Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems Blu Ray vs HD-DVD

Well, we certainly know that Bluray Bluray is significantly more capable all the way around: 25 and 50 GB discs with the potential to reach 100 and 200 GB. Bandwidth of Bluray greater than HD-DVD and already slated to reach twice the bandwidth of HD-DVD (reaching 72 Mbps and potentially higher). Recording capacity that with 50 GB now and will reach 100 GB, and a prototype of 200 GB is in the lab. Then you have 10X times LESS power requirements for recording for Bluray which is huge for portable recording.

If cost to the consumer will be roughly equivalent and copyprotection/digital rights will be the same, why would a consumer chose HD-DVD over Bluray? I believe it is in the best interests of consumers to resist temptation of buying HD-DVD products, forcing the three holdout studios to release product on Bluray. Certainly two of those three studios will likely cave very quickly. These are obviously plans based on today's knowledge. I hope Bluray continues to give consumers reasons (such as adoptation of the advanced video codecs) to unite for one superior format. Would be great to see one superior format (Bluray) for games, movies, music, and music videos.

I'm not sure what is going on with DVD-Audio and SACD 2.0, however, DVD-Audio/MLP (as well as DD+) is mandatory in HD-DVD players. As a personal preference, one of the last negative aspects of Bluray (for me) would be lack of inclusion of MLP (DVD-Audio) as mandatory. I believe MLP is a wonderful audio codec with great features which is necessary to include for DVD-Audio support anyway. With today's HD standards, music videos released for Bluray should support 24/96 audio with 1080p video. I would strongly prefer mandatory support in Bluray players instead of optional support. If too many manufacturers make models without MLP/DVD-Audio capability, you will likely see the same continued lack of success of MLP as we see today. DTS is now offering Lossless capability, but it is not DVD-Audio (needed for backward compatability), and also seems to be less efficient than DTS. Seems to me you could provide a lossless 24/48 multichannel MLP track for movies in addition to a few DD tracks (other language, commentary, etc..) for the price of a single DTS track which includes core DTS + lossless DTS info. While I'm certainly glad consumers can have lossless quality with movies, I'd prefer to have MLP as a choice for soundtrack compression. I think MLP should be the preferred choice for 24/96 audio + 1080p music videos.

DD+, and MLP, and SACD 2.0 are currently optional for Bluray players. 100% of CE manufacturers 'could' include these audio codecs if so desired, but I'm worried the el-cheapo models (good for the general public) will not include such suppport and will propagate in the future. With optional support instead of mandatory, it ends up being difficult for studios/software companies to support anything but the mandatory audio codecs (DTS Lossless) since there may be a significantly sized installed base without such codecs.

Nonetheless, the superiority and capabilities of Bluray are obvious. My plan is to purchase a Bluray player, probably entry level, as well as all the movies I like that are released in the Bluray format. I'll watch Warner Brother movies on DVD on the Bluray player which will use all digital upscaling to the desired resolution of 1080p (or 1080i/720p just as you selecet with HDTV set top boxes for those wanting 720p/1080i). When Warner Brothers comes around, fine, I'll buy their HD movies on Bluray. I look forward to seeing the success of Bluray with computer, games, music videos, and movies.

I'm sure we will all need to see the final prices/specifications of Bluray/HD-DVD, but at somepoint later this year, I think it will be important for consumers to rally behind one of these formats. Supporting both formats is way to expensive, and the shorter the format war, the better. The competition is really starting to outlive its usefulness. Both formats have improved because of the competition, but it is soon becoming time for support of one format only where consumers will likely have to decide their own fate. I hope cooperation prevails, and I hope One format emerges ASAP.

The vast majority of people are going to sit on the sidelines (until both formats are released), so I don't think it is critical if one format comes to market a few months before the other. Even if I had money to burn: 1) I hate redundancy 2) Universal players will not be out for a while, if ever. If universal players come out, we all know they are uneccessarily complicated, more expensive, and less likely to perform as well. 3) 2 HD players, more sets of cables, switch boxes, and categorizing 2 more sets of incompatable movies... What a mess. I sincerely hope nobody contributes to this mess and buys into both formats.

