Professor.Ham.Slap

Actually, I'd bet a lot of them do. When I used to work for Best Buy, I'd get a lot of people pretty much flat out ask "I don't like how these speakers sound. Show me the $100 awesome speaker setups." to which they would get a very blank stare.

Not for nothing, but I don't really miss that center at all. I think the RC-64 is pretty much an all around superior center -- and this is coming from someone who has paired it with a set of RF-7's.

80 in the winter and 60 in the summer because I hate mother nature. Actually usually around 69 in the winter and 75 in the summer.

Did anyone else notice that a lot of the amplifiers were directly in front of the speaker's path of sound? Wouldn't that negatively effect the quality of sound output? I mean, sure maybe not to the degree we'd really care about, but for someone who sank $5 million into a system....

So... Good to see you got your info from a neutral party (just kidding) Actually there's a lot of incorrect information in there... Lets start with the studios: Universal and Weinstein also are still HD exclusive in this mess (although granted, Weinstein hasn't done anything in forever). As far as the 3 Sony Blu-Ray standalones are concerned: the only player that took that long to spin up a disc was the original Sony BDP-S1, however the 300 and 500 models are considerably faster. Besides that, I haven't really checked into the specifics for the different models, but I have a hard time beleiving the processing engines are identical between a $399 player and a $1299 player. I'm really not trying to be caustic with this post so don't take it as such. It's just as someone who did sell HT equipment I feel the need to keep up with current information is truly paramount, and I hate it when people mislead consumers to make a sale on a device that he wants to sell you.

To Current DVD prices? I'd say probably around a year. The barriers manufacturers have in front of them is better yeilds on the blue lasers and maybe finally being able to shift the laser lens from precision glass manufacturing to a plastic lens in much the same way DVD did originally. Already though, we've seen prices fall from $999 to $399. Shouldn't be too much longer. As for DTHD and DTS, they're really already standardized as far as you (the user) needs to be concerned. Sure, the decoding is done in a different place than we're used to, but the only prerequisite is simply that your receiver has HDMI, which is a necessity regardless of whether you're passing PCM or the actual track bitstream.

"And no errors due to somepne else being on that particular cable line"??? A data transmission assumes no one else is on the line?" Read it again. I said assuming there are no errors (packet loss, something that happens due to many reasons such as routing loops, checksum errors, invalid routes and any other number of things that would cause an Internet frame to be discarded. In the event of this, your computer waits a defined amount of time before issuing a resend packet x message which equates to a loss of performance) OR someone else sharing your cable bandwidth (i.e. many people are on the same shared bandwidth pipe when you subscribe to cable. It's the way the technology is designed. This is where I ask you to know what you're talking about before you randomly decide to put down someone else's point, m-kay?). Now we're back to the formats point. You're assuming just because I used a bitrate within the range of HD DVD and Blu-Ray I'm talking about pushing HD download services within those particular parameters. Nope. Bitrate is bitrate. We're already using advanced codecs that do wonderful things to preserve video quality under extreme compression such as VC-1, MPEG-4, etc. If you drop the bitrate, you drop the quality. No amount of upconverting or any other hardware from even a wonderful company such as Silicon Optics is going to change that. It's obvious that there are a lot of people that aren't truely interested in the HD formats, but putting up SD downloads in competition with HD just doesn't work; SD downloads are in "competition" with SD DVDs and the rental chains that provide them. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would walk out and say, "Well, I was planning on getting a BD/HDDVD player today, but now that they're offering upconverted SD downloads, I think I'll just go that route." If someone wants HD, they're going to get HD so that's a completely seperate issue. More likely, it's going to be more along the lines of "I don't really feel like driving to Hollywood Video anymore. I'll just subscribe to Netflix and download my movies from here on out."

