Do you plan on upgrading to the new HD formats when they arrive?

[kexodusc]

I really feel that there's going to be no winners in this race at all. When DVD came out it was a revolution. One that was, and is, very affordable. HD-DVD & BlueRay, for all the hype and mirrors, bring absolutely NOTHING to the table besides their higher resolution. It might have been sellable if the resolution of DVD were bad, but DVD's 480p is pretty darn good, and Dolby EX & DTE-ES are good audio formats too.

My money is no these formats to spend a decade trying to establish themselves with no clear winner, or even anything that could be remotely called acceptance. We have a precedent to look at called SACD/DVD-Audio.

Joe consumer is the guy that's going to make the call on these higher-rez formats, as we A/V junkies are just a tiny percentage of the equation when it come to consumer electronics.

The devil is in the details...I'm not so sure how much better HD-DVD or BluRay will be than 480i DVD (until my new progressive scan DVD unit arrives, I don't even know what 480p looks like). I know many that claim HDTV broadcasts make DVD unbearable though...exaggeration? Maybe, we'll see.
I don't doubt that at some point there will be a superior successor to the DVD. These things just take time. I'm not ready to write off SACD/DVD-Audio either, these are both still in their infancy as far as I'm concerned. Until the labels really try to push these to market with effort, it's too early to call these a failure. I think these formats haven't been slowed because of the format itself, but rather the lack of affordable players and awareness. These things have only been cheap enough for the non-audiophile/fanatic for maybe a year now.

However, these new audio and video formats might actually end up helping each other. Eventually people will buy new players, I'm sure they will be quasi-universal (playing most of the above formats, if not all). Then I wouldn't be surprised to see all new releases being hybrid discs, CD/DVD-A or CD/SACD for audio, and DVD/BluRay or DVD/HD-DVD for video. Most industries force feed new innovations to the masses. I see no reason why the a/v industry would be any different.

I just think all of this is at least 2 or 3 years away.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I really feel that there's going to be no winners in this race at all. When DVD came out it was a revolution. One that was, and is, very affordable. HD-DVD & BlueRay, for all the hype and mirrors, bring absolutely NOTHING to the table besides their higher resolution.

I agree, there are going to be no winners when this one is over. I however disagree with you about the new formats not bringing anything to the table. They bring the promise of uncompressed video and audio, which is a HUGE plus. With uncompressed video that means no misquito blocking, edge enhancement, pixelation or other compression artifacts. With audio it means a bit for bit transfer of the signal without the damaging effects of lossy codecs. Since I have heard the difference between the printmaster soundtrack and the encoded after effects of both Dolby digital and Dts, I can tell you that the differences are pretty dramatic with DD and half bit rate Dts. The idea of having 7.1 at 24/192khz resolution is pretty amazing as is 1080P which is TRUE HD. I would gladly trade this incarnation of DVD with its limited pipeline of 9.8mbps transfer rate for 36-40mbps anyday.

It might have been sellable if the resolution of DVD were bad, but DVD's 480p is pretty darn good, and Dolby EX & DTE-ES are good audio formats too.

Maybe I am alone here in saying that 480p is just a start. So much compression has to be applied to the video at this resolution that it looks nothing like the original 35mm print it comes from. Video currently does not resolve enough color to compete with 35mm. 1080p brings us that much closer. While 480p may be good, 1080p is much better in every way. As far as Dolby EX and Dts ES, well if you compared DD at 448kbps and Dts in its current 754kbps to the original printmaster soundtrack, you could easily ascertain that we could do better than what we are doing now. Dts at full bit rate is a pretty big improvement over Dts at half bit rate. Lossless Dts is a improvement over both.

My money is no these formats to spend a decade trying to establish themselves with no clear winner, or even anything that could be remotely called acceptance. We have a precedent to look at called SACD/DVD-Audio.

I don't think we can look at this (IMO) quite the same way as SACD and DVD-A. Both of these new format really are victims of record companies cutting back because of reduced profits in the last few years. They are not being pushed or advertised at all. Once the financial picture of the industry improves, you will probably see new life breathed into both of these formats(if it is not too late).

Joe consumer is the guy that's going to make the call on these higher-rez formats, as we A/V junkies are just a tiny percentage of the equation when it come to consumer electronics.

