Hi-Res Audio Formats on BR & HDDVD

[nightflier]

I think a lot of attention has been focussed on the video qualities of the BR/HDDVD formats. I'm probably not in the majority, but I'm interested in the audio formats that these higher-capacity disks can support. I've read several articles claiming how much better Dolby True-HD and DTS-HD are than their DD/DTS predecessors. Some even claim that these formats are superior to SACD Surround.

Now this peaked my interest. I have been a fan of SACD for some time and in my experience it has been the best sound format that I have ever heard within my budget, (although I still have a penchant for analog, but that is a separate discussion). When comparing DD/DTS music DVDs to SACD music, I still sense a superiority in the SACD format. So I have a bunch of questions and was hoping more knowledgeable people here could help answer them:

1. Are the 5.1 analog outputs the only way to get True-HD and DTS-HD? It seems silly, but I thought I read in several places that HDMI currently does not support these formats.

2. If so, how does the resolution of True-HD and DTS-HD compare to SACD?

3. What is the reason for the supposed superiority of True-HD and DTS-HD in surround sound over SACD?

4. Are there any plans to make True-HD and DTS-HD music-only disks? Right now, the only way to get HiRes surround is through concert disks.

5. Will HDDVD's capacity limitation be a problem for trying to fit True-HD and DTS-HD on a disk? While it does have higher capacity, will Blu-Ray have capacity problems as well?

6. While it is still young technology, it does seem that most BR & HDDVD players are more of the value-engineered and competitively priced variety. Any plans for HiFi manufacturers to offer something higher-grade?

7. Besides support for True-HD and DTS-HD, are there any other sound improvements in the HDMI 1.3 spec?

8. It seems that True-HD and DTS-HD are pretty much still 5.1 formats, especially for music. So how are the rear channels in a 7.1 system handled through True-HD and DTS-HD?

9. Many of my SACD titles are actually 5.0, not 5.1, forcing me to use my speakers in full range mode or using my pre/pro to force a crossover (which I am certain is detrimental to the sound reproduction). Do True-HD and DTS-HD soundtracks do a better job of integrating the subwoofer since they are primarily movie-focussed sound formats?

10. I noticed some BR/HDDVD players support DVD-A, but why is there no support for SACD, even from Sony?

Obviously, you can read from my questions and my other posts that I have not bought into either format. Of course I'm waiting to see which format will win out, and this is not at all clear to me right now. But perhaps a more important factor for me is that I want a player from a manufacturer that has put some engineering into getting the best sound out of the formats. I just don't feel that Sony/Toshiba/Panasonic are up to the task especially since they are trying so desperately to undercut each other's business and this means cost-cutting.

[PeruvianSkies]

I am guessing it won't be long before the Little Green Knight that Couldn't will be here to comment on this....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am guessing it won't be long before the Little Green Knight that Couldn't will be here to comment on this....

Is it really that difficult for you to just try and answer nighflier questions instead of dragging attitutes from another part of the board over here? Can you answer even one of his questions just so you can stay on topic? Geeze.....

[kexodusc]

Is it really that difficult for you to just try and answer nighflier questions instead of dragging attitutes from another part of the board over here? Can you answer even one of his questions just so you can stay on topic? Geeze.....

I think these little side posts of his are rather amusing. He sort of hovers around poor Nightflier like a lost dog looking for a friend...

[PeruvianSkies]

I think these little side posts of his are rather amusing. He sort of hovers around poor Nightflier like a lost dog looking for a friend...

I would prefer to have no friends than have you as my friend... Not that I need any friends on here anyway, I have plenty of true friends in real life.

[kexodusc]

I would prefer to have no friends than have you as my friend... Not that I need any friends on here anyway, I have plenty of true friends in real life.

You are pretty special.

[pixelthis]

I would prefer to have no friends than have you as my friend... Not that I need any friends on here anyway, I have plenty of true friends in real life.

This isn't REAL LIFE???

[pixelthis]

Is it really that difficult for you to just try and answer nighflier questions instead of dragging attitutes from another part of the board over here? Can you answer even one of his questions just so you can stay on topic? Geeze.....