Mas, you're assuming that everything you just saw at CES is going to be implemented immediately (i.e. this year or probably even the next three years). I can tell straight off that we in America do not have the necessary Internet infrastructure to make something like that a reality. In order to stream those HD downloads you would need a fiber connection of at least 35-40Mbps (using HD DVD as a basis for bitrate, plus overhead for error correction and anything else that may be happening on that particular connection connection. Even the fastest FiOS option option which clocks in at $160/month misses that mark by 5Mbps Using best case scenarios, if someone had a 6Mbps cable connection and actually had all of the bandwidth available to them (no degredation due to errors or other customers on that particular cable line), it would take someone 7.5 hours to download a 90 minute HD movie assuming a 30Mbps encoding for 1080p audio and video. Not exactly an option for the family who decides they want to watch a movie after dinner. So, uh, yeah, this is me telling you it isn't possible ATM. Now will HD media become more than a niche product? That's a whole other discussion which I don't think anyone can do anything but discuss theories. *I used 30mbps as a benchmark because it is right around the max bitrate of HD DVD, which I feel is right around the minimum bitrate one would need for a quality transfer of a HD video with 1080p video and an advanced audio codec (Dolby TrueHD or DTS MA).

Negative. There simply isn't enough quality in current downloadable "HD" Media. For example, Xbox Live's HD bitrate is 6.8mbps, which is into the range of SD DVD which has a range of 4-8mbps. Apple's solution is even worse clocking in at 4mbps. This is all in comparison to HD DVD's max bitrate of 28mbps for 1080p, which even still is a compression of around 107:1 (uncompressed 1080p registers at 3000mbps). Heck, even high definition broadcast runs up to just over 19mbps. Those that know me know that I'm not a huge fan of Blu-Ray due to ever-changing player standards and region coding, but I'd MUCH rather pick up a Blu-Ray player than be subjected to crippled HD video and audio.

Also the Toshiba HD-XA2 and Onkyo's new player has full discrete outputs

Nope, you will not see a difference on a 1080p TV with a 720p signal. That said, however, you will be able to see a difference with a 1080i signal on a 1080p TV vs. a 720p TV, which is what most everyone is broadcasting (virtually the only HD networks remaining that are broadcasting in 720p is ESPN and Fox, mostly due to 720p being better for fast moving images, i.e. sports). Now for a 26" TV of course it isn't worth it, even if you were going to hook a HD DVD player up to the screen due to the human eye's inability to notice such detail. That said, I do disagree with the point that most people make regarding sizes with 1080p. I can easily see the difference between 720p and 1080p on ~40 inch LCDs and plasma displays at normal differences, but then again, I have pretty good eyesight.

That is not *quite* true. Actually throughout the life of an LCD panel, if an image remains static it is very possible for those cells affected by the static image to begin to shade differently than their always-changing counterpart. The idea is that the transistors inside each cell controlling the opening and closing can change their capacitance level and therefore reorient that particular cell. This is seen as a burnt in image. Granted it does take a lot (and I mean a whole lot) but if you constantly are watching SDTV in the standard 4:3 aspect ratio, there's a good portion of the screen with completely shut LCD cells. Just some food for thought.

Wow, uhhh.... You're not associated with Hi Fi Buys in Nashville, TN in any way, are you? Naaaaaahhhh. One of my TVs is the 50a3000 and whilst it is a great TV, it isn't nearly as good as many well-conceived LCDs and plasmas. LCDs have legitimately high contrasts now, as well as the fact that plasmas don't really burn in at all anymore unless put through a torture test for 1+ days (which, ironically, would cause image retention in LCoS chips -- check your manual).

Actually, the Kuros can be had for about $2600 at B&M stores.

I personally would say go for plasma. If you like sports, there is no substitution. Sure LCD technology has gotten better, but sub 1ms response time for full on/off is much better than 8ms for the comparative test (i.e. the sharp models - don't mistake this test for the published one which is between shades of grey response time). Furthermore, current plasma technologies actually have longer longevity than any competing LCD -- roughly 60000 hrs of average bulb life vs Plasmas average of an 80000 hr half brightness mark. In terms of the 1080 vs 720 idea, it all depends on what you like. I personally would take the 50" 720p Pioneer Kuro plasma over any of the matching Sony or Panasonic 1080p offerings. The color is just that much better, but then again that's just to my eyes that color reproduction is more important. Either way, finish it off with a HD player of one format or another, and you'll be set. And as a side note on that if you didn't see, Best Buy gives you $100 off any next-gen player with a television purchase. One final note to cviper: the reason they do not make plasmas for PC monitors is because it is rediculously expensive to make plasmas smaller than 32" in most cases. This is why you'll only ever see the average plasma being 42" and up. The burn-in issue has also been completely resolved (better than tube TVs) with image shifting techs and rapid phosphor aging technologies.

Does anyone know off hand how long it's supposed to be until the Klipsch headphones start popping up at retail locations?

