HD DVD & Blu Ray
- Thread starter FreddyvsJasonvsAsh
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 32
- Views 4K
The clerk is going to say it is a HD DVD because it is simpler than 'it's a high definition video disc brand'.
These threads are getting funny.
Here's whats not funny about the HDDVD name. My father in law bought 3 discs because he thought since he had and upconverter and a hdtv he could watch them. WRONG.(check ebay, it does happen to others)
I think HDDVD is confusing if you dont know any better. Someone is going to ask WTF a blu-ray is before they buy it.
Here's whats not funny about the HDDVD name. My father in law bought 3 discs because he thought since he had and upconverter and a hdtv he could watch them. WRONG.(check ebay, it does happen to others)
I think HDDVD is confusing if you dont know any better. Someone is going to ask WTF a blu-ray is before they buy it.
Well, for consumers sake, there should have been only one format. Sony, broke away and decided to go another route, with them they took others to follow. Blu-Ray is different (big thing is more space) however, with that, I feel most over look the fact that Blu-Ray would have a higher failure rate (one little scratch would damage more data, compared to HD-DVD, am i not right here?). So it is like a car that holds 20 gallons and one that holds 10 gallons, of course, the 20 gallon capacity is better, but if the 20 gallon tank is in a vehicle that has a V8, it won't travel any further than the 10 gallon car that has a four banger... Another way of looking at it, if 20 gallon tank had twice as many holes as 10 gallon, it would not be any better on reliability.
Everyone needs to look at the big picture, and realize, neither is really that great compared to the other, both are mediocre at best. If any of the two win, then it will be because of marketing, and not absolute ability of the format. Will one of them replace DVD's? Maybe. When? Who knows...
Everyone needs to look at the big picture, and realize, neither is really that great compared to the other, both are mediocre at best. If any of the two win, then it will be because of marketing, and not absolute ability of the format. Will one of them replace DVD's? Maybe. When? Who knows...
What the article does not mention is that the DVD forum was at an impass and neither one could get the votes needed because BD backers refused to vote for HD-DVD. They changed the voting rules to pass HD-DVD -- instead of having to have >50% of the members vote yes, they changed it to >50% of the members that actually vote. The BD backers were blocking HD-DVD by refusing to vote.
HD-DVD was adopted by a minority of the DVD forum. The BD backers did not want to submit BD to the DVD forum. They wanted to set the standards themselves and not get straddled with all the other people in the forum.
And Blu-ray (Sony) is the one that's made the biggest advertising push. The other formats that failed (LD, SACD, DVD-A, etc.) barely had a fraction of the promotion dollars Sony and its partners are putting into BD. That's why I think the name "Blu-ray" will emerge as the one that sticks in people's mind as the premium HD video successor to DVD... Whether or not it remains niche, it will be the name people recognize and look for for HD video discs.
Ill admit I completely missed DVD-A and SACD. They sound great but I just did not see anything on them.
BD has had a BIG ad push lately while HDDVD has been quiet in 4th qtr.
BD has had a BIG ad push lately while HDDVD has been quiet in 4th qtr.
DVD-A's provided excellent sound quality, even on my consumer-grade player/receiver/speakers (Panasonic/JBL). Unfortunately, the selection was very poor and I only bought about a dozen discs, which now spend most of their time buried in a cupboard in my TV stand along with my old cassette tapes. 
If I hadn't been a bit tech savy and read my receiver's manual which talked about the DVD-A analog inputs, I don't know that I would've ever heard of or found discs to buy.
If I hadn't been a bit tech savy and read my receiver's manual which talked about the DVD-A analog inputs, I don't know that I would've ever heard of or found discs to buy.
DVD-A's provided excellent sound quality, even on my consumer-grade player/receiver/speakers (Panasonic/JBL). Unfortunately, the selection was very poor and I only bought about a dozen discs, which now spend most of their time buried in a cupboard in my TV stand along with my old cassette tapes.
The high res surround formats needed a sweet spot to hear. When people listen to audio they use earbuds, listen to it in their cars or use it as background. Most people don't have $2k plus stereos to notice the difference. Moreover, SACD didn't even make it into cars. Acura and Cadillac still have systems that play DVD-A. However, the Ipod/mp3 generation has spoken.
I send 2 channel PCM (from opera and ballet Dolby TrueHD HD-DVD's) from my Toshiba A2 into my Sony receiver's SACD/Blu-Ray analog stereo inputs.
Last edited:
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. However, if there had been backing (marketing) to the degree that most mid-level and up HTS systems in a box came equipped with DVD-A capability and included one or two titles in the box (or rebate for 3-5) titles, perhaps it would still be around.
With that said, my biggest problem with my DVD-A discs is that I couldn't rip them and use them in my car/mp3 player.
Now compare to BD's marketing/promotion where there is 180 degree difference, which bodes well for its lengevity even if it remains niche. The marketing is key.
We had a thread on this a few months ago. I believe we concluded that the HD DVD tracking motors should have no problem with the closer Blu-ray tracks/pits, and that might be addressable by firmware. But the optical pickups are mechanically set for one format or the other and can't adjust focusing enough to cover both. Such a device could be built, but it's my understanding that the makers of dual format players found it cheaper to just install two optical pickups.
You are correct that there is not much difference between the two, but saying they're both mediocre?!? Have you ever actually watched one on a TV good enough (and big enough) to be able to tell the difference?
