 
|
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 |
66.140.47.193
In Reply to: RE: How ironic posted by Jazz Inmate on November 28, 2007 at 20:26:31
;0)
Follow Ups:
.
:o)
E.g. For audio equipment, the Audio Asylum is often a useful starting point. Likewise with the AVS forum for HT gear, though the S/N ratio is sometimes atrociously low.
> > > "For audio equipment, the Audio Asylum is often a useful starting point. Likewise with the AVS forum for HT gear, though the S/N ratio is sometimes atrociously low." < < <
Unfortunately, those who provide testimonials on A/V boards often have an agenda of one sort or another. That doesn't mean the quality of audiophile and videophile expertise at the Asylum and AVS sites isn't worth a look and sharing insights is part of the fun of it, but recommendations should be taken with a large grain of salt.
I'm sure that you wouldn't just seek out heavily biased opinions which bolster your own notions or simply base your opinion on spec sheets. Consumer Reports may not be perfect, but it is considered independent and fair; I certainly wouldn't write off their evaluations where mainstream consumer electronics are concerned.
AuPh
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
nt
I find the general atmosphere there anti-BD. Back when SACD came out, it was anti-SACD too, but the anti-BD bias is even stronger. And while there is a lot of good info there, some incorrect info gets repeated and accepted as fact.
Gee, that sounds like another forum I've seen. ;-)
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Only the folks at Blu-ray.com think so. No surprise there.
Jack
of support for the vast amount of information that can be accessed via AVS Forum (I'd venture to say about 50% of my posts have a link to something at AVS Forum). There's a wealth of discussion topics re: audio/video.
However, I have to say the site is either a) biased against Blu-ray, b) biased in favor of HD DVD or c) both a and b .
I thought not.
Jack
If I was just a Blu-ray "fanboy", I would point anyone and everyone away from AVS Forum. Instead, I encourage people to check out the site because of the vast amount of information and discussion of things audio/video. I believe most adults are capable of reading, researching and making their own decisions re: the two High Definition optical formats.
That said, without question AVS Forum leans toward HD DVD by a good bit. That conclusion was reached long before I purchased a PS3 and the fact that I own a PS3 has no bearing on my evaluation of the site's preference for HD media. The fact that I point people seeking audio/video help and information to AVS Forum should make that obvious. In contrast, how many HD DVD supporters here direct other inmates to pro-Blu-ray sites?
There is a lot of important info available there, but it's no coincidence that the most vocal HD DVD adopters who frequent that forum are the most critical of Blu-ray and Blu-ray adopters.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
There is no such action in the case of people who advocate HD DVD over blu-ray.
That's called bias.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
HD DVD fanboys get posts deleted too. They tend to get pissed off at both extremes. You need to take off your blue glasses.
Jack
The fact that some HD DVD posts are deleted in no way negates my point. There is significant anti-BD bias on that forum to the point where people like you actually believe that capacity is irrelevant to media supporting an HD format. That's like saying rocket fuel is irrelevant to jet propulsion. When the goalposts have been hidden to that extent, something very screwy is obviously going on over there at AVS.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > > There is significant anti-BD bias on that forum to the point where people like you actually believe that capacity is irrelevant to media supporting an HD format. < < <
That's an incoherent statement. Whether or not more space gives a better picture has nothing to do with whether or not AVS has a bias.
Jack
I repeat: there is significant anti-BD bias on that forum to the point where people like you actually believe that capacity is irrelevant to media supporting an HD format.
Maybe you need to stay away from AVS and meditate on that statement until it starts making sense to you. I understand the prevailing view on AVS--that capacity is irrelevant to picture quality--and like a bunch of mass hypnosis victims, you all seem to have bought into that. For one thing it isn't an absolute truth--it's closer to a half-truth or lie. For another, there are many other reasons capacity is important, including a feature called AUDIO. You've heard of it?
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
We've had this conversaion many times before.
> > > I understand the prevailing view on AVS--that capacity is irrelevant to picture quality < < <
Its not just AVS, its most non-extremists. Most people just care about the picture, and couldn't care less about specs.
> > > and like a bunch of mass hypnosis victims, you all seem to have bought into that < < <
Do you realize how *insane* that sounds?
This is coming from someone who claimed M$ was intentionally sabataging HD media and wrote Paramount a $150M check to further their plans?
You need to get a grip
> > > For another, there are many other reasons capacity is important, including a feature called AUDIO. You've heard of it? < < <
Yes, and as we've discussed many times before, not everyone gives it such a high priority in relation to video. I don't know why you still cannot grasp that simple concept.
