 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.100.173.133
In Reply to: Thanks for the FUD, bud. posted by Michi on March 19, 2006 at 16:38:37:
Michi pointed out the shortcoming of underwood's rationale, but I agree that units often don't do as good a job with backward compatiability.For example, my HDTV and as well as my son's HDTV, stuggle playing non-HD channels --be it off the air or from DVD.
There's no guarantee that normal CD and DVD will play well on the new HD players. The players may use cheaper lasers for the CD and DVDs, or the processing may not be a good as a good DVD player.
Also, the buyer needs to be aware that almost always the first generation of anything new is: expensive, lacks features, and often doesn't sound as good as the next generation.
The first Toshiba players don't support DVD-Audio, SACD, or 1080p.
In my opinion, 1080p will be the standard for HDTV. The XBox 360, Playstation 3, and almost all top of the line HDTVs now have 1080P. In one year, it will be commonplace. Think about it. The true HD specification is 1080 lines and not 720 or 766.
The first Sony Blu-Ray player doesn't support DVD-Audio or SACD.
Follow Ups:
Actually....why would anyone count on any of the new hi res players to be good for redbook.
The Sony and Pioneer Elite players do not even playback cd...only dvd...with the Sony up scaling sd dvd to 1080p supposedly.That leaves the Samsung Blu Ray player and Toshiba hd dvd player as the only players even capable of even playing cd's.
And who is going to trust Toshiba or Samsung to even deliver a great hi res player, let alone a cd player.
Not me.
The only player announced with cd/sa-cd/1080p, as well as the ability to playback future 7.1 lossless and uncompressed audio...is the PS3.Ironic as it is, not one of the other players from either format will have hdmi 1.3 or 7.1 built in decoders and analog outs.
Players from both formats will all be lacking features that have been touted for many months, and second generation players will all be better than these.With regards to the Sony player....I smell some multi channel 192/24 audio only discs on the horizon....and not sa-cd/dvd-a.
What problems are you having?
My HDTV plays non HD channels almost as well has the HD channels.
Except of course for the widescreen.GTF
I have a 32" Sharp LCD bought in 2005.
My son has a 52" Mitsubishi bought in 2004.I admit there's tendency to compare the HD to the standard definition.
But on my Sharp, with SD its easy to see the broadcast TV pixels. There doesn't appear to be a solid line. Also, colors and white/blacks don't seem as white/black as with my CRT. With DVDs, the pixels are less obvious, but my 35" CRT seems to have fuller color and more contrast. It's not bad, but its not as good as a CRT.
With HD, the colors and contrast seems similar to my CRT.
The Mitsubishi is worse, but that could be because its large and rear projection. SD TV and DVDs just do not have solid colors or crisp lines. Everything is a little fuzzy. It's not even close to SD CRT performance.
With HD, however, colors and the sharpness are vastly improved.
By the way, I love my Sharp and would buy another. We're not sure that we would buy another Mitsubishi mainly becasue its not very user friendly.
> > > I admit there's tendency to compare the HD to the standard definition. < < <
That's an excersize in absudity.> > > The Mitsubishi is worse, but that could be because its large and rear projection. SD TV and DVDs just do not have solid colors or crisp lines. Everything is a little fuzzy. It's not even close to SD CRT performance. < < <
That's got to be your TV. I sit 9-10' from my 60" Sony, and I don't have those problems. Sure, some SD broadcasts look like crap, but not all of them. DVDs on my set look absolutely superb, especially through an upscaling player.
I think you really need to take a look at your set-up, something isn't right.
Jack
Heck, 1080i/720p broadcast is pretty spotty. Too often, little better than SD broadcasts and only occasionally as good as HDNET/Discovery channel. High bitrate broadcasts cost bucks and penny-pinching networks seldom take full advantage of the available bandwidth.
....not 720 or 768 lines, in my opinion.Recently every new display that I've seen that has 1080 or more lines also supports 1080p.
