Hi-Res Audio Formats on BR & HDDVD

[GMichael]

I've been dancing for 20 years,)

Aren't you tired yet?

[Woochifer]

Aren't you tired yet?

Good one! But, since it's at my expense, you're getting a greenie for that!

[GMichael]

Good one! But, since it's at my expense, you're getting a greenie for that!

GGGGGRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........................

[Groundbeef]

Aren't you tired yet?

Tired? Are you kidding? Its one of those "dance contests". The last one dancing is going to win a Bose Speaker System. You know Wooch, "Anything for Bose".

I just hope he wins. After all these years, to go away empty handed would be a shame.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Where do you get your information? Stupid Daily? Broadband is gaining at a rate of almost 50% a year. Narrowband is falling quickly.


According to this report, 75% thats 75% of households that have internet are utilizing BROADBAND. And new households that are acquiring internet access are choosing broadband.

http://www.bizreport.com/2007/07/thr...broadband.html

Yes, Broadband as we have in America according to your stats is at 75%. However, just as I made my point earlier, the broadband we have in this country is not as fast as the rest of the world, and not ready for mass downloading as well. Comcast is already starting to slow traffic down, or stop it entirely for P2P users sharing files because of bandwidth issues. This is just file sharing. When we start talking about those 75% downloading movies, it will get far worse than this. I have stated this to you time and time again, the internet as we have now cannot support widespread movie downloads, it is having a tough time handling P2P file sharing.

http://valleywag.com/tech/lawsuits/c...ion-314188.php

http://pressesc.com/01179677598_us_internet_slow

Hell, back in 2004, thats 3 short years ago, but pretty close to when you look for most of your data, the 10 largest cities with internet access were hovering at between 60-70% broadband access!

This is meaningless if the traffic is bottled up and slow.

Looks like the future is here, but somehow you got left back at the station. Did you know TV's come in color now?

If you weren't so stupid, you might be able to find some of this info before you go off an post more dribble.

If this is what you call the future, then your standards are much lower than mine, and your idea of the future is much different than reality will support.

I haven't lied once. BTW what classifies as a "Lie". I would suggest that your posting only 1/2 of the story (360 broken for piracy), then neglecting to post that "MS bricking modded 360's" would be at a minimum shading the truth, at worst LYING.

I posted mulitple posting of 360 broken for piracy, the links are there, if there was a lie, they told it not me. Are you disputing the links for their accuracy?

And the only thing that you have managed to shoot is your foot. Unless of course you forgot to pull it out of your waistband, and shot off your junk. That scenario is probably closer to the truth.

When you have no facts or info, just insult.

I'm sure that you are well aware of PS3 owners "ripping" BluRay disks onto the drive, and converting them onto PC's right? The key is proving somewhat problematic, but not impossible. Remeber, it was thought that even ripping the BluRay would not be possible.

Well aware of Slysoft software. You notice it is not everywhere? Did you notice that Slysoft has refused to talk about how they did the crack? I tell you why, they know that it is not easy to break BD+ permanently. The BDA can simply revoke the current keys on the fly, and can keep changing them via BD+. Slysoft would have to know every key issued now, and in the future for their software to be effective. Then they would have to figure out a way around BD-Rom as well, because they work hand in hand. If you attempt to play the disc with the security ripped off, it will not play in any bluray drive.

And your highlighed statement above, what does that prove? Have you actually been trying to circumvent security? Shame on you...

Stupid statement, no need to reply to this.

Sure it can be avoided. Just like the XBOX 360. Take it off the network, no more firmware updates.

Thank you for making my point.

Also, SlySoft is reporting that they have broken BD+ on EndgadetHD (Has to be the 2nd biggest cheerleader for BR just behind Sir T). The actual article is translated from the German newsite, so its a little choppy in the grammer department. I guess it really didn't take 10 years to bust it huh?

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/10/30...rs-fall-quiet/

Slysoft has not revealed how they did the crack, so until they do, we do not know just how he got a single key to a single disc. They have not been able to get multiple keys according to the BD+ insiders on bluray.com, and if they do, they would have to know what the new keys were to make the software useful. Nobody knows the new keys, not even the party issueing them.

The only thing you shot was your foot again. Please explain to me how a modded system is going to get movies off LIVE? They get bricked when they connect.

You do not need live when you have access to a unlimited supply of bootleg movies and games right?

Again, unless you are going to be getting movies off LIVE, its a red herring. I suppose one could load up the player with about 10 movies MOD the motherboard, and then NEVER connect to LIVE again. So if you want to kill your system for 10 $4 movies, thats a risk. But pirated movies, and duplicated DVD's have NOTHING to do with d/l content. Thats why studios are FLOCKING to live. Not the PS3.

Flocking is defined as a crowd of people. If not every studio is supporting live, then how do you define a crowd? If english is your first language, then perhaps you need to know how to correctly use words.

Who needs to store any movies on the hard drive? Just go to a corner in most large cities, and you have access to plenty of bootlegged movies and games.

You are joking right? Or is it the dementia again? You call NightFlier "Gay" (Homophobic? Thats OLD SCHOOL). You manage to throw in a "retard" comment at myself. You have sunk so low, we are all waiting for the obligitory "Nazi" comment. That will pretty much wrap up your "debate" skills. You don't even debate well enough to be called a kid. Your just pathetic.

I guess consuming too much of yourself has happered your reading skills. I ASKED nighliar if he was gay, I did not call him gay. Asking someone a question is not homphobic is it?

How long did you work on that highlight there Einstein? I mean thats got to be one of the richest, most thought provoking, evoctivie, well researched, and presented points ever spoken on this or any other A/V board EVER. You could have only topped it off by suggesting "If the USA stopped producing Electricity, all electrical appliances would stop working!!!". Way to point out the olbvious. Do you have any more brilliant flashes to share with us?

Sometimes you have to point to the obvious because alot of stupid people cannot figure it out themselves.

The fact that studios are working with MS/ Apple/ and other content providers to provide any sort of media is a HUGE step. Like it or not, D/L is going to rule the day. It might not now, but it will. Just because you are too dense doesn't mean it wont happen.

Well when it rules the world as you say, let me know. The only thing ruling anything right now is the studios over Microsoft. Its not really that big of a step either, everyone knew some studios were going to support downloads sooner or later.

Really? Everyone? And what about the compaines that only spend a few hundred $$ or a few thousand $$. Do they do all that expensive research as well? I never said that companies don't expect ROI on their advertisements, but you seem to think that its a simple number to quantify. And its not. So stop pretending that at the end of the day, the finance/accounting department gets a definiative # explaining exactly how many ads went out, and the corresponding # of sales related to the ad. Because they don't.

Your whole assesment of what I think is as out of whack as your understanding of advertising in general. It is really difficult to debate if you cannot read and comphrehend a post. Read the cavieat about the millions of dollars, or do you have comprehension trouble with that as well.

If a company spends a few hundred or thousand dollars, it would be on local advertising. Surely nobody is going to spend five thousand dollars worth of time and resources for a hundred or few thousand dollars worth of advertising. The expectation will be much lower, but there are still some expectation on ROI. What just because you spend only a hundred or a thousand dollars on advertising you should not expect a return? This is small business numbers where every dollar counts, and a completely different process on how to advertise. Television is one thing(millions of dollars) local print is another.

You sir, are the mindless idiot. Trapped in your own delusional fog about everything.

You have already confessed that you know less than I, so what does this make you?

No, it only shows that plenty of companies waste money. And that you continue to comment about things you don't know about. Pets.Com was one of the big dot.com deaths. Since you follow (or want people to belive anyway) advertising so closesly, I thought that you SURELY would know about 1 of the biggest casulaties. Again, your ignorance is showcased however.

They did not waste money, their management made a stupid choices and poor decisions. They did not do their homework, and became a victim of the dot.com implosion. Their advertising choice were only a part of the problem, their spending habits and overhead where their largest problem. Sorry, you are overstating their downfall, webvan had them beat by a long shot in terms of losses.

Following dotcom failures almost 5 years after the dot com bust is not something I am interested in. I also never said I follow advertising all that closely. However, since I have plenty of friends who own businesses of all sizes, getting information on the subject is not that difficult. I supposed it would be harder for you to get this from you milk sucking game playing kiddy friends huh?

Oh look everyone another meat reference. Does everyone hear the crickets chirping at yet another "Beef" joke...man you are like a one trick pony. And your trick was over quite a few posts ago. With writing like that I suspect you were the driving force behind that Caveman Show on ABC.

Tricks are for kids, I was calling you what you should have been named in the first place.

They don't have to give up their seat. They can operate under the old agreement. Companies do it all the time during negotiations. You should know this, but again that would involve some thought on your part. The bigger news is whether or not Warner has RE-Signed. I'm not suggesting they will or will not. But the contract has lapsed, and no press conference has been called to say its been re-upped.

You obviously do not know BDA protocol. When a company decides to not support the BDA, they MUST give up their seat on the BDA. According to Paidgeek, you cannot operate under a old contract, you must sign another contract on or before the date of the original contract is signed. Companies may do what you state all the time, but not THIS company, not this contract, and not this board of directors. Since this is the rules, Warner obviously has signed a renewed contract, they're continuing to support bluray right? You spread FUD, and when corrected on the guidlines, you have continued to advance this. You have gone from gossip, to liar.

Lastly, you do not have to, not obligated to, its not necessary to call a press conference everytime you make a move. Right? And you say I don't know what i am talking about???

You are such a dumbass. The CEO of Sony Entertainmet you are referring to was "re-assigned". The newest president said at the Tokyo Game Show IN SEPTEMBER 2007. (Current Info. I know you hate it, but its more current than your 2 year old feeble citations you typically throw up). Here's his actual words:

PlayStation 3 might play Blu-Ray movies, and it might help scientific research like Folding@Home, but Sony wants you to know that it's a game machine first and foremost.

That was the message from Sony Computer Entertainment group CEO Kaz Hirai at his Tokyo Game Show keynote address Thursday morning, as he attempted to show the assembled press that Sony has righted its course with the embattled game player.

"As the fundamental point of our system, I think it is still a game machine," Hirai said. "We want people to first enjoy it for the possibility of interactive games. If we pursue too many directions, people will keep asking us, 'What is PlayStation'?"

Here's the actual article, hope you can read it with all the big words and all:

http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/09/...rai-plays.html

Seems you do not understand the difference between a unit president, and the CEO.

Hirai may have said it was a gaming machine, but Sir Howard Stringer who is his boss calls it an entertainment center. So who should we believe, the one who runs the company, or one of his suboodinates?. He also said fundementally, which means when all other function are removed. Since all the other functions are not removed, then it is hard to call it a gaming system. As any other game machine played SACD's? Does any other game machine have a built in bluray player? Does any other gaming machine upconvert regular DVD's and lesser games to 1080p? If all the PS3 was is just a gaming machine, then why would it have all of these other non gaming features? No wait, you are actually going to have to think about this, and that make cause the largest earthquake this world has every felt.

ANOTHER meat reference. You've really outdone yourself this time. Please, don't forget to tip the waitress, and try the veal, its excellent!

yawn

And unless you have some confidential info you're not supposed to share, I have'nt lied about anything. Man, you are really terrible in this whole debate thing. Once again, you've been schooled!

How can you say you have schooled me and you have not even proven what you said is true LOLOLOL. Where is a link that says Warner has not signed its contract, or when the date of expiration of the old is? Where is it? What is the name of the other site you got this information from? I have not seen either, hence you lied until you have proven you are telling the truth.

Teeny bopper? Whoochiefer used that about 1 year ago, so I guess now to top it off you also plagiarize others posts on this board. Nice touch.

Another stupid response. Are there any brain cells left?

Talk about acting like I know something? Have you even read what you type? Or is it all top of mind stuff? I mean its not even good. Mostly out of date links supported by some BR shilling? Well, try again, it's always fun to burst your ballon.

Yes you act like you know something, and you are a lousy actor because you have no proof to support what you say. Ballons are for kids kid.

[Groundbeef]

Well aware of Slysoft software. You notice it is not everywhere? Did you notice that Slysoft has refused to talk about how they did the crack? I tell you why, they know that it is not easy to break BD+ permanently. The BDA can simply revoke the current keys on the fly, and can keep changing them via BD+. Slysoft would have to know every key issued now, and in the future for their software to be effective. Then they would have to figure out a way around BD-Rom as well, because they work hand in hand. If you attempt to play the disc with the security ripped off, it will not play in any bluray drive.

Slysoft has not revealed how they did the crack, so until they do, we do not know just how he got a single key to a single disc. They have not been able to get multiple keys according to the BD+ insiders on bluray.com, and if they do, they would have to know what the new keys were to make the software useful. Nobody knows the new keys, not even the party issueing them.


Seems you do not understand the difference between a unit president, and the CEO.

Hirai may have said it was a gaming machine, but Sir Howard Stringer who is his boss calls it an entertainment center. So who should we believe, the one who runs the company, or one of his suboodinates?. He also said fundementally, which means when all other function are removed. Since all the other functions are not removed, then it is hard to call it a gaming system. As any other game machine played SACD's? Does any other game machine have a built in bluray player? Does any other gaming machine upconvert regular DVD's and lesser games to 1080p? If all the PS3 was is just a gaming machine, then why would it have all of these other non gaming features? No wait, you are actually going to have to think about this, and that make cause the largest earthquake this world has every felt.

Alright, I'm gonna ask you a question about SlySoft, as you do have the BR expertise, and I don't. If the keys get switched does that affect consumers that already have BR disks? How does that work exactly?

Also, Slysoft may not have it "solved" but how much of a concern is this for BR? Isn't it a bit unnerving that someone was able to crack it (at least initally) so soon? Wasn't it supposed to take longer, or has this been planned for as an invevitablity?

Second, I think we are into hair splitting territory on the PS3. I fully admit that it has one of the, if not the most robust BR players intstalled. Can't speak for the media hub functions, but I don't think its as robust as LIVE, as there are not the options that MS offers the 360.

However, for you to attempt to suggest that it is not a "Game" machine is not correct. There are NO other BR players that also play PS3 games. The primary push for the PS3 is games. The reveune streams and licencing fees for SONY will be huge once they actually get an installed base large enough to sell games for it. I don't think that Sony is relying on selling a subsidized BR player (for now until cost constrict further, but the recent price cut isn't helping the bleeding), as much as they are hoping for a runaway success as the PS2.

I don't think having "Game" attached to the PS3 takes away from its ablities or anything.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Let's get to it your liarness. Your first bit of ignorance;

Yes, I was referring to your inferiority complex. I mean who calls himself "Sir Terrence, the Terrible" anyhow?

I did not call myself Sir Terrence the Terrible (no comma). That name was given to me by Richard Greene long before you told your first lie here. Long before you were ever heard of here. The rest of the paragraph is nothing more than a sorry ass rant, perhaps to let some steam off. Too much personal stuff, not enough audio stuff.

Oh and as far as relating your inferiority complex to audio, isn't that why you're always bragging about how good your system is and how much better than everyone else's it is?

I made some reference to my system not to show its superiority, but to show how much you lied about the fact that you do not speaker balancing. You lied, I know you lied, and everyone who has every owned and calibrated a 5.1 system knows you are lying.

Then this bright statement after two paragraphs of insults

By the way, you could stand to upgrade those amps and buy something a little higher class than that Sony stuff. Oh, I forgot, you're probably a shill for them too.

This is not to brag, but to show how you know so little about what you like to talk about so much. Those amps you say upgrade, well nightliar, they were upgraded last year. John Curl did the upgrade himself. If you do not know who he is, he is the man behind Mark Levinson amps, Parasound amps, and various other high end amps. The M-504 was part of onkyos high end amps when it was released, John made it three times better than it was.

http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/JCinterview.pdf

So before you start making recommendation on upgrades, pick a person who system you actually know about, rather than one you do not.

The Sony is being used as a pre/pro, and is of much better quality than a outlaw receiver any day of the week, month, or year.