As long as hes' jacking you hes' leaving ME alone.
THANKS

[kelsci]

Nightflier, the only thing I have to say about the audio on these two formats is that Mr. Bungle from PeeWee Herman was at work on the audio design of these machines.
I think that Dolby True-HD has some relationship with DVD-Audio. BD can output the PCM tracks that are on many BD discs at least through analog outputs if that machine has them. I think that track might also be outputted with HDMI 1.2 into a receiver. I have not read any articles talking about SACD and BD-HD-DVD machines and a realtionship there at this time.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

1. Are the 5.1 analog outputs the only way to get True-HD and DTS-HD? It seems silly, but I thought I read in several places that HDMI currently does not support these formats.

This is false. Using the 5.1 analog outputs forces the audio to go through one conversion from D/A in the players to the receiver, go back to digital for bass management,delay, and levels, and then back to analog to your amps. That is alot of analog and digital conversion, and opens up the chance for dropped bits and digital errors. However the benefit with this connection is that it is backwards compatible with pre HDMI receivers.

HDMI 1.3 will pass all digital audio formats in existance all in its native bitstream. .

2. If so, how does the resolution of True-HD and DTS-HD compare to SACD?

This is impossible to tell objectively since no direct double blind comparisons have ever been conducted. Since SACD is handled and processed so differently than the PCM based TruHD and DTS HD, they cannot sound exactly alike. There will always be some subtle differences even if the same master tape is used to encode them both. In my experience I have found that to my ears SACD sounds much closer to the live mike feed that PCM does. I am always aware I am hearing digital sound, VERY good digital sound when talking about 24/96khz. However SACD sounds much more like analog and very non fatiguing when the bitstream stays in the DSD mode thoughout the entire chain(no PCM conversion)

3. What is the reason for the supposed superiority of True-HD and DTS-HD in surround sound over SACD?

If anything its efficiency. Both TrueHD and DTS HD use variable bitrates that allows the audio to be transported in a pipeline that expands and contracts as bits are required to maintain losslessness and transparency. SACD uses a constant bitrate which means the pipeline has to be consistantly the same size moment by moment, much like LPCM (or PCM) audio.

4. Are there any plans to make True-HD and DTS-HD music-only disks? Right now, the only way to get HiRes surround is through concert disks.

At CES Dolby was playing concert recordings at 24/96khz encoded in Dolby TrueHD. It sounded VERY good. I heard DTS HD master audio recordings of the Firebird Suite recorded at 24/96khz through 7.1 channels at a Dts Demo in New York not to long ago. That was a wow event to say the least.

I have not heard of anyone making any commitment to either format at this time. Although I know Dts Entertainment is going to get knee deep in this if HD DVD or Bluray gets a broader market share.

5. Will HDDVD's capacity limitation be a problem for trying to fit True-HD and DTS-HD on a disk? While it does have higher capacity, will Blu-Ray have capacity problems as well?

I do not think HD DVD has a problem with including the lossless formats capacity wise as long as the movie is not too long. The problem with HD DVD is bandwidth and capacity together. HD DVD can never use uncompressed PCM because of space and bandwidth problems when video is in the pipeline. To counter that HD DVD basically uses True-HD and VC-1 because this is the most efficient coupling of audio and video codecs. However, when you start using PIP, mutliple language soundtracks, and interactive features in the mix even these tools have to be compromised because of bandwidth issues. You either have to give up the True-HD lossless audio, or you have to compress the video more aggresively. The prime example of this happening is the upcoming Transformers HD DVD and Shriek the Third. There is going to be so many interactive features running along with the movie, there was not enough bandwidth for a True-HD soundtrack.

Bluray has a much larger moment to moment pipeline. It has a 40mbps constant video rate, with peaks to 48mbps. It has an overall 54mbps bitrate. If you kept your video peaks below 40mbps(way beyond what HD DVD can do), you could have 5.1 uncompressed PCM track at 24/48khz, a 24/48khz Dolby True-HD soundtrack, and Dolby digital at 640kbps in two languages, and extras all going in the pipeline at once. Or they could use 4 TrueHD bitstreams in different languages, and a couple of 640kbps other language as well at the same time. Great for an all region release. No disc capacity or bandwidth problems which is very important for the future growth of the format.

6. While it is still young technology, it does seem that most BR & HDDVD players are more of the value-engineered and competitively priced variety. Any plans for HiFi manufacturers to offer something higher-grade?

