the entire point of this is that the PS3 does not have 5.1 analogue outs... The sound is clean and true this way and I prefer it over the other audio connections (as do MANY)

I am quite sure that "MANY" do not prefer analogue audio out from their HDM player, but perhaps "SOME" do. Why would you want it? You are assuming that the DAC in the HDM player is not only better than the one in your receiver (which is highly unlikely) but also that the transfer from your HDM player to the receiver over an analogue connection does not degrade the sound at all (again, unlikely).

Quite frankly blink, for many of us it seems you are desperately looking for missing "features" on the PS3 and using those are proxy arguments for why you do not want it. If you are setting up a HD home theater system it seem peculiar that you would not want to maximize the quality of image and sound, and that would mean using HDMI for sound as well.

This is not to say that there are no valid criticisms of the PS3, particularly when it comes to sound. Currently, and apparently forever, the PS3 cannot bit stream lossless sound over the HDMI interface. This is the main point all the audiophiles have against the PS3. It is the opposite of your point. It is a valid point, and I am sorry, I don't accept your argument as valid, it is quite frankly rather silly.

This lack in the PS3, compounded by the lack of DTS-MA decoding into an LPCM stream, is the main argument for not buying the PS3.

The lack of analogue audio out, which you would only use if your receiver doesn't support digital audio inputs (assuming you care about audio quality) is not an argument against the PS3. Really. Not from a rational individual. Are you rational?

"This lack in the PS3, compounded by the lack of DTS-MA decoding into an LPCM stream, is the main argument for not buying the PS3."
=====================================================
Well thank heavens someone is around to tell me why I don't want something ;)





"I call bullshit. It simply isn't backed up by fact. You can believe however much you want, it simply isn't supported by measurable fact."
============================================================
Oh... and your word that it isn't loud, IS fact??? Please Terje, I'm having a hard time controlling my laughter here.


"The lack of analogue audio out, which you would only use if your receiver doesn't support digital audio inputs (assuming you care about audio quality) is not an argument against the PS3. Really. Not from a rational individual. Are you rational?"
===============================================================
Mmmm... maybe you should tell Denon and Marnatz how it is too... Their high end receivers are coming with digital AND analogue. You should aslo tell Blu ray and Toshiba, because thier high end stuff is coming with analogue as well. Interesting though... the low end stuff is only coming with digital in/outs. My reciever in fact has 2 HDMI, 2 coaxial digital, 2 optical digital AND a set of 5.1 analogue ports (which bypass all of the filters, boosters including the bass/treble. What goes through the analogue ports is EXACTLY what is coming out of the player)

In fact Terje... here's a HIGH END dvd player... have a look at the back and see the 5.1 analog outs, You don't get this on a $40 dvd player. You also don't hook this up to an inexpensive receiver that doesn't have digital. Are YOU rational?

http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3127.asp#

Terje... you're blowing smoke. You haven't a clue of what you're talking about and you know it. Tell the truth now....You thought I meant the STEREO analogue ports which the cheap things like low end dvd players have. You had no idea that this equipment was coming with 5.1 outputs.

As I said, from my eyes, the PS3 stinks as a player. It's not what I want... it's not what I am looking for and I would not in a million years stick one in my living room... if that offends you.... too bad

Terje and Blinky: Tone it down a bit or you're going to get this thread deleted.

"which bypass all of the filters, boosters including the bass/treble. What goes through the analogue ports is EXACTLY what is coming out of the player)"

I STILL don't see how this whole analog output from the player makes any positive difference whatsoever. There is not one shred of evidence to back up your claim. The player delivers the digital bitstream via HDMI, optical or coaxial and it gets decoded in the receiver. You can set the receiver to leave the audio unmodified by turning off all DSP functions. The surround sound decoder and D/A converters in a decent A/V receiver are probably of higher quality than those in a mid-range player.

What you're claiming just flies in the face of my forty years of professional audio experience. The audiophile biz is full of well-meaning snake-oil salesmen. I suppose you think that a turntable dragging a rock through a piece of plastic sounds better than a decent audio CD? Or maybe you subscribe to the belief that painting the edge of your discs with a green Sharpie makes them sound and look better? I hope you're using $1,000/meter audio interconnects between your player's analog outputs and receiver, it does make a significant difference. (NOT!)

> "As I said, from my eyes, the PS3 stinks as a player. It's not what I want... it's not what I am looking for and I would not in a million years stick one in my living room..."

- but what about after that?

