Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
Sir T; I do wish I had both the time and the inclination to devote as much energy to making beautiful posts as you do. Still I don't recall using "hate", you seem to like to put words in others mouths.
I directed the hate comment to the article. And you do not have to state the word "hate" for the intention to be there.

In no particular order:
14 bit Redbook CDs were issued when the technology for 16 bits wasn't mature or affordable, at that time it was believed by even industry pundits that 16 bits was overkill.
The redbook standard has always had the format at 16bits. Affordable or not. It was never altered from 14bits, to the current 16bits, EVER! to fit a price point. The bottom line is the spec called for 16bit decimation, and the manufacturers were producing players that had substandard D/A conversion that had the equvilent of 14bits. Once again, did you hate all of the manufacturers for their sins as much as you hate Sony for theirs? The produced players that didn't make spec, and even had the nerve to paste a badge that said 16bit digital audio on the faceplate.

We now know better. The issue about SACD has to do with intent. You are right about the standard, but there's this lost concept called ethics.
How do you know what their intent was? You know what you THINK their intent was, but do your really think they are just trying to pull the wool over folks eyes when all they had to do was simple signal analysis to get to the truth. Could your hate of Sony make their intent always the worst? I think so.


They charged double! I know few corporations can be trusted, I am not naive, but Sony does seem to concentrate more wrongful behavior under one corporate umbrella
And Microsoft is any better? Toshiba better? How about Best Buy and Circuit City for mislabeling DTV? You have a double standard that makes everything Sony does twice as wrong as everyone else, even when they are doing exactly the same thing. You cannot speak of ethics in a biased fashion, it loses its credibility as being something that is actually good.

Issuing a press release lauding your studios latest film is quite different from using a phony name and identifying yourself as an independent reviewer - again this goes to intent to deceive.
All the studios did this at one time. Sony got busted. But it doesn't change the fact that all studio did it. Its disengenous to try and restate what was widely done by every studio as being particularly evil because Sony did it. Every studio has used phony names and publications to pump up the buzz of their films. If Sony is bad for doing it, then all are bad for doing it. Sony is not worse than the others, unless its now okay to have a double standard when it comes to judgements and perceptions against corporations.

Warranty support does rise and fall in various corporations, I only note more vehemence and outrage against Sony on forums where these issues are often discussed.
In other words you are noting what you want to see because you hate Sony, and turning a blind eye to the other corporations that do the same thing. I suppose you are taking the high road here? Sony is not the great evil corporation, some would give that label to Microsoft.

About BluRay vs standard DVD, my point was that I can easily see differences in picture quality of standard DVD's, a better format by itself will not fix this. Garbage in garbage out.
Actually it does. DVD has a far smaller pipeline than bluray. It is obvious you can acheive far better picture quality when you have to compress less, use less(or none) edge enhancement to sharpen the picture, you can devote more bits to the background, you do not need prefiltering, you have a wider color gamut, and far more lines of resolution Obviously these benefits do nothing to improve the picture quality

Herman, your double standard is pretty obvious here. You have a right to hate or dislike who(m)ever you choose. But if you are going to make ethics the basis of that arguement, it might be helpful if that ethics arguement wasn't plagued by a double standard arguement as well.