 
|
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 |
70.249.18.25
In Reply to: RE: Probably because there are much larger profit margins posted by oscar on September 28, 2007 at 10:55:08
I have one of those Toshiba HD players (HD-A20) and it has been working flawlessly.BTW, I suggest you click "See what people are saying about this story" and read the dozen or so pages of mixed and contentious responses to the article, unless of course you're the same 'Oscar' who has responded there several times already, in which case you probably already know how meaningless that Home Theater Group endorsement actually is in the overall scheme of things.
>>> "Probably because there are much larger profit margins with blu-ray players than cheap POS Toshiba players. Also helps that the format is also the better format for PQ/SQ." <<<
Blu-ray has yet to deliver in a number of areas in spite of promises and so far the PQ/SQ comparisons have suggested that the formats are almost identical when it comes to real-world viewing.
The bottom line is that Joe Public will buy based on the cheapest way to get to HD which matches the current display device. When it comes right down to a format war it looks more and more like VHS vs Beta back in the early 80's, with Beta offering a marginally better picture from a more expensive delivery system. We all know how that one came out, and we all know where SONY was positioned.
The main difference here is that studios are deeply involved in the process; in fact, movie studios are both key players and reluctant pawns to the outcome. IMHO, this isn't a war that will result in high definition failing to catch on, but rather a chess match that will end in a draw.
As I see it, high definition video content is inevitable because the mandating of change from analog to digital has ushered in broadcast HD television; video sources have to be upgraded to match it wherever possible. The only question is whether one format or the other will prevail before dropping prices on video hardware and the advent of cheaper dual format players make the BrD/HD-DVD war a moot point from a consumer perspective.
I suspect that neither will prevail before Joe Public gets serious about investing in a 'new fangled' video player. The reasons: backwards compatibility isn't an issue with either and the picture quality of both is comparable. In the long run favored hardware/software availability and price will determine that investment, ...but don't expect Joe Public to buy both players unless they're dirt cheap. Note: Exclusivity deals will probably prolong the perceived format war until hardware/software prices drop dramatically.
AuPh
~~~~~~ "No dog in the hunt, but amused by the number of A/V hounds who sniff each other's butts only to end up getting bitch-slapped for barking up the wrong tree." ~~~~~~
Edits: 09/28/07Follow Ups:
Pink Floyd WYWH dts is playing right now after the third try.
while the Studios try to insist on maintaining premium pricing for business reasons. If so, both formats could die or at best be relegated permanently to niche status.
> > If so, both formats could...at best be relegated permanently to niche status. < <
That's what's going to happen anyway. Most people will be content to sit on their DVD-V players and movie collections until the follow-on to today's current HD debacle debuts. The adoption rate will never be enough to break either format out of niche status. Both BluRay and HD DVD are interim steps, and will end up being not much more than a footnote in consumer electronics history.
I've said all along that these two formats will most likely be niche products. People aren't all that interested, even those with HDTV. The players just aren't selling, even the PS3 underpreformed-over half of those sold were sold the first month it was out. The movies are expensive, and I doubt the studios will lower them very much-the whole point of the new media is to bring in more money.
OTOH, the possibility of making tens of billions of dollars in royalties and lisencing fees from the new formats is enough to keep both sides motivated. Analists expect the "format war" to be around for until least 2009.
We'll see.
jack
Is my way of thinking. To release on DVD, Blu Ray, and HD DVD has got to be putting a hurting on some of the studios doing this.
Something has got to give in my opinion. There isn't enough sales of software in high def to justify that dual production IMHO.
Studios have no problem releasing DVDs in both Full screen and wide screen, and yes, they still do that. The replication cost of HD DVD is about the same as DVD, that's one of its advantages, so they don't have to sell that many, to be profitable. BD is more expensive to make, but is being subsidized at the moment.
There's no question that the real money is in DVD, and will continue to be so for many years to come, but even as niche products, the HD formats can be profitable too, perhaps not as profitable as DVD, but still profitable.
Jack
No doubt there will some increase in sales of the players. There is no urgency now as there isn't enough HDTV broadcasts to entice Joe to get a new display. When they start seeing those black bars on their current TVs as the norm, eventually they buy as prices come down also.
I would not be surprised to see a player bundled with the sale of the display either in the future.
The price of the HD software dropping couldn't hurt matters either.
Unless you count HD VOD downloads an acceptable alternative. The video masters need to get better too. Otherwise, Studios may be loath to put out master quality video on a next-generation 10 terabyte disc/stick/chip/holo consumer device.
After 25 years the Compact Disc is still going strong, despite several abortive attempts to replace it with superior silver-disc-based technology. While I don't believe that DVD as mainstream technology will last as long as the CD has, I believe it will continue to be the mainstream home video technology for quite a few years more.
I think history provides substantial support for my opinion.
Why is this even an issue? We all know what the stakes and rewards and pittfalls are in early adoption.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
They had both been in the market several years before I bought into them. I already knew that SACD was a niche technology, and that DVD-Audio was near death. IOW, I knew what I was getting into, and didn't have any false hopes.