Now let's see how many more lies we uncover;

1. Since that native stream of SACD is DSD, how pure is your signal path sending a PCM bitstream to the ICBM? By you own words your DVD player is converting the DSD stream to PCM. Something you said was not being done previously. Previously you stated that you DVD player has the ability to convert to PCM or remain in DSD. Now which is it nightliar? You did say this did you not?

My player has the option of converting to PCM or not.

Why would you player offer this option if it could only output a PCM signal through its DAC? This does not make a damn bit of sense at all. The bottom line is this, a smart person would either do bass management, delay, and speaker balancing in the player, or in the reciever, which ever could do it with the most precision. Especially since you already have to transcode from DSD to PCM anyway. Sending a PCM signal at SACD resolution through the ICBM will definately raise the s/n ratio, as the ICBM has a s/n of 105db, while SACD typically is 130+db after noise shaping. Since most DSP processing is at 24bit levels(which gives your typically about 120db s/n) you actually have a LESS pure signal path with the ICBM than you would doing post processing on a pre/pro or receiver. So much for the audiophile pure path idealogy.

I never said you were not using traps, acoustical panels or anything of the like. Can you point that out rather than just getting all emotional?

Your installer did the usual, nothing more, nothing less. That I can glean from your response. Was this installer CEDIA, THX, or HTSA certified? If not, then there is no telling what kind of quality his work is.

The object of using a SPL meter is to acheive identical outputs from your speakers, not make it close enough in volume for your needs. This is all so schetzo. I want a clean signal path, but my speaker levels are close enough for me.

2. Sorry nightliar, but an Executive wants to see sales figures, revenue, sales trends, buying trends, ROI, and every other figure based piece of information. They are not interested in things that cannot show measureable information or performance. You on the other hand have a arguement so weak, so convoluted, so gut based, and so very uneducated, that it is unuseful to anyone but yourself. You have already stated that you do not need any proof for anything, so I think you are pretty much through with #2.

3. Read it again. I stated with the exception of Organ music, there is no musical information below 40hz from acoustical recordings. Prove me wrong instead of all the blather. Show some spectral plots showing alot of output below 40hz in symphonic music without Organ. You said this did you not?

As a matter of fact I also have modern classical pieces that don't use organ, but that also go down very deep.

If you wrote this, and then turned around and said this one post later

Of course there is no acoustical instrument that goes lower, if you exclude those that do (like the organ).

Just how many recordings are there of organ music versus non organ included symphonic works? I would say it is about 20:1. Once again you arguement is based on minorities and not majorities. You advance that you have alot of classical pieces that go down deep, but no spectral plots or frequency versus amplitude plots to support anything you have said. Another proofless aruguement.

4. In great detail I have pointed out far more simularities than differences in creating, processing, marketing, and distribution of video material on tape and disc over the last 20 years. Can you explain to everyone what is different aside from the internet? I would like to see more detail, do you know how to provide a link? any info?

5. Once again I provided links to support my ascertions. You have just provided a bunch of words with no support whatsoever. So are you so great that you just say stuff and it is word? I do not want to read your backpeddling gut driven drivel. I want you to actually support what you say with links, verifiable facts, and impartial informations. No more words nightliar.

6. Microsoft did not put any pressure on Paramount, Viacom did. Aside from contributing money to the HD DVD PG, and free encoding, Microsoft played no role in the Paramount defection. That is a fact. There were a few other companies in the HD DVD PG that contribute as much money as Microsoft. Paramounts decision was based on accessibility to replication for discs, making 4th quarter financials look better(they are not doing very well with video sales, and not any better supporting HD DVD only), and lastly the fact they were not going to make 50 million dollars in profit from disc sales, and they knew it. Toshiba runs the HD DVD PG, not microsoft. Microsoft became a HD DVD supporter very late in the game. Do you see Warner going HD DVD exclusive? No, and they won't as long as they continue to make money from their neutral stance. So much for microsoft influence huh

I don't wear diapers, and I do not react to things that have not happened. I do not react to made up crap like you do. I do not invent unlikely scenarios just to support a pointless point either.

Novell is a software company

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell

An American software company is the key phrase. Microsoft is a software company.

Lotus 123 is software. What did you think it was, a way to teach pre-school to count.

Every example you mention is based around software. They did not beat anyone fairly, as noted in the fact that they have been sued for trade practices by the US and EU.

Online search google owns, and even microsoft admits they are a baby in comparison. You are the only ignorant sole that does not know why Microsoft is supporting HD DVD. They are doing it because HD DVD is a VC-1 only format. 99% of all HD DVD are encoded with VC-1 which Microsoft receives royalities for. They are using the HD DVD format to improve the efficency of the encoder to prepare them for increased downloading. HD DVD is 100% HDi, which Microsoft receiver royalities for. And lastly, if Microsoft can create enough confusion between these two formats, they may get more traction with their own download service as an alternative to the confusion. This is well known information, but because you do not follow either format, you would not know this.

7. If you are going to discuss something and look intelligent, it might be helpful to know the proper nomenclature to define the right format. HD is associated with HD DVD. Bluray is associated with bluray disc. You do not call a HD player a bluray player. It creates confusion. Denon is releasing a Bluray player, not a HD player. Get it, got it, good!

Now this classe backpeddling. You read what you said. It was very clear. If you did not mean what you wrote, so what's new. Now, you heard from a friend quoting the sales department from Classe, and you are passing this on unbiased, and by the way in a way that makes it seem like an official word. Bullpuckey. Your quote sounds like your words, and unless you can provide some other information than your words, what you say is meaningless, third party, and filter through your own perspective. It still does not account for the fact that it was never written in Stereophile that they had plan a bluray or HD DVD player, there is no announcement they were contemplating it, and there has been no official word they have excepted or rejected making a player. So it is either a lie, or it is a lie and vaporware. Your choice.

8. You are now advancing HDMI is confusing to consumer is common sense. Then can you tell me why no survey supports this? Can you tell me why it is not widely reported as a point of confusion? Can you tell me why nobody has mentioned this as a reason on the most common AV sites on the web? Nightliar, you need to quit bro, I cannot think of a more foolish assmuption on your part. I suppose when HD DVD held their close out sale, and sold close to 50,000 cheap HD DVD players, people were just confused as hell as to what version the A2 had. Wisen up man, the only thing you have managed to do well in all of your posts is to lie and call names. Give me a break!

If you have no links to support what you say, if you have no studies or surveys to support what you say, if you have absolutely nothing to support what you say, then why should anyone believe you? Surely what you say should be widely documented if they were true right? When it comes to the propogation of untested theories, minor points, no points, no facts, no nothing, you rule as king. King nightliar, propagator of the grand nothing. Wear your invisible crown well.

[nightflier]

I did not call myself Sir Terrence the Terrible (no comma). That name was given to me by Richard Greene

And you're sticking with it, right? Sounds like an inferiority complex just the same. And what did you do for it? Do we even wana know?

I made some reference to my system not to show its superiority, but to show how much you lied about the fact that you do not speaker balancing.

How does bragging about your system show anything about my system? Admit it, you just wanted to brag about it, lil't.

You lied, I know you lied, and everyone who has every owned and calibrated a 5.1 system knows you are lying.

How does your description of your system make me a liar? I never met you or your system. Some twisted logic, if you ask me.

This is not to brag, but to show how you know so little...

Oh, 'come one, you know you're bragging. You have an inferiority complex, remember?

Those amps you say upgrade, well nightliar, they were upgraded last year. John Curl did the upgrade himself. If you do not know who he is, he is the man behind Mark Levinson amps, Parasound amps, and various other high end amps.

Yes, I'm sure everyone here knows who Curl is - no need to brag. What? do you do his laundry too? Geez, stop bragging already. Yes, Curl made some amazing amps, I had the Parasound Halo monoblocks in my home to audition, and yes, they were amazing - just can't afford that kind of heavy metal nor do I have the room.

The M-504 was part of onkyos high end amps when it was released, John made it three times better than it was.

Well it's still Onkyo. You can't escape the fact that all their mass-market mid-fi gear is dragging the price of even your precious 504's down. I wonder how much they would go for on eBay, certainly not what you paid. And why do they need upgrading? Oh, that's right they are Onkyo...

Now I'm not knocking Onkyo for what it is, I've owned quite a few of their pieces, but it's still not the level that most serious enthusiasts would consider driving their multi-thousand-dollar speakers with. If anything, I really don't think it gives you the right to claim it will blow my system away. Speaking of which, I'm using an Outlaw pre/pro, but that's not what's driving my speakers, so why don't you sit back down before you have a another tizzy-fit, lil't. When I get more funds, I'll consider replacing the Outlaw probably with a Primare, Cary or something similar, but for now, my children come first.

The Sony is being used as a pre/pro, and is of much better quality than a outlaw receiver any day of the week, month, or year.

First of all, my Outlaw is not a receiver, but I wouldn't bet on that Sony horse, lil't. I haven't seen too many glowing reviews on that one. At least with the amps you had Curl to hide behind, not so with that mass-market switcher.

Since that native stream of SACD is DSD, how pure is your signal path sending a PCM bitstream to the ICBM? By you own words your DVD player is converting the DSD stream to PCM. Something you said was not being done previously. Previously you stated that you DVD player has the ability to convert to PCM or remain in DSD. Now which is it nightliar? You did say this did you not?

Hold onto to your panties, lil't, all it takes to switch between the two is a few clicks into the menu. I have the option to do both. But since you're so worked up, let's just say I keep it on PCM whenever possible. Now I don't know how that makes me a liar, but you're pretty upset, so maybe you're confused...

Why would you player offer this option if it could only output a PCM signal through its DAC? This does not make a damn bit of sense at all.

No, what makes no sense in your insessant drive to re-write what I'm saying. I never said my player could output only PCM so get off of that already.

The bottom line is this, a smart person would either do bass management, delay, and speaker balancing in the player, or in the reciever, which ever could do it with the most precision.

I've tried it in the pre/pro and in the player and none at all. The best sounding option is to do it in the player before it passes to the pre/pro. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?

I never said you were not using traps, acoustical panels or anything of the like. Can you point that out?

No but you said I didn't know how to configure the room with them. When I told you they were done professionally, you couldn't handle the slap in the face and so you didn't want to talk about it anymore - well until you claimed to know more than the whole home-installer industry. You're such a jack*ss, really.

Your installer did the usual, nothing more, nothing less. That I can glean from your response. Was this installer CEDIA, THX, or HTSA certified? If not, then there is no telling what kind of quality his work is.

You're not much good at "gleaning" either, it seems, my arrogant little imp. So you're certified by all three? Good for you, my friend has two of them. Does that make you better? God, you're such an arrogant jack*ss, I can't believe you have friends.

The object of using a SPL meter is to acheive identical outputs from your speakers, not make it close enough in volume for your needs. This is all so schetzo. I want a clean signal path, but my speaker levels are close enough for me.

More arrogance. I mentioned the SPL meter as one of the tools I used. I can assure you that my installer has far more sophisticated tools. But I'm sure that's not comparable to your golden ears, your tools, and apparently your sixth sense. Could you be more conceited?

Sorry nightliar, but an Executive wants to see sales figures, revenue, sales trends, buying trends, ROI, and every other figure based piece of information. They are not interested in things that cannot show measureable information or performance.

I never dismsissed sales figures and measurable trends so stop with that rant already, it's stale. You know full well that any good executive wants all the facts, not just what's from "official sources." Stop trying to twist around what I'm saying.

Read it again. I stated with the exception of Organ music, there is no musical information below 40hz from acoustical recordings. Prove me wrong instead of all the blather. Show some spectral plots showing alot of output below 40hz in symphonic music without Organ. You said this did you not?

Again more bloated arrogance. You conveniently dismiss organ music, when you know that is exactly what my primary focus was. Don't try and spin this your way. You have no argument so you dismiss mine. Very mature, lil't. Now as far as orchestral music, there's plenty of it that actually includes Organ. As a matter of fact I'm listening to Saint Saens' third right now. Then there's Cochereau, Vierne, Preston, Widor, Liszt, Franck, Trotter, Copland, Glass to name but a few I have in the bookcase in front of me.

Just how many recordings are there of organ music versus non organ included symphonic works? I would say it is about 20:1. Once again you arguement is based on minorities and not majorities.

See the examples above. And this shows how absolutely limitted your knowledge of modern classical music is. I'm sorry but Bach and Liszt aren't everything that falls under classical. It's another glaring example of how narrow-minded and limitted your little mind is. For your information, Organ isn't the only instrument that goes down lower than a Piano - take a look at Von Kessels - I just played the SACD last night. And there is a lot more modern music and world-music-influenced classical that also applies. Just because your knoweledge is stunted, doesn't mean there isn't a whole world of music outside your minuscule reality. Expand your mind, already. Like I said, I collect the stuff, so don't try and convince anyone you know what I have. You don't know what I have and you certainly aren't entitled to dismiss it outright, just because it doesn't fit your pathetic case.

Can you explain to everyone what is different aside from the internet? I would like to see more detail

OK, so let's talk around the white elephant in the room. My whole point was that the Internet is the single biggest difference and you see fit to dismiss that too. How convenient, whatever weakens your argument, you just dismiss. Well in this case, you'd have to be a complete moron to dismiss the impact of the Internet. And don't even go off on this tangent that the Internet filled the void of failing B&M stores, that's ludicrous - the Internet grew exponentially and the B&M stored dwindled very slowly. Oh and regarding your examples of how CD growth compares, it's hogwash if you consider the impact the Internet has had. No, lil't, marketing, sales, searching, and cross-advertising are nothing like they were in 1997, so stop majoring in minors, here. You lost this point well before you started finding "examples" to support your non-case.

I do not want to read your backpeddling gut driven drivel.

Typical lil't. Can't formulate a good argument so you just don't want to read the responses. Kind of like how you dismiss everyone else from Groundbeef to Pixel. Real mature, lil't.

Microsoft is a software company. Every example you mention is based around software.

Again exposing your limitted knowledge. I gave several examples of technologies that were not software, but since those didn't agree with you, you decided to ignore them. Want more? How about all the hardware Microsoft is now manufacturing? Ever heard of xBox? Oh, is that still too much software-ish? How about their inroads into art, the medical industry, financials, copyrights, music, your living room, and yes, lil't, even movies. No, they are not major players in all those industries yet, but they are gaining and it's scaring alot of smaller companies. To think of Microsoft as only a software company shows how little you really know. You say you work in movie sound production, right? Well guess what, you're using Microsoft technologies and copyrighted hardware and software. You may not even know it, but hey, that wouldn't be the first thing you didn't know.

They did not beat anyone fairly, as noted in the fact that they have been sued for trade practices by the US and EU.

I never said they played fair. Hell, my whole argument was about how they've been hitting below the belt to get their way - that is why they are scarry. Talk to anyone who's received a letter from their legal department, and you'll know what scared means.

Online search google owns, and even microsoft admits they are a baby in comparison.

Microsoft could buy Google out tomorrow, and Google knows that. They practically own Apple, Adobe, and can stand toe-to-toe with IBM, CA, and Oracle. Trust me, Microsoft isn't afraid of Google.

You are the only ignorant sole that does not know why Microsoft is supporting HD DVD. They are doing it because HD DVD is a VC-1 only format. 99% of all HD DVD are encoded with VC-1 which Microsoft receives royalities for. They are using the HD DVD format to improve the efficency of the encoder to prepare them for increased downloading.

Again, exhibiting your narrow mind. Microsoft is first and foremost about profits. Supporting HDDVD, and all the decisions they've made in that direction, are good for their bottom line. What you're describing is what Microsoft itself uses to justify it's corporate greed - it's basically their own press-release that you're repeating. Kind of ironic, that this should come from you, isn't it? Again, you're only considering official sources. By the way, I've never been called a "sole" before, is that a new insult?

...because you do not follow either format, you would not know this.

So let me get this straight: for me to have an opinion or even the right to say anything about either format, I first have to buy into one or the other? What kind of doublespeak logic is that? Are you sure you are not the schitzo, here? If anything, for you to have settled on BR as your favorite medium, and to be working for a BR-only company (your words), makes you far less capable to be impartial and even-keeled about the formats. I'm amazed people still listen to you. You're a shill, as we've determined in the last thread.