[This message has been edited by Health Nut (edited 02-14-2005).]

I can't honestly see why we need all this storage. Its not like movies are going to get longer just because there is more space on a disc to fit them. Granted, HD takes up more room, but not that much more as their codecs are more efficient. But for me, it is not enough reason to think that one format is better than another just because it holds more - more space will just be used up with material of dubious use or contain more empty space.

For me, it will have to be backwards compatible with my existing collection of CD, DVD's and DVD-A and for the time being that looks like it will be HD-DVD. Plus a decent software library. So blu-ray has Disney in its camp - well im sure Dumbo's ears will never look so good in hidef.

-Ian

[This message has been edited by ianh (edited 02-14-2005).]

I may be in the minority, but I never look at any of the "value added stuff" - bloopers, interviews, alternate endings, etc. on DVDs.

It can't be "value added" first because its value is questionable, and second because it had to cost money to produce and therefore utimately was passed on in the retail price. I wonder how many people, if given a choice, would pay $1-$3 more for a DVD with the "value-added" stuff on it?

I wish they would just put the movie on the disc. Many of my DVDs have two disc, and one never leaves the holder.

Like work and time, useless crap expands to fill the space alotted to it.

Bluray is backward compatable with everything just as HD-DVD. At this time, you will simply have to make sure you buy a Bluray player with DVD-Audio capability. Or perhaps you are saying that you are chosing HD-DVD based on the required (HD-DVD) vs optional (Bluray) support of DVD-Audio?

Given the larger superiority of Bluray and the likelihood it will succeed due to greater overall support throughout the industry (Playstation 3, Porn, Gaming, and potentially greater than 50% of the movie studios (if FOX swings to Bluray)), I think the best option is to support Bluray and buy DVD-Audio capable Bluray players.

I feel the same way. Nonetheless, we can only hope they put that junk on a second disc.

You are more likely to get constrained/compromises with HD-DVD than Bluray for sure. HD-DVD would give them more excuses to provide less, while Bluray this is less likley to be true. In general, with movies, music, music videos, games, computer applications, and recording, Bluray can provide the means for superior 'software'.

[This message has been edited by Health Nut (edited 02-14-2005).]

Chris says:


No, it isn't. Blu-ray doesn't include support for DVD-Video within its specifications. That's a decision for the player manufacturer to make.

Initially, it's the wise choice to make, but it is not guaranteed.


Since Blu-ray doesn't have support of the MLP codec as a mandated or optional audio encoding/decoding standard, it is (unfortunately) unlikely that DVD-Audio support will be included, as that adds to the per unit cost of each player.

I hope I'm wrong on this one. With the number of members of the DVD-Audio working group in the Blu-Ray consortium, I could be.


There is no support whatsoever for MLP in Blu-ray. End of discussion. Inclusion of MLP would be based on the decision of a hardware manufacturer to include support for the "back format" using high resolution PCM.


No studio has committed to exclusive release on either format. As it stands now it is
Warner, Paramount and Universal supporting HD-DVD when it releases. Sony, Fox and Disney have announced their support for Blu-ray at release.

XBox2 and next generation Nintendo is also a significant portion of the gaming community. If they go the way of HD-DVD, we're back at another impasse.

I don't think that porn is going to be much of a factor with either of these formats, for a few reasons, not the least of which is the abundance of porn on the internet.

I look at this way, Sony is the leading company behind Blu-Ray, and couldn't play with the other companies when it came to high resolution audio. Having them essentially in charge of one of the competing high definition optical disc formats is asking for trouble.


It is far too early to say with any certainty what will (or won't happen) with either of these formats.

The only thing that you can safely say is that Blu-ray has more capacity. What's done with the extra capacity is another matter entirely.