Keep in mind Geoff, it was us early adopters that got DVD on the map in a hurry. I think if we sit on the sidelines, then neither will have a chance.

[Geoffcin]

I agree, there are going to be no winners when this one is over. I however disagree with you about the new formats not bringing anything to the table. They bring the promise of uncompressed video and audio, which is a HUGE plus. With uncompressed video that means no misquito blocking, edge enhancement, pixelation or other compression artifacts. With audio it means a bit for bit transfer of the signal without the damaging effects of lossy codecs. Since I have heard the difference between the printmaster soundtrack and the encoded after effects of both Dolby digital and Dts, I can tell you that the differences are pretty dramatic with DD and half bit rate Dts. The idea of having 7.1 at 24/192khz resolution is pretty amazing as is 1080P which is TRUE HD. I would gladly trade this incarnation of DVD with its limited pipeline of 9.8mbps transfer rate for 36-40mbps anyday.

I absolutely agree that HD is a large upgrade from standard def in quality. Quality was NOT {IMHO} why DVD's became so huge though. One of DVD's main advantage over VHS was that it was random access. This feature was, and is to me the best feature. It alone spelled the death knell of VHS, even if the quality was the same, which it is not. Of course another major feature is that the disks are compact, and although their robustness is not as great as I might have hoped, it's still light years ahead of VHS. There's many more perks that DVD brings to the table that made it a revolution over VHS; added features like bio's, and things like that make it a far more value added product.

So my point is;

HD-DVD bring nothing more than their higher rez to the table, as opposed to DVD's myriad more advantages of VHS.

Maybe I am alone here in saying that 480p is just a start. So much compression has to be applied to the video at this resolution that it looks nothing like the original 35mm print it comes from. Video currently does not resolve enough color to compete with 35mm. 1080p brings us that much closer. While 480p may be good, 1080p is much better in every way. As far as Dolby EX and Dts ES, well if you compared DD at 448kbps and Dts in its current 754kbps to the original printmaster soundtrack, you could easily ascertain that we could do better than what we are doing now. Dts at full bit rate is a pretty big improvement over Dts at half bit rate. Lossless Dts is a improvement over both.

Again, I agree 1080i, (of which I have about a dozen channels or so) IS significantly better than 480p. I expect 1080p to be better yet, but not by any quantum leap. Audio wise I am not so sure that a big leap exists. A movie is a total A/V experience, and as such you do not have the time or effort to decern subtle differences in audio as you would if you were listening to high-quality audio only. I'm not saying that DTS-HD would not be better, but under most circumstances you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I don't think we can look at this (IMO) quite the same way as SACD and DVD-A. Both of these new format really are victims of record companies cutting back because of reduced profits in the last few years. They are not being pushed or advertised at all. Once the financial picture of the industry improves, you will probably see new life breathed into both of these formats(if it is not too late).

Keep in mind Geoff, it was us early adopters that got DVD on the map in a hurry. I think if we sit on the sidelines, then neither will have a chance.

SACD & DVD-Audio are both lost causes in a market sense. Yes, the record companies dropped the advert budgets like hot potatoes, but these guys are not dumb. It was only when the consumers decided that it wasn't worth the cost or bother to upgrade that this happened. Again, it's a near perfect analogy; CD gave consumers random access to music, this alone spelled the death knell for Cassette & LP. Look at the sales of LP now, they are almost a mirror of DVD-Audio & SACD. My guess it's because the SAME consumers (~5%) are buying them! These consumers are US, the people that actually care about quality, not "Joe consumer" who is just happy to fill up his 300 disk changer and be done with it.

Do I see a future for BlueRay and HD-DVD? Yes, of course, but it will be on more of a scale of Laserdisc players, not the tide with which DVD rolled over VHS.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I absolutely agree that HD is a large upgrade from standard def in quality. Quality was NOT {IMHO} why DVD's became so huge though. One of DVD's main advantage over VHS was that it was random access. This feature was, and is to me the best feature. It alone spelled the death knell of VHS, even if the quality was the same, which it is not. Of course another major feature is that the disks are compact, and although their robustness is not as great as I might have hoped, it's still light years ahead of VHS. There's many more perks that DVD brings to the table that made it a revolution over VHS; added features like bio's, and things like that make it a far more value added product.