Pioneer and Sony have plans for a higher grade upscale Bluray player later this year, or early next. Onyko also has said it will release a high end HD DVD player. It has not said when though.

7. Besides support for True-HD and DTS-HD, are there any other sound improvements in the HDMI 1.3 spec?

Just the ability to pass DVD-A, SACD, and 8 channel uncompressed audio at up to 24/192khz.

8. It seems that True-HD and DTS-HD are pretty much still 5.1 formats, especially for music. So how are the rear channels in a 7.1 system handled through True-HD and DTS-HD?

This is still a puzzle, as no standard have been set. However there have been a few 7.1 soundtracks on bluray that has used the surrounds in this fashion

Side left wall
Rear left wall
Side right wall
Rear right wall

What has also been proposed is this configuration

Left surround
Center rear surround
Right surround
Overhead

9. Many of my SACD titles are actually 5.0, not 5.1, forcing me to use my speakers in full range mode or using my pre/pro to force a crossover (which I am certain is detrimental to the sound reproduction). Do True-HD and DTS-HD soundtracks do a better job of integrating the subwoofer since they are primarily movie-focussed sound formats?

Most definately. As a film mixer I have noticed that overall sound levels in the mains and bass frequency and level have gotten so loud, you almost cannot produce a soundtrack without an LFE track.

10. I noticed some BR/HDDVD players support DVD-A, but why is there no support for SACD, even from Sony?

Actually the PS3 supports SACD. I know of no standalone that does. Perphaps Sony high end bluray player will support it, I just don't know that one.

Obviously, you can read from my questions and my other posts that I have not bought into either format. Of course I'm waiting to see which format will win out, and this is not at all clear to me right now. But perhaps a more important factor for me is that I want a player from a manufacturer that has put some engineering into getting the best sound out of the formats. I just don't feel that Sony/Toshiba/Panasonic are up to the task especially since they are trying so desperately to undercut each other's business and this means cost-cutting.

I would not rule Sony nor Pioneer's high end bluray players. These players will have chipsets that support the most high end of video and audio solutions. Also Onkyo's HD DVD player sounds very promising as well. They have just not annouced a release time on this player. Toshiba is in a hard place. Their selling point to their exclusive studios is cheap price of the players. It would be very hard to justify a high end piece and accomplish the selling point they promised.

I am not endorsing either format, just presenting the facts.

[dean_martin]

Pioneer and Sony have plans for a higher grade upscale Bluray player later this year, or early next. Onyko also has said it will release a high end HD DVD player. It has not said when though.

Based on an interview with one of the founders of ARCAM in Stereophile earlier this year, it seemed like ARCAM was favoring HD-DVD. (I posted a link in the other thread.) Have manufacturers like Denon and Marantz that are known for excellent video (and audio) performance announced any plans to launch players that support either format?

[kexodusc]

Have manufacturers like Denon and Marantz that are known for excellent video (and audio) performance announced any plans to launch players that support either format?

Well yeah, rumour has it Sony is firmly behind Blu-Ray.

[dean_martin]

Well yeah, rumour has it Sony is firmly behind Blu-Ray.

Reh...reeeeeeaalllllyyyy?

[L.J.]

Based on an interview with one of the founders of ARCAM in Stereophile earlier this year, it seemed like ARCAM was favoring HD-DVD. (I posted a link in the other thread.) Have manufacturers like Denon and Marantz that are known for excellent video (and audio) performance announced any plans to launch players that support either format?

Denon has a couple a BR players coming out. Someone posted a news release somewhere around here. I think the prices were like $2k or something like that. Oouch!

[dean_martin]

Denon has a couple a BR players coming out. Someone posted a news release somewhere around here. I think the prices were like $2k or something like that. Oouch!

Thanks, L.J. I missed that post, I guess. If it was in that thread on the news and rumors board, I must confess that I couldn't make it through the whole thing.

[L.J.]

Thanks, L.J. I missed that post, I guess. If it was in that thread on the news and rumors board, I must confess that I couldn't make it through the whole thing.

