Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

TETENAL · Jul 29, 2007, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

See the chart to the right? Bluray has %60 of all disc sales, HD-DVD has %40. Overall, Bluray is leading about 1.2:1-1.3:1.

60% to 40% is 1.5:1 for me.

Eug · 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by starman

*sigh*

Next week, I think the numbers are 12 HD-DVD movies, 9 are exclusive vs. 4 Blu-Ray with 1 exclusive.

I'm not talking out of my ass Eug, I'm presenting actual numbers with no bias.

A few numbers ≠ Foregone conclusion for the entire year

You conclude we'll have an outright winner by the end of 2007, which (since you've put it in those terms...) IMO qualifies as talking outta yer ass.

I predict we may see an outright winner in 2009 (or even possibly 2008), but definitely not in 2007. We'll see...

starman · Jul 29, 2007, 10:46 AM

When did I put it in those terms? I'm just talking about the next report.

goMac · Jul 29, 2007, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

60% to 40% is 1.5:1 for me.

Yeah, I'm not great at math that late at night. Still, you get the idea.

icruise · Jul 29, 2007, 12:37 PM

Beyond that, you also have to remember that the "since inception" numbers include a fairly long stretch before the PS3 came out. So I wouldn't rely too heavily on those. The "year to date" numbers seem to be the most reliable indicators of how things are going. Weekly sales will of course fluctuate depending on what's coming out, although I certainly don't recall HD-DVD ever being so clearly in the majority as Blu-ray is this week.

jokell82 · Jul 29, 2007, 01:05 PM

I still think those numbers are complete BS. How could their top selling disc be #65 on the Amazon charts? Makes no sense whatsoever.

(Not to say I think HD is selling MORE this week, but i think the numbers are suspect)

Eug · Jul 29, 2007, 03:49 PM

Yeah, there's some disconnect, but if I had to choose, I'd choose Nielson numbers over Amazon numbers.

cSurfr · Jul 29, 2007, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by jokell82

I still think those numbers are complete BS. How could their top selling disc be #65 on the Amazon charts? Makes no sense whatsoever.

(Not to say I think HD is selling MORE this week, but i think the numbers are suspect)

Not everyone that buys blu-ray believes in Amazon. . . I bought 7 movies this weekend, all from different places. . . not one online.

And the same thing goes for when I used to buy HD DVD. . . I thought I should add this before I get flamed.

jokell82 · Jul 29, 2007, 05:15 PM

You would think it'd at least correlate SOMEWHAT. The same kinds of people are buying these movies - early adopters. It's not like there's a special group that only buys from Amazon.

At least DVD Empire has it in their top 10 - it's number 5. But they also have about a 50/50 ratio for movies this past week, too.

Really all it does is show that no one's numbers are perfect, and judging anything from them definitively is probably not the best thing to do right now. Maybe if Nielsen added Walmart I'd be a little less skeptical. But to not include the single largest DVD distributor makes your numbers suspect from the start.

aristotles · Jul 29, 2007, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by jokell82

I still think those numbers are complete BS. How could their top selling disc be #65 on the Amazon charts? Makes no sense whatsoever.

(Not to say I think HD is selling MORE this week, but i think the numbers are suspect)

Because contrary to popular belief among people on the internet, most people still buy their titles from brick and mortar stores like HMV, Virgin etc...

To echo what cSurfr said, I have bought all my 22 bluray titles from brick and mortar stores like HMV, A&B Sound and Futureshop.

aristotles · 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by jokell82

You would think it'd at least correlate SOMEWHAT. The same kinds of people are buying these movies - early adopters. It's not like there's a special group that only buys from Amazon.

I don't see the logic in your statement. Although I buy electronic distributed songs (iTMS) and software through the internet and my MBP from apple.ca, I buy all of my other hardware and titles from brick and mortar stores in the city I live in.

You assume that all early adopters are necessarily going to buy everything online. People that buy movies online from Amazon are a small niché of the market niché that buy any product from Amazon.

icruise · Jul 29, 2007, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by jokell82

Really all it does is show that no one's numbers are perfect, and judging anything from them definitively is probably not the best thing to do right now. Maybe if Nielsen added Walmart I'd be a little less skeptical. But to not include the single largest DVD distributor makes your numbers suspect from the start.

While I agree that you shouldn't put too much stock in any one source (particularly Amazon), it sounds a lot like you don't believe the numbers because they don't match what you "know" to be true. My question to you is, if you don't trust things like Nielsen, where do you get your information? How do you know that HD-DVD is holding its own or even "bouncing back" as you have said?

