HD Sat. woes

[GaToy]

I'm not complaining about paying more, i'm complaining about paying way too much more. You are probably one of these people that money is no option so that you can have all the newest stuff. I don't care about keeping up with the Jones's. I'm watching the same thing with HD T.V. as is happening with SACD and DVD Audio. They are now having to drop they're prices before they fall into the abiss with DAT and BETA. They are just now starting to offer hardware at copetitive prices. The same HD T.V.'s, now they are starting to get down to the common man's price range. But the programming for that technology is falling short. And I believe i'm entitled to my opinion just as everyone else. If we all thought the same way this would be a pretty boring world.

~C.C.~

[Woochifer]

I'm not complaining about paying more, i'm complaining about paying way too much more. You are probably one of these people that money is no option so that you can have all the newest stuff. I don't care about keeping up with the Jones's. I'm watching the same thing with HD T.V. as is happening with SACD and DVD Audio. They are now having to drop they're prices before they fall into the abiss with DAT and BETA. They are just now starting to offer hardware at copetitive prices. The same HD T.V.'s, now they are starting to get down to the common man's price range. But the programming for that technology is falling short. And I believe i'm entitled to my opinion just as everyone else. If we all thought the same way this would be a pretty boring world.

~C.C.~

Actually you ARE complaining about paying more to get more. The crux of it is that you want to pay mature market commodity prices for a product that's just transitioning out of the early adoptor stage. If you want to pay less for upgraded service, you wait for the market to catch up and for prices to fall into a more acceptable range. Less than two years ago, a settop HD tuner would have set you back at least $800, and that did not even include satellite access. Now, a $400 receiver will get you the HD tuner and Directv access. Next year at this time, I'm sure you'll find even lower hardware prices and a much greater variety of HD programming options available. The choice is yours as to what time is right to make that leap.

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't try to make assumptions about someone just because they don't share your perspective. Quite the contrary, I've NEVER been an early adoptor for any new technology precisely because early adoption is the same as burning money. (But, I didn't complain when DVD players cost $800 either, because at that price the technology was meaningless to me; only when the hardware fell into a more acceptable cost range did I make the jump.) People who've known me on this board for a while can tell you that I more often than not recommend against upgrades into the latest and supposedly greatest technologies because the price/benefit just isn't there at the early stages.

I am looking into the Directv HD package, but only because my seven year-old satellite receiver has begun shorting out. And if I'm going to pay $100 for a replacement unit, I might as well think about $400 for something that will give me 5.1 surround sound in the short-run and HD resolution for the long run (unlike what you think, I haven't bought an HD monitor yet because I've been gradually upgrading my audio system to 5.1 over the past two years).

[GaToy]

Actually you ARE complaining about paying more to get more. The crux of it is that you want to pay mature market commodity prices for a product that's just transitioning out of the early adoptor stage. If you want to pay less for upgraded service, you wait for the market to catch up and for prices to fall into a more acceptable range. Less than two years ago, a settop HD tuner would have set you back at least $800, and that did not even include satellite access. Now, a $400 receiver will get you the HD tuner and Directv access. Next year at this time, I'm sure you'll find even lower hardware prices and a much greater variety of HD programming options available. The choice is yours as to what time is right to make that leap.

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't try to make assumptions about someone just because they don't share your perspective. Quite the contrary, I've NEVER been an early adoptor for any new technology precisely because early adoption is the same as burning money. (But, I didn't complain when DVD players cost $800 either, because at that price the technology was meaningless to me; only when the hardware fell into a more acceptable cost range did I make the jump.) People who've known me on this board for a while can tell you that I more often than not recommend against upgrades into the latest and supposedly greatest technologies because the price/benefit just isn't there at the early stages.

I am looking into the Directv HD package, but only because my seven year-old satellite receiver has begun shorting out. And if I'm going to pay $100 for a replacement unit, I might as well think about $400 for something that will give me 5.1 surround sound in the short-run and HD resolution for the long run (unlike what you think, I haven't bought an HD monitor yet because I've been gradually upgrading my audio system to 5.1 over the past two years).

For someone that types so much you haven't said anything. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I feel you need to step back and take a look at yourself. If you have an opinion I don't agree with good. I like to see it. It helps with diversity. But I think your taking this too personally and it's quit pathetic. Why get this worked up? Are you trying to impress someone? As for me, I have never bought something because it just came out. Almost everything in my theater has been discontinued. And whats with th 5.1? Aren't you wanting to step up to 6.1 or what I have 7.1? I don't know why you are taking this personally but I have nothing against you. Lets keep it that way. Now I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving.