If you are going to discuss something and look intelligent, it might be helpful to know the proper nomenclature to define the right format. HD is associated with HD DVD. Bluray is associated with bluray disc.

Oh, so BR is not an HD format? Funny you should harp on this when Groundbeef and others seem to be perfectly happy referring to both formats as HD. I guess it's OK for them, but when I happen to do so, heaven forbid, I must have offended the mightly lil't's sensibilities. I'm sorry, is that too confusing for you to wrap your little head around? Well, if this is the only argument you can make, you better quit while you still have your diaper on, lil't.

Now, you heard from a friend quoting the sales department from Classe, and you are passing this on unbiased, and by the way in a way that makes it seem like an official word. Bullpuckey. Your quote sounds like your words, and unless you can provide some other information than your words, what you say is meaningless, third party, and filter through your own perspective.

Bullpuckey? Did you hear that one in pre-school and thought you could slip it in here? You are such a pathetic jack*ss. Let me say this is in no uncertain terms; this is straight from Tom McConville, at Classe, coppied verbatem, from the email that my friend forwarded to me:

"A degree of uncertainty continues to cloud the future of the new blue laser disc formats and it remains unclear which, if any, of these formats will become the dominant technology.

Therefore, while we are committed to developing reference quality components for the HD era, Classe is not commiting to a single format at this time. Please be assured that we are closely following developments in this area and are well placed to react as the future becomes more clear.

I hope this information is helpful. Best wishes.

Tom"

Oh, I'm sorry are you going to try and say that Tom's not as knowledgeable as you, so his opinion doesn't matter? He works there, lil't. It's his job to inform little nitwits like yourself how little you know about their own product line. And just so you don't try and change the subject or find something else to discredit, I took it upon myself to contact a number of other manufacturers (Cambridge Audio, Arcam, Primare, etc.) and while I have't received replies from all of them yet, every single one that did reply had pretty much the same response - they're going to wait. So far only Denon is releasing a BR player in December, although it will probably be too late for x-mas.

So I ask you, lil't, if all these manufacturers are going to wait it out, don't you think it's a bit pre-mature to start flag-waiving for BR? Unless, of course, you have a stake in this - it's good for your wallet, right? You're a shill and the more you deny it, the more it becomes obvious.

You are now advancing HDMI is confusing to consumer...Then can you tell me why no survey supports this? Can you tell me why it is not widely reported as a point of confusion? Can you tell me why nobody has mentioned this as a reason on the most common AV sites on the web?

Because nobody will fund such a survey. First of all, the manufacturers, if they consider it at all, will think it's a minor factor (I don't agree with that, of course). Second the results of such a survey may not help their sales in any way. And third, even if they did find out that it was confusing, what would they be able to do about it? HDMI is going through revisions continuously, that is how it was designed, so that it could grow and change with the times. And just when pointy headed little imps like yourself think they can explain HDMI 1.0, HDMI 1.1, HDMI 1.2, and HDMI 1.3 to everyone reasoneable well, they came up with HDMI 1.3a and HDMI 1.3b designations. What's next HDMI 1.3b.1?

And while we're on the subject, maybe you should let people know that only HDMI 1.3 and above supports Dolby TrueHD bitstream, and DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream. This is significant because lower versions of HDMI down the chain will require a player that can transmit the audio as LPCM (not all do, and even if they do, it's no garantee people will know to engage this, i.e. because of the confusion). And it was this nagging question about HDMI that led me to start this thread in the first place. So no lil't, it's not OK to tell people that HDMI 1.1 or 1.2, which is what most current HD players support, is enough. The confusion about HDMI alone should be a darned good reason to wait a little while longer before buying in. So I'll say it here, just so that people aren't fooled by your shilling:

If you want to hear DD TrueHD and DTS-HD from your BR & HDDVD disks, you may find that currently selling hardware doesn not support it.

Either wait until all the hardware is at a minimum HDMI 1.3 or make sure you read the specs for each piece of gear in the chain very carefully. Lil't would like everyone to ignore this tidbit so that they all just blindly buy into an outdated component because that will help his pocket book (and he hopes it will one day prove him right on these forums, LOL).

Nightliar, you need to quit bro, I cannot think of a more foolish assmuption on your part. I suppose when HD DVD held their close out sale, and sold close to 50,000 cheap HD DVD players, people were just confused as hell as to what version the A2 had. Wisen up man

Funny you should mention that, because I actually went down to my local CC to see what this A2 was all about and I struck up a conversation with the sales manager. And guess what the most common question was that the sales reps were asked about the A2? That's right: "what version of HDMI does it support?" Some people even decided not to buy one because of this. Now I'm sure you'll dismiss this as not representative of the larger marketplace. So? It's still a matter of some confusion, and that was my whole point. Sorry, lil't, but no amount of spin or "insider info" is going to change the fact that all these HDMI versions are indeed confusing people. Just because you don't think that's significant, doesn't mean that it isn't - the universe does not revolve around you.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And you're sticking with it, right? Sounds like an inferiority complex just the same. And what did you do for it? Do we even wana know?

I stuck with it because he was my friend, and he gave it to me in a tongue and cheek way. Why is this any of your business? Nobody needs your lame online psychological, especially considering you have been found being a consistant liar.

How does bragging about your system show anything about my system? Admit it, you just wanted to brag about it, lil't.

Nightliar, I illistrated a point that no matter how well matched your system is, it requires level tweaking. I juxstiposed that against your bald face lie stating that you do not do it, of which you turned around a contridicted yourself and said that you did. You flip flop worse than Hillary, except she seems decisive and consistant next to you.

How does your description of your system make me a liar? I never met you or your system. Some twisted logic, if you ask me.

You said that you do not do level matching(which is a lie and you know it), I illistrated that as well matched as my speaker package is, it requires level matching. Then you turned around and said you use a SPL meter to get a balance that meets your needs, as opposed to level matching with precision. Your purist approach (which turns out to be not so purist) does not match your calibration approach. Kinda of schetzoprenic I would say.

Nobody ask you anything except to prove you assertions, you have not even done that.

Oh, 'come one, you know you're bragging. You have an inferiority complex, remember?

Are you sure this is not a self analysis? I think it is.

Yes, I'm sure everyone here knows who Curl is - no need to brag. What? do you do his laundry too? Geez, stop bragging already. Yes, Curl made some amazing amps, I had the Parasound Halo monoblocks in my home to audition, and yes, they were amazing - just can't afford that kind of heavy metal nor do I have the room.

Then perhaps trying to offer your advice on things you know nothing of may not be a wise thing to do right?

Well it's still Onkyo. You can't escape the fact that all their mass-market mid-fi gear is dragging the price of even your precious 504's down. I wonder how much they would go for on eBay, certainly not what you paid. And why do they need upgrading? Oh, that's right they are Onkyo...

Its says Onkyo on the front panel, but much of the guts do not belong to Onkyo. And your comments once again are as ignorant as your assertion on just about everything we have debated. Stuff them, they are not knowledgeable (and neither are you), and do nothing but make you look about as smart as a stuffed animal. Why they need upgrading is none of your business. Perhaps you should worry more about telling the truth so you do not get busted in any more of your lies.

Now I'm not knocking Onkyo for what it is, I've owned quite a few of their pieces, but it's still not the level that most serious enthusiasts would consider driving their multi-thousand-dollar speakers with. If anything, I really don't think it gives you the right to claim it will blow my system away. Speaking of which, I'm using an Outlaw pre/pro, but that's not what's driving my speakers, so why don't you sit back down before you have a another tizzy-fit, lil't. When I get more funds, I'll consider replacing the Outlaw probably with a Primare, Cary or something similar, but for now, my children come first.

Your assesment of Onkyo is about as off base as your stupid comments regarding HD players going down in davy's locker. A Onkyo chassis with John Curl chosen parts and internal redesign will run circles around anything you have, or will probably own in the future. My Sony receiver as a pre/pro performs as well, if not better than any outlaw pre/pro ever designed. Your outlaw doesn't even support HDMI, and DVI to HDMI connection is iffy at best. So before you cast critisize anyone stuff, look in your own backyard.

First of all, my Outlaw is not a receiver, but I wouldn't bet on that Sony horse, lil't. I haven't seen too many glowing reviews on that one. At least with the amps you had Curl to hide behind, not so with that mass-market switcher.

Have you seen any glowing review of the Sony used as a pre/pro? That would be a no. That changes the dynamics quite a bit doesn't it? The comment on my switcher is stupid, ignorant, and pretty typical for you. Since when does a upgradeable HD broadcast quality switcher that cost upward of 15k a mass market product? It is not even released to the public yet airhead!! LOLOLOL. You are a big joke man, a halarious huge joke. Move along folks, no credibility here, he doesn't even know about the products he comments on.

Hold onto to your panties, lil't, all it takes to switch between the two is a few clicks into the menu. I have the option to do both. But since you're so worked up, let's just say I keep it on PCM whenever possible. Now I don't know how that makes me a liar, but you're pretty upset, so maybe you're confused...

You are still a liar. Why would a DVD player allow the option of either DSD or PCM when it can only pass through its DAC a PCM stream? Why would a DVD player include this option when all DSP based post processing algorythms are based in PCM And even if it could pass it, something has to decode it in its native form right? You need to go straight to the bathroom, you are full of the brown stuff. Your Outlaw cannot pass it, and your DVD player cannot decode it, and you and I both know this. There is no DVD player that can pass a DSD stream in its native form. When will you ever tell the truth?

No, what makes no sense in your insessant drive to re-write what I'm saying. I never said my player could output only PCM so get off of that already.

Well you can't say it outputs DSD can you? Are you saying that you player has the necessary conversion to do DSD in its native stream? How do you do that if you are level matching?

I've tried it in the pre/pro and in the player and none at all. The best sounding option is to do it in the player before it passes to the pre/pro. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Well it wouldn't be that hard if you didn't say you use the ICBM for bass management. It wouldn't be if you didn't say you didn't do delay, or level matching. So what is it liar? Do you do it in player, or by ICBM or a little of both? How do you do this in DSD if there are not post processing tools native to DSD? Liar!!

No but you said I didn't know how to configure the room with them. When I told you they were done professionally, you couldn't handle the slap in the face and so you didn't want to talk about it anymore - well until you claimed to know more than the whole home-installer industry. You're such a jack*ss, really.

You don't, or you wouldn't need a professional installer. You could have done it yourself...opps I take that back, as uneducated as you have appeared here, it may have been best you went to an installer. It just seems kind of strange a person would purchase a sub $1k processor, but have a professional installer put his room together and calibrate his equipment. Something smells fishy, or you are simply telling more lies.

Secondly, saying you went to a professional installer means nothing to me. I have spent a fair amount of my installation career cleaning up behind so called professional installers, so I am not impressed. You couldn't do this yourself, and that speaks loads about what you know about good audio.

You're not much good at "gleaning" either, it seems, my arrogant little imp. So you're certified by all three? Good for you, my friend has two of them. Does that make you better? God, you're such an arrogant jack*ss, I can't believe you have friends.

I would rather be knowledgeable and arrogant, than a retarded name calling wanna be. I am scared you have a kid!

More arrogance. I mentioned the SPL meter as one of the tools I used. I can assure you that my installer has far more sophisticated tools. But I'm sure that's not comparable to your golden ears, your tools, and apparently your sixth sense. Could you be more conceited?

I could be ALOT more conceited. What other instruments do you need to speaker balance other than a SPL meter? I do not use my ears to calibrate, I use measuring equipment. That is what they are there for. I use my ears to listen to the result.

I never dismsissed sales figures and measurable trends so stop with that rant already, it's stale. You know full well that any good executive wants all the facts, not just what's from "official sources." Stop trying to twist around what I'm saying.

When someone says that it does not tell the whole picture, they are dismissing them. So now you are flip flopping again? Did you not dismiss NDP as a unreliable source that is biased, and didn't Wooch have to come and put you back in your box? Your word here is crap, I have already busted saying things you couldn't even remember you said.

Again more bloated arrogance. You conveniently dismiss organ music, when you know that is exactly what my primary focus was. Don't try and spin this your way. You have no argument so you dismiss mine. Very mature, lil't. Now as far as orchestral music, there's plenty of it that actually includes Organ. As a matter of fact I'm listening to Saint Saens' third right now. Then there's Cochereau, Vierne, Preston, Widor, Liszt, Franck, Trotter, Copland, Glass to name but a few I have in the bookcase in front of me.

I dismissed organ music, but said this on page three.

Aside from organ pedals and huge bass drums, there is not much audio below 40hz in most classical and jazz music

So much for my dismissal! I do not care about what your personal focus is, your personal focus still is not a reason to use LFE for music. While there maybe some music focused around the organ, it does not make up a majority of recorded classical music. If you are going to sit there and tell another lie, do not make it be this one. The overwhelming majority of classical music does not feature the organ, or any musical information below the fundemantal frequency of most acoustical instruments, which would be 40hz. I gave you three links that support that, you have given none supporting yours. You have named a few of hundreds of composers, majoring in minors AGAIN!

See the examples above. And this shows how absolutely limitted your knowledge of modern classical music is. I'm sorry but Bach and Liszt aren't everything that falls under classical. It's another glaring example of how narrow-minded and limitted your little mind is. For your information, Organ isn't the only instrument that goes down lower than a Piano - take a look at Von Kessels - I just played the SACD last night. And there is a lot more modern music and world-music-influenced classical that also applies. Just because your knoweledge is stunted, doesn't mean there isn't a whole world of music outside your minuscule reality. Expand your mind, already. Like I said, I collect the stuff, so don't try and convince anyone you know what I have. You don't know what I have and you certainly aren't entitled to dismiss it outright, just because it doesn't fit your pathetic case.

Where is your damn proof? Show me some links that prove your point. Where are the frequency vs amplitude plots? Rather than sit here and make claims and stupid insults, prove your point. How do you measure what is below 40hz without measurement tools? Don't insult my knowledge, prove your point. The bottom line is you can't. All you can do is hurl insults and make baseless claims that you cannot prove. That is childs play, prove to everyone that is reading this post that a great majority of classical music has fundementals below 40hz.

http://www.soundinstitute.com/article_detail.cfm/ID/106

Look at the charts, do you see any acoustical instruments aside from the piano with fundementals below 40hz? Do you see the comments that a speaker that has a frequency response of 40-18khz would cover mostly all acoustical instruments. Are you saying this information is not true? Well prove it is not.

OK, so let's talk around the white elephant in the room. My whole point was that the Internet is the single biggest difference and you see fit to dismiss that too. How convenient, whatever weakens your argument, you just dismiss. Well in this case, you'd have to be a complete moron to dismiss the impact of the Internet. And don't even go off on this tangent that the Internet filled the void of failing B&M stores, that's ludicrous - the Internet grew exponentially and the B&M stored dwindled very slowly. Oh and regarding your examples of how CD growth compares, it's hogwash if you consider the impact the Internet has had. No, lil't, marketing, sales, searching, and cross-advertising are nothing like they were in 1997, so stop majoring in minors, here. You lost this point well before you started finding "examples" to support your non-case.

Both Woochifer and I have already checked you stupid butt on this, not give it a rest. You have supplied nothing to support your claims Mr Internet expert (or not!)

Typical lil't. Can't formulate a good argument so you just don't want to read the responses. Kind of like how you dismiss everyone else from Groundbeef to Pixel. Real mature, lil't.

You and Peruviansky(I have no problem with Pixel) are as dumb as a wood stick. Both of you make stupid assinine claims that neither of you can prove. You both lie through your teeth, you both have stuck your stupid feet in your mouth too many times. Two birds flocking together.

Again exposing your limitted knowledge. I gave several examples of technologies that were not software, but since those didn't agree with you, you decided to ignore them. Want more? How about all the hardware Microsoft is now manufacturing? Ever heard of xBox? Oh, is that still too much software-ish? How about their inroads into art, the medical industry, financials, copyrights, music, your living room, and yes, lil't, even movies. No, they are not major players in all those industries yet, but they are gaining and it's scaring alot of smaller companies. To think of Microsoft as only a software company shows how little you really know. You say you work in movie sound production, right? Well guess what, you're using Microsoft technologies and copyrighted hardware and software. You may not even know it, but hey, that wouldn't be the first thing you didn't know.

