Episode 3 - Blowing Up The Contrast Ratio Myth, Bargain HDMI Cables, THX Certified LCDs, Blu-ray Releases, HD From The Moon! [Discussion]

[serafina]

BBC America Is The Biggest Tease of 2009! Opera in HD? Quality AV cables at a reasonable price, HD Upgrade on YouTube, Apollo 11 footage in HD! LED Backlighting Explained

Watch or download this episode here (http://revision3.com/hdnation/contrast)

[vegan]

I haven't had a chance to watch yet, but I hope you said good things about the Apollo 11 footage! I'm a Restoration Artist for the company that worked on it.

[jwitherow]

Just so Patrick knows because it was unclear in the episode. Top Gear (mostly) isn't shot in HD. Only one episode the polar special was shot in HD. Here's a link for a website trying to convince them to shoot it in HD but nothing's been announced yet.

http://www.finalgear.com/news/2009/07/06/help-convince-the-bbc-to-broadcast-top-gear-in-hd/

Also I like to get my cables from www.firefold.com I've not had any trouble with their cables.

[ghelyar]

It's excellent that someone actually listened to the community and this episode is 30 minutes instead of 20.


For Top Gear (which is filmed next to my house, though I didn't know it was popular overseas particularly as JC is a xenophobe), someone must be recording it on DVB-S ("freesat") that can encode it and put it online. That said, freesat is still very new and unpopular (barely any channels and only BBC and ITV are in HD - and I think BBC needs to actually be put in "HD mode" for it too or something). I don't know if it was filmed in HD but I think it's on the BBC HD channel anyway. I don't know how legal this is but they aren't going to lose any money over it because the BBC is funded by everyone in the UK who has any kind of TV equipment paying a crappy £150ish per year (and rising) TV licence (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/) rather than advertising.

I get Top Gear on DVB-T 720x576 interlaced (some things are 1024x576) straight off a Nova T 500 dumped to a file as is at roughly 2.4gb per episode so a DVB-S version should be OK:
$ ls -l 1002_20090726195900.mpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 mythtv mythtv 2544158692 2009-07-26 21:04 1002_20090726195900.mpg

$ ffmpeg -i 1002_20090726195900.mpg
...
Seems stream 0 codec frame rate differs from container frame rate: 50.00 (50/1) -> 25.00 (25/1)
Input #0, mpegts, from '1002_20090726195900.mpg':
Duration: 01:04:56.99, start: 66961.926389, bitrate: 5222 kb/s
Program 1
Stream #0.0[0x262]: Video: mpeg2video, yuv420p, 720x576 [PAR 64:45 DAR 16:9], 15000 kb/s, 25 tbr, 90k tbn, 50 tbc
Stream #0.1[0x263](eng): Audio: mp2, 48000 Hz, 2 channels, s16, 256 kb/s
Stream #0.2[0x264](eng): Audio: mp2, 48000 Hz, 1 channels, s16, 64 kb/s
Stream #0.3[0x267](eng): Subtitle: dvbsub
...


The guy who asked 1080p 10k vs 720p 30k should really get the 1080p. They already said that dynamic contrast is a giant marketing lie and for Xbox and occasional PC use, 1080p is much better than 720p. By desktop standards, 1280x720 is a tiny unusable resolution while 1920x1080 is about as big as most desktops get. For any kind of games, higher resolution is usually quite useful for 2D overlays (HUDs, dialogue boxes, toolbars, etc)

[hectos]

another great show guys...keep up the great work....

[suurge]

Are the guys not fans of Roman Polanski?! I love Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown! Never seen Repulsion but was thinking about blind buying the blu-ray.

[chiss361]

I love Battlestar too!

[peter-gandalf]

Are the guys not fans of Roman Polanski?! I love Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown! Never seen Repulsion but was thinking about blind buying the blu-ray.

I'd rent it first. Very disturbing movie. I really like Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown and the Ninth gate but Repulsion is not a movie that I can watch a lot like the other movies. It's brilliant but hard to watch.

[suurge]

I'd rent it first. Very disturbing movie. I really like Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown and the Ninth gate but Repulsion is not a movie that I can watch a lot like the other movies. It's brilliant but hard to watch.

Ok, will do.

[eminemdrdre00]

Patrick has a hard time saying "HDTV" doesnt he? lol I've noticed that show after show. He starts this episode off with "Buying a HTV?"

[davmoo]

I buy all my cables, HDMI and otherwise, at Fry's. Never paid more than $20, and never had trouble with any of them.

[rharvier]

Great show guys! I'm so glad you did a segment on HDMI/AV cables on the cheap! Monster can suck it! I can get HDMI cables at Fry's too, but I'm not sure if they are "certified", but they are pretty cheap if you need that instant gratification.

