What's new

Why are the following good features of Blu-Ray products? (1 Viewer)

andrew markworthy

Senior HTF Member
Sep 30, 1999
(1) Blu-Ray has a lot more capacity than HD. So what is being done with this extra capacity? Better picture, maybe all the extras in HD? Nope - interactivity. That's just great ... if you're 10 years old. I'm sorry, but this is like Gutenberg inventing the printing press and then some sales executive commandeering it to produce Where's Waldo? books.

(2) Why oh why oh why in most players are the higher formats of audio being sent along HDMI in unconverted form? In what way is it a smart move to tell prospective customers that to get the full benefit from the new system they will not only have to buy a new player but also a new amp that will accept HDMI inputs as well? And having said that HDMI is the way of the future, why have such a miserly collection of HDMI inputs in all but the most eye-wateringly expensive amps? Of course there's an easy way round this - you could put decoders in the players, enabling folks to use their old amps. But what's the point in that? Nobody will ever accuse the folks concerned of price gouging ...


Senior HTF Member
Aug 20, 2000
1) CE manufacturers are looking for a "new hook" to convince consumers of a need to upgrade. Better PQ and AQ may not be enough for the majority of buyers and extras like commentaries, deleted scenes and so on are considered old hat. What's left? Interactivity. That is why CE manufacturers, for good or ill, are focussing on that aspect.

2) Two words: planned obsolescence. In order to make money, CE companies require people to constantly upgrade their equipment. This practice is hardly limited to Blu-ray. It is common practice with all companies. Consumers have one of two choices: 1) follow the companies like sheep and constantly upgrade or 2) give the companies the finger, don't buy and be happy with what they have got.


Senior HTF Member
Dec 19, 1998
I'm personally waiting for a BR player that decodes the avdanced audio codecs to analog, so I don't have to change preamps.


Supporting Actor
Apr 27, 2004
I hate HDMI. Who designed this mess? Why could they not have used two separate feeds, one for audio and one for video, since the two signals will almost certainly need to go two different boxes. And, why make up yet another connector and protocol? Could they not have used ethernet?

I'm hoping someday that there will be an AV pre/pro that actually, really, truly accepts any input and provides all the switching and mangling of the signal, then sends it out to your audio amps and video display. Maybe even more than one output set, so that you can monitor system operations on one little screen.

And, of course it will have ethernet so you can wire it into your home network.

Stephen Tu

Apr 26, 1999

Although manufacturers should have done a much better job testing compatibility, handshaking issues, and maybe used a connector that didn't fall out so easily, for what they wanted to accomplish (uncompressed, encrypted AV, simpler connections, backwards compatibility with DVI, a common computer video interface) it's a reasonable design. Common 100 Mbps Ethernet didn't have the bandwidth though I suppose they could use 10Gbps Ethernet now. The whole idea behind HDMI is to simplify connecting components, so one cable is preferable than 2 for most people, also a new connector type prevents people from plugging in the wrong thing into the wrong jack.

People without an AV receiver only have to connect one cable now, and with an AV receiver its fewer wires also. 3 AV components = 4 wires, including one from receiver to TV, instead of 6. There was that other thread complaining about inability to switch video/audio separately, but that could theoretically be handled in the receiver, it's just not a common function now. But this is only important to a minority of people.

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Latest member
Recent bookmarks