Blu-Ray wins the format wars

[P-J]

Originally Posted by Ian

Did you buy one of the first DVDs for the same price Blu-Ray players sell for or did you wait...

No, I bought one quite early on and really paid for it. The reason being that there was real tangible benefits to that upgrade.

If someone tells you you'll enjoy something more when it's in higher definition you'll probably believe it. The rest of us with own minds will make the decision for ourselves. Some of us actually have already.

Lots of us here get no benefit from HD. We watch it. It's higher definition. Great. Now what? The film is still the same. I don't feel any benefit from having watched it in HD.

I don't agree with there being no difference, of course. I do see a difference between SD and HD. A big difference. But I'm just not interested. The same way I was happy when washing up liquid was green. It comes in all sorts of colours now and I'm sure people like that, but it's just not for me.

For the record, I'm younger than you and I do embrace new technologies, just not this one.

[P-J]

Originally Posted by Mick_AKA

I lack the motivation at this time of the morning to write twenty paragraphs about what a load of shit that statement is.

Presumably because it isn't? Thought so.

Give us a shout when you do have the motivation and perhaps at least one person here will take you seriously.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by P-J

No, I bought one quite early on and really paid for it. The reason being that there was real tangible benefits to that upgrade.

And that benefit being slightly better image quality, better sound and perhaps slightly more durable although that is debatable as I have many knackered DVDs yet my Star Wars tapes still live on strong. (Unless you mean you could stop rewinding tapes)

As opposed to now when the image quality has increased massively, the sound is also far better and the disks themselves are far more durable than DVD.

The jump from DVD to HD (Blu-Ray) is far greater than VHS to DVD.

I watched a VHS of Star Wars not long ago that I bought HQ tapes to record them on when the BBC or ITV showed the original trilogy one week after the other. It wasn't really that much different to the DVD I have.

Your argument, if thats what we are calling it, is flawed. Watching a film on VHS, DVD, at the cinema, or Blu-ray isn't going to make the film any more or less enjoyable, if the film is shit, the film is shit.

You have made your mind up, but eventually you will get a blu-ray player because the film companies are going to kill DVD production just like they killed VHS production.

[seuden]

Originally Posted by NLS

Are you sure you have ever seen HD content?

There is now reason why SD wouldn't look "awesome" (for SD standards) on an HD set... but seeing HD on HD is a complete other story.

They are not even close (contrary to what people say about distances etc.).

Watch something HD for 10 min. and then immediately go back to SD (even a good quality DVD)... everything will look blurry.

Yes we got used to blurriness all those years, but that doesn't make it "reality".

I have watched a particular film in XviD DVDRip 1.4GB when it came out, and then i watched it in X264 HD ~7-8GB, yes it looked better but I can honestly say that it really wasnt worth the extra ~6GB, taking into consideration that x264 is a better codec. It is much better to spend money on a good tv and an upscaling hdmi player than spend out on Blu-Ray and have to replace your existing dvd collection.

[Anubis]

Originally Posted by Ian

The jump from DVD to HD (Blu-Ray) is far greater than VHS to DVD.

This is very untrue, just as rest of HD crap.

Again, I do understand your will to see Fred and Mick's home made pr0n at higher definition, as at standard quality neither one of them has anything to show, but please, don't make false statements as that one above.

Just one thing that DVD's quality isn't effected by time as VHS means much more them higher definition picture or change in quality of the sound which human ear couldn't detect anyway.

[eLowar]

I don't care, go away.

[spiff]

Originally Posted by P-J

As far as I'm concerned, we're now in to audiophile and videophile territory. Good luck with your 'superb' picture!

Originally Posted by P-J

I do see a difference between SD and HD. A big difference. But I'm just not interested.

So a big difference is "audiophile and videophile territory"
It's not like we are discussing the improved bit depth of colors or 24fps / 120hz mapping for a Tv...

[DamienD]

Originally Posted by P-J

Presumably because it isn't? Thought so.

Give us a shout when you do have the motivation and perhaps at least one person here will take you seriously.

Very quick post on this subject as it's totally unrelated to the thread... I have to say that I agree with Mick_AKA on this one.

Maybe it's the fact that I have over 4000+ 12" vinyls, I don't know

Seriously though... Yes, CDs are smaller, cheaper, <blah>, <blah>, <blah> but there is really something special when listening to tracks on vinyl IMHO. The sound is more RAW and has greater depth

In today's "day and age" record stores still sell vinyl for the DJ market, I wonder why this is?

[Anubis]

DD's living room...

[P-J]

Originally Posted by Ian

Your argument, if thats what we are calling it, is flawed.

No, you're just so self-involved you don't actually read the posts.

I am saying that some people like the benefits of HD and some people just don't care.

That's not an argument, that's a fact. Deal with it.

I can also guarantee you I won't be buying a blu-ray player. Ever.

