There has been quite
a bit of turmoil in the HD DVD market over the past month. With movie
their alliances from HD DVD to Blu-ray, Toshiba took the drastic step of slashing
the MSRPs on its HD DVD players.
Microsoft is following suit and today cut the price of its
Toshiba-manufactured Xbox 360 HD DVD player to $129.99. According to
Microsoft's Major Nelson, the
price cut is effective immediately in the United States, Canada, Australia
and New Zealand.
The player originally retailed for $199 when it launched in
late 2006 and received a price
reduction to $179 in July of 2007.
While $129.99 is the new official price, some retailers are
offering the Xbox 360 HD DVD player for even lower prices. Best Buy is offering
the player for a low
$119.99 on its online site.
For night owls that were browsing the Internet early this
morning, Amazon had the peripheral on sale for $79.99 with free shipping for a
short period of time according
Microsoft's Xbox 360 HD DVD player ships with an Xbox 360
universal remote and a copy of King Kong on HD DVD. Users can also hook the
player up to a Windows-based machine with the proper drivers.
In addition to the new $129.99 price tag, customers are
still eligible to receive five free movies via mail-in
rebate [PDF] courtesy of Toshiba. The selection of movies won't set any
hearts racing, but free is free.
quote: The problem with an internal drive is that Xboxes die like black people in Baltimore(at least on The Wire). At least with the external drive you can continue to use it while waiting for Microsoft to ship your next box.
quote: Either way, xbox or PS3, hd is in almost all cases better on a standalone player.
quote: My standalone player is better than either xbox or PS3.
quote: but not better than the PS3
quote: what do you base that on? it's pretty much an accepted fact, like i said at the start of this thread, that stand alone players are significantly better then their console counterparts.
quote: Although i haven't tested many recent blu-ray players i'm sure that many of the new and upcoming ones far outperform it.
quote: I didn't realize it was accepted fact that standalone players are better than consoles. Show me where this is accepted fact.
quote: I cannot speak from personal experience with the Xbox360, but it is probably similar to the PS3 in that it can decode directly to 1080p whereas virtually every SA player decodes to 1080i and then deinterlaces back to 1080p because the ASICs for decoding to 1080p are basically non-existent.
quote: The only thing the new Pioneer and Panasonic players have on the PS3 is the ability to decode DTS-HD Master Audio
quote: It makes no difference where the decoding of a compressed audio track is taking place, especially when its lossless, which most blu-ray discs are. As long as the receiver is capable of taking LPCM over HDMI, you're fine.
quote: Jitter can affect the compressed or uncompressed formats equally. Jitter affects any digital information transported through any medium that doesn't have error control such as HDMI.
quote: Ha you obviously don't know what you are talking about, Jitter occurs even when there is error control. Jitter does not result in bit-data error, jitter is accurate 'analog' time-clock information sent down with the LPCM signal... which governs the DAC process. So those 100% accurate bits are converted to analog voltage at a slightly improper time... resulting in a waveform that isn't shaped exactly like the original... even though you have 100% bit-accurate data.
quote: Cat cought your tongue?
quote: One of the main purposes of error correction and buffering is to virtually eliminate the effects of jitter.
quote: jitter can degrade the signal more because the if the same number of bits are lost, it affects a greater percentage of the compressed signal's data.
quote: Are you retarded? Do you even know what that expression means?
quote: Did i not just say one has nothing to do with the other, you can have 100% data accuracy and still have jitter. If you need proof, a its a simple internet search away)http://avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=123895...
quote: 10% of 10 is 1, 10% of 20 is 2, 10% of 30 is 3..... all of which are the same ratio.. get where i am going with this? 10% signal loss, is 10% signal loss as the ratio is the same.. ... you will lose the same amount of data regardless of how it is sent. (all 1/10th of the original amount of data sent)Whats funny is ive read the same argument you are making on various other sites, only to be debunked by anyone that can do simple math.
quote: Nope i don't, I just wrote it hoping nobody would notice...
quote: I didn't realize someone could manipulate the facts, and get rated a 5. The PS3 is the best BD player.. why ? not because its a console, not because of its shiny black finish. The PS3 is the best BD player solely because of Sony's dreaded profiles. The PS3 is the affordable player that will be fully compatibly with future profiles (updated to 1.1, and eventually will be 2.0).
quote: Only first gen player did this, all newer 1080p players output the frames progressively.As a rule of thumb, more components equals more interference, so this is why I have always believed S/A players are better than consoles.(Just as a soundcard is better than onboard).
