I'm gonna wait to upgrade until...

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
s.com...
d a v e wrote:
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
s.com...

d a v e wrote:


and one viable technology is in the u.s. also.

Not yet.



http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...vsda-2003.html


There is no commercially available HD-DVD player referenced there. The
closest thing is the Microsoft WMV9 data blob on T2. That is far from
the HD-DVD recorder being actively sold to consumers in Japan.


they do reference samsung having a HD-DVD player available in Q1 2004, being
compatable with the WM9 format, which is HD. while it may not be the
blu-ray format you seem focused on it is a viable alternative, even if it is
transitionary, that could be commercially available next year.

regardless of the blu-ray recorder being sold in japan, there are no
pre-recorded discs available in the format, which is what i took the
original poster's comments as referencing.

i don't disagree with your points on the blu-ray format, all i'm pointing
out is that it is not the only format which could bring us HD-DVD in the
forseeable future...

d a v e

"Put 030516 in email subj to get thru" wrote in message
...
: 1) DVI with HDMI is commonly used (HDMI is like HDCP copy protection,
: but including sound). Anything I buy without this would be obsolete
: once this comes out.
:
: 2) My HD cable box has TIVO like recording features for HD programs
:
: 3) Prerecorded HD-DVD's are somewhat easy to get.
:
: I'm guessing the HD-DVD's will be the long lead time item here. Say
: 5-10 years?
:
=================
Go ahead......deprive yourself.........

Meantime many of us will be enjoying the current state of the
art.........................

I think the problem here is that most people still think of digital video
and digital audio as nothing more than moving pictures and music notes,
rather than the data signals (1's and 0's) that they actually are. This
is
an outdated analog mentality! Imagine a broadband internet connection
that
required seperate ethernet cables for video and sound. The idea behing
HDMI
is the potential to not only experience audio and video signals, but also
control A/V components seemlessly. The HDMI cable entering the video
source
could also contain the data which also controls the audio source, thus
eliminating unnecessary mazes of cable. A good example of this is
capturing
video via firewire vs. analog RCA connectors. Anyone who has done this
knows the advantages. It's not only the audio and video signal
information,
but the software also controls the DV camcorder (rewinding, fast-forward,
playing, etc.) that make the PC an intuitive extension of this process.
We
need to change these seriously outdated ways of thinking.

There's no good reason controls need to be multiplexed with the data signal.
Wireless is a much better method of handling device identification, control,
and other interdevice communication. The bandwidth requirements are
negligible, and it provides the means of communicating with other wireless
control devices (remotes, laptops, etc) by using a single protocol.

There are also simplification benefits of having a single cable for every
data type, but moving sound around within a home theater does not realize
any. Unlike video displays, digital speakers don't exist, and they aren't
coming soon, so we're stuck with cones and amps and pre-amps. If we want to
hear any sound, we need to work in the analog world, so a universal digital
AV data cable doesn't help here in the slightest.

The root ideas of HDMI are useful, but the design is singularly useless in a
home theater, which is what the original poster was talking about.

d a v e wrote:
"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
s.com...

d a v e wrote:

"Matthew L. Martin" wrote in message
news.com...


d a v e wrote:


and one viable technology is in the u.s. also.

Not yet.



http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...vsda-2003.html


There is no commercially available HD-DVD player referenced there. The
closest thing is the Microsoft WMV9 data blob on T2. That is far from
the HD-DVD recorder being actively sold to consumers in Japan.



they do reference samsung having a HD-DVD player available in Q1 2004, being
compatable with the WM9 format, which is HD. while it may not be the
blu-ray format you seem focused on it is a viable alternative, even if it is
transitionary, that could be commercially available next year.

It could be, but It probably won't. Stand alone players and digital
rights managment are a poor combination.

regardless of the blu-ray recorder being sold in japan, there are no
pre-recorded discs available in the format, which is what i took the
original poster's comments as referencing.

And there won't be any WM9 prerecorded DVDs available until the digital
right issues are settled. That's why you have to have an internet
connection to play T2.

i don't disagree with your points on the blu-ray format, all i'm pointing
out is that it is not the only format which could bring us HD-DVD in the
forseeable future...

The forseeable future has about a dozen competitors now.

I stand by my "not yet".

Matthew

--
http://www.mlmartin.com/bbq/

Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.

"Eric Nielsen" wrote in message
t...
I think the problem here is that most people still think of digital
video
and digital audio as nothing more than moving pictures and music notes,
rather than the data signals (1's and 0's) that they actually are. This
is
an outdated analog mentality! Imagine a broadband internet connection
that
required seperate ethernet cables for video and sound. The idea behing
HDMI
is the potential to not only experience audio and video signals, but
also
control A/V components seemlessly. The HDMI cable entering the video
source
could also contain the data which also controls the audio source, thus
eliminating unnecessary mazes of cable. A good example of this is
capturing
video via firewire vs. analog RCA connectors. Anyone who has done this
knows the advantages. It's not only the audio and video signal
information,
but the software also controls the DV camcorder (rewinding,
fast-forward,
playing, etc.) that make the PC an intuitive extension of this process.
We
need to change these seriously outdated ways of thinking.

