iTunes 9 to Include Blu-ray Support and iPhone App Organization?

[TheSpaz]

Huh? What exactly do you mean by OUTPUT if it cannot PLAY them?



Most all BluRay players that I have seen can also play DVDs, and when you play a DVD in them, they will upscale the DVD from 480 to 1080 on the fly.

I want to know if there is any software that will let you upscale DVD rips or files so they would be 1080.

I have ripped all my DVDs onto my Apple TV and it would be SWEET if there were software that could upscale all those files into 1080 so I would not have to by BluRays of all the DVDs I already have.

It can output a 1080p signal but the hardware is not fast enough to play 1080p content. It only accepts 720p.

 

[VenusianSky]

The store I am talking about is called Giant Eagle. They are big stores here, they only tech they sell are DVD/Blue Ray. I'm just saying the reason most likely because of the Super Wal-Mart is only like 10 miles away from this store. I actually think Giant Eagle has a bigger selection, I'm not sure on that. I will have to look around at both stores to make a termination.

I could take a photo if you want LOL!

I was surprised to see Giant Eagle carry high-def movies (both BD and HD-DVD) as early as they did. I bought "The Song Remains the Same" there. They actually had a couple copies when it was pulled for legal matters. Their prices are a little steep though.

 

[sammich]

Most all BluRay players that I have seen can also play DVDs, and when you play a DVD in them, they will upscale the DVD from 480 to 1080 on the fly.

I want to know if there is any software that will let you upscale DVD rips or files so they would be 1080.

I have ripped all my DVDs onto my Apple TV and it would be SWEET if there were software that could upscale all those files into 1080 so I would not have to by BluRays of all the DVDs I already have.

Upscaling = ZOOM. It doesn't add any more detail to the movie than is already on the DVD. So if you rip your DVD with the best settings, watched them full screen on a 1080p screen, THAT is *pretty much* the same as your Blu-ray player upscaling an ordinary DVD (and you don't have to keep a 1080p copy of what is really a 480p movie).

*by 'pretty much' I mean some upscalers do some blurring of edges and stuff so that it's *nicer* looking but really still crap compared to real blu-ray movies.

 

[tbrinkma]

Just give me an iTunes server and I'll be happy.

If Apple is going Blu-ray in iTunes, it should mean that their entire line will have to go with the new drive. What is the point of adding the feature to a consumer program without having the hardware support available to as many people as possible?



The Mini DP spec Apple made doesn't carry audio (wikipedia) and you'll need a 3rd party USB/MDP adaptor to HDMI.

The Mini-DP spec Apple released indicates that it is pin-for-pin electrically compatible with the full-size DP connector, just in a smaller size. The lack of support for audio is an artifact of the current generation controller chips, not the connector.

 

[BaldiMac]

Huh? What exactly do you mean by OUTPUT if it cannot PLAY them?

The user interface, photos, etc can be output at 1080p. Videos are upscaled to 1080p if that is the output setting that you choose.

Most all BluRay players that I have seen can also play DVDs, and when you play a DVD in them, they will upscale the DVD from 480 to 1080 on the fly.

I want to know if there is any software that will let you upscale DVD rips or files so they would be 1080.

I have ripped all my DVDs onto my Apple TV and it would be SWEET if there were software that could upscale all those files into 1080 so I would not have to by BluRays of all the DVDs I already have.

As I said upscaling does not improve the quality of the original video. When you play a video in Quicktime and drag the corner to make it bigger or enlarge it to full screen, that is upscaling. When you put your regular DVD in a regular DVD player and output it to a 1080p TV, that is upscaling. There are different upscaling algorithms that blur the edges of the pixels to make the pixelation less noticeable, but it does not improve the video quality from the original.

Your best bet is to rip your DVDs at their native resolution at the highest bitrate that produces a filesize that you consider reasonable.

 

[Tallest Skil]

I also don't see any *new* movies on that list of "bargain" HD-DVD movies....