Cheers,



[This message has been edited by John Kotches (edited 02-14-2005).]

This is accurate. However, all Blu-ray recorder products built so far (from 4 manufacturers) support DVD playback. I think it is fairly certain that all BD players and recorders will do so.


Not true -- Audio codec selection for BD is still very much under discussion, and nothing has been finalized.


The Blu-ray Disc Association has more than 100 member companies. The Board of Directors consists of all major CE manufactuers other than Toshiba, including Panasonic, Sony, Philips, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, Hitachi, Samsung, LGE, and Sharp. While Sony is a major proponent of the format, this group of companies that came together to make the format is unprecedented compared to previous format groups, and I think it would be unfair to think of this as a Sony format.

---------
Richard Doherty
Managing Director for Blu-ray at the Panasonic Hollywood Labs

[This message has been edited by RDoherty (edited 02-14-2005).]

Richard says:


"Fairly certain" is not a guarantee. It makes logical sense but this is not always a logic driven business. Since it's not mandatory, it could be left off at the discretion of a manufacturer that is producing a Blu-ray playback device and still be fully compliant with specifications.


MLP is either supported or not at this time. Please provide a pointer to documentation that indicates MLP support is included in Blu-ray as either a mandatory or optionally supported codec. Otherwise, my statement is completely correct (as opposed to "not true") at this point in time.

If MLP is not currently a mandatory or optionally supported codec, then the only thing that you can say is that the possibility of its inclusion exists.


Yes, I know about the broad industry support. Having seen the results of the previous format war (DVD-Audio and SA-CD) I have serious concerns that the rival formats will cause both formats to fail as consumer optical media playback formats.

I certainly hope that one of them survives, but the best solution is to have a single format rather than two rivals fighting over what will be a relatively small market for the first few years.

Cheers,

The consumer sale isn't that compelling either. Consider

VHS -> DVD
- significant improvement in picture and audio quality on existing TV and stereo, and low cost hardware to get to 5.1 audio
- easier media handling
- longer life media
- slight increase in media cost
- equivalent hardware costs (once the Chinese mass market players kicked in)
- multi-region idiocy overcome by player manufacturers

DVD -> BR/HD
- new TV needed for full picture improvements, improvement not as big as VHS to DVD
- no audio improvements for mass market (people are not going to throw out their Panasonic home-theatre-in-a-box for a new 800/861 combo)
- probably more expensive media (just because the marketing dept will think they can get away with it; I have no evidence for this assertion)
- no additional physical media benefits over DVD
- hardware costs presumably will follow the same curve as regular DVD, so $1000 for the first players, coming down to $100 by 2009
- multi-region enforcement: I believe this is going to be much harder to overcome with the new formats, and I think that will significantly reduce media sales (I'd love to see the figures for Amazon shipping R1 titles to non-R1 customers).

Now, if the studios decided to release the media at a lower cost than DVD, that would probably swing it. How likely is that....?

Of course it's possible that the studios could decide only to release new movies on the new format, to force people to upgrade. This would hurt their short term numbers at the benefit of cementing one of the longer term standards and getting better multi-region control (which they mistakenly believe will also reduce piracy). Don't know if they think that strategically or not - on the surface they never seem to think more than one quarter ahead.

As an aside, for those who would say that "yes, but look at the better bandwidth / resolution / picture quality", I would say "iPod". It's quite clear that the mass market prefers convenience and access over marginal increases in fidelity / resolution.

Regards

Mark

I agree 215% with what Mark has said.

Also consider this, once the first Blu-Ray players and media are released, the movie storage capacity side of the equation is fixed. By this I mean, once Hollywood releases the hi-def Lord of the Rings box set on 3 discs, they can, but will not re-release it on 1 disc, once Blu-Ray goes 200GB. Why? Because this would require that the purchaser of the 1-disc triology have the very latest player that can play the 200GB discs.