If they are not major players, then you have not proven your point. Majoring in minors AGAIN!! Again a stupid comment. Microsoft does not make audio processing software used in most studio unless they make pro tools. They don't. They do not make mixing boards, D/A converters, compression software or hardware, limiters software of hardware or any other audio tools. They make software based video codecs. And they make the XBOX to support their gaming division which conviently is run by software. Why if they are so HD DVD gun ho don't they make their own HD DVD drive?

I never said they played fair. Hell, my whole argument was about how they've been hitting below the belt to get their way - that is why they are scarry. Talk to anyone who's received a letter from their legal department, and you'll know what scared means.

Well, they are not suceeding in helping HD DVD, they have to give away players(of which microsoft does not make) to help their cause. And if they are such a threat, then why are so scared of BD+? Did they get their way in set top boxes for cable? No! The public rejected interactive TV. Did they get their way with Bluray? No, Bluray accepted BD-java instead. Has studios embraced their download plan? No, they are still choosing to sell disc. Your **** is overblown foo, go set down somewhere and dream you know more than you actually do. That is really the best that you can do right now.

Microsoft could buy Google out tomorrow, and Google knows that. They practically own Apple, Adobe, and can stand toe-to-toe with IBM, CA, and Oracle. Trust me, Microsoft isn't afraid of Google.

Why don't they then? And why is google kicking the crap out of them? Practically own, and own are two different things right? More muck.

Again, exhibiting your narrow mind. Microsoft is first and foremost about profits. Supporting HDDVD, and all the decisions they've made in that direction, are good for their bottom line. What you're describing is what Microsoft itself uses to justify it's corporate greed - it's basically their own press-release that you're repeating. Kind of ironic, that this should come from you, isn't it? Again, you're only considering official sources. By the way, I've never been called a "sole" before, is that a new insult?

And just how can Microsoft make a huge profit? By A) tweaking their VC-1 codec for maximum efficency to support downloads. B) Using HD DVD encoding to forward that practice in the field. This word came from Amirs mouth on AVS, and you can get off your lazy azz and look it up. They do not give a rats ass about HD DVD unless it can further their own cause.

So let me get this straight: for me to have an opinion or even the right to say anything about either format, I first have to buy into one or the other? What kind of doublespeak logic is that? Are you sure you are not the schitzo, here? If anything, for you to have settled on BR as your favorite medium, and to be working for a BR-only company (your words), makes you far less capable to be impartial and even-keeled about the formats. I'm amazed people still listen to you. You're a shill, as we've determined in the last thread.

If you do not own either of them, then what the hell can you tell me about them? Nothing, not one damn thing. How do you offer an opinion if you have never experienced either? What would you draw from, your empty and bankrupt useless gut? A wild guess?

Have you forgotten that this person who works for a bluray exclusive has more than 140 HD DVD titles? Even though my company supports bluray, I bought a HD DVD player first. Unlike yourself, my company does not decide what choices I make for my home.

And please, WE have not determined anything. You have determined your opinion, and if I was a shill, then why do I own more disc on the other format than you do?

Oh, so BR is not an HD format? Funny you should harp on this when Groundbeef and others seem to be perfectly happy referring to both formats as HD. I guess it's OK for them, but when I happen to do so, heaven forbid, I must have offended the mightly lil't's sensibilities. I'm sorry, is that too confusing for you to wrap your little head around? Well, if this is the only argument you can make, you better quit while you still have your diaper on, lil't.

Don't give me that other crap. You are the only idiot that refers to bluray as HD. Talk about a way to created confusion. If bluray is referred to as HD, then how do you distinguish it from HD DVD? You are a unadulterated dummy, with a 30ft dunce cap. And don't bring Beef into this, he has shown far more intelligence on what he has debated than you have.

Bullpuckey? Did you hear that one in pre-school and thought you could slip it in here? You are such a pathetic jack*ss. Let me say this is in no uncertain terms; this is straight from Tom McConville, at Classe, coppied verbatem, from the email that my friend forwarded to me:

"A degree of uncertainty continues to cloud the future of the new blue laser disc formats and it remains unclear which, if any, of these formats will become the dominant technology.

Therefore, while we are committed to developing reference quality components for the HD era, Classe is not commiting to a single format at this time. Please be assured that we are closely following developments in this area and are well placed to react as the future becomes more clear.

I hope this information is helpful. Best wishes.

Tom"

You have already been busted in a lie on this, give it a rest. First its your friend, then its their customer service, now its Tom. Who is it going to be next, Felix the cat?

Oh, I'm sorry are you going to try and say that Tom's not as knowledgeable as you, so his opinion doesn't matter? He works there, lil't. It's his job to inform little nitwits like yourself how little you know about their own product line. And just so you don't try and change the subject or find something else to discredit, I took it upon myself to contact a number of other manufacturers (Cambridge Audio, Arcam, Primare, etc.) and while I have't received replies from all of them yet, every single one that did reply had pretty much the same response - they're going to wait. So far only Denon is releasing a BR player in December, although it will probably be too late for x-mas.

Oh you contacted some other manufacturers huh? Did you contact Sharp? Or how about Daewoo, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Lite-on, Sony Lowe, Pioneer, Fanai, philips, JVC and Hitachi? They are all releasing bluray players in 2008 The only reason the European manufacturers do not jump into this, is because they are small, and do not have the capital resources to get in without a clear winner. They did not get into DVD until way late in the game either. These are small specialized companies appeal to a very small market share. Sony dwarfs them all. These european audio companies do not invent formats, they copy and improve on them in their own way(which may or may not be an actual improvement)

So I ask you, lil't, if all these manufacturers are going to wait it out, don't you think it's a bit pre-mature to start flag-waiving for BR? Unless, of course, you have a stake in this - it's good for your wallet, right? You're a shill and the more you deny it, the more it becomes obvious.

Well, Just named nearly a dozen that decided to jump in, so I think its high time for flag waving. If I am a shill(and we have been over this air head) prove that I make a profit if bluray wins. I cannot believe that you want any crediblity. I design soundtracks for THEATRICAL release, I record film scores for THEATRICAL release, and I tweak and remix for bluray release. If bluray failed tomorrow, I would still be mixing soundtracks and recording film scores for THEATRICAL release. If I am a shill, I would not have purchased two HD DVD players, and 140 titles would I. You are about as bright as a minus 1000 watt bulb

Because nobody will fund such a survey. First of all, the manufacturers, if they consider it at all, will think it's a minor factor (I don't agree with that, of course). Second the results of such a survey may not help their sales in any way. And third, even if they did find out that it was confusing, what would they be able to do about it? HDMI is going through revisions continuously, that is how it was designed, so that it could grow and change with the times. And just when pointy headed little imps like yourself think they can explain HDMI 1.0, HDMI 1.1, HDMI 1.2, and HDMI 1.3 to everyone reasoneable well, they came up with HDMI 1.3a and HDMI 1.3b designations. What's next HDMI 1.3b.1?

If there is no survey, then just is the basis for your claims of confusion? Your own stupidity? Do you know what each designation supports? Because I tell ya, only 1.1 through 1.3 is truely necessary, the other have features that are not supportable with current formats. They are future based improvements, not for current hardware.

And while we're on the subject, maybe you should let people know that only HDMI 1.3 and above supports Dolby TrueHD bitstream, and DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream. This is significant because lower versions of HDMI down the chain will require a player that can transmit the audio as LPCM (not all do, and even if they do, it's no garantee people will know to engage this, i.e. because of the confusion). And it was this nagging question about HDMI that led me to start this thread in the first place. So no lil't, it's not OK to tell people that HDMI 1.1 or 1.2, which is what most current HD players support, is enough. The confusion about HDMI alone should be a darned good reason to wait a little while longer before buying in. So I'll say it here, just so that people aren't fooled by your shilling:

Wow, the breath of your ignorance is truely astounding. You really do not know what you are talking about. Dolby TrueHD does not require HDMI 1.3. If the player does the decoding, it converts the audio back to what is was before DTHD encoding, which is PCM. ALL bluray and HD DVD support this so keep your ignorant FUD to yourself. Both Dts MA lossless and DTHD are encoded from PCM soundtracks, and are used as variable bit carriers to more effeciently pack and transport PCM audio from the player to the receiver. Any product with a HDMI 1.1 connection can support 8 channels of 24/192khz audio, so there is no need for a 1.3 connection. Now if you want to send the Dts and Dolby bitstream directly to the receiver for decoding, then 1.3 is necessary, but it defeats all commentary, IME audio, and any audio connected with the extra's on the disc. Since you have not been keeping current, Panasonic has released a player that can output both codecs in a bitstream form, and there are now receivers that can receive and decode it. It is not now, or ever necessary to send either codec as a bitstream to a reciever

If you want to hear DD TrueHD and DTS-HD from your BR & HDDVD disks, you may find that currently selling hardware doesn not support it.

Either wait until all the hardware is at a minimum HDMI 1.3 or make sure you read the specs for each piece of gear in the chain very carefully. Lil't would like everyone to ignore this tidbit so that they all just blindly buy into an outdated component because that will help his pocket book (and he hopes it will one day prove him right on these forums, LOL).

Rather than just being ignorant, and spouting your ignorant stupidity all over this site, you need to read just a bit before posting.



http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Explained/1064

Read where is says Dolby TrueHD and notice this sentence under HDMI

Some players may decode the TrueHD to PCM and transmit it over any version of HDMI

This also applies to Dts HD MA lossless.

Funny you should mention that, because I actually went down to my local CC to see what this A2 was all about and I struck up a conversation with the sales manager. And guess what the most common question was that the sales reps were asked about the A2? That's right: "what version of HDMI does it support?" Some people even decided not to buy one because of this. Now I'm sure you'll dismiss this as not representative of the larger marketplace. So? It's still a matter of some confusion, and that was my whole point. Sorry, lil't, but no amount of spin or "insider info" is going to change the fact that all these HDMI versions are indeed confusing people. Just because you don't think that's significant, doesn't mean that it isn't - the universe does not revolve around you.

Now you believe all of us are as stupid as you. Anyone who has visited BB or CC knows that these guys no very little about the product they sell. And since one of my close friends is a store manager for BB in one of the cities close to me tells me the number one question their sales folks get is " can I get X movie, or Y movie to play on this player, I know that you are full of the brownest crap on this earth. You are making this **** up, and I am sick of you and you stupid ignorant crap.

In all of the years of posting here, I have never seen a person lie, make up stuff just to support a point, argue when it is apparent they do not know what they are talking about, make claims and provide zero support for it, call so many names to hide the fact they are dumb as dirt, argue with people who know far more than they'll ever know, and flip flop like you do. I cannot believe after you have been caught in lie after lie, you would be stupid enough to resurrect this post, and continue over and over again with the same crap. Either you are a stupid young kid playing stupid games here, or you are a person who thoroughly enjoys getting the crap stomped out of him Whatever it is, you need to go back and crawl into whatever you came out of, before you kill yourself from humiliation. You and Perv, are the dumbest two guys that have ever graced this forum.

[PeruvianSkies]

Pompous, arrogant, selfish, etc etc etc....



Let us not base our attacks on racial prejudices.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Pompous, arrogant, selfish, etc etc etc....

These are just some of the reasons that my wife (who is Puerto Rican) married me (a white American) and always told me that she couldn't stand the typical latino male who was all of these things and more. She basically said she could never tolerate a guy and more importantly a husband who couldn't admit when they were wrong, always thought they were better than anyone else, and made every effort to try and prove others wrong. Sir T lives up to the description quite well wouldn't you say?

You be very careful about bringing up race man, be really careful. You are really treading on some very bad ground here.

[pixelthis]

You be very careful about bringing up race man, be really careful. You are really treading on some very bad ground here.

This is funny as hell, that description of "latinos" fits PS to a T!

If she went with a different ethnic group to get away from certain characteristics
she was kinda wasting her time, doncha think?

[pixelthis]

For what its worth, the latinos I have met (quite a few) are always polite, well mannered
and work their asses off.
But they don't mix with gringos much except in the workplace maybe.
Most of the ones I met came from a temp agency specializing in imigrants, there was probably some training involved as far as functioning in this country was concerned,
hence the almost uniform way they acted

[PeruvianSkies]

You be very careful about bringing up race man, be really careful. You are really treading on some very bad ground here.

The race card hardly works here since I am married to a latino I am simply stating what she has said about her own race.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The race card hardly works here since I am married to a latino I am simply stating what she has said about her own race.

You may be married to a latino, but that might not stop you from making this statement here on behalf of yourself. You could be harboring this bias, and as long as you don't mention all latinos, or females, you might think this will pass.

Only a fool would place those characteristic on a race or ethnic group. Remember, George Bush fits exactly those characteristics and he is white as a sheet. That is why your immature, passive, or tape recorder duplicated biases whether they come from you, or your wife are at there very foundation ignorant as hell.

If she says this about here own race, she is a self hater, hardly a person with a solid foundation to make a judgement. She does have a dad right?

Classless, plain classless(walks away in disgust)

[nightflier]

Revive this thread? I started it! Somehow you managed to crap all over it when your diaper fell off. Now let me hose down this mess to rid us of your offending presence.

I stuck with it because he was my friend, and he gave it to me in a tongue and cheek way.

The point is you stuck with it. Yes, lil't. it's an inferiority complex. Look it up. And now you've added that cavaliers avatar - as if there was something noble about you, LOL. I guess the green plume was just a little too effeminate for you? You've got insecurity and gender issues that it would take a psychologist a good tome to sort out, not to mention some pretty defensive ethnic issues. And I'm not even going to address the "tongue and cheek" comment.

I illistrated a point ... I juxstiposed that against your bald face lie... contridicted yourself and said that you did.

Funny from someone who beats the typo horse to death when it suits his argument. Let me illustrate the point that your juxtapositions do nothing but contradict your own argument...

You said that you do not do level matching(which is a lie and you know it)

I said that for the purpose of keeping your from getting your diaper in a bunch, I didn't do level matching. I'm just trying to keep you from crapping all over the place here. Of course I've tried it with level matching, but for the sake of this argument, let's say I did not do level matching and that for my purposes (the room is fairly evenly laid out, I have the acoustic panels, and the speakers are positioned as good as they can be), the level matching is not necessary. So don't call me a liar. Until you've actually been to my house (that is after you get your a** whoopin'), don't try and tell me what I have and have not set on the setup menu on my components. You're not in my house, so don't tell me I'm a liar about how it's set up.

I illistrated that as well matched as my speaker package is, it requires level matching. Then you turned around and said you use a SPL meter to get a balance that meets your needs, as opposed to level matching with precision. Your purist approach (which turns out to be not so purist) does not match your calibration approach. Kinda of schetzoprenic I would say.

I said I used the SPL meter and it was decent for my needs. Then when I had the opportunity to add the acoustic panels I had a professional come it and do some more tweaking. You know lil't, there are lots of other ways to get more precise level matching than just tweaking the channel volumes in the receiver. Anyhow, my level matching, when I did try it, was inside the player. And for Pete's sake, it's spelled illustrated, lil't - something else you'll probably have to look up - do you even own a dictionary? You know you can look it up on dictionary.com, too.

Are you sure this is not a self analysis? I think it is.

No, I'm pretty sure it isn't. You're the one with the schizo personality issues, bub.

Its says Onkyo on the front panel, but much of the guts do not belong to Onkyo... Perhaps you should worry more about telling the truth so you do not get busted in any more of your lies.

It's still Onkyo - and that's the truth (no lies, here). And looking at it's blue-book value, it's not keeping up with other amps in its class. That's kind of like putting a 12-cylinder German-engineered engine in a Mitsubishi - that also didn't keep the blue book on those cars up either - now you know why that's not a popular thing to do. Even if someone wanted to send them back to Germany for "upgrades," they still would never be able to recoup the hit from that badge on the hood. You like your amps and don't mind the necessary upgrades? Good for you. It's still an Onkyo, and valued accordingly, even if the insides were solid gold and designed by Einstein himself. That's truth, lil't, not lies. Can't handle it? Well that's because there's a lot of reality you can't handle apparently.