Jack
> > Its not just AVS, its most non-extremists. Most people just care about the picture, and couldn't care less about specs. < <Except that capacity is a very visible spec. It's like saying most people couldn't care less about height. Add to that the fact that "most people" are not early adopters who are evaluating the merits of two new formats and your argument is clearly wrong. That's why blu-ray is outselling HD DVD handily. So I guess you think most early adopters are "fanboys" or "extremists"?
> > Do you realize how *insane* that sounds? < <
Do you realize how insane you sound to repeatedly, purposefully disregard a > 40% disparity in capacity between two competing HD formats?
> > Yes, and as we've discussed many times before, not everyone gives it [audio] such a high priority in relation to video. < <
Not everyone cares about HD for that matter. Not everyone cares about quality. Most consumers just care about cost. I thought the denizens of this website did care about quality, but you're starting to prove me wrong. The weird thing is that you seem proud of that.
> > I don't know why you still cannot grasp that simple concept. < <
I grasp it. I just think we as early adopters have a responsibility to choose the best format and not just go for the cheaper format or play both sides of the fence. But, hey, that's me and I'm a fanboy because I think capacity is important in an HD format.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > > "Do you realize how insane you sound to repeatedly, purposefully disregard a > 40% disparity in capacity between two competing HD formats?" < < <Do YOU realize how insane YOU sound to repeatedly, purposefully disregard the reality of paying 100% or more for players when that > 40% disparity in capacity isn't utilized?
Give it a rest! You can't win this argument with the kind of skewed logic you're weaving, but I'm sure you'll try (ad nauseum).
> > > "Not everyone cares about HD for that matter. Not everyone cares about quality. Most consumers just care about cost. I thought the denizens of this website did care about quality, but you're starting to prove me wrong. The weird thing is that you seem proud of that." < < <
Are you talking about actual quality, or capacity? Those two terms are NOT interchangeable, dude! True, most consumers, including discriminating audio/videophiles care about cost factors to some extent. Maybe you come from the "money is no object" and "expensive must be better" school of thought, but I've got news for you: not every denizen of this website has that mindset!
Rhetorical question: Are you PROUD of being a fanboy, cheerleading one format over another with industry hyped arguments that are flimsy at best and don't hold up to scrutiny in side by side comparisons?
> > > "I grasp it. I just think we as early adopters have a responsibility to choose the best format and not just go for the cheaper format or play both sides of the fence. But, hey, that's me and I'm a fanboy because I think capacity is important in an HD format." < < <
What's with this "responsibility" thing? Folks on this forum should just take up a collection, buy you a pom-pom and be done with it! ;^D
Riddle me this fanboy: Why should an early adopter buy into a format that YOU decree is best when his/her favorite pictures may only be available in the other format?
Keep in mind that capacity is a fluctuating thing as well. New codecs and multi-layering strategies could easily make the capacity factor moot in the very near future.
Food for thought.
AuPh
I would say you're like most consumers, but given the superior sales of blu-ray over HD DVD, you're in the minority in this format war. And judging by your last post, your understanding of these issues is nil.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
What I clearly stated several times, as in this earlier response to Oscar in another thread, explains my position succinctly.Quote: "My only bias is toward buying the movies and TV series I want and paying a reasonable admission price with no strings attached."
Obviously, my primary focus is in acquiring "the movies and TV series I want" in high definition. There are currently more films which interest me on HD-DVD than Blu-ray; I've stated that clearly on several occasions in other threads. You should have recalled this fact before zeroing in on price-point considerations, assuming you have a better memory than Dory in Finding Nemo! ;0)
Note: The strings attached issue is in reference to Blue-ray's more robust region blocking. I realize that this appeals to studios concerns over the pirating of movies, but limiting consumer access to future high resolution releases of desired European movies and television series not readily available state-side may be a deal-breaker for some folks (like me).
> > > "I would say you're like most consumers, but given the superior sales of blu-ray over HD DVD, you're in the minority in this format war. And judging by your last post, your understanding of these issues is nil." < < <
My understanding is fine, and it's based upon common sense, personal collecting interests and my own observations, ...not industry hype and juggled sales figures. Your angle, well, that's another matter. [Rah! Rah! Keep it up Jazz, and you just might make captain of the Blue-ray cheer-leading team! 8^D]
AuPh
It's too late, auph.
I adopted blu-ray because it has superior capacity.
You adopted HD DVD because it was cheaper.
It's as simple as that.
You're as much a fanboy as I am, so the more you call me one, the more you show yourself to be one. If HD DVD provided 20 gigs more capacity than blu-ray, you can bet your last buck I'd have adopted HD DVD. But that ain't the case, is it.
