Is It My choice, Or Is It Yours?

[miller]

So let me get this straight: You believe that the capacity of Blu-ray, which is unrealize in any practical way at present, outweighs the price and feature advantages that HD DVD has today?

So your advice is that consumers should pay 2-4x more for what? Because they'll need the capacity in 1 year, 2 years, 5 years? You can't sell the consumer on that, even if it's true.

Using your logic, would you have been convinced to pay $4000 for 80MB rather than $1000 for 20MB? Knowing that you had no immediate need for the extra 60MB in the forseeable future? I think not.

- Miller

[Dale]

I have found that my hearing is impaired above 10k cps. So, the suggestion of making a choice for something I can't hear fails to sway me, personally. I believe I will benefit more from the added capacity which gives room for innovation in things I may be able to use. I will certainly benefit where my personal video shot in HDTV is concerned. This is becoming a huge sector and capacity is welcome. That outweighs the argument, at least in my mind, that I should choose on the basis of audio superiority which is beyond my hearing. Again, this is a personal choice and one which when made would likely incorporate all what is missing in the other.

It would be interesting to know now if there is anything in the Blu-ray hardware or software or licensing that permanently prohibits Blu-ray from adopting what it is you seek? I will say that my guests in my home theater have never once mentioned audio as being insufficient or disappointing and I am still using an optical connection! I will soon upgrade to a audio system that accepts HDMI for the benefit of those who may have audio acuity. Again, this is my choice of Blu-ray, not your's. nor am asking you to join me in any quest other than the settling of this issue one way or the other. I do hope you will join that effort. As to formats, I would be just as pleased if all of you who read this gather up enough sound reasoning to make the obvious choice that of the HD DVD. If you do not want the issues settled at all and are one of those who benefits from such divisiveness, then that is another story. HDNet told me they were personally delighted that there are two formats because that channel is benefiting from two separate ad campaigns for the same movies (at least those coming out on both formats). If you can follow we can end this costly contest of wills we will all benefit. Some of you know that I was part of the leadership of the HDTV movement for many years and I can tell you that we made trade offs in order to arrive at a system. Dick Wiley (chairman of the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Services) formed the Grand Alliance out of the surviving (of the testing) proponents where the best features of each were brought together in one system. Out of that unity has come all the rest that we see being done today in displays and even more advanced parameters. None of it would have happened if we had been left divided. As it was we barely had the energy to get over the hump, but we did. I see a micro parallel in this high-definition war and all my choice says is that we should now take the best of each system and apply our talents to melding them together where possible and accepting what is not possible and then move on with one system. The fellow who argues that the added capacity will not find use and that its cost is too great makes a good point until one realizes that the cost is not to us at retail but is part of the fabrication cost which has no chance of being passed on to the consumer BECAUSE the clearly recognized threat to either format is the existing DVD format and upconverting playback equipment. A well mastered DVD is quite acceptable to a huge quantity of people. Remember that survey which pointed out that 45% of the HD equipment in use is NOT attached to a HDTV source? This was very distressing news to the studios for they want the added content protection that comes with either high-def DVD format. But with so many satisfied with DVD performance on their HD sets they realized that they had an uphill battle with a high def DVD format, especially where cost is concerned. They would like to get rid of the DVD format as soon as possible and doing it with added cost is a poor marketing choice when people are happy with what they already have.

Does this mean the studios will take a small hit in margins? There is nothing more inherently costly in the pressing process other than raw materials that are not yet being purchased in large enough quantities to reduce their costs. Already manufacturing engineering has reduced one of the layering cost in the pressing process. Is there anyone who thinks that supporting two separate formats in the global marketing channels is cheaper than only pressing Blu-ray?

[miller]

The fellow who argues that the added capacity will not find use and that its cost is too great makes a good point until one realizes that the cost is not to us at retail...

Umm, that is my exact point ... it is being passed on to us at retail. Why else would Blu-ray players be 2-4x more expensive than HD DVD?

They would like to get rid of the DVD format as soon as possible and doing it with added cost is a poor marketing choice when people are happy with what they already have.

So now you are saying that we should go HD DVD because that is the least resistant path to replacing standard DVD?

Is there anyone who thinks that supporting two separate formats in the global marketing channels is cheaper than only pressing Blu-ray?

What about pressing only HD DVD? Even cheaper still, yes?

