Should the BDA require full 2.0 profile and TrueHD/DTS HD MA decoding in all players?

[DaViD Boulet]

Yes they should.

reading this thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=31489

made it clear that we should unite and put pressure on the BDA to correct a bad situation before more consumers get burned by poorly implimented specs in BD hardware and get turned-off to BD as a result.

The BDA has actually been the source for much of the ammo that the HD DVD camp has had: Blu-ray litterally gave them bragging rights about how HD DVD players performed to full spec (with PIP and web connectivity) while BD has languished behind.

Sure, we know about the PS3 and it's updates (why I own one). But your average consumer who's shopping for an HD player isn't a techno-expert and shouldn't be required to spend hours on forums like this just to educate themselves as to which player they need to buy to cover their bases as the format matures according to known strategies over the course of a year.

We finally have the Panny BD50 coming which is full BD-live (great!) but it's not only expensive, it's just one player from one manufacturer and it's *embarassing* that we've had to wait this long.


I'm as pro-BD as they get. But I can look at this situation honestly and with objective eyes and see that the HD DVD boys had a point. And while Toshiba charged 0-profit (or less) prices to get their gear into the hands of consumers, at least that hardware actually played all the features on the discs.

Folks, here's my opinion: The BDA should reform it's stance on "optional" featureset for 2008 and make the following MANDATORY on all players released for sale (from 2nd Q onward if need be):

1. internal advanced audio decoding for both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA
2. profile 1.1 for PIP
3. profile 2.0 for BD-live web features.

No excuses. The specs are done and if one player can do it, they all can.

Additionally this is the most important feature of all:

4. all players should be firmware updatable via ethernet to ensure compatibility with future discs.

No exceptions folks. If Toshiba could do it and charge $299 for their players, then BD ought to be able to do it and charge what they need to in order to turn a profit. No one is suggesting they need to take a loss on their hardware, but every player should access every feature of every disc, no questions asked. The onus shouldn't be on the consumer to educate themselves to the shortcomings of the way that the BDA has implimented their spec requirement for manufacturers. The onus should be on the BDA to enforce specifications to ensure hardware that plays the BD-spec software (and the features it provides) that the studios deliver.

[CAB]

No.

I don't want 2.0. I want my external DSP to decode the bitstream.

[Blu-ray Fanatic]

I just want whats best for my PS3

[DaViD Boulet]

No.

I don't want 2.0. I want my external DSP to decode the bitstream.

You don't even know what 2.0 is.

2.0 is the ethernet port that provides web-access for BD-life bonus features.

But regarding your hardware being able to decode advanced audio, that DOES NOT PREVENT YOU from bitstreaming over HDMI 1.3 to an outboard source. I assumed that would be obvious.

[JadedRaverLA]

I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with this 'plan.'

1) The VAST majority of players will never be connected to the internet (even if they are BD-Live capable).
2) Similarly, most people are going to use optical/coax digital output to a receiver (or, worse, analog audio out to their TV) for sound. Why do they need advanced audio decoding?
3) How do you release a 'line-up' of players, if all players are required to support a ton of features that have limited appeal?

I understand that it gives the HD DVD camp 'bragging rights' that they have internet connectivity... but I haven't heard any real consumers screaming for an Evan's Almighty store that is accessible from their TV set... or any other feature that BD-Live will bring.

EVERY Blu-ray player supports 1080p output... with most of them supporting 1080p24. That's a feature that... well... matters. By next holiday shopping season, all the players on store shelves will support BonusView, and higher-end units will decode advanced audio codecs and support BD-Live. Meanwhile, HD DVD won't exist. Why do we need to be fighting to get mandatory support for HD DVD features to compete against a dead format?

[CAB]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

You don't even know what 2.0 is.

2.0 is the ethernet port that provides web-access for BD-life bonus features.

But regarding your hardware being able to decode advanced audio, that DOES NOT PREVENT YOU from bitstreaming over HDMI 1.3 to an outboard source. I assumed that would be obvious.

Have we met? Don't tell me what I do and don't know.