Fortunately, no good movies have been made since the discontinuation of HD DVD. This is, of course, my opinion, but if I can get 1080p classics for five dollars as opposed to half the asinine trash that is put out for $30, I'll take it, thank you.

The "digital copy" is for your Igadgets.... Obviously, it would make more sense to play the BD movie directly on your laptop or desktop than to copy the "digital copy" to your hard drive.

So why not copy the HD video file to your hard drive instead?

Also, do me a favor and go to Amazon and try to find an HD-DVD copy of any Hollywood movie released in the past year. Good luck with that.

I'm guessing you were using Betamax well into the 90s, weren't you?

Beta? Nah, it was Sony. I don't care about current movies.

Than again, maybe... ...of a 19 year old...

Edited for accuracy. If you're going to attempt to insult me based on age, at least have the decency to do it intelligently.

That's ridiculous! You can't buy movies on iTunes that are 1080p and even if you COULD, the Apple TV can't even play movies at 1080p.

And that's a major failure on Apple's part. We can only hope for an update soon.

Another point... Blu-ray is always going to be higher quality than the compressed downloads from iTunes.

I keep my 1080p files at 4GB each. That's occasionally less than Apple's 720p file size with obvious benefits (1080-ness). Cave Man attested that while they're not as good as his (around 7-8), they're good.

AAAAAAAAANNNND I don't have to fill hard drives with movies...

At 4GB each, it's no big deal.

j

ust buy it at the store, come home and put it on my shelf.

And search through a cabinet of movies every time you want to see one, take one out, take out the one that is in your player, put that away, put the new one in...

I also like how my movies are separate from my computer so if anything happens to the files, I have the hard copy at hand.

Mirrored (insert capacity here) drives?

 

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

The only reason I have the few Bluray titles I do is because I own a PS3. I'm kinda tired of discs, I have 500GB of HD movies on my hard drive, I prefer digital distribution to discs. If apple decides to throw Bluray in their new products would it be possible to upgrade the disc drive to any bluray drive that fits or is Apple against drive swapping? Idk I'm just about to purchase my first mac lol.

 

[TheSpaz]

So why not copy the HD video file to your hard drive instead?

Because I technically can't.

And that's a major failure on Apple's part. We can only hope for an update soon.

Still won't beat blu-ray.

I keep my 1080p files at 4GB each. That's occasionally less than Apple's 720p file size with obvious benefits (1080-ness). Cave Man attested that while they're not as good as his (around 7-8), they're good.

At 4GB each, the quality is not going to be like Blu-ray. If you really care about HD movies, you wouldn't compress them into 4GB. That's like taking a CD and ripping it at 128 kbps.

At 4GB each, it's no big deal.

Again, not the same as Blu-ray

And search through a cabinet of movies every time you want to see one, take one out, take out the one that is in your player, put that away, put the new one in...

Oh, man... all that wasted time that I could be spending on downloading HD content through iTunes or ripping DVD's to my hard drive. Man... imagine the time you'd be saving by not having to open and put away discs... WHEW! -Scarcasm

Mirrored (insert capacity here) drives?

Still not as easy as buying it and you're done. I have some movies on my hard drive that are digital only, but I often forget that they're even there because when I want to watch a movie... I look to see what I have on my shelf right in front of me. I don't go looking through my computer files to see what I have digitally.

Not everything in life needs to be a digital copy on your hard drive. You know, you could actually pick something up that's real sometimes and hold it in your hands. Plus, it makes you feel like you own more than just a file.

What happens in the future when iTunes stops supporting the digital downloads? Will those files still play if it can't associate the file with your iTunes account? The Blu-rays will still play in any Blu-ray player. Just like how people still have VHS tapes from years ago.

I still try to get the physical media when I buy movies or music, just as an automatic backup. I only download music if I can't find the real CD easily enough.

 

[nws0291]

I keep my 1080p files at 4GB each. That's occasionally less than Apple's 720p file size with obvious benefits (1080-ness). Cave Man attested that while they're not as good as his (around 7-8), they're good.

I'm sorry but that is a joke. Do you even watch those files on anything other than a computer monitor?