I don't mean to keep arguing, but the only reason you've given us for picking Blu-ray is capacity, and you haven't provided any reason at all why paying more for that capacity is to the consumers benefit.

- Miller

[Rodolfo]

I am going to let Dale handle the issue of his choice, because is his choice.

Which I happen to agree with, is mine as well, I will keep investing in just Blu-ray content, even if I could get an HD-DVD player for free, but I keep my personal reasons out of forums.

This note is because I just wanted to make a clarification about the comment made about audio:

"HD-DVD 1st & 2nd generation players have clearly superior audio (1.5mpsDTS). Hence, only one format offers a relevant and perceptual superiority, and it isn't Blu-ray."

Actually, DTS 1.5Mbps was and still is for many years a "legacy" multichannel lossy audio, as Dolby Digital is at much lower resolution (384Kbps), both used even for DVD.

DTS 1.5Mbps is not a new format for either blue-laser format, but both new blu-laser players have to have those legacy audio decoders as backward compatibility.

If you have a quality audio equipment it has been and still is very obvious the superior quality of DTS over Dolby Digital (both legacy) specially when playing DVD concerts. The overall clarity and the tight bass were always better on DTS.

You might be refering to the newer hi-bit audio codecs DTS-HD and DTS Master Audio with resolutions many times over the 1.5Mbps of legacy DTS.

Both blu-laser formats have those codec capabilities, regardless if the audio formats are mandated or optional in the specs for manufacturing either player. And it has always been the option of the content provider to include any of those on the discs, of either blu-laser format.

If you like to read about the details please check the Glossary of this magazine, or the articles and reports I have written about the subject, also available on this magazine.

By the way Dale, do not disregard your ability to hear quality audio due to age. Just remember when you and Shane attended a demo I did on my HT of Blu-ray Leyends of Jazz, and for some tracks I was just playing Dolby TrueHD downconverted as Dolby Digital at almost 700Kbps (whereas the typical DD on DVDs is usually peaking at 384Kbps.)

You and Shane thought that the sound was so clean that I was playing TrueHD on that part of the demo. Make that audio 30 times that resolution and loseless, and it will blow your mind, even when you still playing 5.1.

You would not need a hearing aide to recognize that level of quality, because even when you would need higher dB on the upper frequencies for your hearing to hear the highs above 10KHz, the overall clarity is overwhelming at any frequency.

In fact I would be cautious about using a hearing aid for this type of purpose considering that all of them are designed to deal with frequencies below 8KHz for the primary purpose of helping with speech recognizion.

Additionally, you would not want a miniature amplifier in or out of your ear having specs above 2% Total Harmonic Distortion and an equalizer on it, located between your timpany and your 0.0002% THD HT amplifier. You would be better off by closing the door of your HT and raise the volume to the level you need, to tolerable levels indeed, you do not want more damage.

In summary, I agree that sound quality is a great step forward for both blu-laser formats, but DTS 1.5Mbps is not that step forward.



Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[Dale]

I will address your last comment first. Capacity leads to the unknown, the still-to-be-developed and to-be-engineered. It is a doorway to the new. I don't want to close that door on everyone, which I do by leading a choice to HD DVD. Maybe no one will ever find a use for all of that capacity. Perhaps the idea of putting games alongside a movie will never catch on or the idea of selling four movies on one disk will never get legs, but I learned from 25 years of constant study of this industry that every door opened is used and every capacity made is engaged. Find me any spectrum that is not being used (if it can be and is not used for interference protection) The cost of entry is going to soon be equal. Maybe one side will continue to subsidize a player more so than the other, at least for a time. But there is nothing inherently more expensive in one over the other once the items are turned over to the major commodity producers. I learned in the HDTV business that what we rely upon today as dogmatic fact in terms of engineering and cost can be swept away with one new manufacturing process. There are hundreds of thousands of people the world over working constantly on reducing cost through manufacturing advances. Neither you nor I can guess what that innovation or confluence of innovations is going to be which will drive the cost of these devices and their disks down, but we best not make the bet that it won't happen. The first lasers used in the development of the CD cost Philips $10,000 each! They are now pennies each. Intense manufacturing engineering will be applied to every aspect of these high def DVD players and the medium they use. You may recall that the first VCRs were $1200 (in the 70s yet!). Do you recall which -- the Beta or the VHS -- was the more costly machine in those early hours? I do recall that the tapes were $90 to $120 each. History doesn't allow me to believe that either choice we can make will, due to manufacturing cost, be out of reach of the average consumer. It will get cheaper and cheaper and just like the VCR it too will fade with the appearance of the next new thing to come along. That is the way it has historically been and I can't see any reason to depart from that thinking when contemplating the future.