Having every component I own capable of all encodes is inefficient and costly. Cost that could be better spent on better video decode, power supply, connectors, chassis, noise and vibration supression, etc. The next transport I'm looking at is the Denon, Full Profile (that's 1.1 for the layperson) which'll run me over $1200 - you know. . . the one that doesn't decode DTS HD MA or TrueHD?

I think we are in a different submarket.

PS (edit): Care to change your post so it looks like less of an attack at the poster?

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by CAB

The next transport I'm looking at is the Denon, Full Profile (that's 1.1 for the layperson) which'll run me over $1200 - you know. . . the one that doesn't decode DTS HD MA or TrueHD?

I think we are in a a different submarket.

Actually it DOES decode DTS HD MA and TrueHD. It doesn't have any D/A converters though. It has to be output bitstream or as decoded PCM over HDMI. I think this is a change from the earlier specs, to allow lossless audio combined with BonusView audio.

[WickyWoo]

All players will take the DD/DTS cores out

I would definately demand a 1.3 interface for bitstreaming THD/HDMA in new players, and it seems 1.1 is taking care of itself based on CES. I think you're greatly overestimating how many people are going to drop for new systems, or would hook up over analog, just to get new audio codecs. When they can get it in an HTiB for $200, then they might care

Internal decoding adds a lot to the expense of the player. Probably at least $30-40 for chips, co processors and royalties

I also support the inclusion of an ethernet jack, but using an SD card or flash drive to enable 2.0 compatibility. The slot can be included for almost nothing.

The real problem is how many people, if they can't burn a firmware disc can configure the player to use their network? A universal "easyconnect" feature needs to be developed before that's practical, so it's just plug and play

[JonasK]

Does it really make sense to force everyone to pay for the extra cost that profile 2.0 require in terms of extra memory and Ethernet connection? Not nearly everyone will connect their player to the internet. Also, think about portable players for cars. How many of you have internet connection in your cars?

Just because you have paid for an Ethernet connector and extra memory doesn't mean that you will be able to use all the features. You need an internet connection as well...

[DaViD Boulet]

Look at the price of these BD players. They're already expensive. By adding a few dollars to each player for 2.0, it will bring the costs down more quickly for everyone.

You're missing the point:

most consumers are not tech-junkies who become format-experts like us here and then buy the player with the features we understand it has and that it lacks.

Most consumers will "Buy a blu-ray player" and that's it. They'll assume (as they should) that it does everything Blu-ray is supposed to do. When they discover that it won't do web features, or that it won't do lossless auido as advertized on their disc package, there's a problem.

I would definately demand a 1.3 interface for bitstreaming THD/HDMA in new players, and it seems 1.1 is taking care of itself based on CES

That's cool as it still gives the consumer the option to get lossless playback.

I also support the inclusion of an ethernet jack, but using an SD card or flash drive to enable 2.0 compatibility. The slot can be included for almost nothing.

The real problem is how many people, if they can't burn a firmware disc can configure the player to use their network?

As long as they don't have to buy a new player to get the feature, we're in agreement.

[LynxFX]

I think it is too late for that. They already have deadlines in place for the current profiles. Right now no new player announced can be less than profile 1.1. I don't know when 2.0 will be the lowest required but it will come with the natural progression of things.

Just look at DVD. For the first 3-4 even 5 years you had players that couldn't decode DTS, play progressively, play DVD +/-R, etc. Now go out there and find a player that doesn't do all that. While the BD specs aren't complete, most CE's seem to be trying to stay ahead of the curve. For those that are behind, demand will determain how fast they improve their players.

Toshiba wasn't all roses and peaches either. A very large chunk of their install base can't even play 1080p, which is a much bigger requirement than online shopping or PiP IMO.

Besides, in 2 years or so, when BD starts to really build up a userbase, we'll be in the same position DVD was around that time and all players will be supporting all of the features that discs are being produced with. And each one of those players will probably sell more than all the current players combined. The early adopter and their first player will be a memory.