Here's a link

http://www.listenup.com/content/part...dge.aug.07.php

Kinda interesting to see a "BR Transport". I was under the impression that most BR will be advanced authored, requiring decoding to be done in the player.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Based on an interview with one of the founders of ARCAM in Stereophile earlier this year, it seemed like ARCAM was favoring HD-DVD. (I posted a link in the other thread.) Have manufacturers like Denon and Marantz that are known for excellent video (and audio) performance announced any plans to launch players that support either format?

I read that article as well. Arcam was favoring HD DVD because it is so closely aligned with DVD that it is a bit easy to produce a player for. Arcam is a small company, and really cannot afford the cost of producing a bluray player. What they could have done is liscense a design from another bluray manufacturer, and tweak the design to their standards.

Denon has announced two Bluray players being released next year. No word from Marantz as of yet.

[nightflier]

Thanks for the detailed information. I still have some questions though.

This is false. Using the 5.1 analog outputs forces the audio to go through one conversion from D/A in the players to the receiver, go back to digital for bass management,delay, and levels, and then back to analog to your amps. That is alot of analog and digital conversion, and opens up the chance for dropped bits and digital errors. However the benefit with this connection is that it is backwards compatible with pre HDMI receivers.

If my receiver is capable of keeping the 5.1 inputs all analog throughout and onto my amp (it is), then there is only one conversion: inside my source. In my case, and I will suspect in many cases, the conversion capabilities of the source are superior to those in most receivers.

Also, this does not answer my question. Does HDMI (pre-1.3) pass True-HD and DTS-HD sound?

However SACD sounds much more like analog and very non fatiguing when the bitstream stays in the DSD mode thoughout the entire chain(no PCM conversion)

I would like to agree, although I don't have the facilities in-house to test this out. So under what circumstances would the bitstream be converted to PCM, if there is no additional conversion after the music leaves the source, as in my setup?

If anything its efficiency. Both TrueHD and DTS HD use variable bitrates that allows the audio to be transported in a pipeline that expands and contracts as bits are required to maintain losslessness and transparency. SACD uses a constant bitrate which means the pipeline has to be consistantly the same size moment by moment, much like LPCM (or PCM) audio.

So this would make it more costly to ask a player to do both? I presume that the electronics required to do both would be more complex.

At CES Dolby was playing concert recordings at 24/96khz encoded in Dolby TrueHD. It sounded VERY good. I heard DTS HD master audio recordings of the Firebird Suite recorded at 24/96khz through 7.1 channels at a Dts Demo in New York not to long ago. That was a wow event to say the least.

Firebird is one of the more dynamic pieces I can think of, and one I know quite well. Makes me wish I could have heard that.

I do not think HD DVD has a problem with including the lossless formats capacity wise as long as the movie is not too long. The problem with HD DVD is bandwidth and capacity together. HD DVD can never use uncompressed PCM because of space and bandwidth problems when video is in the pipeline. To counter that HD DVD basically uses True-HD and VC-1 because this is the most efficient coupling of audio and video codecs. However, when you start using PIP, mutliple language soundtracks, and interactive features in the mix even these tools have to be compromised because of bandwidth issues. You either have to give up the True-HD lossless audio, or you have to compress the video more aggresively. The prime example of this happening is the upcoming Transformers HD DVD and Shriek the Third. There is going to be so many interactive features running along with the movie, there was not enough bandwidth for a True-HD soundtrack.

Obviously this is a serious limitation of HDDVD. Of course, they could distribute it on two disks, but that would not help sales, I think. This to me, is a significant argument in favor of BR. That said, I can care a whole lot less about the interactive features, but that's me and I don't think the buying public would agree.

Bluray has a much larger moment to moment pipeline. It has a 40mbps constant video rate, with peaks to 48mbps. It has an overall 54mbps bitrate. If you kept your video peaks below 40mbps(way beyond what HD DVD can do), you could have 5.1 uncompressed PCM track at 24/48khz, a 24/48khz Dolby True-HD soundtrack, and Dolby digital at 640kbps in two languages, and extras all going in the pipeline at once. Or they could use 4 TrueHD bitstreams in different languages, and a couple of 640kbps other language as well at the same time. Great for an all region release. No disc capacity or bandwidth problems which is very important for the future growth of the format.