As prices continue to drop, 1080 line displays that support 1080p will become common.
In two years, I predict that almost all $2500 and up HDTVs will have 1080 lines and can pass 1080p through their inputs.
I also predict that almost all HD players will support 1080p in two years.
It won't matter if broadcast is sticking with 720p/1080, but I think they'll change as well.
The 1080p standard may last 10 or more years..
The reason that most 1080 line displays don't support 1080p at the input is because those manufacturers cheaped-out on the HDMI receiver chip. The HDMI spec supported 1080p60 from the start (v1.0). Manufacturers, however, chose to "count beans" and opted for the cheaper version of the chip (720p/1080i max, which, in my opinion, Silicon Image should have never made available) with their 1080 line displays. When DVI chips went to 165MHz, the excuse for not accepting a 1080p60 input with a 1080 line display ceased to exist. And that was many, many years ago.If 1080p60 input capability really wasn't that important, you wouldn't see so many new models with this feature. The fact that most 1080 line display manufacturers will actually offer 1080 line displays which will accept a 1080p input in 2006 (just one year later, after their 2005 models didn't) screams "damage control". And to think that they all knew Blu-ray was right around the corner. That's pretty shitty, if you ask me. Well, at least they can pimp their new and improved displays...
A few companies are upgrading to newer chipsets that will handle VC-1 and MPEG-4 AP. This will allow 1080p delivery, but use less bandwidth than MPEG-2 does at 1080i.And for the last (hopefully, but I'm sure it won't be) friggin' time, broadcast does not drive video technology.
This statement is so wrong. The move to digital TV is nearly 100% driven by broadcast issues.
Broadcast doesn't drive video technology anywhere what it used to. In the past, yes, but not anymore. Other areas push video technology now. And it's not about the move to digital TV. It's about higher resolution viewing. Broadcast digital TV is about fitting 978 channels in the space of 6. It's about money. It's about advertising dollars. For the broadcast industry, digital TV is not about a better picture (though it can be a side benefit in some cases, it's not the motive).Much of the push to higher resolution is from DVD, the computer industry's higher resolution screens/games and video technology (VC-1, MPEG-4 AP and others), the fact that technology exists to make larger screens (not front projectors) that reveal the crap we couldn't see on 19" televisions and the fact the cost to make them has been steadily decreasing over the last 5 years (more affordable to more people).
The broadcast industry has to make higher resolution material avaiable to keep their audience. But the fact that we will have 1080p available in our homes way before anyone broadcasts in this format should tell you something -- like the broadcast industry doesn't drive video technology anymore. Apparently not.
The push for digital TV is driven by broadcast, because the analog spectrum for TV broadcasts is going away. That is why the ATSC standard was promulgated.There are copious amounts of information available on this, if you would but read it.
When did I say anything about digital TV? You are the one who keeps bringing that up. You are saying that digital tv is driven by the broadcast industry. I am saying that the broadcast industry no longer drives video technology like it once did. That's two different things.People are fond of bringing up the fact that there is no 1080p broadcast content in order to justify why it's not necessary to get a 1080p capable display. That's just totally asinine. The simple fact is that advances in display and video technology are stepping ahead of what the broadcast industry can or is willing to offer. Because of that, the broadcast industry now has less to do with advances in video technology (unlike in the past, it's not the driver anymore).
The analog spectrum is not "going away", it's being taken back. Over a decade of kicking and screaming by the broadast industry can't be twisted into "we can't wait to go digital".
Read? That's good advice. And if you would but follow your own advice, you would realize that you are the one who is wrong.
Today Microsoft told the gaming community that a 1080p gaming console is "impossible."So, it's certainly not going to be gaming that drives "advances in video technology." Since HD-DVD and Blu-ray are destined to be mass-market flops, what's left?
Aren't they the ones who said HDMI was responsible for the lack of 1080p inputs? Aren't they the ones who said HDMI was not currently capable of 1080p? As they most often are, wrong on both counts.How much of their BS do you actually believe? Did you believe it when they said they would not offer an external HD drive? Could that lie have been more transparent?