Originally Posted by aristotles

To echo what cSurfr said, I have bought all my 22 bluray titles from brick and mortar stores like HMV, A&B Sound and Futureshop.

Not to change the subject, but why don't you buy online? It's a much better deal in most cases.

aristotles · Jul 29, 2007, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by icruise

Not to change the subject, but why don't you buy online? It's a much better deal in most cases.

I like to read the back of the packaging and the convenience of being able to take it home right away. I also do not like having to ship everything to my work as the couriers deliver when I'm at work and I live alone.

I also sometimes like to ask the opinion of people working at the store about whether a movie is worth getting. Getting another opinion can help me decide which movie to get if I'm considering buying only one title and two different titles catch my eye.

Finally, I like to support retailers in my community whenever possible and believe internet sales can be harmful for the economy where I live.

goMac · Jul 29, 2007, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by icruise

Beyond that, you also have to remember that the "since inception" numbers include a fairly long stretch before the PS3 came out. So I wouldn't rely too heavily on those. The "year to date" numbers seem to be the most reliable indicators of how things are going. Weekly sales will of course fluctuate depending on what's coming out, although I certainly don't recall HD-DVD ever being so clearly in the majority as Blu-ray is this week.

On the other hand, one shouldn't try to claim that numbers for one cherry picked week represent the general trend, especially when general trend numbers are given.

We've been in the exact opposite situation before, where HD-DVD's weekly numbers are higher than the general trend, and we got mumbling for the Bluray supports on how it meant nothing. Now that this week the camp's places have switched, the Bluray camp is going on about how meaningful it is that Bluray's weekly numbers are higher than the yearly numbers. Kinda hypocritical, isn't it?

Eug · Jul 29, 2007, 06:44 PM

I like to read the back of the packaging and the convenience of being able to take it home right away. I also do not like having to ship everything to my work as the couriers deliver when I'm at work and I live alone.

I also sometimes like to ask the opinion of people working at the store about whether a movie is worth getting. Getting another opinion can help me decide which movie to get if I'm considering buying only one title and two different titles catch my eye.

Finally, I like to support retailers in my community whenever possible and believe internet sales can be harmful for the economy where I live.

Oh, you're in Canada. Canada is often even worse for prices: HMV often has crazy high prices. Future Shop isn't as bad, but it's not great either. Dunno about A&B, since they're only in Western Canada.

I will not support local retailers that try to rip me off. Hence I order from Amazon.com.

For example, The Thing HD DVD:

HMV (Toronto): CAD$46 (US$43) + tax.
Amazon.com: US$19.99, + shipping, but usually no tax.

WTF?

I can understand it though if you don't like shipping to work. It's actually more convenient for me, since I just get it delivered to the receptionist and it doesn't matter if I'm physically in the office that very moment.

The other thing is half the time the local store doesn't even have the specific disc I want right away, so I actually get it faster by ordering it from Amazon.com.

jokell82 · Jul 29, 2007, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by aristotles

I don't see the logic in your statement. Although I buy electronic distributed songs (iTMS) and software through the internet and my MBP from apple.ca, I buy all of my other hardware and titles from brick and mortar stores in the city I live in.

You assume that all early adopters are necessarily going to buy everything online. People that buy movies online from Amazon are a small niché of the market niché that buy any product from Amazon.

Not that they'll all buy online, but that they're all the same demographic and that such a large discrepancy shouldn't be seen by a very small sample. If Premonition were #1 at B&M stores, it stands to reason that it's because it's a very popular movie and should be at least somewhat popular at other stores as well.

On top of that, it was one of the WORST reviewed movies of the year. I highly doubt people are buying it by the droves.

Originally Posted by icruise

While I agree that you shouldn't put too much stock in any one source (particularly Amazon), it sounds a lot like you don't believe the numbers because they don't match what you "know" to be true. My question to you is, if you don't trust things like Nielsen, where do you get your information? How do you know that HD-DVD is holding its own or even "bouncing back" as you have said?

It's not what I "know" to be true, it's that the numbers shouldn't be *drastically* different. Every other week the numbers have been at least similar to amazon, but all of a sudden the best selling BD disc is simply not bought online? Doesn't add up.

As to where I get my information, it's from interpreting these numbers. No studios are releasing hard numbers, so all we can really do is guess based off of incomplete data. No one has any data on how the largest DVD distributor is selling. That's a huge slice of pie that is missing. On top of that, no online sales are tracked - so you have to check out the sales of those sources as well.