[WickyWoo]

1) The VAST majority of players will never be connected to the internet (even if they are BD-Live capable).
2) Similarly, most people are going to use optical/coax digital output to a receiver (or, worse, analog audio out to their TV) for sound. Why do they need advanced audio decoding?
3) How do you release a 'line-up' of players, if all players are required to support a ton of features that have limited appeal?

Bingo.

Just look at DVD. For the first 3-4 even 5 years you had players that couldn't decode DTS, play progressively, play DVD +/-R, etc. Now go out there and find a player that doesn't do all that.

I don't think I ever saw a deck with internal DTS encoding (I didn't look that hard mind you). They simply would pass them.

[LynxFX]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

I don't think I ever saw a deck with internal DTS encoding (I didn't look that hard mind you). They simply would pass them.

You're right, I meant DTS digital out. There were a few that would decode though but it was mostly getting DTS support in general. History is repeating itself with DTS MA. Few players can decode or pass it.

[love blu or go home!]

Originally Posted by LynxFX

You're right, I meant DTS digital out. There were a few that would decode though but it was mostly getting DTS support in general. History is repeating itself with DTS MA. Few players can decode or pass it.

I had a Panasonic DVD player that would decode DTS, I think bought in 2002.

[cajmoyper]

I love the BDA, trust me, bu that was the one thing I thought dud did right, require a bare minimum on their players. Granted, it was only DD+, which BD players decode, but the movies themselves all had at least that.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I'm as pro-BD as they get. But I can look at this situation honestly and with objective eyes and see that the HD DVD boys had a point. And while Toshiba charged 0-profit (or less) prices to get their gear into the hands of consumers, at least that hardware actually played all the features on the discs.

I certainly agree their should be a move toward mandatory HD audio decoding. And even HD PiP. But, I'm not sure the BD-Live being mandatory makes sense.

Why would a player for a car require an ethernet port? And MANDATORY means just that.

Since the majority of people don't have home networks, and only a certain percentage of those would want to risk having their player exposed to the Internet, how much sense does it make imposing the signficant extra costs to people who don't want the feature?

The HD DVD folk may have had their point, but they rushed their product to market using laptop internals. And they priced their players such that no other CE could justify entering the market, and squeezed the retailers margins so as to give them little incentive to push the players.

So, to be fair, how much would an HD DVD player cost if it had nominal manufacturer and retail margins, how much would they cost?

If BD didn't exist, how much would they cost?

Gary

[WickyWoo]

I don't think you would have seen the $299 sales this Christmas without HD DVD. But I firmly believe we would have a $399 deck

All the CEs want to hit that $1-299 sweet spot where the volume/profit is in the total sweet spot

This was THE BIGGEST REASON that Warner supported HD DVD so strongly and for so long. They talked about this at every turn: how they could author discs with features knowing that consumers *could* access those features in all hardware if they so chose.

No, Warner supported HD DVD strongly because they had huge patents in it, and their board was stocked to the gills with Lieberfarb disciples. Once they madde the choice to back HD DVD then they came up with reasons to justify it

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Folks, here's my opinion: The BDA should reform it's stance on "optional" featureset for 2008 and make the following MANDATORY on all players released for sale (from 2nd Q onward if need be):

1. internal advanced audio decoding for both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA
2. profile 1.1 for PIP
3. profile 2.0 for BD-live web features.

Profile 1.1 is already mandatory for all new Blu-ray players so I don't think that will be an issue. For BD-Live I don't see any problem with it being optional but I wouldn't be against making it mandatory for non-portable players. As for internal decoding of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA being made mandatory I don't think that would be a good idea. It just wouldn't be worth the long term cost that it would add to all future stand alone Blu-ray players especially since many consumers don't care about audio quality.

[reiella]

First can we force the DVD Forum to make all DVD Players decode DTS and play back progressive?

And sure let's add upscaling while we're at it.

[reider]

Originally Posted by reiella

First can we force the DVD Forum to make all DVD Players decode DTS and play back progressive?

And sure let's add upscaling while we're at it.

Judging by some responses I got so far, your sarcasm may be missed/misunderstood here...