My BD rips are uncompressed around 20-30GB each just for the main title only. Even when compressed in half they look like **** on a 1080p panel. That is why I pay big money for true hardware RAID5 solution to not only store them uncompressed but have them backed up incase of a drive failure.

 

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

Most of my 1080 movies are from 8-16GB. I have TDK on Bluray and download. The download is 14GB and is a carbon copy of the Bluray. I was quite shocked to see that myself.

 

[TheSpaz]

Most of my 1080 movies are from 8-16GB. I have TDK on Bluray and download. The download is 14GB and is a carbon copy of the Bluray. I was quite shocked to see that myself.

Probably because the extras take up a lot of space too. They pack Blu-ray movies with extra content.

Oh, by the way... Tallest Skil, you can't get extras with downloaded content from iTunes... ANOTHER WIN FOR BLU-RAY! Woohoo!

 

[MacFly123]

The user interface, photos, etc can be output at 1080p. Videos are upscaled to 1080p if that is the output setting that you choose.



As I said upscaling does not improve the quality of the original video. When you play a video in Quicktime and drag the corner to make it bigger or enlarge it to full screen, that is upscaling. When you put your regular DVD in a regular DVD player and output it to a 1080p TV, that is upscaling. There are different upscaling algorithms that blur the edges of the pixels to make the pixelation less noticeable, but it does not improve the video quality from the original.

Your best bet is to rip your DVDs at their native resolution at the highest bitrate that produces a filesize that you consider reasonable.

Upscaling = ZOOM. It doesn't add any more detail to the movie than is already on the DVD. So if you rip your DVD with the best settings, watched them full screen on a 1080p screen, THAT is *pretty much* the same as your Blu-ray player upscaling an ordinary DVD (and you don't have to keep a 1080p copy of what is really a 480p movie).

*by 'pretty much' I mean some upscalers do some blurring of edges and stuff so that it's *nicer* looking but really still crap compared to real blu-ray movies.

Huh. Ok thanks for the info. I had read an article or something somewhere that talked about how advanced the algorithms were for upscaling in some new players and it sounded to me like it actually upped the res but I guess not.

Probably because the extras take up a lot of space too. They pack Blu-ray movies with extra content.

Oh, by the way... Tallest Skil, you can't get extras with downloaded content from iTunes... ANOTHER WIN FOR BLU-RAY! Woohoo!

I have always wished that iTunes and other digital retailers would sell movies in a Virtual DVD format that lets you navigate with menus and special features and everything just like a real physical DVD but all in a digital file. That would be AWESOME!

 

[NOD]

Good to see that this has devolved into the usual thread bashing videophiles, audiophiles, Blu-ray, etc, etc. Suffice it to say that there are many of us that would love to have such capability.

I think that there are some interesting questions raised by the possibility of BR integration into itunes 9 -- some of which have been discussed here, many of which haven't.

So let's, just for a moment, assume that BR support IS integrated into itunes 9. This begs the following questions:

1) How EXACTLY is BR support integrated? Possibilities:

a) As stated in some posts, there is the possibility that this is the most useless (IMO) and least controversial option -- that itunes BR 'integration' would include the ability for direct BR burning by the itunes app and nothing more. This would mean no commercial BR support whatsoever. If that's the case, I will be sorely disappointed.

b) With the new 'one-backup' capability for BR media, this MAY only mean BR integration in that it will allow you to do that one backup on itunes (which means they would be useless for our current BR collections, but would be useful in the future).

c) itunes would simply be the mac's BR-playing app, with no capability whatsoever to archive those BD's to HDD. I see this as the least objectionable option to the movie-makers and, unfortunately, the most likely option.


2) What will be done w/ the lossless audio tracks?

Now, all you audiophile bashers can feel free to close your eyes and ears for this portion, as it relates to claims that lossless LPCM tracks or HD audio surround formats might actually be considered superior to DD and DTS.