"I STILL don't see how this whole analog output from the player makes any positive difference whatsoever. There is not one shred of evidence to back up your claim. The player delivers the digital bitstream via HDMI, optical or coaxial and it gets decoded in the receiver."
==============================================================
What claim???

I haven't claimed a dam thing! I have stated that the analog is BETTER than the optical/coaxial inputs because they have bandwith problems. That is not a claim... it is a fact, look it up if you don't believe me.

I have stated that I PREFER the analogue outputs. It is my PREFERENCE. The PS3 does not have them and that coupled with the fact that it is a GAME CONSOLE with blutooth remote.... it stinks for my purposes... plain and simple.

And BTW... you can't bypass the bass/treble... you can flatten it, but not bypass it.

"which bypass all of the filters, boosters including the bass/treble. What goes through the analogue ports is EXACTLY what is coming out of the player)"

I STILL don't see how this whole analog output from the player makes any positive difference whatsoever. There is not one shred of evidence to back up your claim. The player delivers the digital bitstream via HDMI, optical or coaxial and it gets decoded in the receiver. You can set the receiver to leave the audio unmodified by turning off all DSP functions. The surround sound decoder and D/A converters in a decent A/V receiver are probably of higher quality than those in a mid-range player.

What you're claiming just flies in the face of my forty years of professional audio experience.
=============
He's right John. I have an HD-A1 and my son has an HD-XA1 and after much experimentation on his system and my system we have both concluded that the multi-channel analog out from either player to the multi-channel inputs of his Onkyo receiver or my Sony ES receiver "sound better".

I have tried to figure this out and the only conclusion I can draw is something I have pointed out in other threads. While people can point out the theoretical differences in the various technology and claim one is better I find that profit first and industry indifference produce inferior implementation of said technology.

It's like touting the superiority of Blu-Ray over HD DVD when in practice no-one is fully implementing and optimizing either format on the discs. We have a person who brings over his Playstation 3 and a boatload of Blu-Ray discs for us to watch. Same conclusion.

Your eyes and ears will tell you this right away once pre-conceived notions are eliminated from one's thought. We have fifteen regular visitors to my Home Theater who I ask to evaluate the films they watch. Clearly some well produced SD DVDs upscaled look better or are equal to many Hi-Def discs. Now one can argue technically that that is impossible, but fifteen of us see otherwise. Monopoly should fix that right?

The sound is the same story. Dolby has a big explanation about how:
"Dolby® TrueHD is Dolby’s next-generation lossless technology developed for high-definition disc-based media. Dolby TrueHD delivers tantalizing sound that is bit-for-bit identical to the studio master" yet when I enable it on some discs it often sounds worse than analog out. A good example is The Phantom of the Opera which has a Dolby True HD track that was recorded at least 15-20 dB below a normal DD track on an SD DVD. Why? Especially on a musical. Our collective conclusion: They really don't care. They can get a premium price for HD DVD and Blu-Ray discs and not have to put any extra effort into all but a few of them to make them superior. Then they can work behind the scenes to pay off more money for "favors" than anyone is making through trying to please the customers with price or good quality. Monopoly is good.

The few good discs will bring the fan boys out to tout the perceived superiority of all the rest of the discs that aren't. What really cracks me up are the discs they "rate the best" and call "reference quality". More then half of them are animations or heavy CGI movies. Animations are a real "challenge" for the two formats. Right?

Overall sales of both formats combined are lousy compared to SD DVD sales because of price, and you aren't getting your money's worth with either Hi-Def format because of a movie industry that could care less about the consumer's desire for quality. But a monopoly should fix that right?

The consumer is getting the shaft while the techno-geeks slug it out with one another over specs. It's almost funny and I mean nothing condescending against anyone on these forums and this is certainly not directed against you John. It is a general criticism of what I see as a consumer unfriendly corporate mentality in this and other countries and it's mass propaganda machine.
I have posted this before on this and other forums based upon collective subjective analysis. I have also leveled the same criticism against todays consumer cameras. I read User Reviews for kicks and because if I am in the market for something they carry more weight than some of the professional reviews. The pattern with consumer cams is pretty consistent. "I bought this camera thinking it was going to be better than my old one and it isn't". That is because the person got rid of his old 1/4 or 1/3 CCD analog camera with useful manual controls in favor of a digital 1/5th or 1/6th CCD with menu driven difficult to adjust functions and a whole bunch of useless bells and whistles they didn't really neeed. The industry took advantage of the relative lack of generation loss of digital in order to cheapen the cameras at the consumer's expense hoping they wouldn't notice right away. Many didn't and many first time camera owners didn't know any better. If you never saw a focus knob or wheel you wouldn't miss it. And all cameras load a tape from the bottom so what's the difference? But how cool? The camera will make my grainy image in low light look like cepia. Neat!