I think I sold 6 F-2's, 2 F-3's and 3 Sub-10's... not a bad two days in my store.

I didn't realize LG, Samsung, Onkyo, RCA and Rockford Fosgate (car system only) were all owned by Toshiba...

The 7 free HD DVD offer was available at Best Buy (pick 2 from the shelf, 5 by mail).

Not necessarily. If your player supports analogue 5.1 discreet outputs like the Toshiba HD-XA2, Samsung BDP-1200 etc, then you can still get all the advantages of DD+ and DD TrueHD. Also if your receiver supports HDMI audio, the player will process the bitstream and send PCM to your receiver which they all can do. Even if you had a receiver with advanced audio support, very rarely would it ever get the actual bitstream path because Advanced Authoring flags will force audio processing in the player. *EDIT*: Also keep in mind that if you're looking to upgrade receivers, make sure you look for HDMI Audio processing as a feature somewhere because not all receivers with HDMI will accept HDMI audio.

First of all, let me preface this post by saying I have the Xbox 360 version connected via optical. The audio in this game is beyond phenomenal. I upped my sub a bit to get that "concert experience" type sound and it is nothing short of incredible. The RF-7's sing, my sub has a bunch of punch to it and is it ever fun this time around. This one is definitely a keeper. Back to the game.

Actually, any disc carrying the DTS-MA or Dolby TrueHD sound formats are completely lossless. There is no sound quality difference between either format and UPCM.

The signal coming out of your Denon will be of high definition resolution, but of course it will not look anything like high definition on your TV. Essentially it's a means of consolidating the connections to your TV. In my case, I use my Yamaha 6090 to condense all of my different connections into one HDMI cable so there's less clutter. But as far as signal improvement, there isn't much to be had.

Yes, perhaps night and day is a bit too much. Let me put it this way, I definitely hear a considerable amount more detail in the TrueHD tracks as compared to DD. I just think it is well worth it because any little extra I can squeeze out of my RF-7's, well, I just really enjoy []

I hate getting into Internet arguments, but this one is just so full of faux information it hurts.... Actually if you look its current street price is no higher than $999. No mail-in rebates. It was on sale for $799 a few weeks ago. Please don't drop inappropriate information. Plus, this isn't just coming from reps, it has come down the pipes of the retailer I work for themselves. So yes, look for a $799 combo player in the next few months, unless you have some concrete evidence to the latter. Furthermore, there are already pictures of the Samsung player, it has been demoed and full specifications announced. They aren't going to pull the plug on this one. That is exactly what I myself do not understand. There are so many people here who have such a negative feeling towards the high def formats on a high-end audio forum. My wallet is not fat by any means, and I have sacrificed some things as a college student to get the system that I currently own. But would I go backwards on any of it? No. Because I hear the difference between sources and equally see the difference between having a machine that "guesses" what should go in 75% of the pixels of 1080p vs a player that reads all 1080 lines of information straight off the disc and posts it on the display with audio quality that really makes our multi-thousand dollar investments sing beyond what was previously offered. $230 shipped for the HD-A2 from Amazon with 5 free HD DVDs priced too high? Surely you jest. As one final notation, my customers generally average on a display that costs at least $1700, and I work in a Best Buy, not a Tweeter or a boutique. Sure you have those that go to Wal-Mart, and certainly the HD market really isn't for them, but anyone who can appreciate a Panasonic or Pioneer plasma will certainly see ALL the benefits. That is completely wrong as well. The cost of DVD players didn't drop nearly as fast as the HD players are right now. On their launch in March of 1997 the average cost of all DVD player models was $735 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. After over a year and a half (December of 2008) of being on the market, the average retail price was about $470 representing an approximately 36% price drop. Here we are a little before that mark with the HD DVD format has fallen from $499 to $230 which represents a price drop of approximately 53%. One seems to be falling faster than the other, no? And I do look at it from the eyes of a consumer, as I myself am a consumer of the HD formats. As of right now, I own the Toshiba HD-A20 and the Playstation 3 so I adopt into both formats. I see the benefits of this HD war whilst others just look at the negatives. Sure it hasn't gone off without a hitch, but that doesn't mean it's some evil process which should be shunned from the world. Try not to be so negative towards it without actually sitting down and taking advantage of a 30 day return period from CC or BB. There is only the slimmest of chances you would go back to DVD if you actually tried it with an open mind.