Hollywood is stupid, but not that stupid. So it should be clear that even though Blu-Ray has the potential for huge capacity in the future, that will only matter on the PC side of the fence for archival purposes, because the movie playback side will be locked in to the storage size that they first release movies on, probably 25GB.

A quick aside, as an owner of an 861/800 and a modified Sony C-555ES SACD changer, I am sad to see the demise of both SACD and DVD-Audio, yes both, formats. I don't think that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will save hi-rez audio. I have even less hope for hi-rez multi-channel (MC) audio. I think the most realistic thing we should expect, as sad as this is, is to have MC audio encoded in DD or DTS for concert video DVDs. But realistically this is not that much of a loss because even the really good DD/DTS MC presentations pale in comparison to the sound quality of good Redbook recordings on Meridian gear.

I personally do not believe that the "format war" killed either SACD or DVD-Audio. I think MP3s and iPods have laid bare for all to see why hi-rez audio failed. Namely, unlike those of us on this forum and others like it, the general public does not have "listening sessions". They just pop in a CD or MP3 tracks and listen to music in the BACKGROUND, while they are doing other things. No one buys an 800/861 for background listening, unless your money grows on trees.

Besides that, will the Panasonic home-theatre-in-a-box systems out there (of which there are quite a few - just watch the check out lines at Best Buy on a Saturday night) REALLY be able to give you that last bit of air and vibrato on a violin performance? Not likely. Even though I love well recorded music and own Meridian gear now, I used to have crap, name brand equipment as recently as 6 years ago, and I thought my system was rocking back then. Little did I know...

Consider the video side of the fence. The average hi-def display (pick your technology) is probably 720P and about 50-55" diagonal and widescreen. Can those sets, which are probably 1-2 years old on average, resolve that much more resolution from a hi-def disc source? A bit more for sure, but that delta is not nearly as large as that as going from a 10 year old Magnavox TV set to a 720P DLP set. I think that Hollywood in general views things in a similar fashion and is thus taking a somewhat lackadaiscal attitude towards the whole hi-rez disc proceedings.

Lastly, what does "BD" stand for, "B"lu-Ray "D"isc?

Damon

John - I believe what Richard is saying is that BD has not selected the optional and mandatory codecs at this time for audio.

It took several DVD forum meetings for the audio to get sorted out on HD-DVD. Several heated meetings at that.

I think Mark has hit the nail on the head. Joe Blow is undiscriminating about high quality in either audio or video. Following this logic it is hard to see why the general public would be very interested in just one high definition format. Put two different HD formats in front of them and there is a sure recipe for failure.

But arguing against this, press reports suggest HD TV has taken off so maybe there is a bigger potential market out there than I think.

I'm one of these nutters who strive for the best in audio & video and have both DVD-A capabilities through the 861/800 combo and SACD through a highly (and expensively) modded Marantz SA-17 BUT I'm not buying many hi-rez discs. Why? Mainly because they are difficult to find and the library is so restricted. e.g. Amazon have been weeks trying to locate a Faure SACD listed on their site and are sending me part of the order while they continue to try to locate the disc for me.

So will I buy into either high definition video format? Probably not - sorry Health Nut (and I am not convinced that blu-ray is "superior" to HDDVD anyway). I'm really not into purchasing movies and the video I'm interested in (ballet, opera etc) is pretty mediocre quality now, little better than VHS standard and certainly not up to the best that present DVD is capable of. Most of it is anything but sharp projected on to the 96 inch Stewart screen via a Barco 808s projector and most is of inferior quality compared to terrestial digital FTA broadcasts.

I guess the rival camps look at how VHS succeeded over Beta in that earlier video war so are banking on their side winning in similar fashion. They prefer to remember this rather than the earlier debacles in audio.

The whole scene is sad and looks like being a huge waste of resources :-(

John

stacey:

If there's no audio codecs selected, then I'm correct Except that both Dolby (with DD+) and DTS (with DTS-HD) have announced that they are mandatory audio codecs for Blu-ray. So...

Cheers,