As long as we keep defending these practices they will continue unabated.

John

Oh... and your word that it isn't loud, IS fact???

Sigh. No, my statement and all the reviews you can shake a stick at. All that against your ramblings, and you don't even own a PS3. Sorry, I am having problems figuring out why we should take your ramblings seriously.

Mmmm... maybe you should tell Denon and Marnatz how it is too... Their high end receivers are coming with digital AND analogue.

I know, but what would you chose, for optimum sound? That is my only question, and the answer is not even close to "analogue".

You thought I meant the STEREO analogue ports

Nope. Please keep to posting your own opinions blink, your ability to read other peoples minds is rather limited.

I would not in a million years stick one in my living room... if that offends you.... too bad

As I have stated a few times, I am not offended by your opinions. I am just arguing against your arguments "backing up" your opinions. Arguments that have all been shown to be wrong or pure fantasy.

I have an HD-A1 and my son has an HD-XA1 and after much experimentation on his system and my system we have both concluded that the multi-channel analog out from either player to the multi-channel inputs of his Onkyo receiver or my Sony ES receiver "sound better".

I can see a few different reasons why this is the case, and it would be interesting to find out where the problem lies. As a baseline, would you agree that it seems reasonable that pumping the pure bitstream DTS-MA audio from your HDM disk to your receiver and have the receiver do the decoding of the audio would typically yield the better sound than analogue transfer (AT)? The reason for this should be obvious, but I am not sure. What actual soundtrack is streamed over the analogue connections I am not sure about, but let's just call it the AT soundtrack from here on.

Reason number one - the DTS-MA soundtrack is just simply bad. It isn't of the same quality as the AT soundtrack. If that is the case, it is an issue with the software. If the AT soundtrack and the DTS-MA soundtrack is from the same source (in other words, the analogue out on your player plays the DTS-MA soundtrack after running it through a DAC, see reason number two).

Reason number two - the DAC in the receiver just isn't all that good. This isn't an unreasonable assumption, but it would be surprising. I have not spent a lot of time looking into what audio DAC capabilities these players have, I have just assumed that most reasonably priced (ie above $500) receivers will have superior DACs for audio.

Reason number three - human error. There are a lot of setting involved here in most of the equipment. Some times humans make mistakes. I am not saying that is the case here, but it is something to wonder about.

But, as I was saying, decoding the digital audio as late as possible in the cycle, with the best possible DAC (which normally should reside in your receiver) would normally give the best possible sound.

"I know, but what would you chose, for optimum sound?"
=============================================
I don't know... it depends. Maybe today I would like analogue connects. But then maybe tomorrow I will change my mind and opt for HDMI. Oh... wait... we're talking about the PS3... oops, we don't have that kind of latitude :(

"and you don't even own a PS3. "
==================================
You got that right!! Don't plan to own one either. My kid has a xbox 360 downstairs (he doesn't like the PS3 either)... and that's about as close as one of those machines will ever come to my living room.



"Arguments that have all been shown to be wrong or pure fantasy."
=======================================================
My preferences, likes and dislikes are wrong!?!? How the heck do you arrive at that conclusion? Does the PS3 have analogue outputs? Can you use the PS3 with the Harmony remote? Is the PS3 loud? These are all things that I care about and none of them will work to my advantage. Now you may see them differently and that's fine, but we're not talking about your living room or your money here, so it is MY perspective that counts here not yours. If you have no problems with the noise and the sad lack of in/outs and don't mind scrounging for multiple remotes.... then hey go buy yourself a PS3... Me... I'm looking for something a little more.

Oh... and your word that it isn't loud, IS fact??

Here is a nice little demonstration. Now, if you can hear the PS3 fan over the background noise you have good ears. Even with the camcorder sitting right next to the fan.

Now, this is not my opinion vs your opinion blink, this is fact vs ramblings. The PS3 is amazingly quiet, and that has been noted in all reviews of the device. If you get a PS3 that makes noise, you can return it and get a new one.

http://www.gadgetmadness.com/archives/20070324-ps3_versus_xbox_360_which_has_the_quietest_fan.php

Funny, I don't ever remember saying the Xbox360 was quiet... are we off on yet another tangent Terje?

I'll tell ya what... next time you run out of arguments and want to change the subject... just say so.

