at ya nightliar. Now that I have address these points, and others as well, are you willing to be a student like you tried to be when you started this post? Or are you going to continue to advance stupid, inane, absent minded, historically non existant, outright lies out of your gut, brain, and in some cases your bum?

[PeruvianSkies]

Well let me get that trophy dusted off for ya and get ready for the presentation. I mean, what would AR be without PeruvianSkies and his 183 threads?

I am simply pointing out that I do contribute quite a bit to this site besides just in fights, which you seem to think are the only contributions that I make. You feel like I just come around and 'hate' on others, well, if that were the case would I contribute in other ways and as often as I do?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks for making my point old man. The original discussion was on HD Movie Downloads. Of which XBOX Live is doing a booming business. Then you decide to introduce game piracy THAT IS TOTALLY UNRELATED. So, if you mod your 360, you cant get on live. If you cant get on LIVE, you CANT get movies. If you cant get movies, THERE IS NO DANGER OF PIRACY. Thanks for making MY point, and making yourself look like an even bigger ass than you already have. I'll let Nightflier know you said "Hi".

Did you not say that the XBOX was more secure than the PS3?. That is how piracy was introduced to this conversation meathead. Modders do not care about XBOX live when they can play bootleg movies and games aquired through other sources. When you want to make a statement, be sure that nobody can counter it. Okay? I would hardly call $200 million spread between Apple, XBOX live, and cable booming. 4 billion dollars in a year for a brand new technology would be better described as booming.

Well, I've been waiting for you to debate. Instead you have once again gone to the gutter. Calling people liars, and other names only shows off how weak a position you are arguing from. Too bad your employers can't see what an ass you make of yourself here. Unless of course you do it at work also.

If you are waiting to debate as you state, then why have you gone back to personalities as opposed to the issue at hand? When people lie constantly as you have, then they are liars. There is no other way to characterize it. When a person is ready to debate, they do not lie.

Neither. The only thing you have proven is how clueless you are when it comes to consoles. The PS3 has been hacked as well, but the difference is that SONY is "working" on IPTV, and movie D/L and has been for 2 years. MS has a robust SD/HD movie download system, that has not been shown to be affected by nefarious activity. The best you can do is showcase a 2 year old article about gaming piracy, and another about persons sharing passwords. Nothing about movies/TV content because they are unaffected by this SEPARATE issue. When shown articles about MS combating the problem, you can only sputter about how an OLD Defunct Console proves your point. Go take a nap old man, and try again later.

Your head is as hard as a brick. I already stated I didn't care about consoles. Why don't you get this?

But you said yourself that the XBOX was more secure than the PS3. The difference between the XBOX hack and the PS3 hack is hardware versus software. The software issue can be eleviated through a firmware, unlike the XBOX, which can be . All Sony has to do is include the firmware on the very disc of the next game, and its game over. If the game is spread and picked up, without the proper protocol, the game won't play. XBOX has no such work around. All someone has to do is not log on to XBOX live, and their player can play hacked games and movies forever.

I guess if you were a little diaper wearing child, I would be a old man. Nobody would consider me a old man if they were out of their teens. I can only ascertain that you are a little diaper wearing child by your reference to me as an old man.

Right, I forgot, they are "Flocking" to Sony to flood the market with d/l movies and TV content. Oh wait, Sony doesn't offer that service. My bad. Yes, I said "Flock". More and more content is being offered each day. Apple can't compete,and they are killing Sat/Cable. The fact that Disney is offering ANY HD content on MS is a pretty big step. After all, didn't Disney go on record NOT supporting HD-DVD, and only Blu-Ray? Kinda funny then, that they offer HD on a MS service. Great point about Disney, thanks for making my arguement!

Your attempts to twist this are rebuffed. You cannot use the word FLOCK unless you were describing someone falling all over each other to get to something. The very fact that not ALL studios support XBOX short circuits this whole flocking to live bull crap. The fact that the studios are selective in what they are releasing to live shows a much more measured approach than your word FLOCKING would imply. Inflammatory word usage is for marketing people, and people who spin the facts. Disney offering televsion programming, and a few movies is no big deal. If they were releasing their premium stuff, that a big deal. Overstating a point shows the weakness of that point. Careful scrutiny shows its not point at all. All studio are looking for other distribution outlets. Live is just another one. When they start offering the same content you get on Bluray, then you have said something. Until then, this is a fatty hamburger, your favorite.

If your basing sales projections soley on your Ad budget you got bigger problems. Good luck with that.

