OSNews

> between a compressed 128 bps MP3 and a CD.

YOU DON'T READ what I said. I said most people don't have the AUDIO SPEAKERS needed to TELL the difference.

>I bet your source is from broadcast.

WTH are you talking about?? What broadcast source?? I am talking about HD-DVDs that were shot as 1080p.

>1080i means it's a CRT,

It's a 17" LCD.

>These don't come in 46" size,

Are you going to bust my balls over details? I looked at XSRDs as I said a month ago, I didn't memorize all the tech specs by heart. I am not a fanatic you know, neither I am looking forward to buy one (I was just checking them out cursory in the Sony store, with my husband).

You are taking a LOT of things out of context, and there is no point trying to change your mind. Your replies are simply POLEMIC, and I don't understand why. In fact, whatever you write here is not in the context of a budget HD player. It is my opinion that even most families in the developed first world countries don't have huge speakers or 1080p TVs. They have more normal hardware (usually, 32" 1080i TVs, cheap surround system or none at all). And for THESE families, this budget player DOES THE JOB.

So, stop breaking my balls about details. You are a GEEK and you look at details even how a pixel would look different than its neighbour. Normal people DO NOT see the difference. People who would buy this player, are NOT engadget/gizmodo readers.

Please reply in your comments in a way that makes sense for THIS product, not what we can buy if we had as much money as Bill Gates or if were all MIT researchers that would scrutinize every bit of technological detail. This product review is NOT about these kind of consumers. This is why there is a more expensive Toshiba model that does more. Because each one is targeted at different markets. Can you please now do your commenting with the appropriate point of view??

>>>1080i means it's a CRT,
>It's a 17" LCD.

Also please don't bust my balls about the technical differences of CRTs being 30/60 or 25/50 and LCDs being 60 Hz. Not interested. The point is, the output looks as 1080i and that's what matters.

Let me also add that I live in one of the most rich/expensive regions of the world, in the Silicon Valley. And wherever we see people buying TVs, usually these TVs are 1080i, at smaller than 50". So, again, don't put your "Geek hat" when you reply in this article, put a more realistic hat about what the market is right now and how this product can (or not) please the vast majority of consumers. My opinion is, based to what hardware MOST consumers own today, this player does the job. That's my last take on the subject.

Edited 2007-06-22 21:59

YOU DON'T READ what I said. I said most people don't have the AUDIO SPEAKERS needed to TELL the difference.

I do!
I cited MP3 128 and CD, because even with crappy headphones and a basic CD player and MP3 player, you can hear a difference. If it can reassure you, I don't have the equipment either, as with HD media, the sound is decoded in the player, not in the receiver.

WTH are you talking about?? What broadcast source?? I am talking about HD-DVDs that were shot as 1080p

So they can't be 1080i if they're shot at 1080p... 1080i sources are either for documentary or direct to TV originated content.

It's a 17" LCD

So it's not 1080i. It's a HD ready (around 1280x720 resolution, perhaps even 768 which is worse) TV that is inherently PROGRESSIVE. Eugenia, no digital TV (be it plasma, LCD, DLP, SXRD) is interlaced by nature. Only CRT are interlaced, due to their technology. Your digital TVs CAN'T display interlaced. They're forced to deinterlace to display interlaced content. That's why I'm sure, like I told you, that his 17" display can display 1080i, by downscaling the signal, but is NOT a 1080x1920 native resolution display.
AFAIK, there's no TV maker that make 1920x1080" displays below 32" (IIRc even 40"), because it doesn't make sense (the added resolution is lost at these sizes). Except inside RPTV (SXRD, not DLP), where the (3) displays are less than 2 inches wide.

Your replies are simply POLEMIC, and I don't understand why. In fact, whatever you write here is not in the context of a budget HD player

That was not to be polemic, but I'll tell you why I reacted.
That's because the HD realm is a pretty deceiving and complicated one, and this is going on with this player. People are lost between all this talk of HD ready, Full HD (even you were fooled in believing that a HD display that supports 1080i is a 1080i display, which doesn't make sense), receivers that supposedly support HD media, when in fact, sound is always decoded in the player for "IP" reasons, ...
HD is a mess, but HD's goal is quality. There's nearly no point in a HDDVD player like that. It's hinted at the fact that it comes with a composite cable, which is the last straw.
The sole reason of providing a cheap player like that, is to allow you to watch media that looks good on the digital displays, because SD media usually suffer A LOT on these displays (with some exceptions, like the SXRD RPTV I talked about, and the Pioneer Elite plasmas, or using external scalers).
People won't have the full benefits of what they pay for (1080p@24), but at least, it will look good on their display, because, like you said, it can output the 1080p content at 1080i, and a lot more old HDTV support 1080i but not 1080p.
But when it comes with a composite cable, all that benefit is lost. I talked about the Oppo, which is a DVD player, not only because it's so good, but also because it comes with a HDMI cable in the box.
Coming with a composite cable for a HD player is not acceptable. To actually enjoy better quality than a DVD, they will have to buy an expensive HDMI (or YUV, which should have been the bare minimum) cable, so that's nonsense. Eugenia, this player, with its composite cable, will actually look WORSE than the quality stored in a DVD. Composite cable is the WORST quality of all the connections.
To sum up, to me, this player is one more example of deceptive hardware in the HD world. Because you know, buying the HDMI cable will inflate its price, but worse, not everyone will know they have to buy one.
A LOT of people wonder what all this HD thing is about, because they look at HD content downgraded, or at SD content that looks worse. Fortunately, they're happy because the screen is slim (except for RPTV).

It is my opinion that even most families in the developed first world countries don't have huge speakers or 1080p TVs. They have more normal hardware (usually, 32" 1080i TVs, cheap surround system or none at all). And for THESE families, this budget player DOES THE JOB.

You're right, and that's another shame, but you put it out better than me: they're basically trying to sell people things that they CAN'T take advantage of. We are still in the early adopters stage, and if you don't have 40"+ with the 6 speakers minimum, you are losing nearly all the value of HD media. Being in that stage, of course it's expensive. This is profitting on people's ignorance at an even higher level than before.

You are a GEEK and you look at details even how a pixel would look different than its neighbour. Normal people DO NOT see the difference. People who would buy this player, are NOT engadget/gizmodo readers

OK, right. Except that it is all this HD thing that is a geek thing for now. If people don't see the difference, which I agree with, they are actually better off with a upscaling DVD player, as I suppose they won't buy again all their DVD in HD media.
HD is about quality, and it's not my fault that it's so expensive. But if you're knowledgeable about the thing, buying this player would be only for bragging rights (geek thing).
And, people that buy these kind of hardware should not be price sensitive people, especially buying HD DVD player, as the format war is NOT finished, and it seems like HD DVD is losing (I know it's a PR battle for now, but the signs are genuine this time). Like I said, we are still in the geek phase.
And don't think I'm for one or another, as the PS3 (BluRay player) comes with a composite cable too, though being far more expensive. There's a $320 BluRay player too, but I don't know if it comes with a composite cable, so you see, I don't know it all.
You should know that in HT realm, the cheaper price is not always the best choice, it's even often the worst choice, which is why, unfortunately, so much research has to be made to buy anything at a good price, or at least knowing what you're doing.

I think what I'm saying, is that you can try to sell cheap products to people, but at least, inform them of what the drawbacks are, which are significant for this player.
And what I say is not even against you, as perhaps my tone seemed like I attacked you, but that's not my intention at all. Busting the misunderstanding is my goal.

Edited 2007-06-24 07:46