I guess what advantages DVD brought over Laserdisc(VHS was not my medium of choice) and 35mm film for me was different for you. I got into DVD's strictly for the better sound and picture. Random access meant nothing to me because I watch movies in a linear fashion, and don't really access scenes randomly. Another reason was that as you stated it was a smaller medium than I was using at the time, required less maintainence(washing 35mm film everytime you wanted to watch it is a pain), and was easier to purchase and store. Random access and the extra I got on the laserdisc platform.

So my point is;

HD-DVD bring nothing more than their higher rez to the table, as opposed to DVD's myriad more advantages of VHS.

When you count the larger storage capacity, and larger pipline for the stream of digital signals(up to 40mbps) it can bring so much more to the table than DVD ever could. I think it is a little shortsighted to think the only thing these new formats could bring to the table is higher reolution picture and sound.

Again, I agree 1080i, (of which I have about a dozen channels or so) IS significantly better than 480p. I expect 1080p to be better yet, but not by any quantum leap.

Maybe the picture will be marginally better, but isn't this how intorducing new formats has been over the years? VHS was fair, laserdisc got it a little better, DVD took it from there, and BluRay and HD DVD takes it another step. If you never have heard 7.1 channels of uncompressed audio, you are in for a real treat. You think that DD and Dts sound good, just wait.

Audio wise I am not so sure that a big leap exists.

Having not heard 8 channels of uncompressed 24/192khz might make you come to that conclusion, but it sound much better than 20/48khz at 1.5mbps compressed(early Dts) way better than 18/48khz 448kbps Dolby digital, and most certainly better than the 16/44.1khz redbook standard. I think you need to hear very high resolution signals spread over more channels before you can come to this conclusion.

A movie is a total A/V experience, and as such you do not have the time or effort to decern subtle differences in audio as you would if you were listening to high-quality audio only. I'm not saying that DTS-HD would not be better, but under most circumstances you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Oh, I really disagree here. Improved imaging is very noticeable. Clearly hearing low level details that are lost in compression is a real ear opener(you would be surprised how many low level effects are lost during compression), and just having dialog, effects and music with much more clarity are all very noticeable differences. More channels with higher resolution is definately a big step up from what we currently have

SACD & DVD-Audio are both lost causes in a market sense. Yes, the record companies dropped the advert budgets like hot potatoes, but these guys are not dumb. It was only when the consumers decided that it wasn't worth the cost or bother to upgrade that this happened.

I think everyone is making a huge mistake in counting both DVD-A and SACD out. These are still VERY young formats. It took some time for the CD to overtake both vinyl and cassette, and it will take some time for the new formats to catch on as well. Every new format cannot have the quick success that the DVD has enjoyed. That is just unrealistic and ill-logical

Again, it's a near perfect analogy; CD gave consumers random access to music, this alone spelled the death knell for Cassette & LP.

I think you are giving much to much credit to random access as the death knell to both of these formats. CD's were easier to maintain, carried as much music as both the cassette and LP, and were easier to store. The had a longer lifetime than cassettes, and it was a medium that was fully pushed by the record companies. SACD and DVD-A are not getting that push.

Look at the sales of LP now, they are almost a mirror of DVD-Audio & SACD. My guess it's because the SAME consumers (~5%) are buying them! These consumers are US, the people that actually care about quality, not "Joe consumer" who is just happy to fill up his 300 disk changer and be done with it.

According to a Surround Sound financed poll those sales of of LP's are a completely different consumer than those currently supporting SACD and DVD-A. Most lovers of the analog sound are not big fans of digital. The people who are supporting these two formats are much like myself. They don't like taking care of records, loves surround sound, and enjoys their music in high resolution.

Do I see a future for BlueRay and HD-DVD? Yes, of course, but it will be on more of a scale of Laserdisc players, not the tide with which DVD rolled over VHS.

In the begining I think you are right. But just like with the DVD the early adopters are going to pump up the postitive attributes of both new formats, and that will push the Joe blo to see what all of the fuss is about. Laserdiscs never really caught on because they were large and cumbersome, and you had to flip the over after an hour. Not very convient.

