So I just read over at the "other" site this quote:

[Danno]

Originally Posted by ack_bk

@Amir,

Amir do you know why Toshiba decided to only go with HDMI output (no analog 5.1 output) on all but their high-end standalone players (G2, G3)?

It seems to me that the types of folks the lower end players are targeting most likely may not have a receiver that has HDMI inputs. My initial guess what that this was a cost saving measure, but I also wonder if this does not help push more of the more expensive higher end models? Do you have any insight into this?

Thanks,
-ack

Is this true, that Toshiba is basically making it so that potential customers will need to buy HDMI compatible Displays & Audio equipment just to be able to use their next gen HD DVD players?

Ooof. Talk about short-sighted cost cutting. Aren't like 50% of the HD compatible Display and receiver install base currently NON-HDMI compatible devices?

[spam.curitiba]

I have been saying it all along...all of toshiba's cheaper players are POS. They are nothing comparable to the lowest priced Blu-ray player

[dakota81]

The insider's thread over there has gone downhill the past several weeks, mainly people posting questions trying to trap insiders into speaking negatively about their respective format. On both sides of the war. This particular question highlighted here is no surprise.

[Mr.Neutral]

Originally Posted by Danno

Is this true, that Toshiba is basically making it so that potential customers will need to buy HDMI compatible Displays & Audio equipment just to be able to use their next gen HD DVD players?

Ooof. Talk about short-sighted cost cutting. Aren't like 50% of the HD compatible Display and receiver install base currently NON-HDMI compatible devices?

This isn't really a good argument to get in to. Blu-ray is no better. Their most popular player (PS3) doesn't have 5.1 analog output.

[WickyWoo]

Is this true, that Toshiba is basically making it so that potential customers will need to buy HDMI compatible Displays & Audio equipment just to be able to use their next gen HD DVD players?

DACs are a very expensive component. Expect to see a bunch of Blu players soon that don't have them either. It's a standard cost cutting measure

[dialog_gvf]

Here's a pic of the Sigma Designs reference design board (quite a while ago now):



That's 7.1 analog output. I'm not sure if those four chips are DACs or not (they look like DRAM). It's possible the DACs are in the SoC.

Gary

[kjack]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Here's a pic of the Sigma Designs reference design board (quite a while ago now):

The video DACs are on the SoC, the audio DACs are external. A 7.1-ch audio DAC costs about 50 cents in high volume. We have a new lower-cost reference design based on the 8634 coming shortly, complete with a manufacturer ready to duplicate the case it comes with.

Having an HDMI-only output would save on Macrovision fees, and other royalties for stuff embedded in the analog outputs. It also provides for playing special content that would otherwise not be playable on a standard player. Anyway, goal is to get rid of all analog A/V outputs in a few years.

BTW, each audio codec has a royalty cost associated with it, so the more that are player-mandatory, the higher the player cost. That's why so few are mandatory for BD players - we worked to minimize basic player cost as much as possible long-term.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by kjack

The video DACs are on the SoC, the audio DACs are external. A 7.1-ch audio DAC costs about 50 cents in high volume. We have a new lower-cost reference design based on the 8634 coming shortly, complete with a manufacturer ready to duplicate the case it comes with.

Having an HDMI-only output would save on Macrovision fees, and other royalties for stuff embedded in the analog outputs. It also provides for playing special content that would otherwise not be playable on a standard player. Anyway, goal is to get rid of all analog A/V outputs in a few years.

BTW, each audio codec has a royalty cost associated with it, so the more that are player-mandatory, the higher the player cost. That's why so few are mandatory for BD players - we worked to minimize basic player cost as much as possible long-term.

About time you showed up again.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by kjack

The video DACs are on the SoC, the audio DACs are external. A 7.1-ch audio DAC costs about 50 cents in high volume. We have a new lower-cost reference design based on the 8634 coming shortly, complete with a manufacturer ready to duplicate the case it comes with.

Having an HDMI-only output would save on Macrovision fees, and other royalties for stuff embedded in the analog outputs. It also provides for playing special content that would otherwise not be playable on a standard player. Anyway, goal is to get rid of all analog A/V outputs in a few years.