On to the question at hand -- this is the 64 million dollar question for those of us w/ mid- and hi-end audio systems. While it is conceivable that Apple will handicap commercial BR's and only allow the DD/DTS cores for playback, w/ no option for either bitstream or PCM versions of lossless/ hi-res tracks, I think that such a move, at a time in which Apple has magically included the MDP w/ its (theoretical, at least for macs) ability to transmit audio, is unlikely. Whether it involves a USB workaround, or MDP use for such transmission, I think Apple would include Hi-res audio format capability. It wouldn't give half-assed commercial BR integration, one would hope.

Of course, if those of us w/ recent mac purchases have an MDP that is handicapped from being able to actually transmit audio, I would be quite disappointed (but not surprised).

Then there is the possibility that HDMI may be (begrudgingly) worked into future macs. I just don't think this is going to happen.

3) What will this mean for the AppleTV?

As the AppleTV is meant to be itunes' extender into your Ht, and BR is the HT medium of choice for many of us, the logical conclusion is that the AppleTV would be the BR integration device at the level of your living room. Of course, that would require:

1) a fairly serious upgrade to its video processing capabilities
2) given its HDMI output, it would be assumed that any new iteration of AppleTV would have the ability to transmit hi-res audio through that HDMI port
3) Either the addition of a BR drive ON the appleTV, or the clunky requirement that the AppleTV be hardwired to your mac's LAN in order to get adequate throughput for BR playback. Now, that's not to say that the 5GHz band is absolutely incapable of the required bitrates -- I have been able to wirelessly stream lossless BR archives 15 feet from my main mac pro to the ps3 in my HT (using the 5GHz band and AExtremes as router and bridge), but this would be ridiculously flawed for just about any home wireless network.

I think the likely compromise (which many of us have been asking for, and which has been mentioned in this thread already) would be that the AppleTV morph into a mac mini/AppleTV hybrid, which would have PC capabilities, a BR drive, and the convenient option of straightofrward appleTV functionality as well. I've called this pipedream the 'iTheater' for a while now, and I'm still at a loss as to how it doesn't exist. Maybe, with the addition of BR, it will...

4) the selfish question -- Will those of us who are already using BR drives with our macs be helped by this?

Now, I realize that folks like me who have installed BR drives in our mac pro's (or attached them to our macs via external enclosures) are few and far between, but it would be interesting to see the degree to which 3rd-party BR drives would be newly accessible by itunes 9.

I think it's likely that they will only endorse a small number of drives, and that those of us who already have BR drives (and are either using MakeMKV for OS X archiving, or are booting into Windows to use them) will be pretty much ignored, as we are admittedly a very small group.

Anyway, I think this will be a neat few months on the itunes/mac front. Can't wait.

 

[iBug2]

So you're suggesting iTunes 9 will allow you to rip/burn Blu-Ray discs into iTunes??? LOL. Not in a million years. The industry would crucify Apple. Apple hasn't even dared to let DVDs be ripped into iTunes. I have to use things like DVD Decryptor (Windows) or MacTheRipper (Mac) plus Handbrake (both) to achieve that effect. Don't get me wrong. I would love if Apple would offer ripping services directly in iTunes. I simply don't believe anyone has that kind of clout to implement and get away with something like that. CDs generally aren't copy-protected and they've been copied so long no one even notices anymore. The industry has embraced "digital copy included" programs that simply give a code to download a digital/mobile version from someone like iTunes. That's fine and dandy for near-DVD copies in iTunes, but they generally do NOT have Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtracks with them which means they SUCK. My own rips have DD5.1 plus commentary tracks even. There is no reason Apple could not include them so it's Apple's fault.



I would agree with you (I tend to like all-in-one functionality as it's easier to maintain and control everything from one centralized database), but there is a very large contingency of Mac users that think iTunes is already WAY too bloated for its own good and is trying to be too many things for too many programs and has become slow, bloated and bug-ridden in the process and has updates coming constantly to address them. These people would prefer the current iTunes be broken up into a bunch of little programs (i.e. iPhone get its own program to control/update/sync it), etc. I think that could be done and iTunes could still be the control panel (i.e. the programs talk to each other and share information), but that would just make for MORE updates (imagine seeing DVD player, iPhone Control, Application Center, Radio World and iTunes all in the software update thing every other week. It'd get MORE messy, not less, IMO).



