 
|
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: thanks for admitting you adopted HD DVD because the hardware was cheaper posted by Jazz Inmate on December 01, 2007 at 13:45:21
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
Edits: 12/01/07Follow Ups:
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
| 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 ]
