http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/ Engadget HD Comments for Specs lie, your eyes and ears don't http://hd.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://hd.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/Nov 2nd 2007 5:20PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/
This applies to everything CE. For example, in home audio, a crappy little plastic boombox from Fred Meyer that features "500 watts with built-in subs" can't touch a nice 200W home stereo system.

This is also another bit of confirmation to my belief that BD and HD-DVD deliver the same thing to the consumer, and the whole format war is just about who will get the licensing fees from the studios.

Still, I don't doubt h4idol will throw out an "HD DUD" comment anyway (if he hasn't in the time I've spent writing this).]]>Nov 2nd 2007 5:27PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/Or people who buy home speakers by looking at the specs. Pluuuuease! That is so crazy. Yeah, I have seen HDTV's that are 720P look better than 1080P TV's. It doesn't surprise me. The public is reluctant to trust their eyes & ears. ]]>Nov 2nd 2007 5:50PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/
He says that as time passes that codecs and compression tools get better and better and thus require less and less space. At the same time he says that video quality is not linearly proportional to file size. Both of these seem fairly obviously true to me. I also understand that at some point you get diminishing returns for extra filesize with every codec. So my question is this: With each of the codecs, where is that boundary? To use his examples:

Would 'King Kong' using VC-1 be 10% better if it were 30% larger file size?
Would 'Final Fantasy' using AVC be 5% better if it were 20% larger file size?
Would 'Kingdom of Heaven' using MPEG-2 be 20% better if it were 50% larger file size?

Are any of these answers yes? Are all of these films maxed for picture quality because of source material?

If anyone reading this really is a compressionist I would like to know the answers to these questions.

For the record, I am very happy with both my Blu-ray and HD DVD films.

Thanks in advance,

Jimmy]]>Nov 2nd 2007 5:59PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/Nov 2nd 2007 6:01PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/His trolling theme shot to bits!]]>Nov 2nd 2007 7:26PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/But J6 just purchased a $1000 BR player! He's been ripped off!!

Shock horror, what will all the 'who ray?' fanboys do now!!.... maybe they will finally see the light and purchase an A2 for $98 and stop wasting their money on these overpriced door stops!
BLU RAY=WHO RAY?]]>Nov 2nd 2007 7:35PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/
In fact there is no real world advantage to HD at all. Resolution is just a specification. Remember that a 1080i tv has to re-interlace the frames to 1080p from any source. So when you turn on your vhs vcr connected through coax you will see pure 1080p images.

OR you can pay attention to what the author wrote. The specs aren't all important. They indicated differences but its up to the person mastering the source to make the difference. So Mpeg-2 encodes can be just as good as the best vc encodes. A VC encode can suck.

You can really see and hear the differences in source mastering and compression but you will need a very good AV setup to do so. If you never watch action movies or sports 1080i vs 1080p will make no difference for you. If you don't scrutinize the movies you watch 720 vs 1080 won't matter at all. If you don't have a very good audio setup 2,5 or 7 channels won't make a difference.

The $98 dollar HD-DVD isn't the end all of quality. They do make higher end devices that belong in AV quality setups. Given the right equipment you will see the difference between a $99 HD player and a $400 HD player. That is why Toshiba makes more than 1 model. That is also why there is a market for $700 dvd players.
]]>Nov 2nd 2007 7:57PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/Nov 2nd 2007 8:17PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/
It falls to the gear and the viewer. I've never had a BD stuttering issue and I don't think that it is because of the BD spec but more that I have a nice player.

I do agree that some people many not find the HD experience significantly improved. I can actually see the 1080i/p difference, as well as the 720 v 1080 difference. Honestly you are right, upscaled dvd's are a heck of a good picture. The picture quality is never poor enough to be distracting, or even noticed after 2 minutes of watching. Even VHS tapes are sufficient quality so long as the tape and player are in good condition.

This generations format war isn't being waged on quality. Both sides can be more than good enough. It's really up to people to decide what image and sound aspects they care about most and maximize their experience.

Some people want to see things big, some care more about loud, some care more about the quality of the audio. I should write a guide on getting the most out of your equipment, most people seem clueless to what they enjoy and what it means in terms of AV gear.

How do you submit stuff to be published here?

]]>Nov 2nd 2007 9:51PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/So getting a player with 5.1 ANALOG out is a huge huge bonus. And thats why the ps3 and xbox addon wouldnt work for me, as well as some of you.
So seeing this discount is awesome, but if i dont get an xa2 or a35, i wont be getting that audio.]]>Nov 3rd 2007 6:58AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/
To sort of sideline over to the hddvd/bluray format wars, I've always said the winner will be the one that can get a $200 player at walmart or anywhere else. Even if it's the lowest end model, it's percieved value will be greater than the competition's cheapest price point. In this case, hddvd managed to pull off a $99 hddvd player. Now if those sales can continue, This pesky format war could be put to bed before dinner.

Oh and to add my own dig on BluRay ;)

BluRay, the look and sound of per... HOW MUCH?]]>Nov 3rd 2007 2:15PMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/
He gave the audio 5/5 for DD 5.1, a standard def audio format. So everyone gave him crap for it. His argument was that it was fantastic,yada yada. Fair enough but the point is no one can compare it to a lossless version because one wasn;'t made (due to disc limitations on HD-DVD, which Josh even says in his article), he then when on to say that the DD 5.1 is as good as lossless.

How could he know? He never heard the lossless Transformers. Many of the things he said were true, higher bitrate doesn't mean better picture (sometimes it does) but saying DD 5.1 is perfect (5/5) is pathetic.

Josh is a well know HD-DVD fan (no problem with that) but uses his position to spin the truth.

]]>Nov 4th 2007 9:08AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/
And this is coming from a Blu-ray support who hasn't watched Transformers cause I don't have an HD DVD player and I get accused of being a Blu-ray fanboy almost constantly on this site. Yet I believe Josh when he says the sound is a 5 out of 5.]]>Nov 4th 2007 9:10AMhttp://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/http://hd.engadget.com/2007/11/02/specs-lie-your-eyes-and-ears-dont/
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/transformers.html]]>Nov 12th 2007 6:19PM