Edit - For example, let's say next week Amazon lists 300 as outselling the BluRay version 10:1, but Nielsen shows that the BD outsold the HD by 3:2. Wouldn't you think the Amazon sales were a bit fishy?

analogue SPRINKLES · Jul 29, 2007, 08:04 PM

So 300 comes out on Tues for all formats.

DVD and BR are $29 CAN.
HD is $32 (you get to pay $3 for the DVD hybrid if you want it or not).

jokell82 · Jul 29, 2007, 08:11 PM

You also get some very innovative special features not available on any other format.

icruise · Jul 29, 2007, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

On the other hand, one shouldn't try to claim that numbers for one cherry picked week represent the general trend, especially when general trend numbers are given.

We've been in the exact opposite situation before, where HD-DVD's weekly numbers are higher than the general trend, and we got mumbling for the Bluray supports on how it meant nothing. Now that this week the camp's places have switched, the Bluray camp is going on about how meaningful it is that Bluray's weekly numbers are higher than the yearly numbers. Kinda hypocritical, isn't it?

Well, if it were 1 week in isolation, or if the sales went back and forth all the time, you might have a point, but this trend has been continuing for quite some time. Has HD-DVD ever been in a position of having such a huge majority of sales since the PS3 came out?

starman · Jul 29, 2007, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by jokell82

You also get some very innovative special features not available on any other format.

However you lose on audio with the HD-DVD version.

pyrite · Jul 29, 2007, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by starman

However you lose on audio with the HD-DVD version.

Is this loss actually audible tho? I'd imagine it would be something like the difference between a 320Kb AAC and CD quality, which is bugger all...

From Wiki's HD-DVD article:
"All HD DVD players are required to decode linear (uncompressed) PCM, Dolby Digital AC-3, Dolby Digital EX, DTS, Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD.[11] A secondary soundtrack, if present, can be stored in any of the aforementioned formats, or in one of the HD DVD optional codecs: DTS-HD High Resolution Audio and DTS-HD Master Audio.

For the highest-fidelity audio experience, HD DVD offers content-producers the choice of linear PCM, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio. Due to the high-bandwidth requirements of linear-PCM, lossless audio on HD DVD movies has thus far been delivered in the lossless format Dolby True-HD."

I'm confused... HD-DVD offers multiple lossless options?? If so, why aren't they utilized? And if they ARE utilized, why are you talking about inferior audio on HD-DVD (if BD/HD are BOTH lossless)?

starman · Jul 29, 2007, 10:20 PM

The HD-DVD version of 300 will have Dolby Digitial Plus which is lossy, the Blu-Ray version will have uncompressed PCM.

Montezuma58 · Jul 29, 2007, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by starman

The HD-DVD version of 300 will have Dolby Digitial Plus which is lossy, the Blu-Ray version will have uncompressed PCM.

Wrong.

HD DVD Review: 300 | High-Def Digest

Unlike the video, I have absolutely no reservations about the audio on this disc. '300' is a real high-resolution scorcher. This is the kind of film that has such barn-stormin' sound design that any caveats I might have are washed away by the sheer bombastic thrill of it all.

Warner has supplied both the HD DVD and the Blu-ray with matching Dolby TrueHD 5.1 surround tracks (48kHz/16-bit), while the Blu-ray is also graced with an additional PCM 5.1 surround option (48kHz/16-bit/6.9mbps). Right upfront, the PCM sounded a bit louder, but after some level matching, a direct A/B comparison of several scenes revealed only slight differences. Although I'm sure this disc will stir up the whole TrueHD vs PCM debate, either way you slice it, the action scenes in '300' deliver the kind of demo-worthy audio that should be pure nirvana for any home theater enthusiast.

Obi Wan's Ghost · Jul 30, 2007, 05:35 AM

Starman is not half wrong. Once you fill up a HD-DVD with a full length movie and extras in 1080p, depending on the length of the video streams there can be little space left over for lossless or uncompressed audio streams. Blu-ray's extra storage space, which is up to 200GB in labs, means plenty of space for large high quality files.

As you have seen from all sales charts, Blu-ray's lead keeps increasing. When Apple officially starts to offer Blu-ray as a BTO, Jobs will be on stage saying that Apple knew from the start they were behind the better format and will bring up sales charts to prove HD-DVD's time is over. The Nintendope fans on here might not like it because it means PS3 sales will increase. That's the only reason for the Blu-ray hate here. Just remember: HD-DVD = Microsoft.