IMO, it is probably too soon to tell which direction these formats will take. I am pretty excited about BluRay, but a little less on HD DVD because I think future added content, features, and the ability to do any interactive stuff will run into storage problems before too long. Then of course, I may be wrong.

[edtyct]

Two quick comments on this topic: First does anyone remember the slogan "perfect sound forever" that accompanied and justified the launch of the CD? It was meant to be a big selling point, though (I don't know how else to describe it) it was a big fib. At the time, the brick wall D/A converters were so harsh that even the most humble analog system sounded smoother, despite the bumps, scratches, and bad pressings. CD's novely and convenience may have put it over the top, but the promise of a sound quality beyond compare in the past, present, or future was meant to confer a certain cachet on it. No doubt, Philips, Sony, and everyone other manufacturer on the bandwagon were proud of what they were offering, enough to obscure a clear-eyed look, or listen, to it. Anyway, not until well into its 16-bit life were analog mavens willing to concede that CD technology had even reached the bottom level of vinyl's sound capability. Nowadays, I've found that the only digital media that flip analog lovers' skirt are SACD and DVD-A, which seem to have been accepted like a saving grace. Check out the high-end vinyl sellers, like Acoustic Soiunds; many feature SACDs and DVD-As, with a smattering of gold disks and such with their extensive vinyl inventories, and even Michael Fremer has embraced the two formats on musicangle.

Okay, a little more. I loved the laserdisc era. If was fun to have that kind of video quality and that kind of attention to detail. But laserdiscs were an analog video technology, only later to acquire digital sound, that looked remarkably like the recently outdated LP record. Plus, they could be expensive, as could their players, and you couldn't record on them. The laserdisc was destined to survive as only an enthusiasts' option until something smaller, cheaper, digital, and more versatile came along. Most average consumers of rental or bought movies had no inkling of what laserdiscs were. The fear among those of us who bought them was that the DVD threatening to supplant them would represent a dumbing down of the home cinematic experience. We also worried that despite DVD's potential to produce better video, the manufacturers would have little incentive to deliver it to a crowd used to VHS tapes. We were wrong; DVD came out like gangbusters. It looked and sounded good and became the fastest-growing electronics format in our admittedly short history. Despite the obligatory bad transfers, titles, decisions, etc., DVD in general lived up to its hype, even learning from laserdisc the value of extras (perhaps an embarrassment of riches).

Unlike laserdisc, or anything else for that matter, hi def DVDs seem to me the perfect next step. The surrounding sound and vision technologies are well in place for it, at a time when they are still able to generate excitement together. No one is going to be uncomfortable with the new disks, in the way that technophobes or stick in the muds would be with unproven CDs. The fact that most of society hasn't yet caught up to the advances in video/audio resolution is no argument that they won't, even if many will wait until they have no choice. The buzz from early adopters and the mainstream press will eventually usher it all into the mainstream. Analog TVs will become a thing of the past, even if the last of Mohicans surrender because it becomes to expensive and complicated not to, and our sons and daughters will force audio stragglers to get with the program, despite their MP3s, iPods, and what not. It may take time, but the digital onslaught is not to be denied.

Ed

[Woochifer]

Maybe the picture will be marginally better, but isn't this how intorducing new formats has been over the years? VHS was fair, laserdisc got it a little better, DVD took it from there, and BluRay and HD DVD takes it another step. If you never have heard 7.1 channels of uncompressed audio, you are in for a real treat. You think that DD and Dts sound good, just wait.

I think that the jump from VHS to DVD is a big enough one to justify the wholesale format change that we have seen. Been to a Blockbuster lately? From what I can gather, it's well over 80% DVD in those stores now. Pretty dramatic turnaround considering that

Unfortunately, I don't see the jump from DVD to the HD formats as an equally compelling transition. Having the potential to go up to 1080p represents a clear-cut improvement, but for how much of the consumer market is the current DVD standard "good enough"? Also, having a format war at the outset does not bode well for the HD video formats gaining traction. This can only slow down the momentum of these formats in the market. VHS didn't really take off (i.e. produce more revenue than the theater box office) until it clearly beat out Betamax in the market. Sony had to concede that format war fairly quickly.

The way that things are lining up right now, you got studios with a vested interest in the new formats, Sony in particular with the Blu-ray format and Warner with its part of the DVD patents. Since Sony now has control over a good portion of the content, they won't have as much incentive to concede this time around. Hopefully, universal disc players can come out in short order, so that this does not have to turn into a prolonged pissing match.