[miller]

Capacity leads to the unknown, the still-to-be-developed and to-be-engineered. It is a doorway to the new. I don't want to close that door on everyone, which I do by leading a choice to HD DVD. Maybe no one will ever find a use for all of that capacity.

All other things being equal, I would agree with you. But all other things are not equal, the biggest of which being the $300 (approximate) price difference between HD DVD and Blu-ray hardware. You are asking the consumer to place a large wager on capacity, with nothing even on the horizon that might make them want that extra capacity.

I know as "high-end" guys you and Rodolfo favor Blu-ray, that makes sense given your background as enthusiast, perhaps even perfectionists. But look at it from a typical consumer point-of-view (me) ... what is there in Blu-ray that makes it worth an extra $300? Is the picture better? No. Are there more features? No. Are there more titles on Blu-ray? A subjective question, but the formats are arguable equal in this regard, so No.

Please tell me what each of you think there is in the Blu-ray format for the regular consumer that is worth spending an extra $300 for.

Also Dale, you only replied to my first point ... do you have a response for the others?

Thanks,

- Miller

[Dale]

Let's say that any cost differential disappears after the early adopters have done their part. And it will. You can trust that because these competitors know that they have a close race that cannot be won with higher priced players. What is your choice then given that this field is leveled? I pose this question because price is highly elastic--stretching this way and that at the marketer's pleasure. What is more static or permanent is the capacity. Blu-ray is not an elitist system. I will look a little deeper into the cost of manufacturing and see if there is any reason for it to be permanently higher (a prediction no one can make since none of us know the level of manufacturing engineering going on right now). I recall one incident that happened during the development of the ATSC standard. I don't remember over which exact issue it was but I later ran into the key committee guy who was in the center of the brawl and we both laughed at how hard the battle had been waged over a perceived cost that was later reduced by integration to near absolutely nothing. We had battled ferociously for months -- highly knowledgeable people I might add -- for what turned out to be nothing. Without faith in progress in consumer electronics you would have had a hard time putting your stamp of approval on HDTV. The first sets sold in Japan were 32" and 34" tube types with a terrible decoder with a starting price of $28,000...and, there was only one experimental satellite channel that ran a few hours a day to fill the screen. Had we used that data as the criteria for calculating the future we would have folded up our tents and slithered away. But we had enough evidence from the past to say that the future was going to look very, very different and that prices would fall until they were no more than a few dollars more than a corresponding size old standard set. I can certify that there was not one single person who knew exactly how that was going to come about, but that history had shown that it does come about time after time. Has that not come true again? It's just too early to concern yourself with the price that the average consumer will need to spend on the Blu-ray format. Trust me when I say that those who put billions of dollars at risk to create them didn't do so believing there would always be a $300 dollar difference between formats or even a $300 price...or even a $100 price. Have faith and you will see the future in consumer electronics. Without it you see but one frame of the movie.

[miller]

Let's say that any cost differential disappears after the early adopters have done their part.

The HD DVD player is selling for under $100 at Wal-mart ... I'd say we're past "Early Adopter" phase already. If you disagree, when will this "parity" day come when both sides are selling players for the same price? And how many HD DVD players will be sold until then?

Sony's pockets may have been deep enough to fight the DVD Forum and launch a competing format, but I don't think they are deep enough to last very much longer against the HD DVD economy.

Have faith and you will see the future in consumer electronics.

My faith is reserved for more important pursuits. I've waited 2 years already for a winner to emerge, and at less than $100, I think one finally has.

Thank you for the engaging conversation. You bring up some interesting points, but none of them have convinced me that I need to invest in Blu-ray. I'm ready to buy this Christmas, and I'm going with HD DVD.

- Miller

[aaronstout]

Miller,

I think you are so focused on cost solely at this point in time that you are convinced that HD DVD has "won" because they were the first to be sold at less than $100 each. It seems to be clear that this sale price is on an older product and even at that is heavily subsidized by Toshiba, which is getting royalty payments from the DVD format to help fund their format.