- - e r i k - - · Jul 30, 2007, 05:43 AM

Blu-Ray = Sony. What's your point?

Obi Wan's Ghost · Jul 30, 2007, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Blu-Ray = Sony. What's your point?

Blu-ray = Apple
Blu-ray = More storage space
Blu-ray = A lot more storage space in the labs
Blu-ray = More high quality material and more space for back ups
Blu-ray = Better format

The ONLY reason for Blu-ray hate on this board has been from Nintendopes who can't stand the PS3 becoming successful. There's no other reason. It's so illogical and fanatical that they put their support behind a poorer disc format that Microsoft supports. I'm willing to bet MS would back Blu-ray and that the only reason they didn't was because Sony and Apple were behind it. Purely political reasons and nothing to do with technology.

- - e r i k - - · Jul 30, 2007, 05:56 AM

I'm format agnostic. I hate each format equally.

Obi Wan's Ghost · Jul 30, 2007, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

I'm format agnostic. I hate each format equally.

Can't say the same for me. I want to the fastest read/write speeds and the most storage space. That's for back ups. For watching movies, and if anyone is serious about preventing piracy, the film studios should invest in digital delivery, network infrastructure and very high quality interactive video and audio streaming direct to computers and HD. Logically 'On Demand' should be better by now. YouTube and Apple TV don't cut it. Cable and satellite isn't interactive enough. Until it comes together Blu-ray is the best medium.

jokell82 · Jul 30, 2007, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Blu-ray = Apple
Blu-ray = More storage space
Blu-ray = A lot more storage space in the labs
Blu-ray = More high quality material and more space for back ups
Blu-ray = Better format

The ONLY reason for Blu-ray hate on this board has been from Nintendopes who can't stand the PS3 becoming successful. There's no other reason. It's so illogical and fanatical that they put their support behind a poorer disc format that Microsoft supports. I'm willing to bet MS would back Blu-ray and that the only reason they didn't was because Sony and Apple were behind it. Purely political reasons and nothing to do with technology.

Blu-Ray != Apple, as has been discussed MANY times.
Blu-Ray = DRM
Blu-Ray = Incomplete Hardware
Blu-Ray = Unfinished Specs
Blu-Ray = Region coding

I couldn't give a crap if the PS3 becomes successful or not. Does that make me a Nintendope?

About the 300 audio - if the HD-DVD gets 16bit/48khz and the BD gets 16bit/48khz, what's the big deal? Both are lossy (if you think any decent audio engineer is recording in 16 bit these days you're an idiot). They're both going to sound awesome, and from reviews so far there haven't been any complaints about the audio on either disc.

As for the extra space for BD, here's some nice stats for ya:

62% of Blu-ray are on 25 GB discs.
82% of HD DVD are on 30 GB discs.

53% of Blu-ray utilize MPEG2 video.
96% of HD DVDs utilize VC-1 or AVC.

So what exactly is that extra space giving you?

Obi Wan's Ghost · Jul 30, 2007, 06:38 AM

I liked this response

Originally Posted by jokell82

1 Blu-Ray = DRM
2 Blu-Ray = Incomplete Hardware
3 Blu-Ray = Unfinished Specs
4 Blu-Ray = Region coding

1. So? What are you a pirate or something?
2. Good. HD-DVD is complete and already looks old.
3. Good for the same reason.
4. So? What are you a pirate or something?

As for the extra space for BD, here's some nice stats for ya:

62% of Blu-ray are on 25 GB discs.
82% of HD DVD are on 30 GB discs.

Therefore 38% of Blu-rays are 50GB discs and the space is going to keep climbing. HD-DVD is a finished spec and doesn't ship 50GB discs.

53% of Blu-ray utilize MPEG2 video.
96% of HD DVDs utilize VC-1 or AVC.

That's a human factor. Someone has decided to use those codecs and not take full advantage of a format. 100% of Blu-ray can be better than HD-DVD. HD-DVD can never be as good as Blu-ray's maximum potential.

So what exactly is that extra space giving you?

Anything I want to do with it, like backing up for instance. HD-DVD isn't offering the advantage. It is disadvantaged and the market is voting in favor of Blu-ray. Game over, HD-DVD, game over.

Let me know when you decide to take half the RAM and storage space out of your computer if you're a fan of less capacity.

Montezuma58 · Jul 30, 2007, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Starman is not half wrong. Once you fill up a HD-DVD with a full length movie and extras in 1080p, depending on the length of the video streams there can be little space left over for lossless or uncompressed audio streams. Blu-ray's extra storage space, which is up to 200GB in labs, means plenty of space for large high quality files.

