<font color='#000080'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) What is the difference between FLI2300 chip and Faroujda DCDI? Is DCDI the algorithm and FLI2300 the processor?</td></tr></table>
DCDi is the technology name for Faroudja's video engine. FLI2300 is the actual engine itself (the chip).
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Suppose that I have a letterbox DVD in a 4:3 ratio, what is the advantage of letter box format? Will it increase the 4 side to fill the entire 16 and cut on the top and bottom (reducing the 12 (3X4) to 9)?</td></tr></table>
This is a confusing issue (and because I am interpreting your question, I'll try to do my best here). You have three major forms of DVDs: Full screen, anamorphic, and (cheesy) letterboxed. Trouble is, "widescreen" and "anamorphic" are often interchanged, as are "widescreen" and "letterboxed". Here's the skinny in my terms:
full screen - 4:3 content that is meant to be played back in a 4:3 aspect ration, full frame
anamorphic - one of many aspect ratios that is horizontally "squished" into a 4:3 aspect ratio, to be "de-squished" on output by the DVD player to resort to its correct aspect ratio. The advantage of this is that there is no encoding of black bars at the top or bottom, which could waste as much as 30% of the file space.
letterbox - this is a completely useless solution that basically encodes a 4:3 signal including top and bottom "letterbox" black bars to format the picture for 16:9. Obviously, since the black bars are encoded into the MPEG stream, you are wasting nearly 1/3 of the picture on black space.
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also I am trying to put this evaluation in perspective:
Should your evaluation scale be reviewed to account for the coming of HD-DVD. I would like to think that a DVD player that would get 5/5 should be able to reproduce and image that would be as good as what you get in Cinema.</td></tr></table>
No, our reviews are based on design-intent (also we only evaluate against current technology) and value. A 5 star standard definition DVD player and a 5-star HD-DVD player could coexist in the Audioholics "universe". If we didn't do this, then there's no way a VHS player or standard definition TV could be positively reviewed (not that we do those, but you get the point).
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the other hand, a score of 4.5 overall would mean that this player seems to be able to compete with many of very high end DVD players (Ayres, Linn, Simm, etc...). To compare with school, it would be like a student getting 90% in a class where the average is 70% (3.5).</td></tr></table>
Again, for us, value has a lot to do with it. This is a $999 player (I've heard street prices of under $775) so we base our final judgements on that. Its the only way we can see handling reviews for all different price levels. You may see us from time to time review a piece of very elite gear, that gets very good ratings, and then receives a poor value rating. It's performance ratings are still accurate, but the player may not show so much improvement over lesser models to justify 2x the price, etc...
Its a soft rating system, but we do our best.</font>