quote: The Ps3 will not support DTS-MA bitstream, probably ever. Its an incompatibility with the PS3's HDMI chip, although it supports DTS-MA over multichannel LPCM. (decodes it on the machine)
quote: I'm not hating the PS3. I just do not think saying consoles are better than standalones is correct. Especially when it is the the lackluster design and rollout of the BD profiles are really to blame, for the pour quality of BD S/A's. If this war had gone the other way to HD-DVD, you would be singing a different song. Having no profiles makes HD-DVD S/A's much better than their console counterpart.
quote: P.S The Ps3 does not support any high def audio codec via bitstream over HDMI. Not that i care as i believe they are the same thing, but many audiophiles believe decoding on the receiver is the way to go. I guess the PS3's advanced architecture is so powerful, it's just too good to pass-through the audio via bitstream, which in theory should be an easier, and less processor intensive process than doing the decoding on the player.
quote: The only reason i can think of that sony would leave out this support is cost, figuring most people would 'make due' without bitstream audio. Yet another compromise that has to be made when mixing a console with a movie player.
quote: As for the "dreaded profiles" you speak of, customers are so pissed off about them, Blu-ray is out selling HD-DVD 3 to 1
quote: Even though profiles will go largely unnoticed by the general population, HD-DVD fanboys bring them up any chance they get.
quote: Just because the player has 1080p output doesn't mean that the decoder outputs 1080p. Why do you think all of these players now tout the Silicon Optix deinterlacers? It's not just for DVD upscaling. The MPEG/VC-1 decoder outputs 1080i and the deinterlacer converts it back to 1080p.
quote: What HD-DVD player can decode DTS-HD MA?
quote: LPCM is considered to be HD audio so the PS3 does support the most important of the 3. As I've already explained, the other 2 won't be necessary in the very near future.
quote: Silicon Image probably didn't have an HDMI transmitter ready for Sony that was truly 1.3 compliant.
quote: HD-DVD S/As were outselling BD S/A's by a fair margin before the Warner announcement. Of course we were not talking about sales at all, we were talking about why the PS3 is considered the best BD player but ok.. (the PS3 as a BD player still dwarfs the amount of S/A BD players sold). Makes sense, as it's cheaper and does more than the expensive players, WOW
quote: Once again, I have a PS3 and an HD-DVD player, I am far less biased than most people on this site, probably including you.
quote: Your an idiot, you read one google article and you think you know all. Every BD and HD-DVD disc contains 1080p/24 information. As not all TV's are compatible with 24hz output, your player (whether it be PS3, HD-DVD or BD S/A) needs to convert the signal so that it is compatible with your TV.There are 3 steps your player can take to process the information on a 1080p player.1. You have a 1080p player with a 24hz compatible TV, and your player merely outputs a 1080p/24 signal directly to the TV, with no deinterlacing done by the player or TV.2. Your TV is 1080p but does not support 24hz. Your player player reinterlaces the signal to 1080i/60hz and then deinterlaces the signal to 1080p/30hz and outputs to your TV.3. Your TV is 1080p/30 and your player converts the signal to 1080i, outputs to your TV, and lets your TV do the deinterlacing.ALL new high end, and some entry level BD players output in 24hz, the PS3 is not the only player that can pass the signal to the TV without decoding, and even when doing so, your TV must be 24hz to take advantage. Just in case you need me to simplify my point, All players including the PS3 do some kind of processing unless your TV is 24hz. '
quote: To my knowledge none do, but we were talking about BD players, and by May we will have BD players that will support TrueHD and DTS-MA bitstream (Samsung 1500, Panasonic's DMP-BD50 will both do it) . The fact remains the PS3 will never be able to send DTS-MA over bitstream, not that this has anything to do with this topic, I was merely stating that the PS3 can't support DTS-MA because of incompatibilities in the HDMI chip, because the op said they might with a firmware update.
quote: Thats nice, but M LPCM still falls under the domain of jitter, as explained in my other post. And the 'other two' wont go away in the near future, we will always have a bit for bit format of some kind.
quote: *looks up definition of crippled* 'Crippled: Lamed; lame; disabled; impeded.'. Glad we got that out of the way, sound familiar? <caugh>Profiles</caugh>I'm glad I have a PS3 and i don't have to worry, oops.. didn't mean to rub it in..
quote: Oh really? Got data to back that up? Let's look at some to the contrary.
quote: That arguably gives Blu-ray set-tops a 700,000 piece of overall format unit sales. But the picture is muddied somewhat by the likely gangbuster PlayStation 3 sales in November due to the introduction of the relatively cheap $399 PlayStation 3
quote: Just because you have both, doesn't make you unbiased. You clearly are ignoring fact which biases you towards SA players.
