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.