You adopted the format that could not accomodate lossless PCM with a quality video codec plus reasonable extra features, and therefore you chose based on price, not quality. And here you are on the audio asylum, with the word audio as part of your moniker. One might get the impression you care about audio quality. Do you? Then why is lossless PCM a complete nonissue for you in these HD movies?
And the "no strings attached" mentality is idiotic. You have voted with your dollars and that vote is for the lower-capacity format that cannot accomodate lossless PCM. Thankfully, most early adopters did a better job on their homework than you did.
Your excuses are poor and your insults are silly and already really old.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Look at the dates; I've stated from the outset that film choices were 1st & foremost in my thinking, but I've never denied that HD-DVD has price-point advantages as well, and cost is certainly an important consideration, especially for early adopters.> > > "It's too late, auph." < < <
Only your mind, which apparently has far less capacity than a VHS tape, ...but I am impressed by the number of repeated plays that jerky loop of your's has gotten without shedding oxides! :O)
> > > "I adopted blu-ray because it has superior capacity." < < <
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
Why not buy a whaling ship instead of a fishing boat? After all, it has more capacity! ;^D
Here's a clue: The wise consumer will purchase what he or she needs to accomplish the desired result.
> > > "You're as much a fanboy as I am..." < < <
Not even close. I don't know how often or how simply this can be written: I have no dog in this hunt. At some point I may even purchase a Blu-ray player (as well), but only if the overpriced Blu-ray players come down to a reasonable price-point and some of the issues I have with the technology are worked out. There are a few movies out now on Blu-ray that interest me, but not enough yet to fork over the bucks for another player just because of the exclusive titles.
> > > "You adopted the format that could not accomodate lossless PCM with a quality video codec plus reasonable extra features, and therefore you chose based on price, not quality." < < <
I don't buy a video technology solely for perfect sound, lossless sound or whatever. I have tube gear for audio; heck, I don't have a receiver capable of decoding lossless surround (the surround receiver I'm using for video doesn't even have HDMI inputs). AFAIC, well defined surround from DTS is sufficient for movies and I prefer stereo for music! Video performance and obtaining the films I want is what I'm primarily interested in; everything else is perfunctory.
> > > "And the "no strings attached" mentality is idiotic." < < <
That's your opinion, which carries about as much weight as one of your pom-poms! ;0)
> > > "Thankfully, most early adopters did a better job on their homework than you did." < < <
I've seen a lot of gripping from Blu-ray early adopters in respect to unresolved issues and changing specs, so I wouldn't toot that horn too loudly, if I were you.
> > > "Your excuses are poor and your insults are silly and already really old." < < <
Wrong on all counts: I have nothing to excuse, those so-called insults are fact based observations, and the only thing growing old is your performance as a Blu-ray cheerleader (you need to learn a few new routines and maybe use an amplified megaphone to make up for the wimpy cheers).
AuPh
It's not like your favorite films are only available on HD DVD, compelling you to adopt or miss them. You were enticed by the cost--simple as that. I've seen your posts on the film forum about Pirates, Spiderman and other titles that are BD exclusive, and you love those. Face the facts: the decision to adopt was mainly about cost for you.Audio is as important for HT as it is for music (you may even have noticed that most movies have music in the soundtrack). If you consider tubes essential for quality audio, figure out a way to use tube components to drive your HT channels. I do--for the L/R speakers and I use a YBA-designed multichannel amp that has tube-like, complementary sound for the other channels. For some content like the news where audio really isn't an issue, I simply turn off the tube amp and the center channel suffices. The fact is that sound is more important than video in eliciting an emotional response, so to argue that audio isn't as important for HT applications is silly. If you don't care about audio, that's one thing. But you do. Or at least you're supposed to.
OF COURSE blu-ray players will come down in price and of course you will eventually adopt the format. That further proves you are making these decisions based solely on cost. Do you not understand the nature of new technologies and format introduction in which prices are initially high, but then are gradually reduced? Many titles you love are BD exclusive, but again, it's not titles that entice you--it's cost. That's fine. Most other customers (albeit not most early adopters) have the same priority. You've admitted it to everyone but yourself.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
... Casablanca, Batman Begins, Serenity and Star Trek the original series never looked this good.> > > "I've seen your posts on the film forum about Pirates, Spiderman and other titles that are BD exclusive, and you love those." < < <
Yes, I enjoy those as well, and if they're ever released on HD I'm sure that I'll snap them up, but I usually gravitate toward SF classics first; BTW, the 3rd Spider Man film was somewhat of a let-down (if you've read my comments on this film then you should already know this), so I'd probably only purchase the first two Spideys if released in HD or possibly in BD at some point in time (if SONY ever gets it's act together and markets their overpriced hardware more competitively, but I reiterate, cost isn't the only factor here; it's not even numero uno).