How do you obtain a ad budget without sales. Good luck with that! Everyone does sales projections. If an ad does not meet even the most minimum of sales projections, then its on to another marketing outlet. Nobody said sales projection were based SOLEY on anything. It is a major thing, not the ONLY thing. That is business young grass eating leather purse!

Yeah, your right. Pets.Com was really hoping the Superbowl would have worked out better for them. And certainly anyone else that spends that kind of money isn't looking for an 'effect'. Your an idiot. They ARE looking for an effect, but as you realize, it won't translate directly into sales. Sounds like your backpeddling here. Now it "It's irrelevant whether they get th return". I thought that was what they were so concerned about remeber the ROI? Master Lock only showed that plenty of companies blew their entire ad budget on 1 commercial for the year. For the "Effect" as you put it. It made my case, but I'll let your feeble mind think it helped you. You need all the help you can get.

This makes no since at all. Why do you advertise if you are not looking for sales? Why spend big money on advertising if you are not looking for a larger ROI? Master lock learned this, Pets.com learned this, why is this so difficult for you to grasp as well. If a marketing outlet does not translate to sales growth(we are in a results driven world) then that outlet is abandon for another. No back peddling, just total constancy for those who can read.

No, they actually figured you into their ROI. So, if they only spent a bit more they might land you. And its not a bad example, just shows how little you understand the relationship between Advertising, and actual "Sales". Keep thinking there is a direct correlation. It's good that you make all of us laugh so hard. Keeps us coming back to learn more from Sir T "Terrible in Math, Debate, and Business".

Are you disputing that Bose advertising is not found in every audio magazine, in malls, inflight mags on airplanes, online and everywhere else? Here is a company that knows how to market and advertise, that is why they are the largest speaker company in the world. But of course a nose picking gaming little boy wouldn't know that would they? Bose makes my point valid, if no other company in the world does.

More bloviation folks! Step right up, and gather 'round. Hear how the BDA can lock up secrecy where the US government can't. Perhaps BDA should give a course to the CIA, FBI, and NSA. They got that whole "secrecy" thing locked up. Apparently it only takes a signature on a non-disclosure agreement. AHHHHHH. When you belive that NO one will talk it only makes you look dumber than when you discuss game consoles. And belive me, thats pretty stupid.

You have been eating so much of yourself, that the fat from the meat has gone to your head. The CIA, FBI and NSA are HUGE organizations with information on everything(computer laptops etc.). To keep information secret with a combined total of millions of employees would be next to impossible, since those employees have access to sensitive information and can expose it. The BDA is made up of 170 companies, with only people at the highest levels of that company knowing any details of the BDA contracts. The difference is staggering, but I am not surprised that you would even make this comparison.

If I wanted to know anything about consoles, I would know more about them than you ever could. Just like I know more about audio and video than you do. I put my energy into what interested me, not in what interests something that fits between two peices of bread.

Do I know what happens between closed doors? Nope. DO YOU? And if you comment on that, you better check your disclosure agreement closely. Because if you talk here, just imagine what others are saying elsewhere. It's human nature to share. Don't pretend some paper agreement will keep secrets. It wont.

If you were threaten with legal prosecution, would you tell? If it meant banishment from the BDA, and all of your liscensing aggreements abolished and revoked, would you put your business on the line just to spread contract information? I do not think so. As close as I am to the bluray insiders(and one even went to college with me), If I cannot get information on this, you know some snotting nosed gaming freak hasn't a chance. There is no information that I have devulge here, that has not already been reveal at bluray.com. You are spreading lies, you know you are, and it is stupid of you to continue this course. I visit almost all the major and some minor AV sites out there, I have heard of no one mentioning this AT ALL, because no one knows a single detail of this. This is nothing more than one of you fat between the bun lies. Move on, you have absolutely no traction here, that is for sure.

The bottom line is this. If Warner had not renewed is contractual obligations, they would be giving up their seat on the BDA BOD. If that was done, everyone would know about it because who is on the BOD is a matter of public record, and it would have been all over the internet. Since Warner is still listed as part of the BDA BOD, then what you have stated is a lie. When you know the rules of the BDA, it makes advancing this kind of FUD impossible.

You can call me idot, old man, or anything other name. I am unfazed by this. So if you were trying to get an effect, the only effect you got was everyone now knows what a little kid your truely are.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am simply pointing out that I do contribute quite a bit to this site besides just in fights, which you seem to think are the only contributions that I make. You feel like I just come around and 'hate' on others, well, if that were the case would I contribute in other ways and as often as I do?

