Posted by Joshua Zyber on 04/11/06 02:48

"~P~" <bmxtrix2005@cox.net> wrote in message
news:zbD_f.440$ZW3.16@dukeread04...
> Joshua - You missed my point,

No, I'm saying your point is incorrect.

> and Jeff confirms it in the next post. At
> 25Mbs, plus 17Mbs HD audio, only Blu-ray offers the necessary thruput
> to
> deliver both at maximum resolution and quality.

Uncompressed 6-channel audio is just another area where Blu-Ray is
deliberately wasting disc space. The lossless Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD
formats are compressed and do not take up nearly that much disc space,
yet have identical sound quality to uncompressed audio (hence the
"lossless").

Oh, but wait, that's right, none of the first-generation Blu-Ray players
will support Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD because they won't have HDMI 1.3
outputs and will not include internal decoders.

> Heck, you hate Blu-ray
> even though that's new, but are ready to jump in the bath with AVC1.

I don't hate Blu-Ray. I just don't see any good reason for it to cost
twice as much as HD-DVD when the two formats are virtually identical in
quality and features.

> Of the two formats - Blu-ray is the only one that has enough storage
> AND
> bandwidth to deliver HD video and HD audio at ultimate quality.

This is just flat-out FUD. There is no truth in it. You're a sad victim
of marketing hype.

[Back to original message]