Print

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(elmo_sni @ Nov 5 2006, 09:15 PM)

come on guys, stop trying to convince the guy next to you to buy a ps3 or 360. In the end it's all about the games anyway.

well said.

[jackbutler]

QUOTE(puppydg68 @ Nov 5 2006, 10:17 AM)

I can understand your destain for sony since you are obviously a fanboy, however when comparing blu-ray to hd-dvd - they are actually the SAME encoded files, any quality that people are comparing is based on the players available on the market.  You do understand that blu-ray and HD-DVD are simply storage formats.. The actual Hd-def movie files on each disc are compatible..  either VC1 or H264 encoded.   That means in theory copy protection aside, you could put a HD-DVD movie onto a blu-ray disc and have the exact same quality file.

Just wanted to jump in and point out one thing here. There are actually 3 video codecs that can be used and they are H.264, MPEG-2 or VC1 and guess what most , if not all, Blue-Ray movies have used? MPEG-2. Thats why they dont hold up visually to HD-DVDs right now.....

Oh and I will be getting the HD-DVD addon when it comes out

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(jackbutler @ Nov 6 2006, 12:24 AM)

Just wanted to jump in and point out one thing here. There are actually 3 video codecs that can be used and they are H.264, MPEG-2 or VC1 and guess what most , if not all, Blue-Ray movies have used? MPEG-2. Thats why they dont hold up visually to HD-DVDs right now.....

Oh and I will be getting the HD-DVD addon when it comes out

That is true, one theory I have heard was the cost associated with mastering films in VC-1.  I think the video codec of choice for BD is supposed to be h.264/AVC, but admittly I am out of loop as far as what studios are planning to do.  Again though, his point was that it wasn't the disc, but rather the studios making that choice causing lower levels of PQ.

[notguiltystyle]

QUOTE(puppydg68 @ Nov 5 2006, 03:17 PM)

Also just for completeness here, because I'm stick of people always throwing out how expensive PS3 is:
$299 (core) + $199 (hd-addon) = $500
$399 (premium) + $199 (hd-add) = $600

In Xbox world for $500 you get
Wired Controller, no hard drive, Audio Crippled HD-DVD, NO HDMI

In PS3 world for $500 you get
Wireless Controller, 20 GB hard drive, Blu-Ray, HDMI
In Xbox world for $600 you get:
Wireless Controller, 20 GB hard drive, Audio Crippled HD-DVD, NO HDMI

In PS world for $600 you get
Wireless Controller, 60 GB hard drive, Built in Wifi, Blu-ray, HDMI, Memory reader Slots

For someone who wants the features the price comparison makes more sense.  I'm not denying that someone without an HD- tv set wouldn't care about either the hd-dvd or the blu-ray

Im not a PS3 fan but I have to agree that the PS3 (for HD) is better value than The Xbox 360!

[youloseagain]

QUOTE

A standalone is not necessarily higher quality then a HTPC or the PS3, the 360 is lower quality due to the absence of HDMI.

QUOTE

All of these would be fixed if MS released a HDMI cable and then not only would the AV be good, but the things the xbox currently does well like live and games would provide a brutal match of capabilities.

HDMI=DRM  

Screw that.

[youloseagain]

QUOTE

copy a lot of video via the 360 output do ya?

do I backup content from my 360 thru output cable to a dvr or htpc? I might.

[silentbob343]

nvm..

[Austin7687]

Thanks for the review, brinclhof. I too noticed that the sound quality was not quite what it should be. I didn't experience anything as bad as you did, but I will say that the audio is not much better than you would get on a DVD, and I know it's not the discs, because I've heard standalone players sound way better than this. So it leads me to believe it's some sort of constraint in the 360, either in software or hardware.