A Onkyo chassis with John Curl chosen parts and internal redesign will run circles around anything you have, or will probably own in the future.

You don't know what I have, so this is an invalid statement from the start. And what's with the one-upsmanship again? You really should stop trying to compare yourself so much, it's really childish. Yes, lil't that's an inferiority complex example.

My Sony receiver as a pre/pro performs as well, if not better than any outlaw pre/pro ever designed.

And as I said with the Onkyo, it's a mass-market brand with all it's associated consumer-level value-engineered compromises. $15K, well I guess you're not that smart as you want everyone to believe you are. I think you're the one who's the but of that joke, LOL LOL LOL... Disagree? Well let's see what your little switcher fetches on the used market, when you do finally decide to upgrade.

Your outlaw doesn't even support HDMI, and DVI to HDMI connection is iffy at best. So before you cast critisize anyone stuff, look in your own backyard.

Hey, I don't "cast critisize" my stuff in the backyard - is that what you do? Not too bright, lil't. Regarding the Outlaw, maybe it's because when they designed it, HDMI was still a very unsure technology; and given how much it still is in flux (more on that below), I don't exactly blame them. It's a bit outdated, and I'll be the first to lament the lack of HDMI, but I don't use any of that - I'm strictly component right now, so no adapters needed. And besides, what does that have to do with a discussion about sound (DVI is video-only, didn't you know that)? Completely unrelated - cheap shot that got you nowhere. Weak, lil't, even for you.

And as far as the Outlaw as a pre-pro, it has better configuration options than any pre/pro in its price-range and many above it (your pathetic Sony included, probably). And the sound isn't that bad at all, so don't even start on this comparison nonsense - we've already established how childish that is and how it makes your argument so much weaker (if there was an argument in this at all). You're so weak, lil't, I'm surprised you can lift your baby hands onto a computer keyboard.

You know for someone who claims he's got a solid argument about everything he says, I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. Funny... and sad, really.

You are still a liar. Why would a DVD player allow the option of either DSD or PCM when it can only pass through its DAC a PCM stream?...You need to go straight to the bathroom, you are full of the brown stuff. Your Outlaw cannot pass it, and your DVD player cannot decode it, and you and I both know this. There is no DVD player that can pass a DSD stream in its native form.

More FUD. Lil't , you asked me about PCM. My DVD player is currently set to pass PCM straight out. That's what I said in the first place - I never said it was trying to decode DSD in its native form. I am telling you what it's set for, and I'm a liar? Again, you're not in my home, so don't tell me that what I have selected on my menu screen is not selected.

Well you can't say it outputs DSD can you? Are you saying that you player has the necessary conversion to do DSD in its native stream? How do you do that if you are level matching?

Never said that it was decoding DSD in its native form, so get off of it already. I said that I am passing PCM out, that the pre/pro is not doing any processing (yes the Outlaw has a setting for that, look it up), and that the ICBM then does the analog bass management before the remaining 5.0 channels are passed to the amp.

Now I'm not saying I'm an expert at this or that I understand everything that's going on. What I expect is that any digital processing is only done in the player in this setup. If I am missing something, or if I don't understand this correctly, then let me know. I never claimed to be an expert at this - hence the reason I started a thread on sound output and how it relates to SACD settings.

Now before I open that door, do yo think you can offer some constructive input without insults? Because if you're going to litter your post with insults and attempts at showing off how much smarter you are, then don't bother. I don't have the patience, and I doubt anyone else still reading this does either.

Well it wouldn't be that hard if you didn't say you use the ICBM for bass management. It wouldn't be if you didn't say you didn't do delay, or level matching. So what is it liar? Do you do it in player, or by ICBM or a little of both? How do you do this in DSD if there are not post processing tools native to DSD? Liar!!

So enlighten us, lil't. How exactly am I a liar? I am simply explaining how I have it set up for the purpose of this example. Stop the name-calling and explain to me how exactly this makes me a liar. Can you actually be mature or will you forever remain an child?

You don't, or you wouldn't need a professional installer. You could have done it yourself... It just seems kind of strange a person would purchase a sub $1k processor, but have a professional installer put his room together and calibrate his equipment. Something smells fishy, or you are simply telling more lies.

How deep do you wana dig that hole, lil't? Again, you're making assumptions about my setup and my procedures w/o knowing enough about them. As I am saying for the umptieth time, you haven't been to my house, so don't go around calling me a liar. You really come off as a jerk when you do that, not just to me, but to everyone else who suffers through your ramblings. The professional installer is a friend of mine, so it didn't cost me anything except the cost of the panels and corner pieces, which, by the way, I got at cost.

Secondly, saying you went to a professional installer means nothing to me. I have spent a fair amount of my installation career...

Let's put the bragging aside and think about this for a minute. Now you also have a career as an installer, too? I thought you worked at mixing sound for a BR-only company? Well which is it? I guess with your other career as a clair-voyant, that's pretty much a trifecta no one can argue against. With keeping current on all your certifications, I'm amazed you find the time to bore us with your long-winded nonsense on this forum on top it all off. You are such a braggart, it's obvious you're trying to compensate for something. What is this nagging insecurity, lil't? I mean really...

I would rather be knowledgeable and arrogant, than a retarded name calling wanna be. I am scared you have a kid!

You know, you better stop bringing my family into this... What with your other peripheral topics ranging from your sexuality to your ethnic background, I can't say I'm surprised. Anything to deflect meaningful commentary, right? Well at least you're admitting that you are arrogant - accepting the problem is a first step, I suppose. And just for the record, you're the one who started with the name calling, both here and elsewhere. Stop it already.

I could be ALOT more conceited.

Really, I find that hard to believe. Care to enlighten us on that little gem of a claim? Got some links for us? Some insider info? How about some stats? LOL.

I do not use my ears to calibrate, I use measuring equipment. That is what they are there for. I use my ears to listen to the result.

I don't think you use your ears at all. You certainly don't seem to hear the stampede of people wanting you to stop being such a blow-hard.

When someone says that it does not tell the whole picture, they are dismissing them. So now you are flip flopping again?...Your word here is crap, I have already busted saying things you couldn't even remember you said.

When someone says it's not the whole picture, it's not the same as dismissing them outright. Making mountains out of mole-hills again. Amazing how you twisted that one around. No, I'd say your word so far has been crap - amazing how it got from your diaper into your mouth. How does that taste? And regarding not remembering something I wrote previously, that happened once, just once lil't, and I fessed up to it. Again, making more mountains out of mole-hills. So infantile, lil't, really.

I dismissed organ music, but said this on page three.Aside from organ pedals and huge bass drums, there is not much audio below 40hz in most classical and jazz music

Yes in your shallow, narrow little world. You don't know music as well as you claim you do - for someone who mixes sound tracks for a living (well we presume that's still your career), you really aught to broaden your musical horizons. I listed lots of examples, so maybe you should start your education there...

I do not care about what your personal focus is, your personal focus still is not a reason to use LFE for music. While there maybe some music focused around the organ, it does not make up a majority of recorded classical music. If you are going to sit there and tell another lie, do not make it be this one.

How is that a lie? Never mind... Actually what I listen to is relevant here, because I'm the one who started this thread, using my own musical taste as example. That you don't care about what this thread is about, is painfully obvious, so the only question left is what the hell are you still doing here? Go! Leave! With your attitude, you're not wanted. Can't you take a hint?

The overwhelming majority of classical music does not feature the organ, or any musical information below the fundemantal frequency of most acoustical instruments, which would be 40hz. I gave you three links that support that, you have given none supporting yours. You have named a few of hundreds of composers, majoring in minors

Even if there was only one symphony that featured the organ, it would be enough to make the argument. Actually there are far more than that and I don't need to provide links because I provided dozens of actual examples of composers and artists, not just classical artists by the way, who do make music that goes well below 40Hz. And, as I explained above, I brought up the example specifically because it is my musical preference. After all, it's my thread remember? If you don't want to talk about the topic, then don't squat here, you might crap through your diaper again, and frankly I've had enough of your crap. Stop trying to hijack this thread and make it your own - either contribute to the topic or get the hell out.

Where is your damn proof? Show me some links that prove your point. Where are the frequency vs amplitude plots? Rather than sit here and make claims and stupid insults, prove your point.

Why don't you just check out the artists I listed? You should listen to them, you might learn something.

Look at the charts, do you see any acoustical instruments aside from the piano with fundementals below 40hz? Do you see the comments that a speaker that has a frequency response of 40-18khz would cover mostly all acoustical instruments. Are you saying this information is not true? Well prove it is not.

I never disputed that much of the recorded classical music out there is above 40Hz. I only said that there is music that does go below, especially in my collection because I tend to collect that. Stop trying to make something out of this. In this thread, it's a non-issue. As usual, you have no real argument so you try to invent one. Why did you even bother pointing out in the first place that much classical music doesn't go down below 40Hz? It's like you just wanted to dismiss my whole thread outright. And why are you still harping on this point? Is it really that hard to deal with a differing view-point? You really are transparent, you know. Either contribute to the topic at hand or leave, your choice is pretty simple.

I have already checked you stupid butt on this [that the internet had a significant impact on changing the movie industry], not give it a rest. You have supplied nothing to support your claims Mr Internet expert

You have proven nothing. I've pointed out numerous ways that makes your comparison of the market share growth of DVDs in 1997 with the market share growth of HD disks today, pretty weak. The Internet has changed sales, advertising, and distribution methods so much that the two can't be compared. Remember it was you who said that HD disks have grown faster than DVD disks. And it was you who said that this is an indication of the superiority of the HD format. Ludicrous. The impact that the internet has had makes this claim seriously flawed. And nobody needs to see any stats to understand that. You simply cannot say that the Internet had the same impact as it did in 1997. LOL. If you're going to draw a line in the sand, at least try to be standing on some.

You and Peruviansky(I have no problem with Pixel) are as dumb as a wood stick. Both of you make stupid assinine claims that neither of you can prove. You both lie through your teeth, you both have stuck your stupid feet in your mouth too many times. Two birds flocking together.

I can't speak for Peru (although he certainly does speak for himself well enough), but you have yet to show anyone here that I'm a liar. I'm sorry, is it because I said that what my SACD player's menu is set for, isn't what you believe it's set for? Is it because I said that you are driving your setup with an Onkyo receiver? Or is it because you claimed that I know less about the music that I own than you do? Or that you are the belligerent one on my thread? Or that you claimed that you were never wrong? Or that you are arrogant? Or that you are compensating for something? How many other truths do I have to bring up?

Sounds to me like you are much more of a liar than I am. Fact is, you have yet to point out a single time that I lied (and that one time that I forgot having written something and then fessing up to it isn't a lie, by the way). Well, Mr. I'll-prove-everything? Do you have a single example of when I lied? Didn't think so. Now stop with that rant.

If they are not major players, then you have not proven your point. Microsoft does not make audio processing software used in most studio unless they make pro tools. They don't. They do not make mixing boards, D/A converters, compression software or hardware, limiters software of hardware or any other audio tools. They make software based video codecs.

So because they are not a major player in some sectors, they are insignificant? What kind of logic is that? Not only are they major players in several key industries, their reach into other industries makes them very significant across the board. I guess their expansion into banking, medical records, art, etc. are just insignificant, right? Maybe they shouldn't be part of the Dow Jones, either? You're are so ignorant. Just because Wells Fargo isn't the largest bank in the finance industry doesn't make them insignificant. And in case you didn't know, being a second-tier player isn't always a position of weakness either, but I know this is getting way over your head. Let me see if I can bring it down to your level and see if we can get your little mind to understand the concept. Just because a guard on a basketball team isn't big enough to beat the whole opposing team, doesn't mean he's not significant. Still too hard? How about this one: just because a fart in your diaper isn't the whole poop, it doesn't mean a big poop isn't on the way. Clear enough for you? I can't explain it any better. If you are too dumb to follow, maybe you should go learn a thing or two about analogies.

Bottom line is that Microsoft, through it's patents, cross-licensing, encryption, copyrights, financial positions and dominance in several key industries (i.e. computers), has access to just about every industry and this makes it a significant player. And yes, they are a significant player in the BR/HDDVD war too. You're the only slow-poke who wants to pretend they aren't. Even Sony considers them a threat, but the mighty lil't thinks otherwise. Sheeeez, I mean really, what kind of shovel are you using to dig that hole you're in?

Well, they are not suceeding in helping HD DVD, they have to give away players(of which microsoft does not make) to help their cause.

You are stumbling over yourself so much I can't even understand what you're saying. But let me see if I can sort this nonsense out. You're saying they are not helping HDDVD? Really, that's certainly news to me. They have to give away players? Haven't seen any for free yet, but maybe you have... And even if they aren't making a profit there, they more than make up for it with software sales and royalties. Trust me, they aren't loosing their shirts on this one. They certainly are doing a whole lot better that Sony on the PS3 gaming front. I'm sure Groundbeef can fill in the holes in my understanding of this as it isn't what I know a lot about, but it certainly obvious you know far less.

And if they are such a threat, then why are so scared of BD+? Did they get their way in set top boxes for cable? No! The public rejected interactive TV. Did they get their way with Bluray? No, Bluray accepted BD-java instead. Has studios embraced their download plan? No, they are still choosing to sell disc.

If there is one thing about Microsoft that most everyone can agree on is that they don't give up. They aren't scared of BD+, they just haven't found a way to beat it. Microsoft was never about winning early, but they always seem to win in the end. It's the nature of large companies, they can take a few punches and keep going. That's what makes them such a threat, lil't. But from down there, I doubt you can see the whole picture - after all you're so small.

Why don't they then? And why is google kicking the crap out of them? Practically own, and own are two different things right? More muck.

Ever heard of monopolyism? Microsoft doesn't want to be seen as a monopoly and does what it can to keep the government off it's back. Buying Google would not be in its interest - but they certainly have enough financial leverage to buy them out tomorrow, if they wanted to, that we all know (well everyone except you, apparently). Besides, Microsoft doesn't need to own Google right now. They are better off with Google in play because Google is also a threat to some of Microsoft's other competitors. And no, you dim-wit, Google isn't kicking the crap out of them. What kind of stupid statement is that? Care to back that up with a few links? Yeah, I didn't think so.

And just how can Microsoft make a huge profit? By A) tweaking their VC-1 codec for maximum efficency to support downloads. B) Using HD DVD encoding to forward that practice in the field.

Again showing off your limited understanding of this industry. Microsoft isn't just about software (although that's all you seem to want to grasp about them). If Microsoft just continues to push the HDDVD button enough just to keep people from buying enough BR, they will have just the effect they need to have. Microsoft is competing with Sony in the home electronics sector and anything that can hurt Sony (even if it is to boost HDDVD) is a win for them. No need for another long tirade about codecs to see that (although the VC-1 codec, certainly doesn't hurt them).

They do not give a rats ass about HD DVD unless it can further their own cause.

Never said otherwise, but thanks for furthering my point.

If you do not own either of them, then what the hell can you tell me about them? Nothing, not one damn thing. How do you offer an opinion if you have never experienced either? What would you draw from, your empty and bankrupt useless gut? A wild guess?

I'll repeat what I said before since you don't seem to read:

"So let me get this straight: for me to have an opinion or even the right to say anything about either format, I first have to buy into one or the other? What kind of doublespeak logic is that?"

No, lil't. For me to have an opinion, I do not need to own either format. I read. I study, I listen. I also happen to have several friends who own one or the other, so I do get to experience them. And just so you know I almost bought that Sharp BR player last week, but decided against it since I would want to own an Aquos TV to go with it, and I'm not entirely settled on that TV brand.

and if I was a shill, then why do I own more disc on the other format than you do?

Owning and watching are two different things. Since you're now such a flag-waiver for BR, I'm going to presume you watch those more. Nice try lil't. We both know you bought the HDDVD titles when you were in that camp. Lately you've been in the BR camp. I bet the HDDVD titles are much older, too.

