And there's the rub, for me at least. I'm sure that, at least at first, receivers supporting full HD sound will be on the high end, while DD+ will probably be reasonably affordable right out of the gate.

This is what I am thinking as well. If HD sound stays in the area of the $2000+ receivers and requires additional high quality speakers to really be worth it then I will stick with DDplus anyway. I just have a feeling the HD sound will be a bigger benefit for people with real home theaters and not the small 5.1 set up I have.

$2000+ dollars. I hope they aren't that expensive. Thats way out of my current budget. If they are that pricey I will wait awhile for them to come down. I doubt the Playstation 3 (my planned first Blu-Ray player) will support HD sound anyway.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=672255


Pioneer Pioneer BDP-HD1 won't have HDMI 1.3




http://www.engadget.com/tag/sa-xr700/

Rumor has it this combo will have HDMI 1.3

Considering 1.3 has not been finalized, no product coming to market soon will have it.

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.