No winner in HD-DVD/Blu-ray war

ironlung

ironlung

Banned
Sorry for the late response

Buckeyefan 1 said:
When you start seeing HD-DVDs and Blu-ray titles next to SD dvd's in your local Blockbuster/Walmart/Best Buy, then you'll know the formats have "made it." I think we have a long time to go before we see that.


I will believe HD "made it" when I stop seeing new shows produced in SD. When the only commercials and reruns I see are in HD. When the HD broadcast isn't:

"Brought to you with great trouble extra specially provided by whoever for your enjoyment".


When there is NO "special section" for HD at the big box.



Maybe next year:mad: :( :mad: :( :mad: :(
 
ivseenbetter

ivseenbetter

Senior Audioholic
Ironlung,

You are comparing HD broadcasting availability with the rise of SD DVD's but they don't correlate to each other just because both of them have been around for almost the same amount of time.

The reason that HD broadcasting is so slow in developing is because there is a huge cost that must be laid down to develope the market. There was nowhere near this amount of cost to develope the SD DVD market. When SD DVD's came out it was a simple matter of paying a few extra dollars to purchase a DVD over a tape. In most rental stores it only cost a dollar to rent a DVD over a tape. Additionally, the cost of a DVD player was not that much more expensive than purchasing a Hifi VHS player. The total cost to the average joe consumer was only a few dollars over several purchases and they suddenly had a better quality product.

With HD there is a huge financial obligation on the consumer immediately. For people to immediately benefit from HD they have to purchase a brand new HD television which leaves most people hurting for money to purchase anything else, let alone the additional cost of subsribing to HD services. On top of that, many people don't want to buy an HD TV because there is nothing wrong with the set they just bought a year or two ago. Yeah, a lot of people have finally started purchasing HD sets but I wouldn't say a majority of people own one yet. Oh, and then you have to buy a new recorder if you want to record anything anymore too, because your old recorder can't handle HD either (another expensive investment for the consumer). Since that is the case, why would broadcasters lay down the cash to flood the airwaves with HD when it wont matter to large portion of their market. Instead, they have chosen to grow the HD services slowly with a smaller investment spread over time that grows at the same rate the market grows. I'm not saying it was the right plan but I certainly see why they would do it this way.

I don't know how fast it is going to happen but it will happen. This giant HD monster is moving forward and it is starting to pick up speed. I just don't think you can compare HD Broadcasting with the success of SD DVD's.
 
M

MikeSp

Junior Audioholic
Both HD formats will stick around

IMHO both high def DVD formats will stick around just as have both SACD and DVD-A formats remained without a clear winner (although relegated to niche status).

Too many companies have invested too much money, R&D and resources to abandon either format. I well remember the beta/VHS format war and went with what I thought was a surperior technology and purchased a $1200 top of the line Sony VCR which soon became a very large paperweight. That was a substantial investment of funds back in 1981. For such an investment, as a consumer I had a certain confidence in Sony to continue to support that format which they did not, leaving many of their customers with boat anchors. From that day I NEVER purchased another Sony product.

In a similar vein, companies stand to lose customer loyalty should they abandon expensive high def DVD players in either format. It would be different if these were the $ 29.95 Chinese-made loss-leaders at Wally World, but the high def DVD players will remain expensive for some time and IMHO, too many companies have too much invested to abandon either format even though having two competing formats will hurt the sales of both for those of us that are gunshy.

MikeSp
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
agarwalro said:
So you mean that people should buy the album if they like a track. Are you a record lable spokes person.

IMHO, spending $10 - 15 per CD, while hoping that all other tracks on the album will be equally good, just does not make sense.

There are many ways to find out if an album it worth buying,
1) Band/ artist/ musician's history
2) Reviews
3) Word of mouth (friends, co-workers, stranger on the bus, etc)
4) Borrowing someone's copy to get a preview
5) Preview on iTunes and buy CD if you feel you might like it
Thats what I did. I bought a CD called "The Blood Brothers - Burn piano island Burn" for the track "Burn piano island burn". After listening to it, I can say I like 5 more songs. How would I have been able to do that, by downloading 1 song? Also, you can't rely on someone else's opinion, you may have different tastes.

I don't see how their history has anything to do with it. A good band makes albums that sound different.

I found out about this band by word of mouth.

I'd rather buy the CD then borrow.

I hate itunes and everything to do with it.

Also, this brings me to a question. How much time do you spend actually listening to a bad you don't like?

It took me 2 months to warm up to this band. My friend (who introduced me to them) took a year! I feel the problem with most music listeners is they discard music to easily. They don't make any effort to actually find parts they enjoy.

SheepStar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
agarwalro said:
No, the consumer has no control on what a band/ musician creates. In most cases, the second song/ album is trash because the band/ musician made millions on the first hit and lost focus/ inspiration/ need to make good music. That is why there are so many one hit wonders.
What are you takling about? Without the consumer, there is no band. "If there ain't no audience, there ain't no show".

agarwalro said:
No. Because todays "bands" concentrate more on the track rather than the song. I call an album a collection of songs only when one track has any baring on the others and the album has a theme. If not, its just a collection of tracks. One track is good, the others might not be.
Don't confuse my musical tastes with that of the mainstream. You have no idea...

agarwalro said:
Abolutely. Not all bands/ musicians/ artists fall into the catagory I describe above.
IE: The ones I listen to.

