I'm sure it will be in low-end receivers soon enough. HDMI 1.3 has to be first, then the receivers have to actually start using HDMI properly, then we'll get the codecs. Putting 7.1 outputs on the players would negate the issue quite handily, but that is something neither camp has done.

You always need better speakers. I wouldn't worry too much about that.

Define "soon enough." ;) Low end (or at least affordable) receivers will eventually support HD sound, but if it is going take 3 years to get there, do I want to wait, or go with something that at least supports DD+ now?

So, I have a Yamaha HTR-5490 6.1 Channel Dolby Digital / DTS Home Theater Receiver, one of the top-rated midline receivers in 2001 (when I purchased it). It does not have an HDMI input, but it does have the 6 channel analog audio inputs meant for SACD and DVD-Audio. From what I am understanding, I could take advantage of these analog audio inputs (which I am not right now; I am currently using digital coax) for an HD-DVD / Blu-Ray player if I were to buy one to get the best possible sound without using an HDMI input. With this type of setup, what happens to the DD+? Does it get downconverted? I ask because I am contemplating purchasing an HD player, but I want to ensure that it will work well with my current receiver.

I also do not currently have an HDTV (another thing on the list; I purchased my surround sound system first). How do the HD players work with non-HD TVs? Is it possible to use S-Video, or do I have to upgrade to an HD-TV? I realize I won't get the full benefits of HD without an HD-TV, but is it absolutely necessary?

All the new HD technology is a bit confusing, and though I would consider myself a technophile, I am not up on all the latest developments. :)

Any help here would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
David

My understanding is this. If you use the 6 channel analog hookup the HD DVD player will decode the full DDplus and send it to your receiver as PCM. Your receiver will output the full DDplus with no quality lost. The Toshiba can also decode DD TrueHD, but only as two channel sound.

With the Sony Blu-ray player it will work the same way with the LPCM endoded Blu-ray discs if you also use the 6 channel analog hookup. The slight limitation for at least the Sony version of the Blu-ray player is DDplus. The Sony player can't decode DDplus, DD TrueHD or DTS-HD and can only extract the 5.1 core. That sound can be sent over the standard digital coax or digital optical connection.

The Toshiba will downconvert the video to 480i and output it over an S-video connection. However, this really kills most of the benefit of using HD DVD or Blu-ray and probably is not worth spending the money for. I would only upgrade to the new formats when you are sure you will also be upgrading to an HDTV.

No problem. I'm still confused by much of it myself.

Maybe I mean by this time next year. Or once we're at the 2nd or 3rd gen of players, perhaps. By the time there are 200 titles actually out. Something like that. This year is for early adopters and those who don't mind shelling out extra cash for very limited usefulness.

Since most receivers of the last 4 years over $500 have had 6 channel analog inputs, they will be compatible with any of these. As long as the players aren't crippled, as all the 1st gen ones are.

I suppose if you want a $200 receiver to have this, it may be longer and not be soon enough. If ever. But I call $500 low-end, anything beneath that is "junk" in my parlance.

I agree. For me, low end is typically in the $700-1000 range. High end is $2000+. I know that there will be mid-range and high end receivers with HD support within a year, but I wonder just how long it will take to reach the $800 point. But then again, if Sony comes out with a new ES receiver sometime next year, say an upgraded STR-DA3100ES, and the price isn't too far north of $1000, I just might go for it.

LMFAO! Market suicide similar to the 100% difference in the prices of the "low-end" players.

I think Josh should watch out; someone else looking for the crown to become king of Sonyville.

I was going to point that out, too, but it's just too hard to point out all of the inconsistencies...

Actually, Jimmy is saying Sony won't let HD-DVD sound better than BR b/c that would be "market suicide" for BR. But the truth is most people won't be able to hear the difference between the various sound options either because of their setups or perception. Some people use their TV speakers, even. At least you'd have to admit there will be arguments over which sounds "better". Its going to be somewhat subjective.

However, it is going to be impossible to miss the price difference between an HD-DVD player and a BR player. Every single consumer will notice and weigh that difference up front.

With the price difference between the players consumers will expect it to be better in every possible way. And if its not that will be a large blow to the Blu-Ray format. Which is why I think Sony would have to adapt there Blu-Ray player to match or beat HD-A1s sound quality.

According to Panasonic http://news.digitaltrends.com/article10170.html the HD-A1 is selling at a loss while all Blu-Ray players (Except the Playstation 3) are making profit. There is also the lack of 1080p that I am sure has a large effect on the pricing. The actual price difference between the formats pricing would in the end be pretty insignifigant.

This well may be. According to other consumers low income bracket, a $500.00 equipment would be considered as high end in their perspective, due to economical financial statues. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Everyone is not fortunate to be financially blessed. ;)

The PQ will be the same (certainly BR will be no better). The sound quality difference will be arguable (probably the same). I just don't see what you get for $500 more?


So, Kazuhiro Tsuga, an executive at Japan's Matsushita who according to the article, "is a strong supporter of Sony's Blur-ray[sic] next-generation DVD technology" estimates that the Toshiba is taking a loss on each unit sold.

