POLL--Should the BDA require full 2.0 profile and TrueHD/DTS HD MA

[jorg]

this is a poll to accompany this thread
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=31763

No option for just TrueHD/DTS HD MA or just BD live(2.0)
you want both or nether

[CAB]

Probably clear which way I voted.

[jorg]

too lazy to look(it a public poll)

[bluflu]

I voted no, but not because it cost too much.

Also, what is "Do some reserch b4 u pay 300$+ for somthing"?

[jorg]

Originally Posted by bluflu

I voted no, but not because it cost too much.

Also, what is "Do some reserch b4 u pay 300$+ for somthing"?

well if buying a blu-ray player and paying 300 or 400 for a player then you should (i think) do a little back ground re serch like buying a new tv for 2k or 2.5 k and u don`t know wetehr to buy a plasma or lcd u find out

[Anthony P]

I went with "Do some reserch b4 u pay 300$+ for somthing"
to put it simply there have always been more feature rich, more expensive devices.

If something is necessery (like video codecs because a studio won't use two standards, or seatbelts in a car) then it should be in the specs of the format as mandatory. On the other hand if something is not necessary (there will always be lossy audio on the disk, who needs PiP..., you don't need leather seats or power windows in a car) then why make it mandatory for all. People can pick and choose the features important to them and then buy a player that has them.

If something is not necessery, but is important to every one (like a car radio) then manufacturers will use it and the consumers would have spoke.

Also, what is "Do some reserch b4 u pay 300$+ for somthing"?

still not sure exactly what he means, but for me it means that people should buy the player with the features they want and they should take responsibility for their choices.

[TigerShark]

I have a PS3; however, I will never buy a Blu-ray player until it is fully complete.

[blu-rayfan101]

No, it would raise costs of players and if company's want they can.

[tommyD]

Nah - there are DVD players with all sorts of different specs throughout the years - with/without:
5.1 channel analog out
Component Video
Optical or electrical S/PDIF out
HDMI
upconversion

I'd say let people decide, and make retailers be clear about the feature differences when they sell them. I might rather drop $100 for a 1.0 player without support for BD Live and lossless decoding than pay $300 for a 2.0 player...

[tommyD]

Originally Posted by tommyD

I'd say let people decide, and make retailers be clear about the feature differences when they sell them. I might rather drop $100 for a 1.0 player without support for BD Live and lossless decoding than pay $300 for a 2.0 player...

One more thought - yeah a portable player for kids watching movies in the car (I don't want to buy another copy of Ratatouille just so my kids can watch the DVD in the back seat - I already have the BD). Portable players at the 2.0 spec would be dumb.

[JohnGalt]

Yes, absolutely. Consumer confusion will limit adoption of the format and put the future of high-def discs in doubt. The CEs need to produce full-feature set players or none at all.

[unreal1080p]

The question and answers are too vague so I refrained from voting.

Here is my answer:

Players manufactured after January 1st 2009 should be BD LIVE (Profile 2.0) compatible and include mandaroty bitstreaming of BOTH high end lossless audio codecs (Dolby True HD and DTS-HD MA)... unless of course the player can decode them both internaly (which will be the case of the PS3).

[gandley]

clearly a set hardware standard with a feature set that reads discs authored to BDA spec 2.0 makes it easier to push to consumers in general.
if they can go to the shops knowing any player will play all content on a disc thats meets the BD live spec, then there consumer choice is made much easier. then when they buy a disc they know there player will meet its features.

Of course there will be other players that will have extended features but at least core content features are garenteed.

I however do not agree that players must do internal decoding for HD audio. external is fine and its nice to have the option.

A date should be given when BD live players begin to be the mandatory spec for all bd players. now isnt the time.

[quetzalcoatl]

Why is it that I feel most every person that voted for it makes it easier really is not saying that.
What they are reallying saying is that I donot want to buy new equipment. And last time I checked the CEs were in business to make money.

All this talk about general consumers and what they want and the confusion they will have. I am sorry but give me a break. Most of the early adopters are unsure when they are talking HD audio. Donot beleive me go look at some of the threads for it here on this site. So the general consumer will not know or care really.

As to making 2.0 mandatory. I want choice and in that choice will be 1.1 and 2.0 players from the spec that was laid out in the begining. It was a roadmap and I think it should be stuck to. It will also be between players that can decode and send HD audio and those that cannot. One size does not fit all and I donot think it needs to.

[jorg]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

Why is it that I feel most every person that voted for it makes it easier really is not saying that.
What they are reallying saying is that I donot want to buy new equipment. And last time I checked the CEs were in business to make money.

All this talk about general consumers and what they want and the confusion they will have. I am sorry but give me a break. Most of the early adopters are unsure when they are talking HD audio. Donot beleive me go look at some of the threads for it here on this site. So the general consumer will not know or care really.

As to making 2.0 mandatory. I want choice and in that choice will be 1.1 and 2.0 players from the spec that was laid out in the begining. It was a roadmap and I think it should be stuck to. It will also be between players that can decode and send HD audio and those that cannot. One size does not fit all and I donot think it needs to.

i agree althou this will be more "confusing" and requier some one to ask a questiong and get a 3 sentence reply is hard i think we should have a choice why pay more for somthing never used (that can potentnionl be 20$ plus)

[w_tanoto]

I, for one, don't care..... I don't use online feature, but profile 1.1 must be required in all players.

but for the sake of red ants bashing us, then it (2.0) should be made mandatory anytime soon

[Papi4baby]

Originally Posted by w_tanoto

I, for one, don't care..... I don't use online feature, but profile 1.1 must be required in all players.

but for the sake of red ants bashing us, then it (2.0) should be made mandatory anytime soon

+1, pretty much how i feel about it. I voted yes, but dont really care for it, i just want to watch my movie in the best quality possible. The rest eh, not really.

P.S. I like previews =)

[Denzelio]

Heres a handy link

http://www.idoblu.co.uk/page2%20Blu-ray%20Players.html