SheepStar
 
ironlung

ironlung

Banned
To I'veseenbetter and others

I realize it's not a strict apples to apples comparison. But I think interest in HD broadcast does corelate to popularity of an HD media format.

You say it's not fair to judge by the age of the technology and compare popularity(Like HD broadcast 1998/SD-DVD 1997).

How about I throw MP3 into the mix; they have gone from zero to dominant in 3-4 years.

DVD blew away VHS(and even LD) and CD blew away cassette and records for many reasons other than the better sound/picture quality. The ability to jump to any part of the disk, eliminating the necessity for rewind/fast forward, less fragile and more compact. The better quality sound and image was a bonus to the general consumer, not the main reason driving them to switch. Itunes is proof 10 times less quality is OK as long as it's super easy.

Why are SACD and DVD-A floundering not considered the writing on the wall for the fate of the new HD discs?

HD/Blu do not revolutionise the playback conveniences and durability over the predecessor like DVD/CD did over VHS/cassette/vinyl. Just an incremental step up in quality that did not drive the previous format "change".


It would be great if Gene, Clint or Tom would stick their 2 cents in. Curious what some real "insiders" think.
 
mouettus

mouettus

Audioholic Chief
!!

C'mon Sheep... you're getting too personal here. You're the first saying its a matter of tastes. So buy your CD's, and let people live with their iTunes. I'm okay with all opinions. Please respect.

And by the way... I found another option:
X) Go on their website and stream some songs... they always have some online media available
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
mouettus said:
C'mon Sheep... you're getting too personal here. You're the first saying its a matter of tastes. So buy your CD's, and let people live with their iTunes. I'm okay with all opinions. Please respect.

And by the way... I found another option:
X) Go on their website and stream some songs... they always have some online media available
How? My arguement is completely valid.

The blood brothers only have 1 song per album to download. Going right back to my previous point, you need to listen to more then just one song.

SheepStar
 
ivseenbetter

ivseenbetter

Senior Audioholic
I think you have some great points ironlung. Only time will tell and I hope that the superior quality wins out. I still think that it can. Each comparison you used included things that were cheap advances in quality. With HD broadcast there is still a huge expense (tv) that consumers have to shoulder. I hope you are wrong but I have to agree that you have a solid argument for the most part.
 
TABCON

TABCON

Audioholic
Won't you guys ever learn...be happy with what you have...lol.

Tabcon
 
ironlung

ironlung

Banned
TABCON said:
Won't you guys ever learn...be happy with what you have...lol.

Tabcon

Good point!:) I'm going to listen to "Monster Mash" on my sweet Cobra mono 45rpm turntable. 4" driver with whizzer, ruler flat 20hz-20khz. As Sherman T. Potter says "Not enough 'O's in smoooooooooooooooooooooooooooth to describe it."


TrueHD surround has nothing on my quad setup. That first play off a new quad record was like I was on stage with the band. Sure the high frequency track was scraped off by the third play. But that first play.......mmmm.......talk about emersion.
 
ironlung

ironlung

Banned
Did you guy's/gal's read the iTunes movie download press release?

Could HD/Blu sail into the sunset before they actually arrive? With consumer broadband reaching 12 megs in some places and the "good enough" attitude I'm guessing half d1 (or less!) downloads will be prefered over HD anything.


Who wants to bet? I am saying that on Dec 26, 2006 more people will be watching dowloaded movies on an iPod than purchased BLU discs on a PS3, or even HD/Blu disc combined on any player.


I know I'm talking to myself. Everyones busy handling all the "Witch HD projector makes my DVD's look best?" and "Yam 2600 or Den 3806 witch HDMI reciever will work best with my upscaling DVD player P.S. I don't need HD?" and "Witch speakers should I buy sight unseen?" posts?
 
ironlung

ironlung

Banned
Late post

ivseenbetter said:
With HD broadcast there is still a huge expense (tv) that consumers have to shoulder.

I was just at best buy last night with my ex-girlfriend she is looking for a new TV (for her new place after she moves out of mine).

Witch one should I suggest?

1) Sony XBR 34" cablecard HDTV cost 1070 US dollars


2) Sony XBR 36" SDTV cost 950 US dollars

To me the price difference is negligible(If $120 is a huge expense you should not be TV shopping). When watching "widescreen" content the HDTV is 1 inch wider than a letterbox on the SDTV but when watching SD full screen the SDTV is 5 inches taller image. The SD image on the HDTV in pillar box mode is equivelent to a 27" 4:3 screen. Considering 90% of content is SD and looks like it will be that way for years I think the better watching experience is with the SDTV. The 36"er should be the same at displaying 480p content with all that "extra" screen for SD. Sure the 36"er can't do HD.... but does it matter?
 
Last edited:
mouettus

mouettus

Audioholic Chief
ironlung said:
I know I'm talking to myself. Everyones busy handling all the "Witch HD projector makes my DVD's look best?" and "Yam 2600 or Den 3806 witch HDMI reciever will work best with my upscaling DVD player P.S. I don't need HD?" and "Witch speakers should I buy sight unseen?" posts?
HAHAHAHA

SO true! lol
 
ironlung said:
Who wants to bet? I am saying that on Dec 26, 2006 more people will be watching dowloaded movies on an iPod than purchased BLU discs on a PS3, or even HD/Blu disc combined on any player.
Mark this thread. ;)
 
ironlung

ironlung

Banned
Clint DeBoer said:
Mark this thread. ;)

C'mon Clint what's your opinion? Can Hi-res Video do any better than niche market/limited titles?
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top