quote: Again, you prove your blatant ignorance. While every BR and HD-DVD contains the 1080/24p information, BR actually stores it as 1080/24p whereas HD-DVD stores it as 1080/30p with frame repeat flags.
quote: You are wrong yet again. (See a pattern emerging?) Both the Pioneer BDP95FD and the Panasonic DMPBD30K both support bitstream output of all formats and both are currently available.
quote: P.S I can guarantee there will be a better S/A BD player in the next year than the PS3, in terms of video quality. Care to make a wager?
quote: In fact many people on the stupid blu-ray.com forum have already stated that top of the line $800-1000 players, already surpass the PS3.
quote: This leaves me to believe that price, and profiles are what drives reviewers to state the PS3 is the best BD player, not necessarily video quality, as there are countless BD fans out there that will totally reject your statements. They must be bias too though right?
quote: I am glad you can read, because 'arguably' means the numbers are Sony's and are probably wrong. quote: That arguably gives Blu-ray set-tops a 700,000 piece of overall format unit sales. But the picture is muddied somewhat by the likely gangbuster PlayStation 3 sales in November due to the introduction of the relatively cheap $399 PlayStation 3'Arguably' is not a dependable source, all other sites i have seen from that time period put sony down to around the 500k range.
quote: How am i ignoring fact? If we want to bring fact into the the matter heres a fact. Historically STANDALONE PLAYERS ARE BETTER THAN CONSOLES!Even if the PS3 used exactly the same components for BD playback, it still would be inferior. More parts closer together = more interference, theres nothing more to argue about here. Just because BD group has no good players out do not make consoles better. Your argument also makes little sense, as the PS3 is the only console that is currently better than any good S/A player. And for the record, my ps3 sucks for uscalling DVD's compared to my HD-DVD player.
quote: haha, why would you have repeat flags on a 1080/30p signal? Its the other way around genius. repeat flags are added to the 24p signal so that 6 frames out of 24 every second (approx) are repeated, resulting in a 30p signal(IVTC, 2:3 pulldown whatever you want to call it). Stop reading forum posts from september 2006, where nobody knew what they were talking about. Some people believed that HD-DVD stored the signal in 1080i/24 with flags so that it is possible to convert easily to other resolutions, but that was never proved, nor would it change the fact that the signal can be combined with 0 signal loss with no difference in quality. I will sum it up one last time "IF BD AND HD_DVD PLAYED THE SAME MOVIE ENCODED WITH THE SAME CODEC,BOTH ON 1080p/24 PLAYERS THEY WOULD LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME"
quote: ??? Thanks for proving my point? You asked if any players support bitstream output, as you bit my head off after mentioning no DTS-MA support on the PS3. I said to my knowledge there are none(because i didnt know), but there will be some for sure this spring.
quote: the Playstation 3 was one of the very first blu-ray players, an admirable undertaking. but technology improves with time..
quote: But the PS3 has so much more to offer, namely simple firmware updates and extremely fast speed (when compared to ANY other high def player).
quote: Get it out of your head that standalones are better players by simple virtue of being a standalone.
quote: So let me get this straight, because Sony royally screwed up with their profile system, leaving BD S/A players crippled and incompatible with newer profiles this makes consoles better in general?
quote: some people say that microsoft made a mistake by not including the hd-dvd drive internally. maybe they did, but they deffinately have redemption in how they can switch to blu-ray at a moment's notice.
quote: well, it's probably a good thing after all that they didn't use HD-DVD since the format's future doesn't look bright.
quote: well, it's probably a good thing after all that they didn't use HD-DVD since the format's future doesn't look bright.
quote: however it was certainly a mistake to limit games to DVD-9.
quote: already there are 3-disc games for the 360, and a likely 6-disc game in development
quote: let alone what we may see in 2-3 years
quote: With the inclusion of HD-DVD, the console would have been much more expensive and, therefore, MS would have moved less units.
quote: Thanks to Sony’s hardware bungling, MS changed perceptions dramatically.
quote: Microsoft will never release games on a Blu-ray or HD-DVD disc for the 360. Why?
quote: Consoles only get minor hardware updates
quote: That's idiotic, lets say by 2009 there are 25M 360's out there, then they release a more expensive version with BR, what game developer will write a BR game for a zero install base when he can put the same game on DVD and sell to a market of 25M
quote: Because you have no clue. They will do it, and they will release games in multi disc DVD version for older consoles and new single disc BRD version for new consoles.
quote: Purple is stupid and you're promoting it out of self-interest.