Sadly, that's very true of pop/rock/rap/hip-hop music, although it's called dynamic compression. The goal is to make the music "loud" for radio because "loud" always gets better ratings/attention/whatever on the radio than more dynamic stuff. This is partly due to the fact the car is on average a noisier environment than the home and most people do most of their listening in the car or with headphones, etc. It's ironic too because there was more of a "need" for such things in the 1980s and the '80s and earlier were much better behaved in their mastering techniques. Although another problem existed then and that was most material was mastered for the LP and thus sounded anemic and crappy on CD and thus we saw the vast remastering for CD process while the vinyl folks claimed that CDs sounded like crap compared to the LP. That WAS TRUE to some extent, but it wasn't due to the limitations of the CD medium, but had everything to do with the mastering process.

What's sad is today dynamic compression can be done at the radio station on-the-fly without having to butcher the actual album recording, but sadly they compress the heck out of music more today than ever. Some albums get it worse than others and some are so badly butchered they actually CLIP LIKE MAD (e.g. Take the Red Hot Chili Peppers album "Californication" and just listen to it. It's so compressed (no dynamic range) that it's almost flat sounding and worse yet, it clips like MAD all over the place. In short, it sounds AWFUL and that's sad because it has some of their best songs on it. The thing is almost NO ONE NOTICES. And that is because most people have the worst sounding crap excuse for audio equipment you can imagine. And it's not getting better. Places like Best Buy are taking over towns smaller shops and where Best Buy at least used to have listening rooms (albeit poor ones, IMO) for full sized loudspeakers, they now have gotten rid of them in most stores to make room for most flat-screen TVs and the such (TVs used to take up like 2-3 aisles there and now they take up 1/3 the store). The point is you have to go out of your way to even FIND (let alone listen/preview to in a good environment) good speakers these days, let along convince people they NEED them. Sadly, most people think Logitech computers speakers are GOOD SOUND (shakes head). I've had people almost soil their pants listening to my modified Carver ribbon setup. They still don't think they'd want to pay that kind of money to get good sound (or more likely their wives wouldn't let them keep them anywhere in the house due to their size). Even so, it's easy to get caught up in the high-end audio snake oil because there's a fine line between art, science and nuts when it comes to hi-fi. The high-end knows the good equipment, but they also believe in nonsense, so it's a double-edged sword. They waste money on things that don't matter and look down on others that don't have that stuff. It's a very snooty environment. Many Mac fanatics can be snooty, but some of these people take it to a whole different level.

Of course, if you like classical type music or even jazz, there ARE a lot of very good quality recordings out there and many are available on SACD. While SACD is largely overkill on the playback end, the multi-channel version is nice for live recordings if you have a really good surround setup. More importantly, it usually means the people that are making recordings available for it are paying attention to the quality on the recording end of things, where it matters more than anywhere else. So SACD type recordings DO typically sound better than an average CD, but it's due to mulit-channel and well mastered recordings more than the playback medium. A high quality SACD master in stereo that is then mastered properly to CD will sound just as good.



"Which is audible they say" is my point in a nut shell. "They say" you can hear these kinds of differences, but can YOU? Most just believe what the high-end magazines say as gospel and yet magazines have a reason to support high-end DACs and jitter reduction equipment, etc. etc. because those are the people paying them big bucks to advertise in their magazines. That's just a fact. I remember and incident back in the late '80s or early '90s involving Stereophile and Bob Carver and his "transfer function modified" amplifiers. Engineering states that a transfer function describes EVERYTHING there is to know about a given system so long as it's written correctly. Bob modified reasonably priced amplifiers to sound like ones that cost a lot more by matching up their characterisitics little by little until they had the same transfer function. Stereophile admitted in a blind test that it worked, but when the actual factory product came out, they gave it a bad review, saying the magic was somehow gone, but with no proof or testing to confirm anything. In short, how would they sell ads for $10,000 amplifiers if this one that costs $1200 sounded identical to it? In a business sense, they would shoot themselves in the foot. If some company pays them big bucks to advertise magic jitter reducing green markers, they have every reason in the world *NOT* to test that product or give it a bad review because it keeps the money coming in. You'd see things like, "I don't know how it does it, but it DID SOUND BETTER to my ears". And how can you question an opinion? You cannot. That's just a short sample of the problems of the so-called "high-end".



