Video Asylum

TVs, VCRs, DVD players, Home Theater systems and more.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

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:
>> ... the public need for an efficient time shifting platform for scheduled programs and was such "inferior technology" that RCA, Matsushita, et al, failed to remain competitive and improve upon the technology to produce inexpensive multi-speed recorders all those years. <<
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.
>> 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. <<
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?
[snip endless drivel in which AuPhL tries to convince me that the inferior format really isn't all that inferior]
>> Note: The actual quote is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." <<
I stand corrected, and you stand poised to prove me correct.
>> You are indeed an advertiser for Blu-ray, <<
No, I am an advocate of higher capacity for HD optical formats. Anyone sane is. Call it blu-ray, call it whatever you want...that's what I'm for. 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.
>> and your arguments when bolstered by self-serving industry bias, opinion supported more by conjecture than by visual evidence and questionable sales figures from sources of debatable reliability does little to elevate your cause. <<
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. We were lucky two formats were offered for HD to give us a choice. Unfortunately, some of us seem to have chosen unwisely and 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.
-------------
"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)