BTW, each audio codec has a royalty cost associated with it, so the more that are player-mandatory, the higher the player cost. That's why so few are mandatory for BD players - we worked to minimize basic player cost as much as possible long-term.

Thanks. Still a pretty board.

What would be the retail price increase because of that 50 cents? On the surface it doesn't seem to cost/save a CE much, but then there are the jacks, the more complicated motherboard, increase in population time of the MB, small lowering of yields (ever solder joint is a risk), etc.

A/V outputs gone by agreement in 2011, right?

Gary

[*Enigma*]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

DACs are a very expensive component. Expect to see a bunch of Blu players soon that don't have them either. It's a standard cost cutting measure

I agree. Don't know if this will happen, but if I were the BDA I'd be encouraging someone (Chinese manufacturer, maybe) to intro a player with a very minimal feature-set; no analog out, no sec decoder, no support for anything that would add to cost. Just to take away HD DVD talking points. It was OK when PS3 was 600 and Tosh HD DVD was 500; but now that Tosh is approching 20 the 500 PS3 is giving a big price advantage to HD DVD, making BD look like the niche product. Something bare bones that will still play the movie would be great for the format; and I don't think would cut much into more full-featured players sales (hopefully cut into HD DVD sales, though).

[MrBogey]

Originally Posted by Mr.Neutral

This isn't really a good argument to get in to. Blu-ray is no better. Their most popular player (PS3) doesn't have 5.1 analog output.

The problem is the PS3 doesn't bill itself as being ideal for people who don't want to spend a lot of cash. It's a valid point in that the majority of HD DVD owners won't get lossless unless they spend even more money on new equipment.

[schticker]

Originally Posted by MrBogey

The problem is the PS3 doesn't bill itself as being ideal for people who don't want to spend a lot of cash.

HD DVD never really said that either. That is something that BR guys (Sony in particular) tried to paint on HD DVD since day one--the "cheap" choice.

Not only that, you have to remember that any game console is going to be marketed to the widest demographic, especially in comparison to a standalone. And, since the PS3 is the runaway leader in BR hardware sales, it should be considered. Additionally, even the staunchest PS3 fanboy has to admit that it was Sony's strategy all along to Trojan Horse this thing into people's homes as a BR player first, game machine second--which explains the dearth of quality games to play, but equally why it's considered the best BR player on the market today.

I am a little surprised at Toshiba though TBH. Usually, flagship players have more outputs than necessary if anything.

[MrBogey]

You're kidding, right? Saying HD DVD owners didn't bill it as the best because of its price is just counter to what has been happening. That's just crazy talk.

"Trojan" blu-ray into people's home? Heh, cute. Sony's intention was to build the ultimate home theatre convergance item. They'd have messed up had they not included blu-ray. That's like saying Toyota is trying to trojan "green cars" into America with the Prius.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by schticker

HD DVD never really said that either. That is something that BR guys (Sony in particular) tried to paint on HD DVD since day one--the "cheap" choice.

Actually this has been a major point put forth by the HD DVD side. They have almost continuously claimed that their players are less costly than the Blu-ray players. I seriously doubt you can go to any blatantly (and some not blatantly) pro HD DVD site on the 'net and fail to find posts claiming one of the major benefits of going with HD DVD is that their players are less expensive.

The PS3 promoters don't try to say that you should buy a PS3 because it is cheaper than either the Wii or the Xbox 360. The PS3 is not promoted because it is cheap.

There was a period when the PS3 was promoted as the least expensive Blu-ray player. However, it was not promoted as being cheaper than the cheapest HD DVD player because it was not.

Originally Posted by schticker

Not only that, you have to remember that any game console is going to be marketed to the widest demographic, especially in comparison to a standalone. And, since the PS3 is the runaway leader in BR hardware sales, it should be considered.

Game consoles are marketed to a different demographic than stand alone players. I'm sure you would agree that the demographic for stand alone DVD players is much wider than the demographic for any and all of the game consoles. The demographic for stand alone high definition players (HD DVD and Blu-ray) is different from the gamer community. The projected demographic for both HD DVD and Blu-ray is the stand alone market which will be significantly larger than all game consoles combined.