He was all wrong. He was claiming the audio on a particular title (300) was inferior on the HD DVD version. When in fact the only difference in the two versions of the title was the Blu-Ray version had an uncompressed PCM track while the other has a TrueHD audio track. Technically there is a difference. But practically there is only gnat's fart worth of difference in the resulting audio. He's free to bash HD if he wants to. Anyone's free to bash one format or the other. But if someone is going to they should just stick to stats and specs which are open to interpretation rather than making factually wrong statements.

It does seem silly to me that the Blu-Ray version has both a PCM track and a TrueHD track. What a waste of all of the valuable extra space availabe on the Blu-Ray disc.

As you have seen from all sales charts, Blu-ray's lead keeps increasing. When Apple officially starts to offer Blu-ray as a BTO, Jobs will be on stage saying that Apple knew from the start they were behind the better format and will bring up sales charts to prove HD-DVD's time is over. The Nintendope fans on here might not like it because it means PS3 sales will increase. That's the only reason for the Blu-ray hate here. Just remember: HD-DVD = Microsoft.

I don't believe the death of HD-DVD is immanent. The only stat that mattered to me was the $200 price tag for the HD-A2. At that point I ordered one and will be enjoying HD movies latter this week. I'm not adverse to getting Blu-Ray but they need better priced (and complete) stand alone players before I jump in.

Obi Wan's Ghost · Jul 30, 2007, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Montezuma58

I'm not adverse to getting Blu-Ray but they need better priced (and complete) stand alone players before I jump in.

That's what they said about DVD when it was up against DiVX. The PS2 changed that and now the PS3 is repeating history. As soon as the PS3 comes down in price and Blu-ray ships in more computers, it is the end of HD-DVD. By then Blu-ray could very possibly have 100GB-200GB discs popping up.

jokell82 · Jul 30, 2007, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

1. So? What are you a pirate or something?
2. Good. HD-DVD is complete and already looks old.
3. Good for the same reason.
4. So? What are you a pirate or something?

1. No, I just don't want Sony to be able to disable my player if they have a problem with it. More control in my hands and less control in the studio's is better.
2. Incomplete hardware is good? And if you think HD-DVD looks old you're more of a fanboy than anyone else here.
3. Yeah, it's good that they'll update the specs and leave older players unable to play new discs. I'm all for that!
4. No, but why shouldn't I be able to play the movie I purchased in London on my US player? How does that make ANY sense at all? Please, I'd like to know a *logical* argument for why region codes are a good thing.

jokell82 · Jul 30, 2007, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

That's what they said about DVD when it was up against DiVX. The PS2 changed that and now the PS3 is repeating history. As soon as the PS3 comes down in price and Blu-ray ships in more computers, it is the end of HD-DVD. By then Blu-ray could very possibly have 100GB-200GB discs popping up.

The PS2 did not kill DiVX - the entire retarded concept of DiVX killed DiVX. The format was dead before the PS2 was even released.

And I love how you're hoping for new discs to come out that wont play on current hardware. Yay for obsolete machines!!!

starman · Jul 30, 2007, 09:02 AM

I read that the HD-DVD version of 300 had DD+ only. I wasn't "bashing the format". Jeez, you people....

EDIT: here's the thread where I misread it:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=881829

They were talking about how the 360 addon downgrades the audio. I must have read it too fast.

starman · Jul 30, 2007, 11:07 AM

Blades of Glory will have DD+ on HD-DVD and uncompressed audio on BR

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=259981

goMac · Jul 30, 2007, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Blu-ray = Apple

No, Apple is not exclusive to Bluray. I've actually heard someone from Apple say around the beginning of the year that they just wished Bluray would die so Apple could support HD-DVD exclusively.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

starman · Jul 30, 2007, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

No, Apple is not exclusive to Bluray. I've actually heard someone from Apple say around the beginning of the year that they just wished Bluray would die so Apple could support HD-DVD exclusively.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Nothing to really back that up with either.

goMac · Jul 30, 2007, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Blades of Glory will have DD+ on HD-DVD and uncompressed audio on BR

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=259981

I understand that DD+ is lossy, but what kind of bitrate are we talking about here? HD-DVD allows for a pretty high bitrate for DD+ audio,

goMac · Jul 30, 2007, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Nothing to really back that up with either.

