Robin Lemaire wrote:Isn't DVD audio 24/96? Too much dynamic range on some movies (especially when trying to watch late at night without disturbing the rest of the house or the neighbors).
Blu-ray films on an HD TV look exceptionally good though. I've not watched the TV since just because it looks so blocky and awful by comparison.
'DVD Audio' and audio on film DVDs are two different things. The former is uncompressed and (usually ) multichannel audio on a disc used solely for that purpose. Audio on video DVDs is usually Dolby Digital or DTS both of which are compressed formats.
Re Hi-def audio, it'd be nice but I can't see it happening any time soon, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for the best now.
Format lifecycles are accelerating as the industry is desperately looking for ways to sell us the same 'content' (uurrghh) again. AFATAC developing new artists/ideas is too expensive, much better to sell us what we already have in a 'better' format.
Video lasted 20 years or so? DVD is being replaced in half that time. Did you know they're already working on a successor to Blu-ray - HVD
, before it's barely established. There are also plans for 2160p HiDef, yet we've barely got any true 1080p HiDef content right now. What message does that send to the public - don't bother buying as we've got something better coming out next year.
Pointless buying anything right now. IMO Blu-Ray won't take off, HiDef by itself isn't a big enough draw. CDs beat LPs and cassette by sounding better, but more importantly by being far more convenient and robust. DVDs looked a lot better, but again convenience won it.
So tell me again, what's so great about Blu-Ray. BTW I must make sure I've got the right sort of TV with the proper licenced HDMI connection, otherwise I'll actually be watching SD pictures on my HD screen.
So if we want HiDef audio to succeed, it must be more convenient than CDs or MP3s.