And you take that as credible? Meanwhile Meryl Lynch's esimates of the cost of a PS3 are pure speculation and not credible????

I've seen multiple sources speculate that Toshiba is not taking a loss on the players...

Ironically, you see the only one BR player that is taking a loss as the savior of Blu-Ray... The only one that you think can compete. The only one you say you can afford to buy...

No Blu-Ray player is making a profit until someone actually buys the damned thing.

Again....your jumping to a conclusion....Panasonic (which supports Blu-ray) ESTIMATED that Toshiba is taking a loss.....they dont know though. Neither do you.

Also, he didnt say anything about all blu-ray players making a profit. Where did you get that?? Please explain. The only thing he said was that they were working to lower costs to turn a profit.

Nothing I've read so far about the standalone BD players has convinced me that the extra $500 to buy one is necessary.

Reminds me of a story I've heard for years:

Maybe Sony should increase their prices a bit...

Their catalog is the difference maker right now....exclusive day and date (Underworld Evolution)....is that worth $500 more? I dont think so either...at least not right now.

When these come out, if they are the greatest thing since sliced bread, I may be lured to get one. I like to throw money around that I dont have though.

1080p resolution and a greater selection of titles.

Yeah, I've read that numerous times. I won't own a 1080p tv for quite awhile, and I'm guessing most consumers won't either.

Universal and Warners huge catalogs will have plenty of titles to keep me busy. BTW, how does more titles to choose from justify a $500 price increase? No way I'm paying $1000 to watch Resident Evil: Apocalypse in high-definition.

Woah there buddy....they may have more studios slightly, but that doesnt mean that it is larger.

And, if you meant greater to mean better, then thats purely your opinion.

Slightly more.

Warner, Paramount, The Weinstan Company, and Universal make up 45% of all movies. This may go up if Disney goes neutral (As they have indicated) but will still be signifigantly below Blu-Ray.

Warner, Paramount, Disney, Fox, Sony, and Lions Gate make up 85%

Thats not slight. Resident Evil Apocalypse does suck balls but The Incredibles, Pirates of the Carribean, Ice Age, and the first two Terminator films sure don't.

Source for these percentages?

It was covered quite completely that an HDTV will be able to take a 1080i signal from an HD-DVD player and display it at 1080p (on sets that allow it) with no de-interlacing artifacts. You're confusing aquisition vs. transmission of the signal. Since both HD-DVD and BR encode the image at 1080p/24 that won't be the advantage you're looking for.

I'd refer you to this thread:

LISTEN:

ALL HD_DVD TITLES ARE AUTHORED IN 1080P. IMO, you should be banned the next timeyou make a statement like that because you are clearly beating the bushes and trying to troll.

There will also be a greater THEORETICAL selection of titles. It may be a long time before the number of titles available for BR exceeds the number for HD. With Sony having their finger on the duping of every disc, it may be a long while before their catalog of titles gets some steam behind it.

Also, as has been pointed out, HD will win in the "number of potential movies" game since their supporting studios control most of the movies in existence.

This is an undisputibale fact right now: HD-DVD has a HUGE margin on number of titles available over BR. BECAUSE BR HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED YET.

But it doesn't matter anyway. If the holdouts see some cash to be made on HD, then you can bet every last cent you own they will produce for it. I would even venture to say that in the long term, even Sony, who is a confused corporation (copy protected CDs and MP3 players) could even release on HD should market share determine that such a move is profitable. Believe me, Sony's "partners" are only loyal because they think they can make some money (mostly on the promise of the huge installed base that PS3 was supposed to already have started to deliver). If they smell money somewhere else, they'll drop Sony like a 10 cent whore. OH and by the way? The same thing goes for Toshiba's partners.

Dipwad, do you even have a 1080P TV? If not then what does this feature even matter to you then? HD will have players 1080P capable, and many say the current ones will be upgradeable. This is not an arrow in the BR quiver. You are grasping. By the time the PS3 (budget BR) player hits, there will be a similarly priced HD deck capable of 1080P out of the box. Then what is your next strawman argument gonna be?

Stop taking me out of contect. I know HD-DVD discs in 1080p. I know that the disc resolution is identical. However to many people say that the HD-A1 and all the Blu-Ray models have the same quality. The discs may but the players at the moment do not and for some 1080p ability will make the extra money more valuble. If you don't see 1080p as a great enough value to justify the price fine thats your view and I respect it but if you say that current HD-DVD players and upcoming Blu-Ray models have the same resolution thats an incorrect statement that I have to refute. Me I am skipping all stand-alone players and getting a Playstation 3 console.

Please try to read what other people have written. Let me try it one more time for you. As long as the source (the disc) is 1080p, it doesn't matter whether the signal from the player to the TV is interlaced or not. A 1080p TV will be fully capable of recreating the original 1080p image, exactly as it appeared on the disc (or, more correctly, in exactly the same way that it would be displayed from a 1080p signal).

