[Veltliner]

There's an interesting article in the New York Times.

Blu Ray may have won the HD wars, but, so the article, any optical disc format will be replaced by downloads and storage of movies on hard drives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/te.../05bluray.html

A little exaggerated, I think.

There will be interest to have hard copies of one's favorite movies.

Except, of course, if companies torture their customers too much with copy protection problems.

Another one: we still have no widely accepted format to burn HD video on. How many people have a Blu Ray burner here? I guess it'll be a minority.

The window for an HD disc format is closing quickly, says the article.

[amazing]

I saw that article, and I couldn't help but wonder if that was by the same people who said books were dead?

Exaggerating seems to have become quite fashionable.

[hyteckit]

Well, newspapers are dead.

[Simon]

In the short run BR will stay around. On a longer time scale I agree though. Optical media is bulky and prone to failure. Also, DRM schemes on DVDs and much more so on HD-DVD and BR have made savvy consumers highly skeptical of this type of distribution. The studios have done everything they could to push people away from legitimate use and into piracy. They will reap what they sowed. It's a real pity, because had they learned from what happened in the music industry, they could have avoided most mistakes.

[mduell]

I love all these HD movies I've bought from iTMS!



Oh, wait...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by amazing 

I saw that article, and I couldn't help but wonder if that was by the same people who said books were dead?

Exaggerating seems to have become quite fashionable.

Except newspapers have been killed by electronic business.

CDs are dead, as well.

[eggman]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.. I'm thinking of upgrading my A/V system, and do I get a Blu-Ray player, an AppleTV, or one of those Roku NetFlix streaming boxes? I know it's not necessarily an either/or, but my budget is limited... and there's also value in not making the A/V system so complex that I'm the only one in the house who can work it.

I think one of the attractions of Blu-Ray discs would be the image and audio quality... and the supplemental material. And the quality issue isn't insignificant. For example, the bitrate of a blu-ray disc is 10x that of an AppleTV HD download. Check it out... The chart I linked to also shows that Dish/DirectTV HD are only a 1/4 if the bitrate of Blu-ray. That reduced bit-rate represents noticeable signal degradation. If you want to own/collect some of your favorite movies, and want high quality, blu-ray would seem to be the ticket hands down.

I guess the real question is whether the market at large can tell the difference. If quality was always the determining factor, SACDs would have dominated music, and MP3s would never have caught on.

[Ted L. Nancy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

CDs are dead, as well.

I went the iTunes Store route. Now I'm back to CDs. Why? I can make a digital copy of them, I get a backup copy, and if I later want to sell/trade an album, I have something I can sell.

Also, everything on iTunes is "new," and the prices reflect this. I can get a whole album used for a couple of bucks, which only gets me two songs on iTunes.

Furthermore, the main advantage to iTunes in being able to download individual songs as opposed to an entire album is too often contradicted by a poopy sales and marketing ploy that requires you to buy an entire album in order to get the songs you want.

I'm also sticking with DVDs for many of the above reasons. The quality is far above satisfactory, they are easily ripped into digital format (I prefer video_ts), and storage these days is affordable and large enough to store many DVDs (but not BRs). Also with DVDs, you get the special features, something iTunes and digital formats don't offer. (For many movies, I couldn't care less, but there are quite a few that I really care about the extras and bonus material.)

That's just my approach, but you could be right that digital and BR are in and that CDs and DVDs are going the way of the 8-track.

[Luca Rescigno]

There are too many problems with downloading and online rentals for them to replace BR in the next five years.

1. Most people don't have enough bandwidth to stream HD video. DVD-quality, maybe.
2. Cost is the same or higher than BR rentals. Somewhat offset by the convenience factor, but only if you have a fast enough connection. Otherwise the time it takes to download a BR movie is probably greater than the time it takes to drive to Blockbuster and rent one.
3. Setup cost. A BR player is a couple hundred bucks; in two years, they'll be under $100 easily and everyone will have them. Devices to buy, download, and play online videos are expensive and require more effort. They're unconventional as compared to BR players (which people "get" - just plug it in and go, just like a DVD player or a VCR).
4. Portability. Once everyone has a BR player, it'll be just like DVDs. If you want to watch a movie that you own at a friend's house, just bring the disc and put it in their player. How are you supposed to watch a downloaded movie that you "own" unless you watch it at your own place? The answer is you can't, unless the DRM allows you to burn that movie to a DVD or BR disc, which most DRM schemes don't. You just have to buy it again at your friend's place, and that's just assuming he has an online video setup as well.

I will change my mind if and when a company comes out with one of the following:

- Netflix-type streaming of movies, but with HD quality and a better selection (Netflix's selection is a study on some of the worst movies ever released)
- iTunes-type online purchasing from several different places that all use the same format and allow you to either A) access your movies from anywhere using a login and password, or B) burn the movies to DVDs or BRDs for playback in another device, effectively solving the portability problem. Disassembling your AV setup and carrying your AppleTV to your friend's house is not a viable option. It's a retarded option.

Apple is very good at coming up with extremely convenient solutions to fulfill people's desire for instant gratification, but at least on the video side of things, they have completely ignored the social aspect. Watching movies is about way more than just downloading them and watching them on a computer screen. I don't watch that many movies, and when I do, it's almost always with a group of people. It could be at my apartment or someone else's place. Apple's "solution" is the worst of both worlds - Netflix streaming is much better for people who frequently watch movies at home by themselves, while B&M rentals and sales are much better for people who hang out in large groups to watch movies. Apple's movie store is as limiting as the former and as expensive as the latter.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

I went the iTunes Store route. Now I'm back to CDs. Why? I can make a digital copy of them, I get a backup copy, and if I later want to sell/trade an album, I have something I can sell.