The point that Dale is trying to make is that this condition is not likely to go on for much longer. There are multiple manufacturers involved and if both formats survive, it is only a matter of time before the cost differential is erased, or reduced to a point of being insignificant. Today the difference is significant, but no one expects this to continue forever.

Besides capacity, there is also the media itself, which for Blu-ray is clearly superior to HD DVD. I don't think too many folks want to invest in a high definition library that is so sensitive to scratching and provides no mechanism for archiving.

I own neither format at this point in time. I believe that if Paramount had not been convinced to "side" with HD DVD, this "battle" would have ended sometime next year because of the programming discrepancy. It was essential for HD DVD to level this field and they may have done enough with help from Microsoft to survive to fight another day.

It's interesting that until Transformers was released (by Paramount that originally planned to release on both formats), despite the better pricing for HD DVD, they have lagged Blu-ray in software sales nearly from the day Blu-ray was released. In the end, it will be software that determines a winner (like it was in VHS vs Beta), IMO.

Before the Paramount decision, I was convinced HD DVD was a dead format and I didn't see the need to invest in a player for a format that would just be a footnote in history in a couple of years. But, since that happened, I have to admit that I was intrigued by the drop in price of the A2 to sub $100 levels. I even went as far as checking at Walmart Saturday to see if they actually had any of the units available. Nope, only the A3 at a much higher price and a Sony Blu-ray player at a higher price still. I figured even for a dead format, it would probably be worth a $100 investment just to have the ability to view all program choices for the short term. I had planned to purchase a Blu-ray player before Christmas and was waiting for version 2.0 players to be released. It looks like that is not going to happen now until at least next year. As such, I'll likely buy a PS3, as it appears to be the platform with the best chance of being upgradable to nearly any forthcoming improvments.

If you can ever get over this short term "price" thing with HD DVD, you should be able to see that an open standard with higher capacity and better media has to be better in the long run. If you are simply wanting to know what format is the least costly format to get into today, you know the answer already. But, if you read what Dale is trying to tell you with an open mind, you might just realize that he has the perspective of someone who has been in the industry for quite some time and has seen HDTV from the ground up.

His feelings also match mine and unless the Blu-ray association just collapses and all studios start releasing HD DVDs, I don't see how HD DVD can "win" this "war".

That leads us to the only other scenario, and the one I think Dale also speaks indirectly to, and that is if there is a grid lock here and neither party will capitulate, we will simply wind up with no blue laser product that will be viable. Then we all loose... I know what you are going to respond with already, and that is it should be Blu-ray that should throw in the towel. That may very well be what happens, it's just that Dale and most others who look at the bigger picture, feel that is going to be the "wrong" choice.

In the end, only time will tell... and it will be the consumers who are voting... and unfortunately many consumers will likely look no further than a price tag to make their choice. Too bad really, but such is life when non technical folks make a choice regarding technology with little to no input, other than a price tag. I think that is also one of the key points Dale was trying to make, that apparently you may have over looked.

Aaron

[Dale]

As I said earlier, my preference leans to the long term and what capacity means in general. I am not prejudiced in any way towards a vendor or their business practices so I am always open to the fact that my presentation will create a reaction that leans to the opposing side. If I am nothing more than a catalyst for either side to take control of the market that is enough for me. Getting off the fence is the most important thing. I am sorry that there is still a gamble on your part (or anyone's part) but the gamble of being orphaned with no support in the future can devalue one's library. And, if we continue to be divided there will be programs which will require us to buy a second format just to enjoy them. That is the future I don't want to be a part of sending forward. As far as the $100 price is concerned we have to know how much subsidy is in it. Paramount reportedly received $150,000,000 for their strong endorsement of the standard. Sony had a record year this year all due to their strong showing in high definition television and while their game division has performed less than admirably, the commitment from the top of Sony (Howard Stringer) to have the PS3 become the media center of the home remains undiminished. I trust that they will do what is needed to dominate certain markets. This is a global business and Europe is reportedly stronger for Blu-ray where here it is more mixed. But no one should ever criticize another for the choice they made in this contest for both are clearly excellent bits of technology and manufacturing. Had the two not been rivals this contest of wills could not have happened.