You seem to want to believe that this is not possible, but that really doesn't matter. It is possible. It has been done.

I dont see the percentages that you mentioned in there...can you cut and paste where you read the 45% and 85% of all movies? Im just curious where they got those numbers.

Also, just an fyi, Terminator 3 is warner so it will probably be on both....T2 is Studio Canal overseas and they have said that it will be on hd-dvd (link is in the release thread). Since there is no region coding, those of us with hd-dvd could get it. There is no date for it yet though.

I guess I see what you are doing but you are, of course, using the numbers incorrectly. Those number of titles is based on the Top-100 grossing movies (of all time). Those numbers hardly represent an entire studio's holdings. No classics, for example, would be included.

Sorry, you are going to have to try again.

I don't deny its possible to change 1080i into 1080p but I just believe that true 1080p outputed from the player will have the edge. The difference won't be night and day but if you look for it I think there will be an improvement. Similar to how DVDs almost always look better when outputed through a progressive scan DVD player then by a television deinterlacer. 1080p will make a small difference but for some videophiles every little bit will be welcome.

Based on what? Just your gut feeling or you have something to back it up with?

At least you included the "almost", because I've certainly seen cases where this is not true. Some very cheap progressive players have downright terrible deinterlacers.

See my post above again. It doesn't matter what you think or believe. Facts are facts. And the fact is that, barring defective or badly designed components, a 1080p TV will produce an IDENTICAL image from a 1080i and 1080p signal. A 1080p signal will have no edge over a 1080i signal.

And many progressive scan TVs have outstanding deinterlacers, that exceed all but the very best progressive scan DVD players

I have compared DVD deinterlaced by both the progressive scan DVD and the television and the player looks noticeably better. I believe it will be the same with 1080i to 1080p deinterlacers. Of course I may be proven wrong but I doubt that a television deinterlacer can compare to the real thing. We will find next month now won't we.

Frankly, I no longer care what you believe, or what you say. I am tired of explaining this to you, only to have you ignore facts. However, I will continue to follow your baseless, utterly false claims with reality, in an effort to keep others from believing your hyperbole.

FACT - a 1080p TV can produce exactly the same image from a 1080p signal or a 1080i signal if that image originated as 1080p on disc (whether Blu-ray or HD-DVD).

FACT - Some progressive scan DVD players do a better job of deinterlacing than some progressive scna TVS. However, some progressive scan TVs do a better job of deinterlacing than many progressive scan DVD players.

I don't know. These 2 facts seem contradictory to my logic. I'm not disputing they are facts, just the conclusions you seem to be drawing. The problem there, Robo, is that the word you must use in the first fact is CAN. You can't use the word WILL. The plethora of crappy progressive scan players, at ALL price ranges, says to me that we can't trust these companies to provide TVs and players that can interlace and de-interlace properly without artifacts. This is quite simply an unnecessary step if you have a progressive scan TV. That is why I will wait until there is a player that simply outputs the 1080p un-interlaced. All my future TV purchases will be 1080p native, so whether I buy TVs or HDDVD/BD players first, I will get them to match.

Obviously, that's true. But if you can't afford the real thing, that doesn't mean something cheaper is just as capable. Some products must be priced higher because of additional features, period. And that means some people won't get into that market. You will never see a BMW in the same price range as a Hyundai. I happen to have higher standards (and lower than some people) on which features MUST be in my equipment. Which means I pay more.

God, I wish I was financially blessed. I wouldn't have 2 mortgages.

There is no question that what you say is true, to a degree. There are and will continue to be players and TVs that do a sub-par job of interlacing and deinterlacing, and as I have said before, all else being equal, it only makes sense to have 1080p output from a player. That is exactly why I used the word can in my first statement.

My frustration with Jimmy is that he continually states, in absolute terms, that 1080p output will exceed the quality of 1080i output on every display, with no exception. That is absolutely untrue. The notion that, simply because a player "only" outputs 1080i, it is automatically inferior in quality to one that outputs 1080p, is absurd to me. I would defy anyone to try to point out an interlace-related artifact on my 1080p TV when watching any of my HD-DVDs. You wouldn't be able to, because they don't exist.

What a lot of you are forgetting (or ignoring) is the fact that the interlaced DVD's and interlaced output from a 1080i player are NOTHING alike. Refer to the top of page 5. So, you can stop comparing interlaced DVD's to 1080i outputs on either of the HD formats.

What makes you so sure? Blu-Ray isn't out yet and neither are any 1080p players. You have no way to compare native 1080p inputs to upconverted 1080i. So how do you absolutly know that they won't look better? Again we will find out next month whether or not Im right or your right. I can't wait to find out. To be proven wrong or not.

It isn't native 1080p. So there is the rub.

Native 1080p would be 1080p60 (what the 1080p set needs to display). But 1080p24 is what stored on the disc. To get to 1080p60 (from 1080p24) it'll require conversion.

Your tirade about progressive is going to look better than interlaced would be much more correct if 1080p60 information was stored on the disc. Unfortunately, bandwidth dictates otherwise.