If you READ properly you will see that my claim was that the PS3 is loud relative to the players. Why the heck would I care about the Xbox?? And yes... the PS3 is LOUD.

The pattern with consumer cams is pretty consistent. "I bought this camera thinking it was going to be better than my old one and it isn't". That is because the person got rid of his old 1/4 or 1/3 CCD analog camera with useful manual controls in favor of a digital 1/5th or 1/6th CCD with menu driven difficult to adjust functions and a whole bunch of useless bells and whistles they didn't really neeed.
Post a link, will ya? I'd like to read a post by someone who got rid of their 1/3 or 1/4 camcorder for a 1/6 camcorder, expecting something better.

You're blowing in the wind about HD disc sales compared to SD disc sales. HD disc sales are far exceeding estimates. SD disc sales paled compared to VHS as well, for almost 3 years. SD discs are mature. HD discs are not. Comparing the sales is well....insert your own descriptor....Until VERY recently, SD camera sales far exceeded HD camera sales too. Until very recently, SD displays far exceeded sales of HD displays. Until recently, Mac owned about 4% of the computer market. Lots of changes in the wind, and if nothing else, check out what's up at CES. It's *all* ALL about HD. All of it. You can't wipe your tush without seeing HD on the tissue at the show. Home networking, audio, personal devices, displays, phones with HD, codecs, partnerships, cameras, software, signage...it's all about HD. Last year wasn't like this, not even close.

As a baseline, would you agree that it seems reasonable that pumping the pure bitstream DTS-MA audio from your HDM disk to your receiver and have the receiver do the decoding of the audio would typically yield the better sound than analogue transfer (AT)?
===================
If you are referring to DTS-HD MA, that format cannot use more or less bandwidth than what is required for the track. It has kind of a lossy DTS core (1.5 Mbps), but what is important is that decoder support is optional and currently no HD DVD player has the option. HD DdVD players are required to have decoder support for DTS, DD, DD+. and two channel Dolby True HD. So far all the players additionally support multi-channel decoding. LPCM is stored on the disc and is uncompressed and all players must support this up to 2-8 channel 24 bit (with lower bandwidth as you increase the bits). What you are probably thinking about is that over HDMI 1.3 DTS-HD MA can be sent to the receiver and decoded there by a few players (HD-XA2 for example) capable of bitstreaming that format and sending it to an external decoder (in a capable receiver). This offers no proven sound quality improvement and is not required by the HD DVD spec. When enabled in a capable HDMI 1.3 player (via menu) the internal mixer and decoder is bypassed and only the main audio track is heard. The bitstream is decoded by the HDMI 1.3 receiver into LPCM. The receiver's DAC converts it to analog. I haven't seen a definitive test to date that shows this to provide superior sound. And as I said no HD DVD player to date can decode this format internally to see if that makes a difference.

John

The pattern with consumer cams is pretty consistent. "I bought this camera thinking it was going to be better than my old one and it isn't". That is because the person got rid of his old 1/4 or 1/3 CCD analog camera with useful manual controls in favor of a digital 1/5th or 1/6th CCD with menu driven difficult to adjust functions and a whole bunch of useless bells and whistles they didn't really neeed.
=================================================
Post a link, will ya? I'd like to read a post by someone who got rid of their 1/3 or 1/4 camcorder for a 1/6 camcorder, expecting something better.
==================================================
I have to narrow it down to save space here so I'll pick a few recent ones, but I will cite more of them if these aren't sufficient:

Sony DCR-DVD 108:
December 14, 2007
"I bought the Sony 108 thinking it's a Sony should be good. We are coming from an aging HI8 and thought it was time to replace. I did not like going from 2 hours recording to 30 minutes but with a 1 hour option that would be ok.

Well we used it and my wife said the colors were muted. Normal indoor light light conditions cause the colors to be muted. Also the picture quality is awful compared to my Hi8. When there is motion there are line and the images are grainy.

