 
|
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 |
70.248.61.101
In Reply to: RE: Did they simply upscale a standard-def transfer? posted by 4season on October 23, 2007 at 15:07:11
... that apparently comes pretty darn close transfer-wise and has the same extras what impetus would anyone have to invest in pricier Blu-ray or HD-DVD versions? :o(
AuPh
Follow Ups:
"…what impetus would anyone have to invest in pricier Blu-ray or HD-DVD versions?"
The same impetus they have to upgrade any component in an audio or video system: to get something that gives them a little more pleasure. There's definitely a cost benefit factor at work but that will be less critical for some than others. Some will be prepared to spend more to get a small improvement than others. Some may need to replace their standard def player anyway and will be prepared to pay a little more to get a high def player than another standard def player.
You ask the question as if it's rhetorical and the answer is "None". That will be the answer for some people but it won't be the answer for all. In reality the amount of impetus will be slightly different for everyone and range along a scale from "none" to "compelling". We all choose where we sit on the scale and the scale is large enough to accommodate us all.
David Aiken
I'm not knocking the high definition formats, just the dashed expectations based upon the high desirability of Kubrick's releases.
> > > "The same impetus they have to upgrade any component in an audio or video system: to get something that gives them a little more pleasure." < < <
We weren't discussing components here, we were discussing a comparison of standard and high definition releases.
> > > "There's definitely a cost benefit factor at work but that will be less critical for some than others. Some will be prepared to spend more to get a small improvement than others." < < <
Sorry, that's an old humbug; no offense, but I don't buy it. By way of example, maybe some folks would justify spending $100,000 on a low wattage imported single-ended tube amplifier made out of solid silver and wax poetic about the subtle differences between that amplifier and one that costs a hundred times less, but is that what that hypothetical audiophile is really buying, or is it prestige of ownership?
More importantly, are those incremental improvements a justification for any upgrade if the pleasure is virtually imperceptable or rather only psychologically perceptable AND performance glitches negate the value of the perceived improvement? Food for thought.
> > > "You ask the question as if it's rhetorical and the answer is "None". That will be the answer for some people but it won't be the answer for all." < < <
Not exactly. Yes, it was rhetorical, but it is also a rational viewpoint that each individual will have to address at some point, especially when incremental improvements and trade-offs are involved.
> > > "In reality the amount of impetus will be slightly different for everyone and range along a scale from "none" to "compelling". We all choose where we sit on the scale and the scale is large enough to accommodate us all." < < <
What you've just described is politics in the real world, so I'm not so sure about your final conclusions. ;0)
Cheers,
AuPh
No telling how many hi def discs would be a big improvement over upconverted SD DVD for Joe with regard to PQ. However, the process is basically still newborn at this point.
Taking into consideration that most may need to upgrade whatever receivers or processors they have also, I feel the larger improvement though would be for the audio over what they are use to with SD DVD.
Heck, even some HD advocates will take the position that DD/DTS is "good enough", even when compared with uncompressed PCM or ("lossless" (?) ) Truehd.
I agree that most would but it is only 50% of the experience with hi def, at least for titles that have more than just DD+ on HD DVD.
I did run across a chap on a forum though who has his hi def player connected to a SDTV. He bought the player because he wanted access to the lossless tracks! :)
The truth of the matter is that HT surround sound has been ahead of visual reproduction for a number of years. Lossless may be one of the final battlegrounds for nuanced improvement (that, 10.1 super DTS or whatever), but don't fool yourself: the visual experience is of much greater greater importance for HD; sound improvements are like icing on the cake for those seeking the best visual experience.For me, having whiz-bang surround is less important than the overall quality of the sound and visual presentation obtainable (regardless of how many channels and whether the original medium is sourced from digital, 35mm film, 16mm film, videotape, etc.). I see, or rather hear this as a diminishing return issue that isn't even on the radar with Joe Public (who are almost always the final arbiters in marketing matters).
The reality: Most folks are still getting acquainted with the idea of having a flat-screen WS digital display device replacing their bulky 4:3 interlaced tee-vee.
Another factor: Only a portion of folks who have a surround set-up will pursue anything beyond 5.1 for their living room environments, providing they're wives approved of adding additional speakers to begin with. Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of those folks who have a surround set-up still grapple with selecting between is DTS and Dolby Digital surround with few clues as to why more than one surround format is provided.
Trust me, in Fry's, Circuit City, Best Buy, Sears, etc., where most display devices are sold, improved sound is not going to be a prerequisite to selling those large flat screen display devices that make their cash registers ring. The idea is to hang it on the wall like a picture and not have too many interconnecting wires and boxes. Surround sound is merely an afterthought for most folks, and the customer's eyes are the key to the appeal of these products.
In the final analysis, surround is very much a niche market, even more so that either HD format. High-end Home Theater emporiums & showrooms, with some notable exceptions, aren't much better even though they target an upscale market. Specialty shops try to sell prestige to customers interested in spending money for what is perceived to be the best, not necessarily demonstrating what produces the best picture & sound.
The bottom line: Sound IS important to audiophiles, both stereo purists and high-rez surround advocates, but that is a total immersion environment with visual accompaniment often thought of as a distraction from the listening experience, hence the two system solution some high-end purists often set-up.
Just my two cents; YMMV.
Cheers,
AuPh
Great PQ is still paramount for me (since I'd be using my 2-channel system for audio and therefore listening to the 2-channel downmix of whichever audio tracks are on the BD). BTW, I still haven't found the ideal BD player for me--one that has great PQ for BD, upscaled DVD, and (for the moment, until I get a hi-def display) 480P out of DVD. I don't think it exists (yet).
Russell
| 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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
