I agree with Venom.

Sorry, but the real world viewing difference between 480p and 1080i or 1080p is not exactly mind blowing. It is an improvement, but nothing staggering

DVD took off because it was far more convenient than VHS. No more rewinding, more compact, easy to use, able to skip chapters. The resolution and Sound capabilitys really were just the whipcream and cherrys.

BlueRay and HDDVD offer no new conveniences, just better resolution, and the difference between the resolution on DVD and Either HD format is only impressive on paaper if you ask me. In real life viewing it looks better, but not not massivly so, and audio sounds exactly the same. All it is is slightly better visual resolution.

I think both are good formats, but i think this format war is a bit premature. Owners of HDTV's are not exactly in the majority, i dont know what the current count is but i would bet less than 25% of households have HDTV.

Venom is a perfect example of your average consumer in this, most are going to shy away and wait to see who wins. If nobody adopts, both formats become a novelty

This is not really the same as the Betamax vs VHS wars back in the 80's. Back then there were 2 choices for watching movies at home, either Betamax or VHS. One of them HAD to win, cause there was nothing else.

Right now there is already DVD which most people still dont even have a TV capable of getting the most out of the DVD.


Sony made a damn good move with making thier PS3's Blue-Ray, good way to get blue ray into the homes of consumers. Although i see more HDDVD content than blueray and the players are cheaper.

My prediction is neither format take off, they will both simply be a novilty like DVD-A and SACD (what are those??.. exactly!) and 10 years down the road a new format will come in and beat them both, but for now DVD still has not run its life.

All in all, i wouldnt sink much money in either format.

DVD really does look good enough for 95% of consumers.

 

You dont NEED 1080p to watch blueray discs, you just need 1080P to get the full potential.

That being said, how many people out there even have a 1080p capable tv? And seriously, unless it is a BIG *** TV, what is the point in 1080p?

people dont see in digital, we have the supreme HD vision, however, screen size, pixle size, and distance are all major factors as to weather or not we can even percieve the increase in resolution.

Neither me or my buddy could tell the difference between ED and HD (1081i signal being sent to both ED and HD, ED showing 480p resolution) on Panasonics Plasmas which are onlt 42 inches and i was less than 10 feet away.

The average consumer cant percieve much of a difference between 1080i and 480p. The only dreastic improvement is what is on paper

If i had to pick though, i would say HD DVD all the way.

Sony always ****s up thier new competing technologys with bitchy licencing agreements with manufacturers.

 

They will still broadcast in standard definition, the agreement is that all broadcasters will be sending out a digital signal rather than analog signals.

The only real drawback for that is that you have to have a digital tuner for each tv in the house, while as it stands now with comcast you need a reciever for digital cable, but you can still get the full basic analog (50-100 channels) lineup on any other tv in the house.

 

My reciever already upconverts all its signals to 1080i (denon 3805), that doesent mean my standard def signals will magically improve at all. Im sure there is probably some algortithmic intelligence that smooths things out, but 480p upconverted to 1080p wont look anything like a native 1080p source. lol.

quad 1080p? WTF? ive been out of the AV game a while i guess.

any improvements over 1080p im sure will be featured in IMAX theaters and other high end theaters.

There is a culture surrounding computers that they become obsolete after 3-4 years. Consumers wont accept the same culture when it comes to TV's. Tv's are meant to be used 15-20 years.

lol

 

Yeah, the ability to tell a difference in resolution is all determined by screen size and distance from screen.

When i was plasma shopping i saw the ED model and HD side by side both with a 1080i signal. If about 3-4 feet from the TV i could tell a difference, from 10 feet back they looked basically the same with a very slight edge to the HD model, but not an $800 difference. lol.

next plasma i buy will definatly be HD, and 50in. But im pretty impressed with the ED image on a 42in.


Now therein lies the issue. I dont know about any of you but i seldom see apartments in colorado that have enough room for a 50-60in HDTV. A lot of HOUSES dont really have much room for that stuff.

So, if your average consumer can not afford a place with a big enough room for a 60in 1080p HDTV, then how the hell are they going to afford a $600 player? let alone a 60in 1080p HDTV

There gets a point of diminishing returns with this stuff.
Pay 2000 for setup A and you have a great setup.
Pay 4000 for Seup B and it is 30% better than setup A
pay 8000 and it is 50% better than setup A
pay 16,000 and it is 60% better than Setup a.

Higher and higher prices, for less and less improvement. that is one of the things that finally made me kick my audiophile quest. I got about a 10k setup and i would have to drop another 5,000 to see an evern remotely significant improvement. Just aint worth it.

 

That is all marketing though. The VISUAL aspect has increased yes. Think about it this way, 100 yards. At the 0 yard line is Standard TV, at the 100 is perfect recreation of what we can see. 1080i HTDV jumped to the 75 yard line. 1080p is scrounding for an extra 5 yards. every increase we see is going to be huge on paper, but less and less dramatic in perception

However the entire audio side, conveniences have been put in play, but you would be hard pressed to find any audio setup that could match the clarity of a pair of 20 year old Klipsch La-scala or hereseys and a 20 year old McIntosh tube amplifier.

If anything, the actual fidelity of the audio has decreased. While there are surround setups now with the gee whize bang aspect, most home threater setups suck for anything but movies.

We went from Tube amplifiers that could heat a house and coffin sized speakers that produced some of the best sonic clarity ever, to transistor run cheap *** electronics packaged into a crappy reciever with these bullshit satallite speakers that produce 15,000-2,000hz, and a "sub" that doubles as a woofer and handles 500hz down to 50hz. Crap. That is missing a good 1/4 of the audible hearing range. lol.

not to be knocking solid state amplification, thats is what im running, but i also use a 10 year old outboard amplifier that kicks the **** out of the internal amps of my 7.1 surround denon 3805. I worked hard to get my home setup to do movies and music equally well, and i tell ya what, there are comprimises because movie and music fidelity are entirely different beasts.

The only thing that has gotten better in AV is the V. Audio just got gimmicky and lost fidelity.

While computers actually double and triple performance every few years, AV moves nowhere near that pace, it just jumped a bit in the past few years and we will see things ebb again.

 

lol... well at least with cellphones they usually break after a year or two so yer usually up to speed. lol

 

whatcha running? Nad? Rotel?


lol... one system ive always wanted to hear is Krell Inferno. lol... check that out on thier site. i dont make enough in a year to afford that level of gear.


there are a lot of good bargain priced stuff out there, Nad, Rotel, Parasound, Adcom, systems that can rocksolid performance for the front end, B&W and KEF and JmLabs make some good speakers. unfortunatly they are not sold in most retail places and you have to go to the custom audio botiques to get them and deal with the snobby audiophiles that run the places. lol....