I don't carry a voice recorder around with me, especially not when I visit Apple campus or Apple employees, so no.

jokell82 · Jul 30, 2007, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Blades of Glory will have DD+ on HD-DVD and uncompressed audio on BR

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=259981

That just sucks. Not that I give a crap about the movie. I guess Paramount's been doing it to BD for long enough it's time for HD-DVD to get the short end of the stick for once.

Originally Posted by goMac

No, Apple is not exclusive to Bluray. I've actually heard someone from Apple say around the beginning of the year that they just wished Bluray would die so Apple could support HD-DVD exclusively.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

I hope that's true - but come on, hardly something concrete to go on.

goMac · Jul 30, 2007, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by jokell82

That just sucks. Not that I give a crap about the movie. I guess Paramount's been doing it to BD for long enough it's time for HD-DVD to get the short end of the stick for once.

It's a disc size issue. But my question is how much of a difference is there in the audible quality. I think a large majority of consumers probably do not need uncompressed audio. Heck, most consumers were just fine with DVD quality audio.

Originally Posted by jokell82

I hope that's true - but come on, hardly something concrete to go on.

It was something I heard from an engineer at the beginning of the year, when things were a bit different for HD-DVD. Obviously opinion is different from company policy, but the engineers do get a bit of say in things. And again, the lack of Bluray in any Mac is telling. Some certain people on the board seem to think Apple would be against HD-DVD because it's a "Microsoft" technology, but Apple doesn't have issues with Microsoft in areas where Microsoft has done good work (namely the XBox 360).

starman · Jul 30, 2007, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

I understand that DD+ is lossy, but what kind of bitrate are we talking about here? HD-DVD allows for a pretty high bitrate for DD+ audio,

That's not the point. In this day and age I don't think it's right to accept anything less than uncompressed audio. People have wanted it for YEARS.

starman · Jul 30, 2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't carry a voice recorder around with me, especially not when I visit Apple campus or Apple employees, so no.

See, that's funny because one of my best friends works for Apple and he can't make a decision one way or the other.

So....

goMac · Jul 30, 2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by starman

That's not the point. In this day and age I don't think it's right to accept anything less than uncompressed audio. People have wanted it for YEARS.

Which people? A few people on the AVS forums does not count as people in general.

goMac · Jul 30, 2007, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by starman

See, that's funny because one of my best friends works for Apple and he can't make a decision one way or the other.

So....

So obviously you know somebody else at Apple, congratulations. But my point was Apple is not a huge Bluray supporter like the Bluray crowd likes to say, and both our sources seem to confirm that.

icruise · Jul 30, 2007, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Apple doesn't have issues with Microsoft in areas where Microsoft has done good work (namely the XBox 360).

What does Apple have to do with the Xbox 360?

starman · Jul 30, 2007, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

It's a disc size issue. But my question is how much of a difference is there in the audible quality. I think a large majority of consumers probably do not need uncompressed audio. Heck, most consumers were just fine with DVD quality audio.

It was something I heard from an engineer at the beginning of the year, when things were a bit different for HD-DVD. Obviously opinion is different from company policy, but the engineers do get a bit of say in things. And again, the lack of Bluray in any Mac is telling. Some certain people on the board seem to think Apple would be against HD-DVD because it's a "Microsoft" technology, but Apple doesn't have issues with Microsoft in areas where Microsoft has done good work (namely the XBox 360).

When Dolby Digital was first released on laserdisc around 1994, it was a mixed blessing. We finally had 6-channel audio, but it was lossy. 12 years later we have the capacity for uncompressed audio and you think that it's "enough"? No, it's not. People bickered for YEARS about DD vs. DTS, and the fact is that neither were transparent to the original. How much can Joe 6-Pack tell? Probably none. But HD isn't for J6P. You can sit there and spin it any way you want, but HD-DVD LOSES in that respect.

That said, BR has had its problems with audio in the past with Warner. No longer.

As for the comment you heard, I don't see why Apple would want one format or the other to go away just yet. Money is to be made by supporting both.

And for you math freaks, 1994 + 12 = 2006 which was last year.

goMac · Jul 30, 2007, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by icruise

What does Apple have to do with the Xbox 360?

They don't. I was saying that Apple isn't anti-360 and Pro-PS3 in some weird way just because Microsoft made the 360.

starman · Jul 30, 2007, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

So obviously you know somebody else at Apple, congratulations. But my point was Apple is not a huge Bluray supporter like the Bluray crowd likes to say, and both our sources seem to confirm that.

Not really, no. YOUR source doesn't like it. My source would like to buy one or the other but can't make a decision. That's not a confirmation of anything except that this goddamn format war is stupid.