Um...no. You can TEST response right up to 20kHz. Most people buying that gear have their hearing fall off around 15kHz yet they are the ones making wild claims about super-tweeters. Will going to 5Hz improve response at 30Hz? No and it might just screw it up royally sine the requirements for the drivers in those ranges are very different. Besides, less is often more. My ribbons cover from 250Hz to 20kHz. There are no crossover aberrations (that even the best conventional loudspeakers cannot fully eliminate) along the way beacause there are no crossover points. Carver sold the AL-III for $2000 a pair. Genesis used the identical ribbon from Carver in its $50,000 a pair Genesis II with a different cabinet and woofer. Was it actually worth 25x the price? I don't think so, but I'm sure many did as they were Class A Stereophile reviewed. Stereophile would not review the Carver speakers after the first prototype so I guess we'll never know their thoughts. It was not in their best interests to compare $50k speakers to $2k speakers when they used the same drivers.




So are we talking about "high end" as in high end PRICE or high end SOUND? The two are not necessarily related in those ranges. As I've said, there is a LOT of snake-oil being sold in "high end" audio and most of it is just that, nonsense. Once you get to a certain point in speaker quality and have ample power to drive it, your money is best going to be spent on treating your *room*, not buying $20k DACs that sound identical to a $5 DAC in a blind test. Listening rooms can have just as much if not more effect than your loudspeaker on the sound you get. A $50,0000 speaker in a bad room can sound worse than a $500 speaker in a good room. It doesn't take much to screw up frequency response (actual room plus speaker) or get standing waves, resonance, etc. These Carvers sound better in my current house than they ever did in my old one. This house has much better room acoustics to start with and I damped out most of the remaining problems. Downstairs, I have a very dead room and made a home theater with a mere $2500 worth of speakers. But these speakers are +/- 1dB from 80Hz to 27kHz. I've seen speakers that cost 100x that price that had +/- 3dB response in the same range. That's just one measurement, but it's an important one. Of course, how the room then affects that response is just as important. OTOH, the truth is most people prefer speakers that are NOT flat. They want inflated bass, etc. and that's why graphic equalizers became popular. Even Genesis offers a high-end "sound palette" to color their sound to suit your taste. The worst part is that you are the mercy of the recording itself, no matter how good your rig is. The Red Hot Chili Peppers Californication album will still sound like crap on a $100k rig as they do on a $1k rig because the album is screwed up on the mastering end with no dynamic range and clipping. It actually often sounds better on cheap systems that mask the problems it has. Many pop/rock albums are that way. Very few are very good recording quality. I used to maintain a web site that rated the sound quality of rock albums in addition to their musical content. Very very few got anywhere near the "A" quality range for sound. Ironically, people will say something like Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is too quiet and not dynamic, when in fact it is just the opposite. It's VERY dynamic and so you have to turn UP the volume (it plays in the noise floor; you cannot make louder louder than maximum, so the more dynamic albums are quieter sounding at the same volume settings as a less dynamic album). It was analog mastered. It STILL sounds better than most albums today because it's not compressed to death.

Of course, if you like classical, you'll have little trouble finding good quality sound recordings of your favorite classical music (the performance is another issue).



Actually, high quality headphones are more revealing than even the highest quality loudspeakers because it takes the room out of the equation entirely.