I will be returning this and paying a 15% restocking fee. "

November 26, 2007
"This black friday, I get excited to purchase a new camcorder. My gf and I were looking for decent entry level camcorder. With all the new media format available now, we were confused. But, we knew Sony with its name and quality ... we should stick with another Sony. The new camcorder is to replace an aging Hi8 Sony Camcorder..due to its size and weight.
The color is horrible, it does not maintain the hues correctly. With limited color adjustment function, I was stuck with the horrible color rendering. To make the product worse, its non-film format makes the quality of the video horrible ( pixelated). We have HDTV 42" Plasma..and the camcorder playback looks horrible on the screen. I've tried it on standard TUBE tv..it was less pixelated but still worse than our old Hi8 Sony. After much consdieration, I returned the camcorder for a refund. "

Sony DCR-SR82 :
September 13, 2007
"Compared to my JVC GZ-MG255, the Sony DCR-SR82 camcorder is very poor when recording in low light video scenes because of its smaller F1.8 lens, and smaller 1/6 inch, 1 MP CCD. My JVC GZ-MG255 has better low light video recording because of its larger F1.2 lens and larger 1/4 inch, 2.1 MP CCD."
At a dim, low light indoors dance party, when I switched from "Night Shot Plus" to "Super Night Shot Plus [infared light]", the previously focused people suddenly became unfocused and more blurry (due to rapid loss of Auto Focus), because of the smaller F1.8 lens, and smaller 1/6 inch, 1 MP CCD. During another video test outdoors at night in dim light, when switching from "Night Shot Plus" to "Super Night Shot Plus", the same unfocus and blurry happened again. Sorry Sony, this low light video recording was totally useless and unacceptable to me, and I decided to return this Sony DCR-SR82 camcorder for refund. (Compared to this Sony, my JVC GZ-MG255 has a better low light video performance feature called "Night Alive", and its larger F1.2 lens, and larger 1/4 inch, 2.1 MP CCD.) "

July 26, 2007 :
"I had higher expectations for this camera, but ended up returning it and am trying to figure out what HD camera to get? I played with is long enough to see if it was just something I was doing. But the camera shoots poorer video than the High 8 I have now, so what would be the point?"

December 22, 2007
"Like many, I looked for a replacement for my old Sony 8mm (tape) Camcorder for quite a while. I'm a fan of both the Sony label and the convenience of a hard drive camcorder, so the Sony DCR-SR82 camcorder seemed like a good choice.
Overall, this unit is not bad, but it's not nearly as good as I expected. The sound quality "out of the box" is only fair. The one taking the movies comes thru loud and clear should they make any noise while filming, but often those in the shot can't be heard that well. And as many have stated, the low light filming is OK, but rather grainy and washed of color. ..............I'm glad my most important home movies (i.e., when my kids were growing up) were captured on my old Sony 8mm camcorder which delivered higher quality picture and sound, overall. "

Canon DC210:

3/29/2007
Awful quality, I was watching some old analog tapes 2 days before receiving this camera and was excited to start using the new Canon. I was very dissappointed, the quality on the analog was far superior. The video was extreemly grainy shooting indoors, even in well lit rooms. Well I didn't read the return policy before buying this, so I hope I can keep someone else from making the same mistake.

Panasonic SDR-S10P1
12/19/2007


"Terrible picture! My old vhs-c shoots much clearer videos."


I I were to cite older reviews, they would make my point even better as people were jumping on the:
"Let's get rid of our old camcorder and buy one of these new superior picture digital camcorders" ..........only to be disappointed with an industry that was taking advantage of the reduction in generation loss of DV to cheapen the cameras at their expense. The average consumer doesn't look at CCD or CMOS sizes. They succumb to advertising hype about "the superiority of digital video vs analog" and "clarity" and false claims regarding "ease of use" from corporations taking advantage of them by delivering cheaper cameras that generate higher profits for them at the consumer's expense.

John

Funny, I don't ever remember saying the Xbox360 was quiet... are we off on yet another tangent Terje?

Did I ever claim you did? This is sadder and sadder. Did you watch the video? Were you able to listen to the PS3? Did you notice that it emitted virtually no sound whatsoever? Even though the video was a comparison I has to assume you were able to actually ignore this and just listen to box. Perhaps I was hoping for too much.

And yes... the PS3 is LOUD.

So the fact that I posted a video of a PS3 emitting no noise whatsoever doesn't affect your religious notions "at all" except for the Blu-Ray drive mechanism. Well, that is perhaps not surprising. Religious fervor has a tendency to shut off the ability to observe reality.

"He's right John."

OK, everything I know is wrong. I've just made arrangements to sell all my equipment and I'm going to open a flower store.

"He's right John."

OK, everything I know is wrong. I've just made arrangements to sell all my equipment and I'm going to open a flower store.
==========
LOL. Please read the rest of it as to why I think subjectively this is the case. You aren't wrong from a technical standpoint, but from a subjective standpoint you would probably draw the same conclusion as the rest of us doing the subjective evaluations. You know - blind subjective tests based upon what we are hearing (fifteen of us).