And yes, we have determined that you are shill. You work for a BR-only company, so obviously you'll make out if the format wins out. Just because your company could go back to doing sound for standard DVD, or heaven forbid, even HDDVD, doesn't mean that is going to happen. No, if BR wins, you win. That makes you a shill and hardly someone who is impartial, regardless of how many HDDVDs you own.

Don't give me that other crap. You are the only idiot that refers to bluray as HD. Talk about a way to created confusion. If bluray is referred to as HD, then how do you distinguish it from HD DVD?

No, plenty of others have too, including Groundbeef. But somehow, when I do it I'm the anti-Christ? Give me a break. Oh, yes, HD has only two letters, HDDVD/HD DVD/HD-DVD is 5 letters. Or have you forgotten how to count too?

And don't bring Beef into this, he has shown far more intelligence on what he has debated than you have.

LOL, yeah he wiped the floor with your *ss. I guess you barked up the wrong tree on that one. And if he handed your *ss to you, and I'm so much less intelligent, won't it be a kick in the pants when you walk out of this thread with your tail between your legs?

You have already been busted in a lie on this, give it a rest. First its your friend, then its their customer service, now its Tom. Who is it going to be next, Felix the cat?

Now here's a perfect example of how you can't handle reality, lil't. Read this carefully: I told you exactly what was in the email from Classe. It's you who needed so much more clarification about who said what (about 5 posts' worth). The fact is, it came straight from Classe's marketing rep, and you didn't believe it until it was right in front of you. Now you can't accept that you got slapped in the face on this one. You pathetic little child, take your dunce hat and go sit in the corner, already.

Oh you contacted some other manufacturers huh? Did you contact Sharp? Or how about Daewoo, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, Lite-on, Sony Lowe, Pioneer, Fanai, philips, JVC and Hitachi? They are all releasing bluray players in 2008

Mostly consumer-level manufacturers. By the way, it's spelled Funai, and Philips is capitalized. You know very well that I am in the market for something a little more upscale, so that's who I contacted.

The only reason the European manufacturers do not jump into this, is because they are small, and do not have the capital resources to get in without a clear winner. They did not get into DVD until way late in the game either. These are small specialized companies appeal to a very small market share. Sony dwarfs them all. These European audio companies do not invent formats, they copy and improve on them in their own way(which may or may not be an actual improvement)

Funny, last time I checked Philips was based in Eindhoven, Netherlands. By the way you left out quite a few Asian-based companies, above, how convenient. Anyhow, just because the higher-end companies are smaller, doesn't make them insignificant. As a matter of fact, given that they are more careful makes their word that much more important since they aren't going to flip-flop once they make a choice. They are waiting this out because there is no clear winner - my whole point from the beginning. You're making such a weak argument, here, and you know it. Just drop it, before you hurt yourself.

If I am a shill(and we have been over this air head) prove that I make a profit if bluray wins. I cannot believe that you want any crediblity. I design soundtracks for THEATRICAL release, I record film scores for THEATRICAL release, and I tweak and remix for bluray release. If bluray failed tomorrow, I would still be mixing soundtracks and recording film scores for THEATRICAL release. If I am a shill, I would not have purchased two HD DVD players, and 140 titles would I. You are about as bright as a minus 1000 watt bulb

As bright as minus 1000W bulb? Yeah, that's a real put-down lil't. At the very least come up with something more creative. You remind me of Jeff Albertson, the Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons. Kinda fits the whole musketeers and the green plume thing. Do you attend midieval fairs in full garb, too? LOL.

So let's dissect what you're trying to wiggle out of. So you "tweak and remix for BR release" right? So what percentage of your job is tweaking and remixing? Whatever that is, that's the amount of a shill you are. Just because you could make a living if BR went the way of SACD (and that's still a very real possibility), it doesn't mean that's the case now. As it stands, you're making money off BR disks, so that means you have a financial stake in the format winning out over HDDVD. Hence, you are a flag-waver for the BR camp and your opinion is far from unbiased. As far as you owning a bunch of HDDVDs and a player, well that's because that's were you started and we've already covered that. You are now definitely a shill for the BR camp, so just admit it already. You're not going to weasel out this one.

You know I have to wonder, have you actually made any argument stick? I haven't seen one yet that has. Are you sure you even want to keep up your charade? You might just want to quit, lil't. After all, you've got a lot of work to do to get out of that hole...

If there is no survey, then just is the basis for your claims of confusion? Your own stupidity?

Hey, I can't make the studios go out and do surveys. And if these are not in their interest (as I pointed out), I doubt any will be forthcoming. The fact is that all the HDMI versions are confusing. It's a mess, and worst of all is that it's a mess by design. They decided to use computer notation for every new version (.1, .2, etc.) which means that it will continue to change. As a matter of fact HDMI 1.4 is just around the corner, isn't it? How are manufacturers supposed to keep up? And what are consumers supposed to settle on? It's a mess, and you know it.

Do you know what each designation supports? Because I tell ya, only 1.1 through 1.3 is truely necessary, the other have features that are not supportable with current formats. They are future based improvements, not for current hardware.

BS. Since I started this thread I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject, and yes, I do now know what they support (no thanks to you). I also happen to know that this distant future that you're referring to is already here with manufacturers now using 1.3 as the standard in their marketing campaigns (just read Sharp, Oppo and Denon's press releases). Only problem is there's a new number just around the corner and so far no one has promised any products that are 1.4 compliant. This only means that come April 2008, consumers will not want 1.3 anymore, even if that's all they need. It's a confusing mess. I can't tell you if it's hurting sales of all HDMI products, but it can't possibly be helping them.

Any product with a HDMI 1.1 connection can support 8 channels of 24/192khz audio, so there is no need for a 1.3 connection. Now if you want to send the Dts and Dolby bitstream directly to the receiver for decoding, then 1.3 is necessary, but it defeats all commentary, IME audio, and any audio connected with the extra's on the disc. Since you have not been keeping current, Panasonic has released a player that can output both codecs in a bitstream form, and there are now receivers that can receive and decode it. It is not now, or ever necessary to send either codec as a bitstream to a reciever

Passing 8 channels of 24/192khz audio isn't everything, lil't. You're flinging FUD again. HDMI 1.3 and above support higher bandwidth, higher video resolutions, have a higher color depth, are capable of updated CEC communications (Sharp uses this between their Aquos player and TVs), and this was important for me: SACD support only came in HDMI 1.2a (DVD-A in 1.1).

And getting back to your suggestion that sending DTS and DD bitstreams to the receiver for decoding being inconsequential, I'm not so sure it's completely useless. After all, isn't that one of the advantages for sending SACD audio digitally to the pre/pro? This allows one to adjust audio settings (channel balance, distance, cross-over, etc.) digitally, so I'm only guessing here, but then the same logic could apply to the ability to do this for DTS and DD, right? Certainly we can agree that not every single players out there has all the necessary settings built-in to their own decoders, especially not the lowest-priced players. Maybe none of the manufacturers are making use of this feature yet, and maybe there are some trade-offs, but then why add the feature? Certainly it took some extensive engineering to add that in, so I doubt it was done for no reason. But I'm just guessing about this, so I'm sure you'll point that out soon enough, with a whole barrage of unnecessary insults to boot. Go ahead, it's not like everyone reading this isn't expecting it - so let's have it...

Now you believe all of us are as stupid as you. Anyone who has visited BB or CC knows that these guys no very little about the product they sell. And since one of my close friends is a store manager for BB in one of the cities...

I wonder if your friend falls under those employees who know so little about the products they sell? Are you making this blanket statement about every BB and CC employee? If so, I think there will be a long line of people waiting to kick your pompous *ss. Now I'm not going to make any such blanket statements, but the sales rep I did speak to knew a whole lot about the formats, and even explained to me the difference between 1.3a and 1.3b. I guess out where you live the sales reps come a little dumber, is that what you're saying? If that's true, do you measure yourself up to them too? Is that why you think you're so smart? You know, for a little feather-waving green-caped snot-nosed little mousqueteer-wanabe in diapers, you sure come off as one unpleasant little fella. If that's your gauge, than that certainly would go a long way to explaining your incessant whining on this forum.

You are making this **** up, and I am sick of you and you stupid ignorant crap.

I have made nothing up. Everything I have stated has been true. You just can't deal with it. And as far as being sick of crap, hey, you're the one who keeps flinging it about. Keep your diaper on already.

In all of the years of posting here, I have never seen a person lie, make up stuff just to support a point, argue when it is apparent they do not know what they are talking about, make claims and provide zero support for it, call so many names to hide the fact they are dumb as dirt, argue with people who know far more than they'll ever know, and flip flop like you do. I cannot believe after you have been caught in lie after lie, you would be stupid enough to resurrect this post, and continue over and over again with the same crap. Either you are a stupid young kid playing stupid games here, or you are a person who thoroughly enjoys getting the crap stomped out of him Whatever it is, you need to go back and crawl into whatever you came out of, before you kill yourself from humiliation. You and Perv, are the dumbest two guys that have ever graced this forum.

You have yet to point out a single lie. Every time I back up my statements you can't handle it. You deflect, you add FUD, and you dismiss anything you don't agree with. To top it off you litter every one of your posts with incessant insults that only weaken your case and your reputation here. You have wasted so much time with belligerent and insulting statements that you've shot your own credibility right in the foot. And the best part is, you don't even see it. That is why I feel sorry for you. You really are pathetic. I think you're the one who should quit.

And just so you know, I'm not that young, I've been around the internet probably longer than you have. I may not have been an audio enthusiast as long as many people here, but I know my way around a message board. So stop trying to turn this around by making me out to be younger than I am. You're the one who's shown his true maturity, or lack thereof, here. In the last three threads I've had the displeasure of having to read through and respond to your childish tantrums, it was always you who started with the petty insults and juvenile behavior. You're an offensive troll and if this forum was only better monitored your account would long have been suspended already.

And as far as "reviving" this thread. It was mine to begin with. You just came here to fling some crap around. For your information, I actually have a life and have spent the holidays with friends and relatives. I guess with the kind of attitude you've demonstrated, you have a lot more free time on your hands. Well take up another hobby, 'cause this one only adds to everyone's dislike of you.

[Rich-n-Texas]

The posts in this thread are... HUGE!!!

[GMichael]

The posts in this thread are... HUGE!!!

Thanks, I've been told that my... uh... oh! You didn't mean ......?

Nevermind.

[Groundbeef]

There have been longer, but not many. I usually grab a beverage, and a snack, and watch. Usually there is a gem buried in the crap that makes everyone chuckle.

I've been known to participate as well.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Thanks, I've been told that my... uh... oh! You didn't mean ......?

Nevermind.

again.

Oh look everyone another meat reference. Does everyone hear the crickets chirping at yet another "Beef" joke...

Wasn't there a ground beef recall sometime back? Have you registered at the local FDA office Beefy?

[pixelthis]

again.

Wasn't there a ground beef recall sometime back? Have you registered at the local FDA office Beefy?

GROUNDBEEF isnt called that because of the hambuger between his ears.
It because his BEEFS are usually GROUNDLESS.
And yes the "posts" (what they call the Gideon Bibles on this thread) do have some good info, if you can dig em out of the B.S, hissyfits, mudslinging, etc.
I need to step up the pace or I'll lose the much coveted "pain in the arse of the board"
standing

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Revive this thread? I started it! Somehow you managed to crap all over it when your diaper fell off. Now let me hose down this mess to rid us of your offending presence.

You crapped all over your own thread liar. You have lied, twisted facts, invented other, been caught in your own lies, and have been proven to know less than your kid when it comes to audio. As so far the only thing you have hosed is your own sorry ass reputation.

The point is you stuck with it. Yes, lil't. it's an inferiority complex. Look it up. And now you've added that cavaliers avatar - as if there was something noble about you, LOL. I guess the green plume was just a little too effeminate for you? You've got insecurity and gender issues that it would take a psychologist a good tome to sort out, not to mention some pretty defensive ethnic issues. And I'm not even going to address the "tongue and cheek" comment.

Wow, you must have been the smartest stupid kid in your class. The Cavaliers are a drum and bugle corps stupid azz. And what you need to do is stop projecting your inadequencies on other folks. If you cannot debate based on the topic and facts, go back to your kiddy sandbox and play with the other boys.

Funny from someone who beats the typo horse to death when it suits his argument. Let me illustrate the point that your juxtapositions do nothing but contradict your own argument...

Wow, has so little to add to the discussion you have resorted to correct typos and judging the accuracy of what one said. All this from somebody that has been busted in lies(hence the name nightliar), and has shown how smartly he can be stupid.

I said that for the purpose of keeping your from getting your diaper in a bunch, I didn't do level matching. I'm just trying to keep you from crapping all over the place here. Of course I've tried it with level matching, but for the sake of this argument, let's say I did not do level matching and that for my purposes (the room is fairly evenly laid out, I have the acoustic panels, and the speakers are positioned as good as they can be), the level matching is not necessary. So don't call me a liar. Until you've actually been to my house (that is after you get your a** whoopin'), don't try and tell me what I have and have not set on the setup menu on my components. You're not in my house, so don't tell me I'm a liar about how it's set up.

Damn, I am talking to a retarded foo. Level matching has nothing to do with acoustical panels. The two serve two different things. Level matching is required to get proper soundstaging, and forming a even soundfield. Acoustical panels take care of flutter echo and room resonances at mid to high frequencies. Just because you have acoustical panels does not mean you omit speaker level matching. Where do you get your ass backwards information. I have bass traps, diffusive material, reflective material, and absoptive material in my listening room, and speaker level matching still had to be done on my speakers. The two are not interelated, but both are required for accurate playback.

I said I used the SPL meter and it was decent for my needs. Then when I had the opportunity to add the acoustic panels I had a professional come it and do some more tweaking. You know lil't, there are lots of other ways to get more precise level matching than just tweaking the channel volumes in the receiver. Anyhow, my level matching, when I did try it, was inside the player. And for Pete's sake, it's spelled illustrated, lil't - something else you'll probably have to look up - do you even own a dictionary? You know you can look it up on dictionary.com, too.

Sorry nightliar, there is only one way to get level matching between speakers. It does not matter if the player does it, or the reciever does it, there is only one way for it to be done, at that does not include the addition of acoustical panels. Amplitude and frequency are quite difference. Level matching deals with amplitude, and acoustical panels deal with frequency response. Duh!!!

No, I'm pretty sure it isn't. You're the one with the schizo personality issues, bub.

Nothing to do with audio nightliar.

It's still Onkyo - and that's the truth (no lies, here). And looking at it's blue-book value, it's not keeping up with other amps in its class. That's kind of like putting a 12-cylinder German-engineered engine in a Mitsubishi - that also didn't keep the blue book on those cars up either - now you know why that's not a popular thing to do. Even if someone wanted to send them back to Germany for "upgrades," they still would never be able to recoup the hit from that badge on the hood. You like your amps and don't mind the necessary upgrades? Good for you. It's still an Onkyo, and valued accordingly, even if the insides were solid gold and designed by Einstein himself. That's truth, lil't, not lies. Can't handle it? Well that's because there's a lot of reality you can't handle apparently.

The shell still says Onkyo, very few parts inside are Onkyo. You cannot use a blue book value on a amp that has been custom redesigned. What does this have to do with anything? I am not selling my amps, they were redesign so they sound better, and play louder and cleaner.

You don't know what I have, so this is an invalid statement from the start. And what's with the one-upsmanship again? You really should stop trying to compare yourself so much, it's really childish. Yes, lil't that's an inferiority complex example.

I don't care what you have, who you are, where you live, or what color your living room furniture is. I REALLY do not care of your opinion of me, or what you think of my character. A liar is in no position to judge anyone.

And as I said with the Onkyo, it's a mass-market brand with all it's associated consumer-level value-engineered compromises. $15K, well I guess you're not that smart as you want everyone to believe you are. I think you're the one who's the but of that joke, LOL LOL LOL... Disagree? Well let's see what your little switcher fetches on the used market, when you do finally decide to upgrade.