[eLowar]

Originally Posted by P-J

Blah blah, doesn't really matter what he said.

You're wrong!

[P-J]

Originally Posted by eLowar

You're wrong!

Your mum

[demoniac]

Originally Posted by P-J

I am saying that some people like the benefits of HD and some people just don't care.

That's okay, some people are still using 8-tracks.

[spiff]

Originally Posted by DamienD

The sound is more RAW and has greater depth

In today's "day and age" record stores still sell vinyl for the DJ market, I wonder why this is?

Bah CDs are so much better, the fullness and body of the instruments, while retaining the detail in the lower spectrum. Bass doesn't gets lost in the rhythm-guitar. The backgrounds are cleaner, the dynamics improved, and none of the artificial harmonic distortion "warmth", sound is definitely closer to playing live.

[NLS]

spiff I am with you on this - I remember very vividly how vinyl was "looking" better for "purists" and yet... they were just wrong

(then again, original CD recordings were much lower quality than today)

as for P-J's non-argument meaning-nothing fact... demoniac answered appropriately

[spiff]

Yes, bad mastering/transfer (in the case of music, agressive compression and normalizing) will always be a bigger factor then the actual format.. Goes for DVD vs HD as well

[Mick_AKA]

Originally Posted by P-J

Presumably because it isn't? Thought so.

Give us a shout when you do have the motivation and perhaps at least one person here will take you seriously.

*sigh*

The problem with vinyl haters is that you fish your parents ratty old elvis LPs out of the attic that have been used as beer coasters or frisbies, stick them on a 20 quid argos record player and go "christ vinyl sounds rubbish".

The FACT of the matter is that vinyl LPs are for the most part taken from analogue masters (excluding horrible new vinyl you find in HMV) and original analogue recordings are better in quality than their digital counterparts.

If you treat your LPs well and use remotely good equipment the quality is infintaely better than that of Red Book CD audio.

I also like the fact that if I scratch an LP it will 'click' or 'clunk' on playing, but still actually play, as opposed to CD's which will either skip insanely or refuse to play back at all.

Along with less important advantages such as proper full sized artwork and the almost sexual gratification you get from putting on an LP vinyl is clearly the way to go.
A fact backed up by the current surge of new LPs and 7" singles being released.

[NLS]

No the fact is that I listening to my fathers LPs (that almost religiously keeps clean) and play then in Pioneer MK2 and still... no.

It's all psychoacoustics... it is just that for some people the psycho part is stronger and for others the acoustics.

[Steve]

Stay on topic you bastards!

[spiff]

*sight* The problem with CD haters is that you confuse reproduction of sound and subjective quality, taking take your "warm" (distorted and compressed) LP and then compare with crap CDs using a LP master.

I have no problem with the fact that there are LPs/CDs sounding better because they are better mastered, that is how ever not a problem with the format. Take any of Hoffmans DCC remasters on CD as an example.

Originally Posted by Mick_AKA

*sigh*
The FACT of the matter is that vinyl LPs are for the most part taken from analogue masters (excluding horrible new vinyl you find in HMV)

Fair point, a good mastering process sounds good on a vinyl and CD. A vinyl is how ever not CLOSER to the original master for the simple reason that it doesn't reproduce sound as exact as a CD (and I'm not even getting started on PCM DVDA ).

Originally Posted by Mick_AKA

and original analogue recordings are better in quality than their digital counterparts.

Shit in shit out. Digital or analog doesn't matter. But the fact is that layering analog tracks will cause way more additive errors then the cumulative mixing of a digital track.

Originally Posted by Mick_AKA

If you treat your LPs well and use remotely good equipment the quality is infintaely better than that of Red Book CD audio.

How is it better in reproductive quality? Compressed dynamics, uneven frequency response depending on the attack, harmonic distortions?

For a LP the degradation of the pressing process, and every time the needle touches the surface the supposed "infinite" resolution of the analogue medium is just lost (compared to the original). From then on it's simply a good reproduction getting worse. And thats not even counting the quality (graininess) of the vinyl as a degrading factor compared to the master.

Originally Posted by Mick_AKA

I also like the fact that if I scratch an LP it will 'click' or 'clunk' on playing, but still actually play, as opposed to CD's which will either skip insanely or refuse to play back at all.

I also like the fact that unless a CD has been scratched waaay down to the reflective layer a simple polish machine can bring back the exact same sound as the day the CD was new, that if you still haven't got a flac copy of it..

Originally Posted by Mick_AKA

Along with less important advantages such as proper full sized artwork and the almost sexual gratification you get from putting on an LP vinyl is clearly the way to go.

Laser discs are sexy too.

Originally Posted by Mick_AKA

A fact backed up by the current surge of new LPs and 7" singles being released.

I agree, plenty of ppl like the large covers.