Re: External blu-ray drive recommendations?

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ian McCall <ian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rowland McDonnell) said:
[snip]

(and how many people even *want* a 50" telly in any case? I grew up
with a 21" 4:3 Trinitron in the house and I'm quite happy watching
video on this 'ere 24" widescreen iMac, especially considering the
point that the house I live in now has rather smaller rooms than
the one I grew up in.)

Again, am not trying to persuade differently. We have a 50" screen,
fits nicely and is fine.

Oh yeah, but my thinking is that plenty of people are perfectly content
with something smaller, have eyesight that isn't going to perceive a
huge improvement from Blu-ray, and so on.

Yes, so pretty much the same thing with mp3s vs uncompressed music.

I think you mean `losslessly compressed'.

Yep, that is what I meant.

But yes, you have a point.

Where your analogy falls down is the difference between hearing and
vision. Vision is much more tolerant of imperfections than is hearing.

So the bloody awful reproduction we get from VHS tape was widely
considered `okay' for home viewing - while the bloody awful reproduction
we get from cheap music repro gear and/or lossily compressed music (at
least at anything but the highest quality settings) doesn't cut it for
anyone who wants to sit down and listen to music.

Is that true for everyone?

When I was young people listened to all music that wasn't manufactured
there and then (ie, the piano or singing) in an increadably low res
fashion, and noone cared, that was the option. The radio was always
slightly out of tune, tapes when they came out were very warped and
drifted, record players had wow and flutter that went well into the
percents.

But noone seemed to mind that much.

So maybe it is a personal thing. I find low res video at least as
irritating as low res audio, but if I am really into either, I don't
mind.

Poor audio gear doesn't it cut it for `serious' music repro *at all*.
I've never met anyone who can get enjoyment from what you'd call
`classical' music played back via a cheap-n-cheerful radio that does
okay for pop music.

I have, quite a few people, as that is what a lot of people have.

Here's a thing to think about: 1950s rock and roll was widely enjoyed
via worn out singles played back on worn out playback gear inside
jukeboxes.

indeed.

1950s rock and roll hits are - from what I've heard - /universally/ very
simple music, which still sounds okay when played back in the above
fashion. I've got Bill Haley's `Rock around the clock' on CD. I kept
an 80 kbit/s downloaded mp3 of the same track on my HDD, just so I can
demonstrate the point that even when messed up to that extent, it's
still an enjoyable piece of music to listen to. Played back to back
with the lossless version, it's plain that there's a lot missing, but
it's still enjoyable to listen to.

Yep, that's right: Bill Haley and his Comets playing Rock Around the
Clock sounds enjoyable to *me* at 80 kbit/s (N.B: that's mono, not
stereo). And you know what I think of lossy compression of music.

Jimi Hendrix's music is universally buggered up painfully badly by lossy
compression - as is Shostakovich.

The first time I heard jimi hendrix's music was on very low res records,
which were scratched and buggered, and they sounded fine. I don't have a
problem with lossy compressions as it is lot better than I have had
during quite a few parts of my life.

DVD compression when overdone does indeed cause quality losses which I
can see plainly on my 24" iMac's screen. But it's a minor flaw that
doesn't prevent enjoyment of the recorded material (well, except in a
few cases when they've *seriously* overdone it, like on the first series
of Coast) - not like lossily compression of music.

On the other hand, if you've got a 50+" HD TV and you've got used to HD
programming, I can see that your opinion might be different...

I have a 42" TV and I am used to HD programming. To the point where non
HD video looks unpleasant.

Which is I think where you are coming from with the audio. It isn't what
is actually good or bad, it is really what you are used to.

No, I understood. I just feel that there's always something better, and
occasionally you have to dip a toe in or you'll miss everything whilst
waiting for the next gen to turn up.

My thinking is that a lot of people won't bother to get a Blu-ray player
because they think DVDs are quite good enough for their purposes.

Agreed there, but if you were in the market for getting a DVD player
now, would you get one, knowing that blueray players were almost the
same price?

Highly unlikely - but do you really mean that I could replace the CD/DVD
r/w drive in my iMac with a CD/DVD/Blu-ray r/w drive for almost no extra
cost than a CD/DVD/Blu-ray drive?

I seriously doubt it, and even if you could, the iMac is a bitch to take
apart. Actually not true, it is easy to take apart, it is a bitch to put
back together without dust under the screen!

Personally I have no need for Blu-ray on a computer, so I haven't looked
into these things.

In any case, I never suggested that Blu-ray's going to be a flop that
no-one's going to buy into.

What I am suggesting is that Blu-ray will not drive DVD into extinction
- or if it does, it'll take a *lot* longer than it took for DVD to wipe
out VHS.

I agree, as a DVD works fine in a blu-ray player, in a way a VHS didn't
in a DVD.

I went to get a DVD player when the last one died, and ended up getting
a blueray player, as it had a nice USB socket on the front for playing
movies from a USB stick.

I have never actually watched a blueray on it (even though I have some),
but I have watched a lot of programs from USB stick.

Hmm!

Rowland.


--
Woody
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Blu-Ray or HD, whos gonna win the format war
    ... now it's looking more and more like Blu-Ray film media sales are ... Joe public only really got to grips with DVD and widescreen CRT TV's a few ... shell out another thousand for a Blu-ray player... ... counting a PC) in different rooms and it is usually expected that a disc can ...
    (uk.media.dvd)
  • Blu-ray, HD DVD players: clunky, unimpressive
    ... Blu-ray and HD DVD players on display looked. ... represented by machines from many of the leading consumer electronics ... The first machine I saw was Mitsubishi's prototype Blu-ray player. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: Blu-ray Planning ahead
    ... but DVD was easier to commit to. ... HD-DVD combo, on the other hand, is a dual format ... where the DVD side can be played on a DVD player. ... But you asked about Blu-Ray. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: Are you waiting?
    ... LD was originally aimmed at the mass market too - I certainly remember seeing LDs for rent in video stores along side VHS and even Betamax tapes. ... LD didn't go away - it remained popular with the home theater crowd for many years, until DVD came along. ... With a clear winner now in sight, the frustration over the War hasn't been "Gosh, we don't know what to buy!", it's turned into frustration that companies don't all have ONE product to compete at refining--Making a better HD-DVD seems like a lost cause, and we'd rather see what Toshiba could do with making a Blu player. ... About 40% of the people who have bought a PS3 don't even know it can play Blu-Ray movies Despite that, the PS3 may be successful as a Blu-Ray player, but as a Playstation it's doing really poorly. ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)
  • DVD ...
    ... dvd our latin thing ... dvd p1400 player sd toshiba ... dvd pc won't play black screen ... dvd photo al free ...
    (rec.autos.tech)