Actually, it's not likely to be night and day better. This is due to the law of diminishing returns. The more you spend on the high-end, the less results you will get. You can get a system that is 95% of the way there for $5000 if spent wisely compared to a system that costs $50,000. You're getting into the range of small improvements. A $10k DAC probably only sounds marginally better than a $1.50 DAC (if anything at all). That's because the differences are so small on such items. That's why I say speakers (which does include their cabinets BTW) and room treatments are the primary areas to spend money. Of course, you need clean power to the speakers for a given load (some speakers offer easier loads than others and this has nothing to do with price or quality), but the idea that a high-end amp is good for the sound itself is a misnomer as amplifiers should be completely neutral. Vinyl aficionados think they sound better than CDs, but in reality a lot of analog gear has euphonic distortions (even-order) that make them pleasant sounding just like a tube distortion effect for a guitar sounds pleasant. That doesn't make it ACCURATE. There's often a very real difference between "pleasing" and "accurate".



I've seen quite a bit of progress in driver manufacturer. Mid-range is all important. You do realize there are types of drivers out there than the piston-box woofers and mid-ranges and cone type tweeters that you see on "typical" loudspeakers, right? Check out Magnepan for planar, Martin Logan for electrostatic, etc. Apogee used to make some nice ribbons and Carver once made the famous ribbon for the Genesis speakers. Not everything has been a piston over the years.

On my 15k rig 3k was spent on room treatment. I know it makes the most difference. But I also listened to Grande Utopias with dCS in a treated room similar to mine and the difference was night and day. And while I realize high quality earphones are more revealing than speakers in general (I have ALL the flagship earphones from the major manufacturers) there is simply no way to get the stage depth you get with best of the best speakers.

And I really doubt most audiophiles hearing response is cut at 15k. I'm 28 years old and I listened to music in loud volume since I was 12, can still hear 18k at 75 dB with both ears.

While there are more and more designs out there for midrange/woofer, many high-end speakers have continued to put the same drivers (modified but same tech) into their flagship products and still improved the sound through enclosure changes. When I was reviewing my B&W 804S in the demo rrom before purchase I listened to 800-802 as well which use the exact same midrange/tweeter unit as in 804S but the clarity of midrange on those units was quite ahead.

I ofc know about the law of diminishing returns. But it really does not start at low prices. 1k rig will sound considerably worse than a 10k one where a 100k one will sound night and day better than a 10k one. But yes if I had 500k to spend on a system 450k would be spent on the room and speakers.

 

[NOD]

On my 15k rig 3k was spent on room treatment. I know it makes the most difference. But I also listened to Grande Utopias with dCS in a treated room similar to mine and the difference was night and day. And while I realize high quality earphones are more revealing than speakers in general (I have ALL the flagship earphones from the major manufacturers) there is simply no way to get the stage depth you get with best of the best speakers.

And I really doubt most audiophiles hearing response is cut at 15k. I'm 28 years old and I listened to music in loud volume since I was 12, can still hear 18k at 75 dB with both ears.

While there are more and more designs out there for midrange/woofer, many high-end speakers have continued to put the same drivers (modified but same tech) into their flagship products and still improved the sound through enclosure changes. When I was reviewing my B&W 804S in the demo rrom before purchase I listened to 800-802 as well which use the exact same midrange/tweeter unit as in 804S but the clarity of midrange on those units was quite ahead.

I ofc know about the law of diminishing returns. But it really does not start at low prices. 1k rig will sound considerably worse than a 10k one where a 100k one will sound night and day better than a 10k one. But yes if I had 500k to spend on a system 450k would be spent on the room and speakers.

Well, given the fact that you have B&W's, your frame of reference for dollar value is going to be horribly skewed on what 10k can get you (ducks for cover).

 

[Chundles]

Phile-phight!

Phight!
Phight!
Phight!

 

[NOD]

Phile-phight!

Phight!
Phight!
Phight!

I like stirring some sh$%...

 

[Droid13]

And that there folks...

Not everything in life needs to be a digital copy on your hard drive. You know, you could actually pick something up that's real sometimes and hold it in your hands. Plus, it makes you feel like you own more than just a file.

Is a major factor in why many people I know don't bother with digital downloads - they like to have a disk of some kind in their hands that represents the cash they parted with. Comparing a movie download with a movie DVD purchase, they just don't see the point of the download - it takes time, it often costs as much if not more, the disk can be played on several devices... they come up with several valid reasons.