There's no good reason controls need to be multiplexed with the data
signal.
Wireless is a much better method of handling device identification,
control,
and other interdevice communication. The bandwidth requirements are
negligible, and it provides the means of communicating with other wireless
control devices (remotes, laptops, etc) by using a single protocol.

True, unless wireless interferes with other wireless. This is fine and
dandy if you have only one home theater setup in the proximity and don't
live in an apartment (near other living rooms). Currently there aren't any
truly effective methods of wireless communication between A/V components.
In this case wireless communication is rather awkward and unnecessary. The
bandwidth in HDMI is twice what it needs to be, ummm... use it!


There are also simplification benefits of having a single cable for every
data type, but moving sound around within a home theater does not realize
any.

Think along the lines of transferring a show from a DVR to a DVD writer, or
a camcorder to a DVD writer, or a camcorder to a DVR, or a DVR to a PC, and
so on and so forth... Think of it as USB or firewire for the living room.
Sending the audio signal to the home theater receiver is likely going to be
the last step in this process anyway. Why have twice the amount of cables
(with multiple components) just to clutter up the situation when it has
absolutely zero benefit? Simplify the situation.

Unlike video displays, digital speakers don't exist, and they aren't
coming soon, so we're stuck with cones and amps and pre-amps.

We still use a seperate optical cable for audio right? But what does this
even have to do with speakers anyway? I'm talking about preserving a
digital signal and possibly transferring it to another digital component or
medium. Analog isn't even an option in this subject. The quality of the
speakers is personally up to the individual, as is the video output display.

If we want to
hear any sound, we need to work in the analog world, so a universal
digital
AV data cable doesn't help here in the slightest.

I'm afraid I don't follow... The idea about HDMI is the combined AV data
transfer between components, not some crappy speaker wire. When the audio
finally gets to the receiver, it's on its own based on the quality of the
receiver. The focus here is on using a separate digital DVI and separate
optical cable versus one single (and convenient) HDMI cable.


The root ideas of HDMI are useful, but the design is singularly useless in
a
home theater, which is what the original poster was talking about.


I often get the impression that most who oppose HDMI are those who have just
recently spent a small fortune on DVI based technology.

"Eric Nielsen" wrote in message
t...
I think the problem here is that most people still think of digital
video
and digital audio as nothing more than moving pictures and music notes,
rather than the data signals (1's and 0's) that they actually are. This
is
an outdated analog mentality! Imagine a broadband internet connection
that
required seperate ethernet cables for video and sound. The idea behing
HDMI
is the potential to not only experience audio and video signals, but
also
control A/V components seemlessly. The HDMI cable entering the video
source
could also contain the data which also controls the audio source, thus
eliminating unnecessary mazes of cable. A good example of this is
capturing
video via firewire vs. analog RCA connectors. Anyone who has done this
knows the advantages. It's not only the audio and video signal
information,
but the software also controls the DV camcorder (rewinding,
fast-forward,
playing, etc.) that make the PC an intuitive extension of this process.
We
need to change these seriously outdated ways of thinking.

There's no good reason controls need to be multiplexed with the data
signal.
Wireless is a much better method of handling device identification,
control,
and other interdevice communication. The bandwidth requirements are
negligible, and it provides the means of communicating with other wireless
control devices (remotes, laptops, etc) by using a single protocol.

True, unless wireless interferes with other wireless. This is fine and
dandy if you have only one home theater setup in the proximity and don't
live in an apartment (near other living rooms). Currently there aren't any
truly effective methods of wireless communication between A/V components.
In this case wireless communication is rather awkward and unnecessary. The
bandwidth in HDMI is twice what it needs to be, ummm... use it!


There are also simplification benefits of having a single cable for every
data type, but moving sound around within a home theater does not realize
any.

Think along the lines of transferring a show from a DVR to a DVD writer, or
a camcorder to a DVD writer, or a camcorder to a DVR, or a DVR to a PC, and
so on and so forth... Think of it as USB or firewire for the living room.
Sending the audio signal to the home theater receiver is likely going to be
the last step in this process anyway. Why have twice the amount of cables
(with multiple components) just to clutter up the situation when it has
absolutely zero benefit? Simplify the situation.

Unlike video displays, digital speakers don't exist, and they aren't
coming soon, so we're stuck with cones and amps and pre-amps.

We still use a seperate optical cable for audio right? But what does this
even have to do with speakers anyway? I'm talking about preserving a
digital signal and possibly transferring it to another digital component or
medium. Analog isn't even an option in this subject. The quality of the
speakers is personally up to the individual, as is the video output display.

If we want to
hear any sound, we need to work in the analog world, so a universal
digital
AV data cable doesn't help here in the slightest.

I'm afraid I don't follow... The idea about HDMI is the combined AV data
transfer between components, not some crappy speaker wire. When the audio
finally gets to the receiver, it's on its own based on the quality of the
receiver. The focus here is on using a separate digital DVI and separate
optical cable versus one single (and convenient) HDMI cable.


The root ideas of HDMI are useful, but the design is singularly useless in
a
home theater, which is what the original poster was talking about.


I often get the impression that most who oppose HDMI are those who have just
recently spent a small fortune on DVI based technology.