~Chris~

[Woochifer]

For someone that types so much you haven't said anything. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I feel you need to step back and take a look at yourself. If you have an opinion I don't agree with good. I like to see it. It helps with diversity. But I think your taking this too personally and it's quit pathetic. Why get this worked up? Are you trying to impress someone? As for me, I have never bought something because it just came out. Almost everything in my theater has been discontinued. And whats with th 5.1? Aren't you wanting to step up to 6.1 or what I have 7.1? I don't know why you are taking this personally but I have nothing against you. Lets keep it that way. Now I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving.

~Chris~

And for someone who's trying to depersonalize the discussion, you're injecting an awful lot of inneuendo and assumptions into the discussion without really addressing any of the points that I brought up. I never take discussions on this or any other forum personally, and if you think I am, you're reading way too far into my comments and coming up with visions that don't mesh with reality.

But, taking it back to what you brought up in the first place, you're the one who was accusing the industry of "raping" its customers by charging more for HD services. And I'm just bringing your initial comments back to reality.

Even though addressing this point this is veering off on a tangent, I have a 5.1 system because that's what I started building two years ago, and I do not plan to upgrade that in the near future. 6.1 and "7.1" are meaningless to me because my room does not have enough space behind the listening position to properly accommodate the sixth and/or seventh speaker. (And in my listenings, a properly setup 5.1 system will always outperform an improperly setup 6.1 or "7.1" system) Plus, only about 100 out of the nearly 30,000 DVD titles on the market have any kind of EX or ES encoding, and the formats have been available for home use for nearly three years. You get at least that many 5.1 titles getting released every month. So, for me the 6.1/"7.1" upgrade would be a lot of investment for minimal benefit. If someone is building a system from the ground up right now, they would get the 6.1/"7.1" capability whether they can make use of it or not.

Nothing personal with you either, so happy holidays.

[GaToy]

And for someone who's trying to depersonalize the discussion, you're injecting an awful lot of inneuendo and assumptions into the discussion without really addressing any of the points that I brought up. I never take discussions on this or any other forum personally, and if you think I am, you're reading way too far into my comments and coming up with visions that don't mesh with reality.

But, taking it back to what you brought up in the first place, you're the one who was accusing the industry of "raping" its customers by charging more for HD services. And I'm just bringing your initial comments back to reality.

Even though addressing this point this is veering off on a tangent, I have a 5.1 system because that's what I started building two years ago, and I do not plan to upgrade that in the near future. 6.1 and "7.1" are meaningless to me because my room does not have enough space behind the listening position to properly accommodate the sixth and/or seventh speaker. (And in my listenings, a properly setup 5.1 system will always outperform an improperly setup 6.1 or "7.1" system) Plus, only about 100 out of the nearly 30,000 DVD titles on the market have any kind of EX or ES encoding, and the formats have been available for home use for nearly three years. You get at least that many 5.1 titles getting released every month. So, for me the 6.1/"7.1" upgrade would be a lot of investment for minimal benefit. If someone is building a system from the ground up right now, they would get the 6.1/"7.1" capability whether they can make use of it or not.

Nothing personal with you either, so happy holidays.

Doesn't it look really assinign when someone quotes your entire pargraph. It looks like they are to ignorant to quote just the part they don't agree with. Or they weren't smart enough to figure it out. And I didn't answer any of your points because you didn't bring up any legitament ones. The fact that you feel the current pricing is fair is obsurd. It reminds me of an old saying. "You can't rape the willing." Oh, wait, thats right you aren't one the consumers fighting to get this are you. Heck, if it took you 5 years to get 5.1 HD will probably be replaced before you get there in the next ten or fifteen. I don't take your comments seriously because they have no legitamcy. Its the public demand that brings pricing down not the many cowaring sheep that pretend to be audiophiles or enthusiasts. $150-$200 would be fair not $400-$600. and HD is not new technology. I never said they should give it away but that its priced too high at the current time. You are the one that isn't graping the reality of what is printed before you. You are rading into this what you want to see rather than what it is. HD first hit stores almost five years ago. But because of the pace in which you shop you probably haven't noticed. Those of us who have raised hell about SACD and DVD Audio prices are already reeping the benefits and they haven't been around as long as High Definition television. And i'm sure your going to come back on here with a rebuttal because you are not here to help but yet to find someone to argue with. And i'm quit sure your one of those that has to have the last word. But, nothing personal.

~C.C.~

[IsmaVA]

Mr. GaToy it seems that you do not remember how much you had to pay for DBS when it first came out. I remember. My first system placed me almost $1000 in the hole, and it wasn't that reliable to begin with.

High prices is what you get for being at the edge of technology. A year ago you had to pay double of what you pay today for most HDTV's.

I am pretty sure HD receiver prices will drop to more logical levels in a couple of years, so there is alway the option of just waiting.

Now, if you want HDTV right away get pay the price and be done with it, or, like woodman said, get a superdupper line protector and get yourself hooked with OTA. The "lighting bolt" excuse is pretty lame. A dbs antenna is pretty much the same risk as a normal OTA antenna, and if a lighting really hits you. . .well . . .cash in the insurance a buy new stuff . . .