That said, BR still has a limit that we are reaching pretty quickly. While HDDVD is clearly left behind, the reality is that at some point BR will reach those same constraints. Hence my argument that both formats are still limiting as compared to VOD and downloads which do not have that limitation. Another risk is that a new disk format emerges that has more capacity than both to include all the sound formats people will want or need for the next few years. HDDVD's limitations here may serve to demonstrate that both formats have limitations and may not be the best choice.

Pioneer and Sony have plans for a higher grade upscale Bluray player later this year, or early next. Onyko also has said it will release a high end HD DVD player. It has not said when though.

Still waiting for the Denon player too. Still, I'm more looking at products in a different class like Classe and Meridian.

Just the ability to pass DVD-A, SACD, and 8 channel uncompressed audio at up to 24/192khz.

Still, the fact that many players are not 1.3 compliant should be a huge deterrent to people buying in. It isn't, because most of the buying public is focussed on video, but for those of us who care about sound, this should be a big issue.

This is still a puzzle, as no standard have been set. However there have been a few 7.1 soundtracks on bluray that has used the surrounds in this fashion

So let me get this straight. There is no consensus on how to us the last two channels when listening to TrueHD and DTSHD? This to me is another big reason to wait things out. I sure hope that the 1.3 spec does a better job of specifying how they should be used.

Most definately. As a film mixer I have noticed that overall sound levels in the mains and bass frequency and level have gotten so loud, you almost cannot produce a soundtrack without an LFE track.

It's about time! Geez, it sure took the industry long enough. One of the reason that DVD-A always sounded sop much better to my ears is because the bass always seamed bigger. We only tested this on a few disks, but that was always what we heard and it made the decision to choose and back SACD that much harder. Now this would also be a good argument for releasing more music on BR or HDDVD. Don't the people in the industry read up on what the consumers are clamoring for?

Actually the PS3 supports SACD. I know of no standalone that does. Perphaps Sony high end bluray player will support it, I just don't know that one.

Well if the PS3 can do it, then maybe it's not that hard or expensive to do. Then again, does the PS3 even have 5.1 analog outs? If not, does it play SACDs? In stereo? I know it's not HDMI 1.3 compliant, so how does this work?

I would not rule Sony nor Pioneer's high end bluray players. These players will have chipsets that support the most high end of video and audio solutions. Also Onkyo's HD DVD player sounds very promising as well. They have just not annouced a release time on this player. Toshiba is in a hard place. Their selling point to their exclusive studios is cheap price of the players. It would be very hard to justify a high end piece and accomplish the selling point they promised. I am not endorsing either format, just presenting the facts.

These sound issues, especially the lack of HDMI 1.3 support, are telling me to wait until some of them can be addressed. In the case of HDDVD, the sound issues are pretty damning, but until HDMI 1.3 BR players start appearing, I am definitely going to wait this one out.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=nightflier]Thanks for the detailed information. I still have some questions though.

If my receiver is capable of keeping the 5.1 inputs all analog throughout and onto my amp (it is), then there is only one conversion: inside my source. In my case, and I will suspect in many cases, the conversion capabilities of the source are superior to those in most receivers.

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

Also, this does not answer my question. Does HDMI (pre-1.3) pass True-HD and DTS-HD sound?

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

I would like to agree, although I don't have the facilities in-house to test this out. So under what circumstances would the bitstream be converted to PCM, if there is no additional conversion after the music leaves the source, as in my setup?

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.

So this would make it more costly to ask a player to do both? I presume that the electronics required to do both would be more complex.

Its not in the electronics, its in the bitstream. SACD cannot do variable bit rate because the stream is not PCM, its DSD. DSD works very differently from PCM as it needs no reconstruction filters. Since both Dts HD MA and DTHD are both PCM based, they can do both constant and variable bit rate processing.

Firebird is one of the more dynamic pieces I can think of, and one I know quite well. Makes me wish I could have heard that.

It was heaven on earth as far as music listening goes.

Obviously this is a serious limitation of HDDVD. Of course, they could distribute it on two disks, but that would not help sales, I think. This to me, is a significant argument in favor of BR. That said, I can care a whole lot less about the interactive features, but that's me and I don't think the buying public would agree.

The public apparently doesn't agree with either of us on this issue.