Having said that, even though DVD-Audio is dead, I don't think that SACD "won." It merely survives. I'm OK with that.
Unfortunately for all the fanboys, it's unlikely that the current hi-rez video technology will be anything more than a niche or interim step despite all the marketing and FUD thrown around. It does crack me up to watch the fanboys squabble over every miniscule and imagined gain or loss made by their "side" while the dominant consumer technology marches on - just like CD vs. SACD/DVD-A. Some people never learn :-)
Ok, that's what it's all about. We're all after quality audio and video experience. We adopt the format(s) we think best deliver(s) that.
Never claimed SACD won anything although it did do better than DVD-A. Similarly, I've adopted blu-ray which I think is worth supporting over HD DVD for valid reasons you pretend don't exist.
You critize HD video formats for being niche even after you adopted two analogous audio formats which you understood will never be anything more than niche. Doesn't make sense to me, but to each his own.
You still seem angry about this fanboy stuff. Some people do like formats because of hype and I guess I can see how that might annoy you. I genuinely enjoy the quality.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Are you trying to set the stage for another strawman argument? If so, you're wasting your time, because you just don't seem to be able to mount a cogent debate no matter how much you try.
> > for valid reasons you pretend don't exist. < <
You really make yourself look ridiculous by perpetuating these strawman arguments.
> > You critize HD video formats for being niche < <
Criticize? Nonsense. Criticism would be saying something like, "They are no good because they are niche products." That isn't anywhere close to what I said, though I'm sure you wish it was. I merely said that I don't believe either will ever become a mainstream consumer product. How exactly is that criticism? Are you so wrapped up in format worship that you see anything that isn't a glowing testimony as criticism?
> > Doesn't make sense to me < <
That's not surprising. It's sad, but unsurprising.
> > You still seem angry about this fanboy stuff. < <
It does trouble me that you can't seem to distinguish between anger and amusement. Have you considered therapy? It might benefit you.
just putting forth my views on the off chance they will not be misconstrued. It's not about whether the formats will be mass-marketed. It's not even about how long the format will be marketed at all.
Both of which are hypothetical points right now with no one having a real crystal ball.
It's about the HT experience and the quality. It's also about choosing which of the formats to support. Supporting both sends the wrong message to the industry which then works against a) mass market adoption and b) aligned studio support, by virtue of continuing down a path of competing sides. Once the better choice is clear, why mess around? No good reason.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
For some people, sure. For you, apparently not.
> > it's about quality and nothing else < <
> > It's not about whether the formats will be mass-marketed. < <
> > which then works against a) mass market adoption < <
I wonder if it's possible for you to understand that within just a few sentences in the same post, you have contradicted yourself? Probably not.
> > Once the better choice is clear, why mess around? < <
Oh, I agree. Once the better choice is clear, there will be no reason to "mess around." However, the choice is not yet clear - at least not in the real world.
Don't get angry. LOL
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
nt
;0)
OTOH , Dolby TrueHD is in the specs for both HD DVD and Blu-ray . And MLP is the core technology for Dolby TrueHD .
Now , tell me who won . ( Hint : It's not you , or any of the other SACD cheerleaders ) .
LOL
ZS KEKL
A superior format, clearly doing better in the marketplace, introduced by Sony...and ZS hates it.
Wouldn't have it any other way.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
last to admit it. But not the last to know.
about Hi-Rez audio for either to exist as anything but niche products. There will never be enough critical mass for either to gain significant marketshare. I believe Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are on the same path.
The more expensive the equipment the equipment, the bigger the profit margins are. Toshibas aren't likely to rake in the same margins as the higher priced blu-ray & dual format players so the installers have incentive to go with the latter. Price isn't such an issue for Consumers willing to pay top dollar for custom HT installations. You might notice the decision of that group probably took place before the Paramount decision and before Onyko/Integra HD DVD players entered the picture as "attractive HT installation material".The convenient excuse installer have for using Blu-ray is Blu-Ray's higher storage and bandwidth, which in theory leads to better PQ/SQ for the "more discriminating" (er, higher paying) audience. If you "smack around" the "industry folks" on the AVS forum enough, you can get an admission that, yes, storage and bandwidth limitations play a role in how much content (e.g. lossless audio, IME, PIP, Seamless branching, extras) they can shoehorn onto the disk. And certainly I've gotten bloodied in return (e.g. when I question picture 'softness' on a bunch of HD movies, I need to consider how good the original masters were before taking my digs at HD movie content encodes.
But I still have the old ace in the hole: the combination of 5.1 24/96 lossless audio and high def probably isn't realistic with HD DVD. I've got this silly notion hi-rez, high def music videos have a future.
OTOH, I sometimes second-guess the BDAs move to insist all Blu-ray players support 1080p. So far, they haven't been able to compete pricewise with the cheaper 1080i HD DVD players. The Toshiba 1080p players are almost as expensive as the cheapest of the Blu-ray players.
| 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 ]