:-)

[Woochifer]

Doesn't it look really assinign when someone quotes your entire pargraph. It looks like they are to ignorant to quote just the part they don't agree with. Or they weren't smart enough to figure it out. And I didn't answer any of your points because you didn't bring up any legitament ones.

Or perhaps you don't have any points of your own to add to the discussion, which is fine and no fault of your own.

The fact that you feel the current pricing is fair is obsurd. It reminds me of an old saying. "You can't rape the willing." Oh, wait, thats right you aren't one the consumers fighting to get this are you. Heck, if it took you 5 years to get 5.1 HD will probably be replaced before you get there in the next ten or fifteen.

If I felt the pricing was fair, I would have jumped on it by now. How does "fighting to get this" help to lower prices to a more acceptable level? Again, you're making false assumptions. For someone who's claiming not to take things personally, you sure are trying to pin a lot of inneuendo on me. You're more than welcome to, but it does nothing to serve your perspective or argument.

You accuse the industry of "raping" its customers. Well, if you don't like what they do, then don't give them any of your currency. It's a pretty simple response.

I don't take your comments seriously because they have no legitamcy. Its the public demand that brings pricing down not the many cowaring sheep that pretend to be audiophiles or enthusiasts.

And I don't take whining seriously either. Take an econ class sometime, complaining is not the same as market demand. Demand actually keeps prices high, lack of demand drives them down.

$150-$200 would be fair not $400-$600. and HD is not new technology. I never said they should give it away but that its priced too high at the current time. You are the one that isn't graping the reality of what is printed before you. You are rading into this what you want to see rather than what it is. HD first hit stores almost five years ago. But because of the pace in which you shop you probably haven't noticed. Those of us who have raised hell about SACD and DVD Audio prices are already reeping the benefits and they haven't been around as long as High Definition television.

You think that SACD and DVD-A prices came down because you were sitting down somewhere, while whining and complaining about the pricing? Well, congratulations -- go ahead and take credit for it. I'll thank you when I get around to buying a universal player. The prices came down because hardly anyone was buying the discs when they were priced at $30, and guys like Sony/Philips and Warner/Toshiba are trying to seed the market so that they can ensure a flow of licensing revenue for the next 20 or so years (or until the DVD and SACD patents expire). There's a format rivalry because Warner and Toshiba hold most of the DVD (and DVD-A) patents, and Sony/Philips' CD patents (and licensing revenue stream) are ready to expire. It's a tug of war for market share, and the only way to increase market share is to drive down the prices. That's the big picture, evidently a point that seems to elude you.

Like I keep saying, if it's priced too high, then don't buy it! No one's putting a gun to your head, and no Sony execs are sticking GHB into your drinks so that they can truck you out to Best Buy and force HD services down your throat.

And i'm sure your going to come back on here with a rebuttal because you are not here to help but yet to find someone to argue with. And i'm quit sure your one of those that has to have the last word. But, nothing personal.

~C.C.~

If your posts were factually correct, then I wouldn't have anything to rebut.

For someone who claims to be new to this board, you sure as hell know a lot about me. Yeah, I just argue for its own sake. Every post I've ever made about subwoofer setup, format support, speaker alignment, room acoustics, etc. was all done for argument's sake and with callous disregard for the rest of the forum community. Yup you know all about me, and all I know about you is that you welcome differing opinions and don't take things personally. Have a nice day.

[GaToy]

Let me feel sorry for you. Someone needs to. Your input into this thread has got to be the most pityfull thing I have ever seen. And its good to see my preminitions were correct about you. Your a whinny little *****. The only reason you come on here is too argue with someone about something you know nothing about. You have not shown me that you have any knowledge about anything. If you want to see whinning go above and read any one of your posts. But nothing personal. Have a nice day.

~C.C.~

[GaToy]

Every post I've ever made about subwoofer setup, format support, speaker alignment, room acoustics, etc. was all done for argument's sake and with callous disregard for the rest of the forum community.

And if you know as much about those topics as you know about this one those people are in trouble. I think until you do some more research you should kep your mouth shut before you end up looking worse than you already are.

~C.C.~

[bikehikefish]

And if I'm going to pay $100 for a replacement unit, I might as well think about $400 for something that will give me 5.1 surround sound in the short-run and HD resolution for the long run (unlike what you think, I haven't bought an HD monitor yet because I've been gradually upgrading my audio system to 5.1 over the past two years).

Even without HD, you can already get 5.1 sound from DirectTV on selected pay for view programs. When you look at the program descriptions, the dolby icon is displayed. Seems like on a typical day there is anywhere from 2 - 5 movies broadcast in 5.1 (why not more!!)