When it comes to music, oddly enough, they don't see the point of the disk, particularly as they make music on the go cumbersome. But for movies, disks seem to matter. They are a mixed bunch when it comes to the DVD versus Blu-ray argument though - some see the extra value in it, some think it is a gimmick that offers them nothing worth paying for.

Physical media is here to stay, in one form or another - whether it is for a technological, backup security or psychological reason.

Time will tell how Apple implements HD media. Guess we'll find out in the next few months...

 

[Hugh]

Prices

I was surprised to see Giant Eagle carry high-def movies (both BD and HD-DVD) as early as they did. I bought "The Song Remains the Same" there. They actually had a couple copies when it was pulled for legal matters. Their prices are a little steep though.

I don't know my store doesn't seem to high in prices. Hell they just did a sale on 'Race to Witch Mountain' for $15.99 and get a free case of bottle of water. LOL

Other prices seem to match that of Wal-Mart. Like I said I think this store has a big collection and low prices because Wal-Mark is like 5-10 miles away.


Hugh

 

[DoFoT9]

It can output a 1080p signal but the hardware is not fast enough to play 1080p content. It only accepts 720p.

COMPLETELY incorrect!!!!

the current hardware in the TV IS capable of decoding 40mbps 1080p content, it is the software that is limiting it to 720p...

i must also say, that as i become more and more used to higher quality videos- DVDs look pathetic, as do BR rips at anything below 20mbps. (kind of like going back to 320kbps mp3 after listening to lossless audio)

 

[iPhoneNYC]

While waiting for Blu-Ray, I would suggest saving things in Apple Pro Res for playback on HD tvs. This is a FCP setting and is pretty much equal to Blu-ray. So if this can fit into your work/screening/pleasure flow it is a nice way to go.

 

[NightStorm]

COMPLETELY incorrect!!!!

the current hardware in the TV IS capable of decoding 40mbps 1080p content, it is the software that is limiting it to 720p...

i must also say, that as i become more and more used to higher quality videos- DVDs look pathetic, as do BR rips at anything below 20mbps. (kind of like going back to 320kbps mp3 after listening to lossless audio)

Do you have proof of this? Because while it has gotten better, it still chokes with some of the advanced x264 settings at 720p.

 

[DoFoT9]

Do you have proof of this? Because while it has gotten better, it still chokes with some of the advanced x264 settings at 720p.

no, i do not have proof of this physically, as i have no TV. if you research into the Go Nvidia card in the TV, you will find that it is 'certificed' with Nvidias "PureVideo", which means it can decode full 1080p HD. this makes me believe that the TV is infact capable of decoding full HD movies, however is yet to implement the software for this to happen. i am not sure how difficult it would be to implement, has not really explored into the GPGPU market yet.

 

[TheSpaz]

no, i do not have proof of this physically, as i have no TV. if you research into the Go Nvidia card in the TV, you will find that it is 'certificed' with Nvidias "PureVideo", which means it can decode full 1080p HD. this makes me believe that the TV is infact capable of decoding full HD movies, however is yet to implement the software for this to happen. i am not sure how difficult it would be to implement, has not really explored into the GPGPU market yet.

Well, since you don't have an Apple TV, you can't really say what it can or cannot do. You have no real proof.

Hack an Apple TV, run the full Mac OS X on it, open a 1080p movie in QuickTime and play it. That's the only way you'll convince me that it works. My Apple TV struggles with some 720p content... especially if I'm streaming it from my computer.

 

[rhett7660]

Well, since you don't have an Apple TV, you can't really say what it can or cannot do. You have no real proof.

Hack an Apple TV, run the full Mac OS X on it, open a 1080p movie in QuickTime and play it. That's the only way you'll convince me that it works. My Apple TV struggles with some 720p content... especially if I'm streaming it from my computer.

Could the streaming part be part of the reason it is stuggling? Do you have it wired? Is going from gig to a gig? Is it wireless?