PS, you are full of BS. You have attacked me at every chance you have gotten since I have return to this site. The only contribution you have made comes in the form of bloated movie analysis that is more opinion that fact. When pressed on technical stuff, you revert to a post i made a year ago as a cover for you crap. Please cut the passive/aggresive crap, it is very unflattering. Why do you think everyone has come down on you like they have, because you have been giving out food for free to the homeless?

I have been on this website since 1996. I have far more posts than 2000. I posted everyday here till a year ago. So my total would be closer to 10-15,000 posts, far more information than you have spewed in your entire life.

[Groundbeef]

Did you not say that the XBOX was more secure than the PS3?. That is how piracy was introduced to this conversation meathead. Modders do not care about XBOX live when they can play bootleg movies and games aquired through other sources. When you want to make a statement, be sure that nobody can counter it. Okay? I would hardly call $200 million spread between Apple, XBOX live, and cable booming. 4 billion dollars in a year for a brand new technology would be better described as booming. .

And I'm sure that it's going to be $200 million forever. In 5 years, lets revisit this topic. By then BR/HD-DVD will be an afterthought, and D/L will be on top.

If you are waiting to debate as you state, then why have you gone back to personalities as opposed to the issue at hand? When people lie constantly as you have, then they are liars. There is no other way to characterize it. When a person is ready to debate, they do not lie. .

You started with the liar comments dumb ass. Just waiting for you to actually debate, instead of trying to come up with witty coments about my Avatar. But since you actually don't have anything realistic or on topic to add, I'll wait for your next meat reference.

Your head is as hard as a brick. I already stated I didn't care about consoles. Why don't you get this?.

Then perhaps you ought to stop commenting about them. Your lack of knowledge and intellegence are showing.

But you said yourself that the XBOX was more secure than the PS3. The difference between the XBOX hack and the PS3 hack is hardware versus software. The software issue can be eleviated through a firmware, unlike the XBOX, which can be . All Sony has to do is include the firmware on the very disc of the next game, and its game over. If the game is spread and picked up, without the proper protocol, the game won't play. XBOX has no such work around. All someone has to do is not log on to XBOX live, and their player can play hacked games and movies forever. .

No, I think I was referencing the fact that its easier to pull the HD out of the PS3 (it is). It wouldn't be that difficult to then attach the HD to a computer. A little emulation and it can access the info. On the 360, you need to modify the motherboard. It is different.

For the PS3, there are A LOT of Linux applications that are doing the same thing that motherboard "mods" are doing to the 360. But you wouldn't know that because you don't care. So stop acting like your the definative source on console info. Because your not.

And please explain the last comment on your quote? How is a modded 360 going to play hacked movies? Without the latest "Key" the movies don't play. Get on live to get a key, and your system is "bricked". Seems like a waste to kill your system for a $4.00 d/l. But again your ignorance gets in the way of your inability to shut up when your behind.

I guess if you were a little diaper wearing child, I would be a old man. Nobody would consider me a old man if they were out of their teens. I can only ascertain that you are a little diaper wearing child by your reference to me as an old man. .

No, your total lack of grip of reality can only lead one to belive that you are in advanced stages of dementia. So, you might be young in years, but your mental ability can only be described as "ancient".

Your attempts to twist this are rebuffed. You cannot use the word FLOCK unless you were describing someone falling all over each other to get to something. The very fact that not ALL studios support XBOX short circuits this whole flocking to live bull crap. The fact that the studios are selective in what they are releasing to live shows a much more measured approach than your word FLOCKING would imply. Inflammatory word usage is for marketing people, and people who spin the facts. Disney offering televsion programming, and a few movies is no big deal. If they were releasing their premium stuff, that a big deal. Overstating a point shows the weakness of that point. Careful scrutiny shows its not point at all. All studio are looking for other distribution outlets. Live is just another one. When they start offering the same content you get on Bluray, then you have said something. Until then, this is a fatty hamburger, your favorite. .

The fact that Disney is even offering programming for d/l is a pretty big thing for MS. It's not like they said MS will NEVER get more, they are starting out slowly. Discount it all you want, but every business starts slowly. Just because physical media is a larger business model now doesn't mean it will be forever. Only a total ass would assume it will. My money is on your studio even looking at internet distribution for media in the future.

How do you obtain a ad budget without sales. Good luck with that! Everyone does sales projections. If an ad does not meet even the most minimum of sales projections, then its on to another marketing outlet. Nobody said sales projection were based SOLEY on anything. It is a major thing, not the ONLY thing. That is business young grass eating leather purse! .

