Oppo to build Blu-Ray player

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by glocksout

That he's talking about is that the player decodes the AVC, VC-1 or MPEG-2 video codec ON THE PLAYER and sends it to the display. The Blu-ray player does not send a bitstream video signal to the display. Displays do not decode video codecs.

Exactly. DaViD acts like all BD players are the same because it's digital and uses HDMI.

There is a big difference in PQ from the Denon units and the rest. AQ differs from unit to unit as well. Some decode the codecs better.

[DaViD Boulet]

That he's talking about is that the player decodes the AVC, VC-1 or MPEG-2 video codec ON THE PLAYER and sends it to the display. The Blu-ray player does not send a bitstream video signal to the display. Displays do not decode video codecs.

You guys are completely misreading my statements. I hope not intentionally.

I only stated that the player doesn't decode *to analog* when using the HDMI connection.

How is this not clear?

OF COURSE the player decodes the compressed bitstream to linear-digital-video.

I never said, or implied, that it didn't.

I never suggested that decoding software/chips for video codecs don't make a difference. Of course they do.

I only responded to someone who was talking about the ANALOG decoding performance of BD hardware, and I clarified that it didn't make a difference when going HDMI.

I've stated some basic facts VERY clearly. I can't see how there's any room for confusion.

Exactly. DaViD acts like all BD players are the same because it's digital and uses HDMI.

There is a big difference in PQ from the Denon units and the rest. AQ differs from unit to unit as well. Some decode the codecs better.

No.

I stated that the *ANALOG* performance of various machines is irrelevent with AV when talking about using HDMI connections for audio/video.

That's all. And that's a fact.

Of course software decoding algorithms can make a difference when using HDMI for AV. That's a different discussion and one that I'll be happy to participate in. And I fully agree that even in an all-digital signal path players can look/sound different because of different (codec) decoding and DSP algorithms... all of which have NOTHING to do with a player's audio/video *analog* decoding performance.

-dave

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

You guys are completely misreading my statements. I hope not intentionally.

No one here is misreading anything. You stated that it was all digital and very much implied that Receivers and TVs do all the decoding. I could go back and quote you but what is the point? This all because people said there was a SQ and PQ difference between the PS3 and other players. You then said that HDMI made the SQ difference pointless showing you have very little knowledge of how it all works since most people as in 98% of people with HDTVs don't have HDMI 1.3 receivers.

[DaViD Boulet]

No one here is misreading anything. You stated that it was all digital and very much implied that Receivers and TVs do all the decoding.

And that's a fact with no room to dispute anything so why are you harrassing me? ALL DIGITAL is ALL DIGITAL and the reason I stated that earlier in the thread was because I was correcting some misunderstanding by someone that there was an *analog* conversion taking place in what was is actually an all-digital signal path.

NO WHERE did I say, or imply, that digital processing and digital decoding can't affect the subjective quality of a signal... all digital or otherwise. The fact that I've remarked about the potential for audible differences with over HDMI due to factors like dialog normalization and jitter in other threads should confirm that. I merely said that the ANALOG performance of a player was a non-issue when using HDMI or SPDIF... and that's a simple fact.

If we want to have a conversation about the image quality of various decoding chips and algorithms let's have it. Great. Totally different topic than what I was addressing, so you don't need to try to characterize my comments as disagreeing with that assertion when they didn't even address it.

This all because people said there was a SQ and PQ difference between the PS3 and other players. You then said that HDMI made the SQ difference pointless showing you have very little knowledge of how it all works since most people as in 98% of people with HDTVs don't have HDMI 1.3 receivers.

Lotus,

one can only assume that you are indeed intentionally trying to misquote me.

I responded SPECIFICALLY to someone's incorrect notion that the *analog qualtiy* of a BD player was important over an HDMI cable.... which was false because an HDMI cable does not carry analog audio/video, only digital signals. I further stated that while not everyone has HDMI presently, that it's the direction any serious audio/videophile should be headed since it obtains the best picture and sound and so it should be the focus of our discussion.