Anyway, flower stores are cool.

John

For the longest time I was an avid HD DVD format supporter for one reason alone: I could make HD discs on regular DVD+-Rs. All the while I also had a Playstation 3 so I had a foot in the Blu-ray camp as well.

Anyway, the release of the AVCHD format shot down my number one reason for preferring HD DVD. Now I can make content for either format at HDV resolutions.

Now, as I look at my PS3 and compare it to my Toshiba HD DVD player I find the following:

My HD DVD player can do the following:

1. I can play my own HD content with menus from cheap DVD+-Rs.
2. It can play commercial HD DVD discs at beautiful HD resolution.
3. It can uprez my own non-macrovision protected DVDs.
4. It can play commercial DVDs as well as any $30 Chinese DVD player.

On the other hand, my PS3 can do the following:

1. I can play my own HD content with menus from cheap DVD+-Rs.
2. It can play commercial Blu-ray discs at beautiful HD resolution.
3. It can uprez ALL my DVDs, macrovision protected or not.
4. It can play back AVCHD discs of raw footage from my CX-7 camcorder.
5. It can play back DivX files at up to 1080p resolutions.
6. It can play back both HDV and AVCHD raw footage or renders.
7. It can play back music mp3s.
8. It can play back jpeg slideshows.
9. It can download and stream video off the Internet.
10. It can stream video from a server.
11. It can play video off thumb drives or external USB2 hard drives.
12. It can play video games.

Frankly, I have seen myself in the past few months go from "I hope HD DVD wins" to "I think there is room for both formats" to "Go Blu-ray!"

My only problem now is that I have two HD DVD players, a bunch of HD DVD movies, and an HD DVD drive in my new HP laptop...

I suppose I can take comfort in the fact that with the new Blu-ray spec, early Blu-ray adopters have to replace their players too.

From Bill Hunt:
==================

Well... we've had SOME confirmation this morning of the details of the Financial Times story from last night. While the studio isn't yet commenting, reliable industry sources are telling us that Paramount is indeed preparing to end their HD-DVD support and announce a return to the Blu-ray fold. Details are currently being finalized, and an announcement is expected as soon as they're complete. Paramount's first new Blu-rays will almost certainly include many of those titles that were cancelled last year, but that were already packaged and ready for shipping, so you could see them in stores very quickly once the studio announces.

Meanwhile, sources are telling us that Universal has also been talking with the BDA, and is looking to follow Paramount and Warner's lead as soon as possible.

On a related note, Times Online in the U.K. is now reporting that as many as 20 additional firms currently backing HD-DVD are also considering defection in the wake of Warner's Friday announcement, including Fujitsu, Lenovo, Kenwood and Pony Canyon (which is a major Japanese film and music studio).

What's more, word is starting to circulate at CES that major big box retailers will begin winding down in-store support for HD-DVD as soon as these studios go public with their decisions. We're told that the industry's major retail partners are already pressuring Paramount, DreamWorks and Universal to go Blu following Warner's decision.

Rumors are also beginning to circulate here that Apple's Steve Jobs may announce the addition of Blu-ray Disc drives to their Mac desktop lineup at next week's Macworld Expo in San Francisco.

We would caution you to keep in mind that all of this should be considered unofficial until the studios make their actual announcements. Things are moving very fast, and the situation is highly fluid. Still, it really looks like this is the end for HD-DVD, and the end of the format war overall. We'll keep you up to date with new developments as they break.

Stay tuned...
=========================
http://digitalbits.com/#mytwocents

Looks like the war will be over very soon.

Anyone know the words to taps..............

"From Bill Hunt:

Well... we've had SOME confirmation this morning of the details of the Financial Times story from last night. While the studio isn't yet commenting, reliable industry sources are telling us that Paramount is indeed preparing to end their HD-DVD support and announce a return to the Blu-ray fold."
================================================================
Please don't tell me you actually believe ANYTHING that raving idiot says!?!?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aQMGgh2LV_bU&refer=japan

Please don't tell me you actually believe ANYTHING that raving idiot says!?!?

Seems everyone who disagrees with you has to be ready for some personal insult. Ah well. Not everybody grows up I guess.

For those of us not suffering from acute amnesia, Warner was, until they announced they were not, fully behind the HD DVD format. As late as December they officially stated that they were supporting HD DVD. This despite the fact that Warner started working on dropping HD DVD back in September.

Is this unethical? No it is not. They don't have a choice. It's basically the law.