Never said that people don't do sales projections. But they certainly don't bank on a $ to $ relation of ads run to sales.

This makes no since at all. Why do you advertise if you are not looking for sales? Why spend big money on advertising if you are not looking for a larger ROI? Master lock learned this, Pets.com learned this, why is this so difficult for you to grasp as well. If a marketing outlet does not translate to sales growth(we are in a results driven world) then that outlet is abandon for another. No back peddling, just total constancy for those who can read. .

Pets.com went out of business you moron. But who cares right? They were ADVERTISING dammit!

Are you disputing that Bose advertising is not found in every audio magazine, in malls, inflight mags on airplanes, online and everywhere else? Here is a company that knows how to market and advertise, that is why they are the largest speaker company in the world. But of course a nose picking gaming little boy wouldn't know that would they? Bose makes my point valid, if no other company in the world does. .

Nope, not contesting a thing. But I guess they should re-evaluate their advertising if they can't even convince a dolt like yourself to buy.

You have been eating so much of yourself, that the fat from the meat has gone to your head. The CIA, FBI and NSA are HUGE organizations with information on everything(computer laptops etc.). To keep information secret with a combined total of millions of employees would be next to impossible, since those employees have access to sensitive information and can expose it. The BDA is made up of 170 companies, with only people at the highest levels of that company knowing any details of the BDA contracts. The difference is staggering, but I am not surprised that you would even make this comparison. .

You do realize that there are different levels of "Secret" right? For god's sake, we cant even get the VP of the US to keep treasonous secrets "secret". So your 170 company consortium can? Please.

If I wanted to know anything about consoles, I would know more about them than you ever could. Just like I know more about audio and video than you do. I put my energy into what interested me, not in what interests something that fits between two peices of bread. .

So stop acting like you know anything about consoles. You do own one after all. Remember, the one that SONY President stated is a GAME MACHINE 1st and foremost?

If you were threaten with legal prosecution, would you tell? If it meant banishment from the BDA, and all of your liscensing aggreements abolished and revoked, would you put your business on the line just to spread contract information? I do not think so. As close as I am to the bluray insiders(and one even went to college with me), If I cannot get information on this, you know some snotting nosed gaming freak hasn't a chance. There is no information that I have devulge here, that has not already been reveal at bluray.com. You are spreading lies, you know you are, and it is stupid of you to continue this course. I visit almost all the major and some minor AV sites out there, I have heard of no one mentioning this AT ALL, because no one knows a single detail of this. This is nothing more than one of you fat between the bun lies. Move on, you have absolutely no traction here, that is for sure. .

Well, if you sell out the US, it means DEATH. And still, state secrets are sold. So please stop pretending that it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to leak a secret. And just because someone doesn't come running to you with a tattoo on their forhead that says "I LEAK INFO" doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'm not lying, but your delusional.

You can call me idot, old man, or anything other name. I am unfazed by this. So if you were trying to get an effect, the only effect you got was everyone now knows what a little kid your truely are.

No, not really. The only thing that people are realizing since your return is what a tool you are. You can sputter, and bloviate, and try to bully people, but in the end your just a hyperventilating out of touch ass.

[PeruvianSkies]

P

I have been on this website since 1996. I have far more posts than 2000. I posted everyday here till a year ago. So my total would be closer to 10-15,000 posts, far more information than you have spewed in your entire life.

You are also probably twice my age, so I would hope that you have, but that doesn't change the fact that what you spew out is arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish.

[Woochifer]

but that doesn't change the fact that what you spew out is arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish.

Ooohhh! I'm sure Terrence is oh so hurt by your latest tantrum!

You sure you're not looking in the mirror when posting? I don't think anyone else but you could have described your own posts quite this well! Congrats yet again!

And BTW, Terrence's facts have got your "facts" schooled by long shot. Hardly the stuff of "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" but then again, I should defer to you on this "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" subject since you seem to have quite a bit of "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" to your credit! Take a bow, you are an expert at something!

[PeruvianSkies]

Ooohhh! I'm sure Terrence is oh so hurt by your latest tantrum!

You sure you're not looking in the mirror when posting? I don't think anyone else but you could have described your own posts quite this well! Congrats yet again!

And BTW, Terrence's facts have got your "facts" schooled by long shot. Hardly the stuff of "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" but then again, I should defer to you on this "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" subject since you seem to have quite a bit of "arrogant, self-absorbed, ignorant rubbish" to your credit! Take a bow, you are an expert at something!

Why do you feel the need to cover Sir T's back? Or is that the position you are used to in SF?