That said, BR still has a limit that we are reaching pretty quickly. While HDDVD is clearly left behind, the reality is that at some point BR will reach those same constraints.

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

Hence my argument that both formats are still limiting as compared to VOD and downloads which do not have that limitation. Another risk is that a new disk format emerges that has more capacity than both to include all the sound formats people will want or need for the next few years. HDDVD's limitations here may serve to demonstrate that both formats have limitations and may not be the best choice.

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

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

Still waiting for the Denon player too. Still, I'm more looking at products in a different class like Classe and Meridian.

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

Still, the fact that many players are not 1.3 compliant should be a huge deterrent to people buying in. It isn't, because most of the buying public is focussed on video, but for those of us who care about sound, this should be a big issue.

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

So let me get this straight. There is no consensus on how to us the last two channels when listening to TrueHD and DTSHD? This to me is another big reason to wait things out. I sure hope that the 1.3 spec does a better job of specifying how they should be used.

Another non worry for the educated, and a big worry for the uneducated. First, there isn't a single post production facility in Hollywood that can mix 7.1. Secondly 7.1 is really marketing hype to me because most small rooms cannot support 7.1 without creating an acoustical mess, or the effect being so subtle as to be barely heard. The 1.3 spec only addressing transmission, not spatiality.

It's about time! Geez, it sure took the industry long enough. One of the reason that DVD-A always sounded sop much better to my ears is because the bass always seamed bigger. We only tested this on a few disks, but that was always what we heard and it made the decision to choose and back SACD that much harder. Now this would also be a good argument for releasing more music on BR or HDDVD. Don't the people in the industry read up on what the consumers are clamoring for?

Not all DVD-A titles used the LFE channel. I would say you probably didn't get a large enough sample to even fairly compare SACD and DVD-A if you are talking just a few disc. The LFE in music only applications is unnecessary, because there are no musical instruments with enough low bass at high enough levels to max out the main channels. With movies soundtracks that is not the case. Since most people use a sub/sat system anyway, all the bass is direct to a sub, including the LFE, so how do you know which bass is contributing to what.

Well if the PS3 can do it, then maybe it's not that hard or expensive to do. Then again, does the PS3 even have 5.1 analog outs? If not, does it play SACDs? In stereo? I know it's not HDMI 1.3 compliant, so how does this work?

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

These sound issues, especially the lack of HDMI 1.3 support, are telling me to wait until some of them can be addressed. In the case of HDDVD, the sound issues are pretty damning, but until HDMI 1.3 BR players start appearing, I am definitely going to wait this one out.

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

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

[nightflier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[L.J.]

Excellent post Sir T. Thanks for taking the time.

PSky, I agree with Sir T on not draggin' the nonsense from one thread to another. Many new members here do not fully understand all this (I'm one of them) and it's difficult to go through all the crap to get some good info. Please contribute to the thread or take the crap somewhere else.

[PeruvianSkies]

Excellent post Sir T. Thanks for taking the time.

PSky, I agree with Sir T on not draggin' the nonsense from one thread to another. Many new members here do not fully understand all this (I'm one of them) and it's difficult to go through all the crap to get some good info. Please contribute to the thread or take the crap somewhere else.

All that I said was "prepare yourself" and I was talking to Nightflier with my comment (not anyone else) about a Green Knight coming here and moments later...Sir T arrived and did exactly what I said. I never used anything insulting and I didn't bring (as Sir T called it) "attitutes" with me.

So how about you and Kex get over it. Both of you are contributing nothing in these cases...all you can say is something against me for commenting towards anther person.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All that I said was "prepare yourself" and I was talking to Nightflier with my comment (not anyone else) about a Green Knight coming here and moments later...Sir T arrived and did exactly what I said. I never used anything insulting and I didn't bring (as Sir T called it) "attitutes" with me.

So how about you and Kex get over it. Both of you are contributing nothing in these cases...all you can say is something against me for commenting towards anther person.

You can end all of this by NOT commenting on the person, and commenting on the OP's questions. Just that simple

[kelsci]

Good to hear from you again your Lordship. I actually saved your reply on this matter in an e-mail file for possible future reference. The EX-ES question on the sixth and seven channels again shows the MR BUNGLE attitude with BD-HD-DVD formats by not thinking about how to do this when the format was released for sale.