Also, everything on iTunes is "new," and the prices reflect this. I can get a whole album used for a couple of bucks, which only gets me two songs on iTunes.

Furthermore, the main advantage to iTunes in being able to download individual songs as opposed to an entire album is too often contradicted by a poopy sales and marketing ploy that requires you to buy an entire album in order to get the songs you want.

I'm also sticking with DVDs for many of the above reasons. The quality is far above satisfactory, they are easily ripped into digital format (I prefer video_ts), and storage these days is affordable and large enough to store many DVDs (but not BRs). Also with DVDs, you get the special features, something iTunes and digital formats don't offer. (For many movies, I couldn't care less, but there are quite a few that I really care about the extras and bonus material.)

That's just my approach, but you could be right that digital and BR are in and that CDs and DVDs are going the way of the 8-track.

I just experienced something similar.

I was browsing for an iPod when I came across those many 1-star reviews of the iPod classic. I was really astonished.

Reason was, that the classic had the analogue converter chip changed from a Wolfson to a Cirrus Logic analogue converter.

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/17/new-i...dio-circuitry/

It's an old hat, but for me it was new, and, dedicated to good sound, I was shocked. That re-instated CD's as a cheap and reliable highest quality source of audio for me.

I will even delay the iPod purchase because of this - until Apple fixes it.

[tooki]

Um, how does it being a CD have anything to do with the DAC in an iPod? How the audio data is delivered is completely independent of the quality of the DAC.

And how do you know a CD player will have a good DAC in it? Are you even using the DAC in the CD player, or are you using a digital link to your receiver, in which case it's the receiver's DACs that matter?

[Veltliner]

Usually, bigger home units are pretty good at that.

Regarding portable CD players, I don't know.

My dying car CD is definitely crap. It's an Alpine. What I didn't know is that Alpine caters to the drum machine heavy music and converts the data on CDs brutally.

What shocked me regarding the iPod was that something better was replaced with something worse. That happens sometimes at the end of life of a product line. But the touch has the same chip in it.

PS: have you noticed the large amount of negative reviews of the iPod on Amazon.com. I was really surprised. I thought the iPod was a close to perfect product... Many people express that they feel cheated. What's your take on this?

[Veltliner]

PS, tooki, you are an audiophile...

Did you notice any difference between the classic 5g and the 6g?

Maybe an audiophile edition for the iPod Touch?

[tooki]

Not having owned either one of those iPod models, I really couldn't say.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

PS, tooki, you are an audiophile...

Did you notice any difference between the classic 5g and the 6g?

Maybe an audiophile edition for the iPod Touch?

The classic is the 6G (80/160GB) / 6.5 (or 7) G (120GB).

The 5G (iPod with video) had a different converter and definitely sounded better (I had one, and now own a classic).

The touch, AFAIK, still has the same D/A circuitry as the 5G iPod.

None of them come close to the original iPod shuffle (the pregnancy test model).

But if you think that either is "audiophile", as opposed to "fairly decent", then I have this truckful of Bose equipment to sell you...

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The classic is the 6G (80/160GB) / 6.5 (or 7) G (120GB).

The 5G (iPod with video) had a different converter and definitely sounded better (I had one, and now own a classic).

The touch, AFAIK, still has the same D/A circuitry as the 5G iPod.

None of them come close to the original iPod shuffle (the pregnancy test model).

But if you think that either is "audiophile", as opposed to "fairly decent", then I have this truckful of Bose equipment to sell you...

Yes, the Touch has the same converter chip (no way out at the present).

You said the 5G sounded better (but you have a 6G now). Any remorse for getting rid of the 5G?

It's a bit shocking that, with better technology available, the sound quality declines.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Yes, the Touch has the same converter chip (no way out at the present).

No, AFAIK the touch has the BETTER converter that the 5G iPods had.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

You said the 5G sounded better (but you have a 6G now). Any remorse for getting rid of the 5G?

Of course - mostly because the bastard who has it now didn't even bother asking me for it beforehand.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

It's a bit shocking that, with better technology available, the sound quality declines.

Considering that the 6G still sounds much better than the 1G did, at a considerably lower price point, and anybody setting out for an "audiophile" player for being out and about really just needs to be put out of his misery (as do people who think that car audio can ever have anything to do with high signal fidelity), I don't think it's a big deal.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

No, AFAIK the touch has the BETTER converter that the 5G iPods had.

I wished this was the case.

But according to the technical table here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod

they have the same.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Of course - mostly because the bastard who has it now didn't even bother asking me for it beforehand.

May an exploding battery melt the ears off his skull.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Considering that the 6G still sounds much better than the 1G did, at a considerably lower price point, and anybody setting out for an "audiophile" player for being out and about really just needs to be put out of his misery (as do people who think that car audio can ever have anything to do with high signal fidelity), I don't think it's a big deal.

I haven't truly tested the sound of the 6G yet. As long as it's not too bad...

Most portable CD players won't be that good, either. Especially now, when this technology has been almost phased out.

Will check out the Apple store on how I could play some of my own music on on of their ipods.

By the way: what earphones do you use? That's not unimportant. Those plugs the iPod comes with, are they any good?