In much the same way that the CD format came out before the technology was truly ready, I think the DVD was also released too soon. No matter how much the digital audio and video technology storms ahead, both formats might now be too entrenched to supplant anytime soon.

I would love to hear uncompressed 7.1, but that's the other half of the upgrade equation that might take some time to ramp up.

I think everyone is making a huge mistake in counting both DVD-A and SACD out. These are still VERY young formats. It took some time for the CD to overtake both vinyl and cassette, and it will take some time for the new formats to catch on as well. Every new format cannot have the quick success that the DVD has enjoyed. That is just unrealistic and ill-logical

I really hope you're right in keeping DVD-A and SACD in the picture. Unfortunately, the momentum seems to have shifted away from high res audio.

I think Sony had an opportunity to make SACD the de facto standard by making all of their new CDs dual layered CD/SACD hybrid releases. But, Sony's embrace of Dual Disc (which is more about value added DVD content than high res audio) is a step in a different direction.

The Dual Discs I've read about generally include an "Enhanced Stereo" mix with 48 kHz sampling rate and various bit depths depending on space availability, and optional content that might include video content or a 5.1 Dolby Digital multichannel audio mix. If Dual Disc takes off, it will be good in that more multichannel mixes can finally see the light of day, however, the audio quality in 5.1 DD is a big step down compared to DVD-A and SACD.

I'm looking to make the jump to DVD-A and SACD when I upgrade my DVD player (after getting the HDTV). I just hope that the multichannel audio party's still going by the time I arrive. I'm already enjoying the DTS and DD mixes on the DVD-A discs that I've already bought, and I would hate to think that the future of multichannel music is limited to that level of audio quality.

The jury's still out on the high res formats , and I hope that somebody gets their act together because DVD-A and SACD deserve to get a legitimate opportunity to succeed or fail in the market. Right now, that opportunity has been squandered with the worst botched format release that I've seen since quad in the 70s.

[kexodusc]

I'm loving this hi-rez DVD-A/SACD stuff. Just brought home a Toshiba 4960, and Yamaha C750 (borrowed bosses Yammie to see if I like it better).
Picture on the Yammie is a mite better, but I can't really tell a difference in sound between the two.
It's been months since I've heard the hi-rez stuff, forgot how good it was...I've only got 13 SACD/DVD-A's right now, but you can bet I'll be searching for more.

I think every month, little by little, people are buying these players...in fact, more and more manufacturers are making inexpensive "universal" players affordable...this bodes well for both formats.
I'm also seeing more and more Music DVD's in stores, so I think the world is getting into multi-channel audio one step at a time.
Wait until some creative musicians start really taking advantage of the multi-channel aspect (rather than re-mastering), and then we'll see what happens.

If HD-DVD or BluRay have this level of sound quality at their disposal, we're in for a real treat.

...reviews on the C750 and 4960 due later this week.

(edit: gotta tell ya though, swapping 6 analog cables in a tight, cable infested area is a real pain, I'm still ticked off at them for going this route, hope the new video formats are smarter).

[Tarheel_]

First, i disagree with others who say DVD is in it's prime...actually I feel it's past its prime. Quality wise, Superbit is probabaly as far as it'll go. Two disc SE's don't excite me.

Second, i bought one of the first DVD players in 97. So having owned DVDs for 8+ years now...well, i'm excited about new technology and a whole new format.

Three, to prepare for the new format, i recently traded all my DVDs (except my overall faves) to Blockbuster for $8 each. Total sold....around 80 DVDs. Used credit to rent or buy special ed's of my favorites.(star wars,etc.). Stuff i need to get me through.

Four, can't wait to see my favorites in a new format which should surpass in both audio/video/extras over DVD.

Fifth, as a HT lover, it's fun to explore new formats...you know reading, research, comparision shopping...remember when you discovered DVDs? Ah, the joy!

[kexodusc]

DVD past its prime?

Technically I don't think that's accurate...DVD hasn't deteriorated in performance, it's improved...so it's still in it's prime...hell, I suppose VHS is still in it's prime.
There's just better players out there now (no pun intended)