Onkyo has some mass market products, but they also have high end ones as well. My upgrade and resdesign was meant to address any shortcomings the amps had, and they were well addressed. You know absolutely nothing about my switcher, so any comments on it are at best ignorant as hell, and at worst stupid as hell.

Hey, I don't "cast critisize" my stuff in the backyard - is that what you do? Not too bright, lil't. Regarding the Outlaw, maybe it's because when they designed it, HDMI was still a very unsure technology; and given how much it still is in flux (more on that below), I don't exactly blame them. It's a bit outdated, and I'll be the first to lament the lack of HDMI, but I don't use any of that - I'm strictly component right now, so no adapters needed. And besides, what does that have to do with a discussion about sound (DVI is video-only, didn't you know that)? Completely unrelated - cheap shot that got you nowhere. Weak, lil't, even for you.

And just what DVD player on any other video or audio related product supports DVI? Not many to zilch! They could have at least support basic HDMI 1.1 and would have been compatible with all upconverting DVD players, HD DVD and Bluray. It was a cheap low budget solution that does not solve a single problem with HDMI, and you are not so bright for mentioning that as a excuse for its lack of HDMI support. Its a bit dated? Its totally outdated and unuseful. And yes I know that DVI is video only, which makes your little Outlaw even less useful going forward into the future. Having component hook ups mean that you cannot get upconverted DVD, and only 1080i from any HD on disc. So if anything is weak, its your pre-pro.

And as far as the Outlaw as a pre-pro, it has better configuration options than any pre/pro in its price-range and many above it (your pathetic Sony included, probably). And the sound isn't that bad at all, so don't even start on this comparison nonsense - we've already established how childish that is and how it makes your argument so much weaker (if there was an argument in this at all). You're so weak, lil't, I'm surprised you can lift your baby hands onto a computer keyboard.

Your pre-pro does not support HDMI, mine does Your Outlaw does not upconvert video signals to 1080p, mine does. My Sony does all the things your Outlaw does and more. So since you started down the comparison road, then if that arguement is weak, you start it, its your weakness.

You know for someone who claims he's got a solid argument about everything he says, I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. Funny... and sad, really.

For a person asking for credibility, you lie too much.

More FUD. Lil't , you asked me about PCM. My DVD player is currently set to pass PCM straight out. That's what I said in the first place - I never said it was trying to decode DSD in its native form. I am telling you what it's set for, and I'm a liar? Again, you're not in my home, so don't tell me that what I have selected on my menu screen is not selected.

You are lying once again and here is proof.

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

Nightliars response. "Well, then my Sony player (not too expensive) must be pretty high end." That is in post #66.

You are isinuating that your player has post processing tools for DSD, when in fact it does not. You are a liar plain and simple. Then you turn around and state this

My player has the option of converting to PCM or not. But I prefer not to do any any bass management in the player. That is out of post #69.

Never said that it was decoding DSD in its native form, so get off of it already. I said that I am passing PCM out, that the pre/pro is not doing any processing (yes the Outlaw has a setting for that, look it up), and that the ICBM then does the analog bass management before the remaining 5.0 channels are passed to the amp.

See above, because you did say your player has that option when in fact no DVD player has that option. You are tripping over your own lies nightliar.

Now I'm not saying I'm an expert at this or that I understand everything that's going on. What I expect is that any digital processing is only done in the player in this setup. If I am missing something, or if I don't understand this correctly, then let me know. I never claimed to be an expert at this - hence the reason I started a thread on sound output and how it relates to SACD settings.

Now you saying you are not an expert, yet for ten pages you are arguing as if you know what you are talking about, and asking me to say I am wrong when in fact you are. What an about face.

Now before I open that door, do yo think you can offer some constructive input without insults? Because if you're going to litter your post with insults and attempts at showing off how much smarter you are, then don't bother. I don't have the patience, and I doubt anyone else still reading this does either.

Offer constructive advice to someone who believes they know all about nothing. HELL NO! You bask in your own stupid ignorance for all I care.

So enlighten us, lil't. How exactly am I a liar? I am simply explaining how I have it set up for the purpose of this example. Stop the name-calling and explain to me how exactly this makes me a liar. Can you actually be mature or will you forever remain an child?

Easy. You said your player has the option of passing both DSD and PCM. No player has that option in existance. You lied.

You said Classe is thinking about releasing a player(and didn't specify which) and you read this in stereophile. Another lie because it was never stated in stereophile.

You made this outrageous statement that the single most important question that consumers are asking about the new format is what HDMI version the players are, which is a lie because the single most asked question is "does it play x movie?". Best buy did the survey, and it was reported in NDP.

How deep do you wana dig that hole, lil't? Again, you're making assumptions about my setup and my procedures w/o knowing enough about them. As I am saying for the umptieth time, you haven't been to my house, so don't go around calling me a liar. You really come off as a jerk when you do that, not just to me, but to everyone else who suffers through your ramblings. The professional installer is a friend of mine, so it didn't cost me anything except the cost of the panels and corner pieces, which, by the way, I got at cost.

You have lied so much, I do not even believe this.

Let's put the bragging aside and think about this for a minute. Now you also have a career as an installer, too? I thought you worked at mixing sound for a BR-only company? Well which is it? I guess with your other career as a clair-voyant, that's pretty much a trifecta no one can argue against. With keeping current on all your certifications, I'm amazed you find the time to bore us with your long-winded nonsense on this forum on top it all off. You are such a braggart, it's obvious you're trying to compensate for something. What is this nagging insecurity, lil't? I mean really...

Anyone who has been around this website for any amount of time has known that I mix full time, and have done installation as a side job for over 16 years.

You do not like what I post because you cannot lie and not be called on that lie. You are a pathological liar, and you need some help with that.

Green is not your best color is it?

You know, you better stop bringing my family into this... What with your other peripheral topics ranging from your sexuality to your ethnic background, I can't say I'm surprised. Anything to deflect meaningful commentary, right? Well at least you're admitting that you are arrogant - accepting the problem is a first step, I suppose. And just for the record, you're the one who started with the name calling, both here and elsewhere. Stop it already.

I have stated this over and over. I do not care about you, your family, your dog reggie, your aunts, uncles, or your hamster. I care about the words you post. I do not care if you throw your hamster into the microwave and eat it.

Really, I find that hard to believe. Care to enlighten us on that little gem of a claim? Got some links for us? Some insider info? How about some stats? LOL.

Funny, we do not need any of that to prove how ignorant you are when it comes to audio.

I don't think you use your ears at all. You certainly don't seem to hear the stampede of people wanting you to stop being such a blow-hard.

Your imagination is too active, I only see one liar begging me to stop uncovering his lies.

When someone says it's not the whole picture, it's not the same as dismissing them outright. Making mountains out of mole-hills again. Amazing how you twisted that one around. No, I'd say your word so far has been crap - amazing how it got from your diaper into your mouth. How does that taste? And regarding not remembering something I wrote previously, that happened once, just once lil't, and I fessed up to it. Again, making more mountains out of mole-hills. So infantile, lil't, really.

More backpeddling huh? The rest of this in nothing more than just blah blah blah to me.

Yes in your shallow, narrow little world. You don't know music as well as you claim you do - for someone who mixes sound tracks for a living (well we presume that's still your career), you really aught to broaden your musical horizons. I listed lots of examples, so maybe you should start your education there...

Since you have proven to be such a liar, just listing them is not enough. I want to see frequency versus amplitude plot that prove what you are saying. You word in bantha fodder.

How is that a lie? Never mind... Actually what I listen to is relevant here, because I'm the one who started this thread, using my own musical taste as example. That you don't care about what this thread is about, is painfully obvious, so the only question left is what the hell are you still doing here? Go! Leave! With your attitude, you're not wanted. Can't you take a hint?

Your own musical taste is no basis for an opinion. Your "taste" in music represents such a small sampling of ALL the acoustical music recorded, that it is impossible to use it to represent acoustical music as a whole.

Do you really think I am going to leave just because you say so? LOLOLOLOLOL, no way, I am having the time of my life uncovering your rediculous lies.

Even if there was only one symphony that featured the organ, it would be enough to make the argument. Actually there are far more than that and I don't need to provide links because I provided dozens of actual examples of composers and artists, not just classical artists by the way, who do make music that goes well below 40Hz. And, as I explained above, I brought up the example specifically because it is my musical preference. After all, it's my thread remember? If you don't want to talk about the topic, then don't squat here, you might crap through your diaper again, and frankly I've had enough of your crap. Stop trying to hijack this thread and make it your own - either contribute to the topic or get the hell out.

We are talking about acoustical music only here. That is what has been previously stated and debated. One symphony DOES NOT make you point at all. I am sorry, because you have not told the truth, you list does not mean $hit. I want links, and amplitude versus frequency charts, because that is the only way to get to the truth. If you cannot or do not want to provide this, then it just becomes another one of your lies.

Why don't you just check out the artists I listed? You should listen to them, you might learn something.

I want to see amplitude versus frequency charts. You are no teacher to anyone, so you have no right to pass out homework. It is up to you to prove what you say, and the only way to do so is to provide the charts so EVERYONE reading this can see.

I never disputed that much of the recorded classical music out there is above 40Hz. I only said that there is music that does go below, especially in my collection because I tend to collect that. Stop trying to make something out of this. In this thread, it's a non-issue. As usual, you have no real argument so you try to invent one. Why did you even bother pointing out in the first place that much classical music doesn't go down below 40Hz? It's like you just wanted to dismiss my whole thread outright. And why are you still harping on this point? Is it really that hard to deal with a differing view-point? You really are transparent, you know. Either contribute to the topic at hand or leave, your choice is pretty simple.

I do not have a problem with a different point of view as long as it is factual. You point of view is not factual at all. Now you are backpeddling once again away from previous statements.

Here is why I pointed out that

Nightliar "Anyhow, your ignorant statement: there is not much audio below 40hz in most classical and jazz music is just that, ignorant, and nothing more." post #69

Also from post #69

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
LFE is completely unnecessary in music.

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

Did you forget you said this? That is why I stated what I stated. Selective memory, how convient.

Let's add in the classe releasing a player. First you said this.

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

Then it comes to this

"Classe is thinking about releasing a high-def player sometime early next year (I read that in Stereophile)."

Then this

'I'm pretty sure I read that in Stereophile, or one of my other print magazines. I don't remember exactly were, but I was pretty sure it was in one of the reports from one of the recent shows. I'll see if I can dig it up."

To this

"I asked one of my friends to inquire what if anything they had in the works. He is a long time Classe fanatic, owns several components, and is also waiting to see if Classe will release something."

Then it turns to this

"Now regarding that quote about Classe, it did not come from my friend, it came straight from Classe's sales department."

This is just a evolving lie that just keeps getting more twisted by the response.

You have proven nothing. I've pointed out numerous ways that makes your comparison of the market share growth of DVDs in 1997 with the market share growth of HD disks today, pretty weak. The Internet has changed sales, advertising, and distribution methods so much that the two can't be compared. Remember it was you who said that HD disks have grown faster than DVD disks. And it was you who said that this is an indication of the superiority of the HD format. Ludicrous. The impact that the internet has had makes this claim seriously flawed. And nobody needs to see any stats to understand that. You simply cannot say that the Internet had the same impact as it did in 1997. LOL. If you're going to draw a line in the sand, at least try to be standing on some.

Both Wooch and I have put you down like a lame dog on this one, so there is not point in going over it again.

I can't speak for Peru (although he certainly does speak for himself well enough), but you have yet to show anyone here that I'm a liar. I'm sorry, is it because I said that what my SACD player's menu is set for, isn't what you believe it's set for? Is it because I said that you are driving your setup with an Onkyo receiver? Or is it because you claimed that I know less about the music that I own than you do? Or that you are the belligerent one on my thread? Or that you claimed that you were never wrong? Or that you are arrogant? Or that you are compensating for something? How many other truths do I have to bring up?

Blah blah blah blah yawn!

Sounds to me like you are much more of a liar than I am. Fact is, you have yet to point out a single time that I lied (and that one time that I forgot having written something and then fessing up to it isn't a lie, by the way). Well, Mr. I'll-prove-everything? Do you have a single example of when I lied? Didn't think so. Now stop with that rant.

Read above, you lies are well documented.

So because they are not a major player in some sectors, they are insignificant? What kind of logic is that? Not only are they major players in several key industries, their reach into other industries makes them very significant across the board. I guess their expansion into banking, medical records, art, etc. are just insignificant, right? Maybe they shouldn't be part of the Dow Jones, either? You're are so ignorant. Just because Wells Fargo isn't the largest bank in the finance industry doesn't make them insignificant. And in case you didn't know, being a second-tier player isn't always a position of weakness either, but I know this is getting way over your head. Let me see if I can bring it down to your level and see if we can get your little mind to understand the concept. Just because a guard on a basketball team isn't big enough to beat the whole opposing team, doesn't mean he's not significant. Still too hard? How about this one: just because a fart in your diaper isn't the whole poop, it doesn't mean a big poop isn't on the way. Clear enough for you? I can't explain it any better. If you are too dumb to follow, maybe you should go learn a thing or two about analogies.

Microsoft has been a complete failure in trying to get into the television and movie business with their windows platform. Their shop while you watch was a disaster, interactive set top boxes featuring Micosoft software never got out of the gate. Their movie D/L business is at best paltry. They may be powerful in other areas, but they have been a complete failure in trying to get into the film and television business. Software is their games, and the only hardware they build is to support the software(games).

Bottom line is that Microsoft, through it's patents, cross-licensing, encryption, copyrights, financial positions and dominance in several key industries (i.e. computers), has access to just about every industry and this makes it a significant player. And yes, they are a significant player in the BR/HDDVD war too. You're the only slow-poke who wants to pretend they aren't. Even Sony considers them a threat, but the mighty lil't thinks otherwise. Sheeeez, I mean really, what kind of shovel are you using to dig that hole you're in?

So far their influence in the HD DVD/bluray war is not helping the cause much. There support of HD DVD is not helping the format sell disc, or players. So in this area, their influence is very questionable. Besides, Apple is eating their lunch in the mobile phone market, and Google is threatening their PC software package with a online package of their own. Google is beating their search engine, and Vista is an absolute disaster when compared to their other windows releases. Overplayed argument when carefully scrutinized.

You are stumbling over yourself so much I can't even understand what you're saying. But let me see if I can sort this nonsense out. You're saying they are not helping HDDVD? Really, that's certainly news to me. They have to give away players? Haven't seen any for free yet, but maybe you have... And even if they aren't making a profit there, they more than make up for it with software sales and royalties. Trust me, they aren't loosing their shirts on this one. They certainly are doing a whole lot better that Sony on the PS3 gaming front. I'm sure Groundbeef can fill in the holes in my understanding of this as it isn't what I know a lot about, but it certainly obvious you know far less.

Microsoft does no sell HD DVD players, or movies on disc. They do get royalties from the use of VC-1. They want to keep HD DVD alive for that reason, as they get nothing else out of HD DVD but a way to slow Sony down. In the end, they are not going to win this either.

You do not know $hit about audio, and know less than $hit about the gaming industry. So the best thing you can do for the benefit of all of us, is to insert your big fat foot in your mouth before you spread another lie, or another piece of FUD.

If there is one thing about Microsoft that most everyone can agree on is that they don't give up. They aren't scared of BD+, they just haven't found a way to beat it. Microsoft was never about winning early, but they always seem to win in the end. It's the nature of large companies, they can take a few punches and keep going. That's what makes them such a threat, lil't. But from down there, I doubt you can see the whole picture - after all you're so small.

You do not know what you are talking about, and that is usually the case. Microsoft is scared as hell of BD+, because if BD+ get's traction amoung the studios, their downloading business is history and they know it.