I would assume that the majority of users with HDTVs on this forum are using HDMI, and if they aren't, that they will be soon with their next TV or recevier upgrade (HDMI switching in many new receviers offers great simplicity of cables).

I would also assume that the majority of users are using a digital connection for audio, whether HDMI or SPDIF... neither of which are affected by the "analog performance" of HD DVD/BD hardware (though of course their digital processing and decoding will have an affect, just as with video). HDMI 1.3 is not necessary for the transmission of digital audo/video to a display or receiver (only HDMI 1.1) unless deep-color or bitstreaming of TrueHD/DTS-HD MA are specifically desired.

Everything I've said is 100% correct and abundantly clear. Please stop trying to misrepresent my communication. If you want to have a meaningful conversation with real dialogue (like talking about how digital decoders and DSP can affect image quality over all-digital-signal-paths) then great. But you don't need to falsely claim that I've denied such principles to do it.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

And that's a fact

No it isn't. TVs and Receivers don't do all the decoding.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

When I consider a BD (or HD DVD) player's performance characteristics I'm talking about HDMI for digital audio and HDMI for digital video since that represents the ideal connection strategy which most AV enthusiats are embracing or moving towards.

You then say...

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

But for most HT-enthusiast consumers, they either have HDMI for AV or they *will* have HDMI for AV... so the HDMI performance is the main concern.

You're stating rather clearly that a HDM player using HDMI doesn't have to worry about decoding capabilities. You ignore the fact that most post people with HDMI receivers (about 95%) need the player to decode the Dolby True HD to LPCM to pass through that HDMI connection. You also ignore that the player decodes the video and then sends the info on through the HDMI. Your arguement is that the decoding power of a player isn't important since most will be using HDMI. Which shows you don't know how it works.

[DaViD Boulet]

No it isn't. TVs and Receivers don't do all the decoding.

I said that when using HDMI all *ANALOG* decoding was handled by the display hardware (video) or audio receiver (sound). That's all. And that's a fact.

You're stating rather clearly that a HDM player using HDMI doesn't have to worry about decoding capabilities.

I'm confused how I can specifically address this, yet you fail to be able to read it. Lotus, the complete comment of mine that you only partially quoted said this:

I would also assume that the majority of users are using a digital connection for audio, whether HDMI or SPDIF... neither of which are affected by the "analog performance" of HD DVD/BD hardware (though of course their digital processing and decoding will have an affect, just as with video).

And I even said this:

OF COURSE the player decodes the compressed bitstream to linear-digital-video.

I never said, or implied, that it didn't.

I never suggested that decoding software/chips for video codecs don't make a difference. Of course they do.

I only responded to someone who was talking about the ANALOG decoding performance of BD hardware, and I clarified that it didn't make a difference when going HDMI.

I never claimed, or implied, that the BD player doesn't provide digital decoding of compressed streams (and other functions) when using HDMI as the signal carrier. I can't understand the grounds for even suggesting something so silly given that we all know that HD DVD/BD players decode the compressed video bitstreasms to linear-digital-video, and that the PS3 (and most other BD players and all HD DVD players) decode Dolby TrueHD to PCM for transmission over HDMI as well. These basic digital decoding processes are obvious and not necessary to bring up in a conversation that was specifically talking about analog decoding. Why you would even suggest that my comments about analog decoding would have anything to do with inferences about digital processes points to your desire to merely pester me with unfounded arguments.

I'm sorry you're ability to comprehend basic comunication in this matter seems to be so challenged. I've been abundantly clear. I've spared you the embarassment of pointing out your multitude of errors about the "insider" information you were receiving and dispensing regarding the format war prior to HD DVD's closure. Please grant me a modicum of respect by not trying to constantly invent falsehoods that have no relationship to the subject of my conversation.