I'll probably get the BSG series in blu-ray as a Christmas gift for myself. I have the HD-DVD version still and I watch it once in awhile. More Criterion titles would be fantastic.

Keep up the good work! I anticipate a large folder of HD Nation on my HTPC!

[bigron18]

I buy all my cables, HDMI and otherwise, at Fry's. Never paid more than $20, and never had trouble with any of them.

I too have gotten my HDMI cables primarily from the shopping carts at Fry's... about $7-8/cable. Granted, neither of my current TVs do 1080p... both are 720p. I hope to replace both in the next year or so. I currently have a JVC 52" HD-ILA as my primary and a 32" Sanyo LCD from Wal-Mart as my bedroom TV. These cheap cables have not been an issue. In connection with my JVC, I have an Onkyo receiver that does 3:1 HDMI switching with 3 HDMI devices... 4 HDMI cables used in total.

[subarunut]

You guys mentioned one of the best shows on TV, top gear. Awsome show. Thought you should know, if you didn't already, a great way to get the shows right after they are origonally broadcast is at http://www.finalgear.com. Its the best. I haven't looked to see if it is in full HD quality, but It does appear that it might be ;).

Love the show, though I do miss systm :(.

Good luck.

[nunman62]

In the last 2 days, I've tried to view this episode, all I get is the 3 green blinking orbs and nothing else...what gives?

[nunman62]

Oops! Make that the 7 green blinking orbs...and nothing else.

[andyaldrich]

Good episode. The constant background music isn't to my taste though. Tekzilla doesn't need it and I don't think HD Nation does either. That's a compliment to the show, not just a complaint.

Thanks,
Andy Aldrich

[ghelyar]

In the last 2 days, I've tried to view this episode, all I get is the 3 green blinking orbs and nothing else...what gives?

Works fine for me on the HD Quicktime version in VLC 1.0.0 on Windows. Have you tried different formats (xvid, etc)?

[nunman62]

From looking at the support forum at Revision3, the problem has to do with the updated firefox addon Adblock Plus. You will need to make an exception in Adblock Plus (or just put a check mark to "Disable on Revision3.com) to allow videos to play in the Firefox browser. If anybody else is having this problem, this should do the trick!

[nunman62]

Oh...good episode btw! I have to admit, I had low expectations for this show, but I love the great tips and content! Keep them coming! Kudos to Robert and Patrick!

[battalia]

Very nice episode you guys! Now, I finally have a little more insight into HDTV contrasts.

[cyborger]

I'm not sure if this goes for all of their HDTVs but I know that with the Samsung and LG HDTVs they offer this HDMI cable (http://www.amazon.com/HDMI-meter-foot-cable-1080P/dp/B0002L5R78/ref=pd_bxgy_e_text_b) and this Optical Audio cable (http://www.amazon.com/Fiber-Optical-Toslink-Digital-Interface/dp/B0002MQGOK/ref=pd_bxgy_e_text_c) for a few cents extra. Are these worth using or should I just uncheck them before I add them to my shopping cart?

Edit: Great episode by the way.

[jdryyz]

Did I hear Patrick say HD-DVD was superior to Blu-Ray? Hahahhah.

[masherscf]

Did I hear Patrick say HD-DVD was superior to Blu-Ray? Hahahhah.

Why are you laughing? He's right.

[cyborger]

Did I hear Patrick say HD-DVD was superior to Blu-Ray? Hahahhah.

I've heard people say that HD DVD was indeed better but Blu-Ray still won by other means. But this is of course just from talk, not from me (personally).

[shike]

Did I hear Patrick say HD-DVD was superior to Blu-Ray? Hahahhah.

It was . . . at least in terms of movies. It required more audio codecs to be supported as standard by the players, used HDi, and was region free. It was also cheaper to produce and easier to integrate. The only advantage BD offered was more capacity . . . at a higher cost -_-

Oh, and HD-DVD was actually a finished spec. You can thank the Blu-ray Disc Association for also causing the ENTIRE format war by not just adopting HDi and instead forcing the garbage that is BD-J.



In other news, I really disliked this episode. THX in a marketing joke at best and harmful at worst. THX in a theater serves a decent purpose . . . a set of specifications that they must abide to for sound etc.

In the HT market on the other hand they've created EIGHT different levels of "certification" . . . some of which are downright preposterous.

Very simply, if you can buy a THX receiver that doesn't run stable down to 4 ohms they aren't doing their jobs. Speakers aren't static loads (save magneplanar/ribbon tech) . . . those "8 ohm" (averaged) speakers you have can dip down to 4 ohms easily, and when they do they have distortion from clipping without a decent power section.

For example the laughable Onkyo TX-SR705. Like many others it uses a 4 ohm switch to limit power so the receiver won't blow up, but speakers that dip below 8 ohms enough can be damaged thanks to clipping (would anyone like a blown tweeter?).