Ever heard of monopolyism? Microsoft doesn't want to be seen as a monopoly and does what it can to keep the government off it's back. Buying Google would not be in its interest - but they certainly have enough financial leverage to buy them out tomorrow, if they wanted to, that we all know (well everyone except you, apparently). Besides, Microsoft doesn't need to own Google right now. They are better off with Google in play because Google is also a threat to some of Microsoft's other competitors. And no, you dim-wit, Google isn't kicking the crap out of them. What kind of stupid statement is that? Care to back that up with a few links? Yeah, I didn't think so.

If you do not provide links to support your arguments, then you have no right to ask for them. Google search engine is kicking the $hit out of Microsofts attempt in that area.

Again showing off your limited understanding of this industry. Microsoft isn't just about software (although that's all you seem to want to grasp about them). If Microsoft just continues to push the HDDVD button enough just to keep people from buying enough BR, they will have just the effect they need to have. Microsoft is competing with Sony in the home electronics sector and anything that can hurt Sony (even if it is to boost HDDVD) is a win for them. No need for another long tirade about codecs to see that (although the VC-1 codec, certainly doesn't hurt them).

Microsoft is all about software, every who know anything about anything knows this. What is Vista? Software. What is Microsoft Office? Software. What does their gaming division do? Software. Why does microsoft build the XBOX? To support their gaming divisions software. If they were not in the gaming business, they would not make any hardware. Outside of the gaming business, all they make is software.

If Microsoft is so influential, then why couldn't their influence get Warner to go HD DVD exclusive when Warner was offered $225 million for their support by the HD DVD PG?



Never said otherwise, but thanks for furthering my point.

I'll repeat what I said before since you don't seem to read:

"So let me get this straight: for me to have an opinion or even the right to say anything about either format, I first have to buy into one or the other? What kind of doublespeak logic is that?"

No, lil't. For me to have an opinion, I do not need to own either format. I read. I study, I listen. I also happen to have several friends who own one or the other, so I do get to experience them. And just so you know I almost bought that Sharp BR player last week, but decided against it since I would want to own an Aquos TV to go with it, and I'm not entirely settled on that TV brand.

How do you listen when you do not have a player? This is more bull and nonsense.

Owning and watching are two different things. Since you're now such a flag-waiver for BR, I'm going to presume you watch those more. Nice try lil't. We both know you bought the HDDVD titles when you were in that camp. Lately you've been in the BR camp. I bet the HDDVD titles are much older, too.

So now you are the foremost expert on my viewing habits. You are now the foremost expert on my buying habit, and when I purchased my disc. Now you are the foremost expert on the age of my HD DVD collection. Shreik the Third is not very old is it? Transformers is not very old is it? Bourne Ulitmatum hasn't been released yet, but I have it on pre-order. So much for you expert knowledge. Now wasn't it you who said you have never been in my house, so you do not know about my stuff? Take to heart what you expouse yourself.

And yes, we have determined that you are shill. You work for a BR-only company, so obviously you'll make out if the format wins out. Just because your company could go back to doing sound for standard DVD, or heaven forbid, even HDDVD, doesn't mean that is going to happen. No, if BR wins, you win. That makes you a shill and hardly someone who is impartial, regardless of how many HDDVDs you own.

I work for a movie studio that support BR exclusively stupid. If BR does not win, we go on making movies stupid. We do not make movies exclusively for disc release, it is for theatrical release stupid. They still do release DVD's stupid. I get paid to mix movies for theatrical release stupid. If it happens that the movies are released on BR, great, but if there was no BR, we would still be making movies for theatrical, and DVD release stupid. My future, nor my paycheck is based on ANY FORMAT stupid. I have said this time and time again. I am hoping if I ended each sentence with the word stupid, you would know I am talking directly to you again.

No, plenty of others have too, including Groundbeef. But somehow, when I do it I'm the anti-Christ? Give me a break. Oh, yes, HD has only two letters, HDDVD/HD DVD/HD-DVD is 5 letters. Or have you forgotten how to count too?

Ground beef does not call Bluray HD, he calls it bluray. You are the only idiot that is calling bluray HD. You the anti-christ. Nope, you are not that smart.

LOL, yeah he wiped the floor with your *ss. I guess you barked up the wrong tree on that one. And if he handed your *ss to you, and I'm so much less intelligent, won't it be a kick in the pants when you walk out of this thread with your tail between your legs?

blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Now here's a perfect example of how you can't handle reality, lil't. Read this carefully: I told you exactly what was in the email from Classe. It's you who needed so much more clarification about who said what (about 5 posts' worth). The fact is, it came straight from Classe's marketing rep, and you didn't believe it until it was right in front of you. Now you can't accept that you got slapped in the face on this one. You pathetic little child, take your dunce hat and go sit in the corner, already.

You posted a bunch of words that support exactly what you have been posting here, claim its from classe, and expect people to believe you? You lie too much for that. I want to see the letter scanned, with Classe company logo on the letter, and with it signed by a classe employee. Otherwise it is just another of the many lies you have already told. If these are a bunch of words spoken, I want to hear it from Classe, not from a pathological liar like yourself.

Mostly consumer-level manufacturers. By the way, it's spelled Funai, and Philips is capitalized. You know very well that I am in the market for something a little more upscale, so that's who I contacted.

Sorry, once again. The manufacturers you listed are not trendsetters. The Japanese companies are. They are the ones creating new formats, not the Europeans. If you are so into upscale, then why do you have to wait for everything because of your kid? Sounds like wine taste on a beer budget to me.

Funny, last time I checked Philips was based in Eindhoven, Netherlands. By the way you left out quite a few Asian-based companies, above, how convenient. Anyhow, just because the higher-end companies are smaller, doesn't make them insignificant. As a matter of fact, given that they are more careful makes their word that much more important since they aren't going to flip-flop once they make a choice. They are waiting this out because there is no clear winner - my whole point from the beginning. You're making such a weak argument, here, and you know it. Just drop it, before you hurt yourself.

Philips works in concert with Sony. They did on the CD, they did on their version of the DVD, and they have also done it with Bluray. I did not feel a need to list all 170 companies that are part of the BDA. The higher end companies are followers, not leaders and not trendsetters. Has any of the companies you stated you contacted ever created or developed a format? No, they are usually late to the game.

As bright as minus 1000W bulb? Yeah, that's a real put-down lil't. At the very least come up with something more creative. You remind me of Jeff Albertson, the Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons. Kinda fits the whole musketeers and the green plume thing. Do you attend midieval fairs in full garb, too? LOL.

Blah blah blah blah blah, when you cannot debate the subject matter, you change the subject. A cowards game.

So let's dissect what you're trying to wiggle out of. So you "tweak and remix for BR release" right? So what percentage of your job is tweaking and remixing? Whatever that is, that's the amount of a shill you are. Just because you could make a living if BR went the way of SACD (and that's still a very real possibility), it doesn't mean that's the case now. As it stands, you're making money off BR disks, so that means you have a financial stake in the format winning out over HDDVD. Hence, you are a flag-waver for the BR camp and your opinion is far from unbiased. As far as you owning a bunch of HDDVDs and a player, well that's because that's were you started and we've already covered that. You are now definitely a shill for the BR camp, so just admit it already. You're not going to weasel out this one.

This logic would be stupid for an intelligent person. For you, par for the course. You do not know anything about the film industry, so I guess I can expect more ignorant statements like this.

You know I have to wonder, have you actually made any argument stick? I haven't seen one yet that has. Are you sure you even want to keep up your charade? You might just want to quit, lil't. After all, you've got a lot of work to do to get out of that hole...

Maybe you should stand in front of a mirror and say this to yourself. It would be the smartest thing you have done since you started this thread.

Hey, I can't make the studios go out and do surveys. And if these are not in their interest (as I pointed out), I doubt any will be forthcoming. The fact is that all the HDMI versions are confusing. It's a mess, and worst of all is that it's a mess by design. They decided to use computer notation for every new version (.1, .2, etc.) which means that it will continue to change. As a matter of fact HDMI 1.4 is just around the corner, isn't it? How are manufacturers supposed to keep up? And what are consumers supposed to settle on? It's a mess, and you know it.

There is no HDMI 1.4 stupid! How does a person who knowns nothing about HDMI and its versions make a judgement on it? Oh I know, their confusion is everyone confusion. Their stupidity and ignorance is everyones stupidity and ignorance. Now I get it, If you don't know anything about it, everyone must be as dumb as you. Bingo! (sarcasm off)

BS. Since I started this thread I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject, and yes, I do now know what they support (no thanks to you). I also happen to know that this distant future that you're referring to is already here with manufacturers now using 1.3 as the standard in their marketing campaigns (just read Sharp, Oppo and Denon's press releases). Only problem is there's a new number just around the corner and so far no one has promised any products that are 1.4 compliant. This only means that come April 2008, consumers will not want 1.3 anymore, even if that's all they need. It's a confusing mess. I can't tell you if it's hurting sales of all HDMI products, but it can't possibly be helping them.

Since I listed what HDMI supports what in this thread, and you say you didn't learn anything from it, perhaps you are just too stupid to comprehend plain english. Not my fault, that yours.

As far as HDMI 1.4 there is no April 2008 roll out of that version. Can you provide a link that says something different. I googled it, nothing. I went to HDMI website, no mention of it. There is nothing but rumors about it. Another one of you lies, probably, as evidence points in that direction.

Passing 8 channels of 24/192khz audio isn't everything, lil't. You're flinging FUD again. HDMI 1.3 and above support higher bandwidth, higher video resolutions, have a higher color depth, are capable of updated CEC communications (Sharp uses this between their Aquos player and TVs), and this was important for me: SACD support only came in HDMI 1.2a (DVD-A in 1.1).

Sorry nightstupid, but 24/192khz is the best you are going to get. This exceeds the resolution of vinyl, and is all anyone is every going to need. 1.3 does not support any audio resolution higher than that. HDMI it may support more video bandwidth in terms of transfer rate, but that is not needed to transmit 1080p from a player to a television. It does not support any higher resolution than 1080p. It does support deep color, but we will not see that on any current format because of bandwidth and disc space issues. It does support xvYCC, but that is not supported on any current video format. CEC has been in the HDMI specification since version 1.0, but has only begun to be used in CE products with HDMI version 1.3. So much for you studying!

And getting back to your suggestion that sending DTS and DD bitstreams to the receiver for decoding being inconsequential, I'm not so sure it's completely useless. After all, isn't that one of the advantages for sending SACD audio digitally to the pre/pro?

You do not know anything about this, so how do you know if it is useless or not? I am talking about Dts master audio lossless, and Dolby trueHD, these are both lossless, not lossy like Dts and DD. If the player does the decoding, both are transcoded to PCM with no losses. All commentary dialog, IME, and any mixed multiplexed audio is transferred along with the PCM stream. If the player sends out the undecoded bitstream to a receiver for decoding, then all commentary, IME, and any multiplexed audio is not transmitted along with the bitstream. You lose your interactive features. Since there is no improvement in the audio resolution, but a loss of extra value features, there is no benefit in having the receiver do the decoding. SACD is trancoded within the player to PCM,and transferred to the player via HDMI to a receiver that can do bass management, level matching, and delay which are all PCM based. No additional A/D or D/A is needed.

This allows one to adjust audio settings (channel balance, distance, cross-over, etc.) digitally, so I'm only guessing here, but then the same logic could apply to the ability to do this for DTS and DD, right? Certainly we can agree that not every single players out there has all the necessary settings built-in to their own decoders, especially not the lowest-priced players. Maybe none of the manufacturers are making use of this feature yet, and maybe there are some trade-offs, but then why add the feature? Certainly it took some extensive engineering to add that in, so I doubt it was done for no reason. But I'm just guessing about this, so I'm sure you'll point that out soon enough, with a whole barrage of unnecessary insults to boot. Go ahead, it's not like everyone reading this isn't expecting it - so let's have it...

You sure do try and pass yourself off as smarter than you are huh? Whether the player, or the receiver does the decoding, channel balance, delay, and crossover are still active. These tools are PCM based, and as long as the signal is transmitted via HDMI, the signal remains digital throughout the process. All player I know of have all the necessary bass management tools for proper reproduction. We are talking HD DVD and Bluray, not DVD. Since both HD format recommend decoding within the player, delay, crossever, and level is a part of every player except the PS3. That is not a problem for the PS3 as the signal can be sent via HDMI to a receiver that can perform these functions on its behalf. The feature is being used by Pioneer, and Samsung currently, with other players coming to market with this feature as well. It is nothing more than a marketing tool as there is no added resolution with the receiver doing the decoding.

I wonder if your friend falls under those employees who know so little about the products they sell?

Do you mean is he like you? Nope, he know exactly what he is talking about.

Are you making this blanket statement about every BB and CC employee? If so, I think there will be a long line of people waiting to kick your pompous *ss. Now I'm not going to make any such blanket statements, but the sales rep I did speak to knew a whole lot about the formats, and even explained to me the difference between 1.3a and 1.3b. I guess out where you live the sales reps come a little dumber, is that what you're saying? If that's true, do you measure yourself up to them too? Is that why you think you're so smart? You know, for a little feather-waving green-caped snot-nosed little mousqueteer-wanabe in diapers, you sure come off as one unpleasant little fella. If that's your gauge, than that certainly would go a long way to explaining your incessant whining on this forum.

Blah blah blah blah blah, somebody wake me when the bull$hit is over. What were you saying about insult?

More stupid blather not worthy of a response.

I have made nothing up. Everything I have stated has been true. You just can't deal with it. And as far as being sick of crap, hey, you're the one who keeps flinging it about. Keep your diaper on already.

To a pathological liar, yep, everything you said is true. Liars usually believe their own lies.

You have yet to point out a single lie. Every time I back up my statements you can't handle it. You deflect, you add FUD, and you dismiss anything you don't agree with. To top it off you litter every one of your posts with incessant insults that only weaken your case and your reputation here. You have wasted so much time with belligerent and insulting statements that you've shot your own credibility right in the foot. And the best part is, you don't even see it. That is why I feel sorry for you. You really are pathetic. I think you're the one who should quit.

Now hear is the pot calling the kettle black. You have called more names in one post, than I have done in this whole thread. Stop the freakin whining, if you dish it out, you should be able to take it. If you cannot take it, do not dish it out.

You have not posted a single link, chart, article, or even a old brownie to support your points. If you say you are backing up your statements, you are just telling another lie. Where is the amplitude versus frequency to support your music signals under 40hz comment? Where is the link that supports your Microsoft comments? We are still waiting on all of this. You have insisted that you do not need to supply any proof to your statements, not you are saying you have. Either you are confused as hell, or you are hella lying.

And just so you know, I'm not that young, I've been around the internet probably longer than you have. I may not have been an audio enthusiast as long as many people here, but I know my way around a message board. So stop trying to turn this around by making me out to be younger than I am. You're the one who's shown his true maturity, or lack thereof, here. In the last three threads I've had the displeasure of having to read through and respond to your childish tantrums, it was always you who started with the petty insults and juvenile behavior. You're an offensive troll and if this forum was only better monitored your account would long have been suspended already.

Cry me a river. This is classic passive aggressive crap. You have called twice as many names, and now you are crying victim. The problem you have is that you have lied, and been busted. You think you know more than you do, and you have been uncovered as a dummy. You have made claim after obsurd claim, and never support any of it with verifiable facts and links. You claim that you know so much about music, but have not supported your supposed knowledge with any links or charts. When links and charts have been provided to you, you dismiss them and continue with you ignorance.

If the moderation was better here, they would ban you for being too stupid to participate in an intelligent arguement.

And as far as "reviving" this thread. It was mine to begin with. You just came here to fling some crap around. For your information, I actually have a life and have spent the holidays with friends and relatives. I guess with the kind of attitude you've demonstrated, you have a lot more free time on your hands. Well take up another hobby, 'cause this one only adds to everyone's dislike of you.

Well goody goody for you (rolls eyes). Maybe you should continue reading and studying instead of giving out advice. Maybe you should learn to tell the truth, instead of lying to hide your ignorance. Maybe you should stop insulting and calling names if you do not like it coming back to you. And maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself did you not have every insult, or name called coming to you.

[johnny p]

My finger hurts from scrolling..........

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My finger hurts from scrolling..........

Your eyes and head should hurt as well! LOLOL