[Sir Terrence]

Tommy wrote:

I'd have to disagree. Overal ratings for picture quality put HD as the winner and BR for audio.

This will probably be my last post on this issue as I believe I am much too controversial for this site and this topic. You information is not factually based. This is a compiled list of all the major online reviewers scores of both PQ and AQ

HD DVD PQ SQ TOTAL
HighDef 3.92 3.64 3.78
HTSpot 3.96 3.84 3.90
DVDTalk 3.66 3.49 3.58
HTForum 4.00 3.73 3.86
UpDisc 4.02 3.81 3.91
Totals 3.88 3.68 3.78

Blu-ray PQ SQ TOTAL
HighDef 3.98 3.83 3.91
HTSpot 4.03 4.24 4.13
DVDTalk 3.65 3.69 3.67
HTForum 4.30 4.08 4.19
UpDisc 4.04 4.13 4.09
Totals 3.94 3.95 3.94



As you can see, bluray outscores HD DVD in every catagory

As to for audio, only about a 1/3 of the tracks on BR use PCM, 1/3 use DD, and 1/3 use DTS HD MA.

The last information I checked the total number of bluray disc with PCM tracks, the number was 93. On HD DVD I think there was thirty at most(maybe a little more than that). Just about every new release announced from the bluray exclusive studios(with the exception of Fox) comes with a PCM soundtrack. So based on what you have listed 2/3 of all Bluray releases have a lossless soundtrack in some form, can you say that for HD DVD? No, not based on facts.

There seems to be the speculation that PCM is better since there is nothing that needs to be decompressed at all. But first this wastes double the space and secondly lossless means there was no quality loss.

Since high bitrate AVC video and 24/48khz audio have been already used in great force on bluray, it is apparent that space in a non issue. HD DVD has a problem in this area because space and bandwidth is of a premium, and is limited. The reality is Bluray could go on forever without the use of Dts HD MA and TrueHD because the space limitation and bandwidth are a non issue.

And to show how much pre-conceived notions that PCM was better plays apart in favortism even in reveiws you can see how titles with PCM were automatically marked higher. When it was later pointed out that these PCM titles at 16 bits actuaclly have a lesser quality then the TrueHD tracks at 24 bits you can already see the recent review ratings starting to change. So the quality is less and costs twice the amount of space.

Can you fully explain lesser quality when there really is no audible difference proven between 16bits and 24bits on consumer equipment? Besides TrueHD tracks released on both formats have dialog normalization applied which reduces the bit depth, and secondly consumer equipment can only transport 20 effective bits to the speakers because of thermal noise within the equipment and the digital process itself. So you are going to have to actually prove with links that this favortism actually exists, or this will go down the circular file as more FUD(something we have seen too much of already.)

The quality could only be less if it creates audible degredation within that space. Based on my hearing and the hearing over most reviewers, the audio has increased in quality over lossy Dts and DD. So that space is not wasted at all.

The same would go for the lower rate DD on BR vs the higher rated DD+ on HD. As for the DTS HD MA that is on almost 1/3rd of all titles ::shrugs:: thats anyones guess since there is not a single player released by Blu-ray that can fully decode DTS HD MA only lesser versions of it.

One cannot assume that a higher bit rate will mean increased quality. Some soundtracks do not benefit at all from a higher bit rate, like soundtracks with more dialog than effects and music. DD+ has no benefits at higher bit rates, and that has already been confirmed by Roger Dressler on AVS. DD+ has real benefits as the channels increase, and the bit rate goes down. Example, 7.1 with 3mbps.

Considering that picture and audio may lean of favor one side slightly; both are very similar in most cases. The added features available on the HD DVD definetly put it over the top and are not matched by Blu-ray. Full interactive menu systems IME, U-control, picture and picture, the ability to play combo discs in a regular dvd player, twin discs in either a dvd player or a HD player, internet interactivity that allows me to connect to the web an have even more content all for about 1/3 what I paid for my Pannasonic Blu-ray player.

It has never been proven, ever, that interactive features drive a format. HD DVD has had these features since day one, at that has not sold more players. The facts point to price as a Most blu-ray owners don't even care about IME, U Control, and PIP, and I as an owner of both do not want my players in where near the internet which leaves it exposed to hackers, and potential control to a studio. Combo disc have reliability issues from player to player. However, the PS3 can currently support(with a firmware upgrade) PIP, online interactivity, download trailors, and everything a current HD DVD can do, and much more. I paid half of what you paid for your Panasonic, and got more to boot.

Blu-ray brags about disc space advantages but 70% of all movies released are actually on 25g discs which is less space then HD DVD. Add into that the use of MPEG-2 and PCM which both use more space then more advanced codecs, you wind up with alot of 90 minute movies with less extras then the dvd version.

Where have you been in the last 6 months? Blu-ray has been using VC-1, AVC, and MPEG-2 along with PCM, and recently Dolby TrueHD. As far as extra's go, that is not a blu-ray issue, its a studio issue. BD-50 are now widely available as the company I work for has their own pressing line, and Sony has one. There are a total of 6 large pressing lines for BD-50, so its not storage, its the studio's decision to add, or not to add extra's.

Being as most BR players currently released will not be compatiable and will need to be replaced in order to be fully functional once profile 2.0 comes out, I would definetely not say this is worth $500-$1,000 over the $300 HD DVD players now available.

You are sidestepping some facts. Sony has a $499 player, Panasonic has a $599, Samsung first Gen can be found for about $400 on Ebay, and other manufacturers first gen bluray players for less on Ebay as well. One has to weight whether getting extra content and gimmicks is worth replacing their perfect good current player. Is the movie experience more important to you(which all current players do) or the other stuff more important(which will require a replacement). The A2 cannot do 1080p/24, nor does it have the facilities to access the advance audio codecs without purchasing a HDMI enabled receiver. At least the A1 had the component audio outs to hook into all receivers that had pre ins. Even the cheapest first generation blu-ray player could be hooked into current receivers which allowed every blu-ray owner to enjoy PCM audio right out of the box.

While HD DVD has the price edge, the reliability of the players is all over the map. Both the first generation and second generation players have had stuttering issues, dropouts, and sync'ing issues.

I am no longer going to post on any more controversial issues here at the shack. I just wanted to point out some issues that might add a little more balance to the entire thread. It is easy to ride down the "HD DVD rules" highway. However when facts are presented, HD DVD doesn't rule very much at this point.