> > > "Many titles you love are BD exclusive..." < < <
So far you've only noted a few that impress me enough to give BD more than a cursory look. Keep trying though! ;^D
> > > "OF COURSE blu-ray players will come down in price and of course you will eventually adopt the format. That further proves you are making these decisions based solely on cost." < < <
Dude, so far you've assumed a lot of things not in evidence and as far as I can tell the only thing proven is that your cheer-leading agenda is making you loony tunes! Those pom-poms must've gone to your head! ;0)
AuPh
Plus you actually seem to think spidey and pirates may appear on HD DVD. No one can accuse you of having a firm grasp of reality.Just stick to your mantra: audio and capacity aren't important in HD formats. Poor auph.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
... and stick with cheer-leading! At least the pom-poms and spinning motion will hide the emptiness of your own gigabite capacity when exploiting wrongly encoded information. ;^D
Cheers (rah! rah!),
AuPh
I saw an impromptu comparison of both formats at a local high end video room using 2001: A Space Odyssey with current entry level players (Toshiba A3, Sony BD300), display was a Panasonic 50" 1080p plasma. Both formats looked spectacular, period-it was clear that both formats brought out the maximum detail of an excellent transfer with no discernable qualitative difference between either. All this quibbling about things like disc carrying capacity, etc. is just so much format fanboy blather, IMO-if your primary interest is in seeing your favorite films and television programs in the best possible light, either one will do just fine.
Yeah, either one will do just fine until you have lots of bonus features (especially in HD), lossless PCM (which really sounds spectacular) or 7.1 audio...both formats have already reached the limit on certain titles and have issued bonus material on a separate disc.So why would anyone purposefully choose the 30 gig format when you just acknowledged the 50 gig one will do just fine.
We're consumers in the midst of a format war trying to choose the format that will give us the best features and quality over the long haul. A/V files are huge and get bigger as you use lossless. Yet we can't even admit that it's a good idea to have higher capacity without attributing such claims to "fanboys".
Doesn't make sense. Capacity IS important. When dealing with A/V, capacity is our friend.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > > Yeah, either one will do just fine until you have lots of bonus features < < <
yea, where ARE all those interactive features of 1.1 and 2.0 BD promised? Oh that's right, they don't have any.
> > > So why would anyone purposefully choose the 30 gig format when you just acknowledged the 50 gig one will do just fine. < < <
Why are the majority of blu-ray movies on BD-25s? Are you going to throw away all the movies you have that are on BD-25s?
> > > Yet we can't even admit that it's a good idea to have higher capacity without attributing such claims to "fanboys". < < <
You have yet to prove it gives a better picture. You want us to accept it just because-that's the definition of a fanboy.
> > > Doesn't make sense. Capacity IS important. < < <
Again, PROVE IT GIVES A BETTER PICTURE. If you can't then it isn't important to EVERYONE.
BD may be better on paper, kind of like transistors are better than tubes on paper, and CDs are better than LPs on paper, but in practice, things are different. The theoretical advantages of BD really haven't panned out into practical advantages.
I believe is was Yogi Berra that said, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't"
Enjoy,
Jack
> > Why are the majority of blu-ray movies on BD-25s? < <
Probably because HD DVD has dumbed down the releases. Certainly all the Warner blu-rays are ported over from HD DVD. But all the best BDs are dual layer.
> > Are you going to throw away all the movies you have that are on BD-25s? < <
Maybe, if superior versions are released on BD-50.
> > You have yet to prove it gives a better picture. You want us to accept it just because-that's the definition of a fanboy. < <
Again, you're confused about the concept of capacity and about what I've been saying about the formats.
> > Again, PROVE IT GIVES A BETTER PICTURE. < <
Capacity is a central issue to quality A/V files. If you are still wandering around asking people for proof of this, you simply haven't paid attention to digital audio or video since its inception.
> > If you can't then it isn't important to EVERYONE. < <
Of course it isn't, but it should be.
> > BD may be better on paper, kind of like transistors are better than tubes on paper, and CDs are better than LPs on paper, but in practice, things are different. The theoretical advantages of BD really haven't panned out into practical advantages. < <
That's silly. Capacity is your friend. We are not talking about different technologies, we are talking about the available surface area on a disc. This is very important issue, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
> > I believe is was Yogi Berra that said, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't" < <
But it is affecting the releases "in practice". Tell me how many HD DVD releases feature lossless PCM audio...tell me how many features you can include on HD DVD before you have to release them as 2-disc packages.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 ]
