Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Audiophilander

In Reply to: RE: "...ignorant consumers like you who adopted VHS in droves..." - Yeah, right, as if VHS failed to satisfy... posted by Jazz Inmate on December 18, 2007 at 21:05:33

Capacity can be increased by adapting a multi-layer strategy as HD-DVD purports to eventually do, when it's called for. Extra capacity isn't required for most films, only extras such as documentaries and short subjects. Who really gives a darn whether the non-essential extras are on the same disc as the movie?

>>> "What can I say, AuPhL? You continue to adopt this "good enough" argument, in the mold of McDonald's, Miller Light...heck, one wonders why you don't just sell your gear and buy Bose. You keep bringing up instances where consumers and manufacturers embraced an inferior technology, as if it's a good thing. It ain't. And your idiotic championing of such instances is stupefying, given that you consider yourself to be a quality-conscious consumer concerned with such things as sound quality. Clearly you are not." <<<

Nice misdirection, Jizz, but we weren't comparing high definition video formats, we were comparing two differing videotape systems that had similar goals: time shifting and storage of media at about half the resolution of LD and 2/3 the resolution of NTSC broadcast TV programming. Both formats had a built-in "good enough" element. When comparing VHS to Beta, we're not discussing high-end media or fine cuisine; in fact, what you're really comparing are McDonalds and Burger King. I guess then, it's no surprise that you'd favor the WHOPPER! ;0)

>>> "Great. Consumers also thought CDs were better than vinyl, Brittney Spears was better than Billie Holiday and George Bush was worth re-electing. Would you agree with them there?" <<<

That last bit was really nasty, but since you're a bush-league player yourself I'll forgive the political inaccuracy (you're apparently a few hanging chads and Diebold algorithms shy of a full load). OTOH, some CDs ARE better than their vinyl counterparts and being that I'm not an avid fan of either Brittney or Billie's music, your point has been blunted.

>>> "Call it blu-ray, call it whatever you want...that's what I'm for." <<<

Really? So, if HD-DVD researchers managed to triple the formats capacity overnight using multi-layer application of media and Blu-ray was slow to match it or there research couldn't side-step serious problems arising from the short focal length of Blu-ray's laser, would you switch from being a Blu-ray fan-boy to being an HD-DVD advocate? Inquiring minds want to know! 8^D

>>> "You, on the other hand, are an advocate of "just good enough", "most consumers can't tell the difference", "capacity is snake oil" and similarly idiotic sentiments that fly in the face of logic and commitment to quality and consumer interests." <<<

If one can't tell the difference between a 1080P presentation on Blu-ray and the same presentation on HD-DVD, then obviously "good enough" is a relevant consideration.

BTW, you really need to learn how to quote in the proper context, dude. The "most consumers can't tell the difference" misquote related to VHS/Beta comparisons, which weren't high definition by any stretch of the imagination. What I said was: "FYI, in it's fastest speed VHS was close enough to Betamax in quality that most consumers could rarely (if ever) detect a difference in performance or PQ." That's just a statement of fact.

The "capacity is snake oil" quote you've alleged also misrepresents my position, but UNUSED capacity which is hyped as being important in lieu of content when doing A/B comparisons of high definition movies that have exactly the same quality transfer IS snake oil.

>>> "I don't have a cause, except to see my favorite films (past, present and future) released in the highest-quality manner possible. I don't care what you call the format. I just care that it delivers superior technology." <<<

There's your Pinocchio-syndrome flaring an ugly nostril again. If you aren't a pompom carrying fan-boy, cheer-leading "Blu-rah-rah" up and down this page like a silly teenager doing cart-wheels to get everyone's attention then maybe Webster's needs to redefine advocacy and add a few more anecdotal entries to reflect your level of bias. ;^D

>>> "We were lucky two formats were offered for HD to give us a choice. Unfortunately, some of us seem to have chosen unwisely..." <<<

Initially I wasn't thinking this at all, but I'm confident that I've chosen wisely and in accordance with my own needs and requirements for a high definition delivery system.

>>> "...others seem to have decided it was an opportunity to play both sides of the fence to perpetuate a format war that, like high-res digital audio before it, will lead to stagnation, sluggish adoption, slow rollout and possibly the demise of optical HD formats in the onslaught of escalating downloadable video content." <<<

If there's any downside to this format war, it's the obligation HD-DVD folks have to play cyber-nanny to selfish single-minded cheer-leaders who fire off salvo after salvo of weighted propaganda trashing the format that the pompom wavers have casually dismissed in the desperate hope that their format will succeed and that the other folks choice will end up orphaned.

I guess that about covers it!

Ciao,
AuPh (since it's the holidays, that's AuPh with no L, Jazzbo! -grin)

Video Asylum

"No, I am an advocate of higher capacity for HD optical formats." - Phony, straw-man argument.

Post a Message!