The PS3 is a "runaway leader in BR hardware sales" because the gamer market has a higher uptake rate than the next generation high definition market has at the moment. This could easily reverse itself within the next 18 - 24 months.

Originally Posted by schticker

Additionally, even the staunchest PS3 fanboy has to admit that it was Sony's strategy all along to Trojan Horse this thing into people's homes as a BR player first, game machine second--which explains the dearth of quality games to play, but equally why it's considered the best BR player on the market today.

Actually, the Trojan Horse scenario was, and is, just the opposite. Sony counted on the faster uptake rate of the gaming consoles as compared to the stand alone players -- at this stage of the game.

The "dearth of quality games" as you say is starting to change. The huge lag was based partially upon the difficulty of programming the cell processor. IBM even came out with a new programming environment to help produce software on these machines.

Personally, I would not consider the PS3 the best Blu-ray player on the market. It may be the most future proof of those being sold at the moment. For that specific reason alone, if someone asked me today what Blu-ray player to get, I'd very likely suggest a PS3.

Originally Posted by schticker

I am a little surprised at Toshiba though TBH. Usually, flagship players have more outputs than necessary if anything.

I believe your understanding is backwards here. Tosh does appear to have the outputs on their top of the line player. The issue was that the lower end players don't appear to have outputs needed by the people who would want to buy lower end players .

[JonasK]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

Actually this has been a major point put forth by the HD DVD side. They have almost continuously claimed that their players are less costly than the Blu-ray players. I seriously doubt you can go to any blatantly (and some not blatantly) pro HD DVD site on the 'net and fail to find posts claiming one of the major benefits of going with HD DVD is that their players are less expensive.

HD DVD players are cheaper to buy, but they are hardly less expensive to manufacture. Have you ever seen Toshiba, or the HD DVD promotional group, claimed that the players are much cheaper to manufacture? It's just ignorant people making the wrong conclusion.

Toshiba's G1 and G2 players have a PC architecture that are more expensive than the SoC architecture that almost all Blu-ray players have used. The Toshiba G3 players are using a SoC architecture, so the only major difference between them and the latest Blu-ray players are some components in the optical drive, which hardly differ by more than a few $10, assuming the same volumes. With the volumes of the Blu-ray drive being 10 times as large as for HD DVD drives, I would guess that Blu-ray players are actually cheaper to manufacture today than HD DVD players.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by schticker

HD DVD never really said that either. That is something that BR guys (Sony in particular) tried to paint on HD DVD since day one--the "cheap" choice.

The compulsion toward pushing the price over the substance of HD DVD is what is being refered to.

"With $199 players HD DVD is going to win"
"HD DVD is the more affordable choice"

But, if fails categorically to take into account the lack of full studio support or the high premium for discs.

Neither format can penetrate into mass adoption until all three situations are true:

Good players capable of the high quality, at good prices
Full studio support
Movement toward less premium at release, and much lower prices a few months after.

But, the PS/3 is still selling. And all those people represent someone who owns an HDM player, that HD DVD would have to convince to buy a second.

Gary

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Mr.Neutral

This isn't really a good argument to get in to. Blu-ray is no better. Their most popular player (PS3) doesn't have 5.1 analog output.

that's the PS3...you have alternatives

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by Mr.Neutral

This isn't really a good argument to get in to. Blu-ray is no better. Their most popular player (PS3) doesn't have 5.1 analog output.

PS3 still at the best money can buy blindly and far better than 1st,2nd,3rd generation of TOSHIBA players

[Mr.Neutral]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

PS3 still at the best money can buy blindly and far better than 1st,2nd,3rd generation of TOSHIBA players

I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to bash HD DVD for the lower cost players not having analog out when the best selling blu-ray player (and at one point - lowest priced and best valued (maybe still best value?)) doesn't have it.

[gand41f]

Originally Posted by Danno

Is this true, that Toshiba is basically making it so that potential customers will need to buy HDMI compatible Displays & Audio equipment just to be able to use their next gen HD DVD players?

Ooof. Talk about short-sighted cost cutting. Aren't like 50% of the HD compatible Display and receiver install base currently NON-HDMI compatible devices?

What's the big deal? Most HD DUDs don't have lossless anyway, so optical will be good enough.

enjoy
gandalf