On another point, when I said "gaming" drives video technology, I didn't say "game consoles". You assumed that's what I meant. Did you never play games on a computer?
The PS3 will, however, offer 1080p gaming. How many games will be available and how many people will be able to take advantage of those games doesn't matter. It will once again prove Microsoft wrong, though.
And if you believe the next gen format is going to be a flop, your head is so far up your ass that Rand McNally couldn't map it back out of your hole. The movie studios will not let it flop. Period.
Joe, I have never been anything but polite to you, yet you have repeatedly called me names and made disparaging remarks. It is pointless to continue this discussion because you always revert to personal attacks and invective.
It is pointless to continue this discussion.
You may well be right. But since I have a rather expensive 720p display, I'm not in a big rush to immediately upgrade to 1080p technology. Blu-Ray or HD-DVD's attraction is the possibility of high resolution movies, provided that the player will output 720p via DVI to 720p-native displays. OTOH, 40$ pricetags for a handful of Blu-ray disks will make early adoption problematical.
Where did you see this ($40)? That can't be US dollars, right? The actual street price will be determined soon enough (probably $21.99 - $24.99), but the MSRP will be under $30. Could you be confusing this price ($40) with the MSRP of the hybrid HD-DVD/DVD discs (they'll MSRP around $39.99)?
The deciding factor that made VHS tapes win the format war was the porn industry. I'm not going to jump on the hi-res disc bandwagon there is enough software that I REALLY want, reasonably priced. I'm going to wait untill things ort themselves out.
Jack
I agree that the new format players probably won't do DVds amazongly well, and *if* I were to go that route, and that's a BIG if, I would still use my current DVD player.That said, IMO 1080p won't be the standard for a long time down the road. It may never be broadcast, due to its bandwidth. Right now, the only TV I know that has 1080p input via HDMI is the new HP. None of the other sets with 1080p native resolution have 1080p inputs. Some of the '06 models will. I'm not convinced its needed right now.
Jack
I don't agree.I still have a 1978 19" TV in one bedroom and a 1990 36" TV in my main teater system. I have power amps dating back to 1976 in my $10K home theater system.
I own one 32" LCD HDTV. It's in the master bedroom. I plan to keep it decades.
When I buy a 50" for my main system to replace my 36" I want it to last for a long time. I think I'll be disappointed one or two years down the road if I buy a 720p/1080i HDTV.
What's worse is buying an HDTV that has only 720 or 766 lines. Even 1080i must be downconverted to 766 lines to fit the screen.
I think 1080 line HDTVs will be common in a year or two.
If you're going to get a large HDTV, it should display the entire 1080 lines -- regardless of what is broadcast.
I have a new (last November) 60" Sony SXRD (LCOS technology). It has a native resolution of 1080p. It does NOT accept 1080p with any of its inputs, only 1080i (or lower). With the exception of the new HP DLP sets, NONE of the current TVs accept 1080p signal. The 06 models might, at least some of them might. Persoanlly, I don't think its important.
Jack
The specs for Blu-ray do not support 1080p@60fps, they only supoprt 1080p@24fps. How much better is that than 1080i@60fps?
Jack
If the source is filtered, 1080p24 is better (where no filtering is done). However, even with no filtering 1080i60 takes up more space than 1080p24.Most people get the 1080p60 confused with what's actually on-disc. BluRay will encode 1080p24 on-disc for film (video should be 1080i60), but the output can be 1080p60 since most displays refresh at 60fps. HD-DVD doesn't encode 1080p24 on-disc, so 1080i60 is the max regardless of film or video content. For displays that can refresh at a faster rate, BluRay players offer 1080p24 output which can be displayed at 72fps. You'd think that the player could output at 72fps, but supposedly HDMI can't handle a 72fps rate.
.
Blue Ray players also sport a red laser to play back CD's and DVD's.Richard.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