[jdryyz]

Higher capacity makes a big difference in some cases too. Sure you pay more for it. You usually do for something that is better. Some Blu-Ray disc manufactures do overcharge for their product though, I will give you that. The prices are improving as the market improves, however. I would even say the prices have seen greater improvement at this point in the life cycle than DVD did when it was introduced, but it could be the availability of competing online retailers to thank for that.

In terms of movies? Maybe in other regions, but the two biggest producers of HD-DVD content in the US (Paramount & Universal) did not represent the format too well. Most of the titles were simply ports of the last masters used to generate the DVDs and did not contain lossless audio. Warner Bros did their best to make the format shine but it still fell short of what they accomplished with their Blu-Ray releases. Sadly Warner Bros. also released a bit too many BDs with compressed audio. Not surprisingly, these were also on single layer BDs.

I only have a couple of HD-DVDs that stand apart from all the rest in my collection- 1) The Eagles Farewell Tour w/ DTS-HD MA audio and 2) 300, which was actually superior to the Blu-Ray released at the same time.

BD-Java, yeah, it is best described as "inconsistent" and admittedly a problem for hardware manufacturers but I experienced problems with HDi also. I don't make purchases based on these types of extras though. I'm only interested in the best possible picture and audio quality and I would argue that there are more Blu-Ray titles available now and from the beginning that meet this criteria.

I'm glad Blu-Ray won the war.



It was . . . at least in terms of movies. It required more audio codecs to be supported as standard by the players, used HDi, and was region free. It was also cheaper to produce and easier to integrate. The only advantage BD offered was more capacity . . . at a higher cost -_-

Oh, and HD-DVD was actually a finished spec. You can thank the Blu-ray Disc Association for also causing the ENTIRE format war by not just adopting HDi and instead forcing the garbage that is BD-J.



In other news, I really disliked this episode. THX in a marketing joke at best and harmful at worst. THX in a theater serves a decent purpose . . . a set of specifications that they must abide to for sound etc.

In the HT market on the other hand they've created EIGHT different levels of "certification" . . . some of which are downright preposterous.

Very simply, if you can buy a THX receiver that doesn't run stable down to 4 ohms they aren't doing their jobs. Speakers aren't static loads (save magneplanar/ribbon tech) . . . those "8 ohm" (averaged) speakers you have can dip down to 4 ohms easily, and when they do they have distortion from clipping without a decent power section.

For example the laughable Onkyo TX-SR705. Like many others it uses a 4 ohm switch to limit power so the receiver won't blow up, but speakers that dip below 8 ohms enough can be damaged thanks to clipping (would anyone like a blown tweeter?).

[shike]

Higher capacity makes a big difference in some cases too. Sure you pay more for it. You usually do for something that is better.

I beg to differ. You pay for it because you're willing to, it has nothing to do with being superior or not.

Some Blu-Ray disc manufactures do overcharge for their product though, I will give you that.

From a manufacturing perspective HD-DVD was cheaper . . . it had higher profit margins even with more discs.

The prices are improving as the market improves, however.

Not really.

I would even say the prices have seen greater improvement at this point in the life cycle than DVD did when it was introduced, but it could be the availability of competing online retailers to thank for that.

That's not saying much.

In terms of movies? Maybe in other regions, but the two biggest producers of HD-DVD content in the US (Paramount & Universal) did not represent the format too well.

The format was superior for movies regardless of what producers did with it.

Most of the titles were simply ports of the last masters used to generate the DVDs and did not contain lossless audio.

First, I'd like a source for your first argument. Multiple searches on google turn up zip for sources.

Second is the whole whining for lossless audio. A well done audio track is what matters with proper dynamic range and mastering. Transformers proved that.

The difference people hear with lossless movie tracks isn't even that it's lossless. The lossless tracks often use a different master that hasn't been processed and butchered nearly as much. If studios would stop altering the tracks beyond bitrate they would sound identical (aka audibly transparent). This is the only reason people are able to tell the difference consistently on even low quality setups like $100 HTiB.

No on has golden ears besides liars and newborns.

PS: If you're still so infatuated with lossless Dolby TrueHD hardware support was mandatory on HD-DVD, and only optional on Blu-Ray.

Warner Bros did their best to make the format shine but it still fell short of what they accomplished with their Blu-Ray releases. Sadly Warner Bros. also released a bit too many BDs with compressed audio. Not surprisingly, these were also on single layer BDs.

See above. Compression isn't the problem . . . it's the mastering. Same reason CDs as of late sound like shit compared to vinyl.

I only have a couple of HD-DVDs that stand apart from all the rest in my collection- 1) The Eagles Farewell Tour w/ DTS-HD MA audio and 2) 300, which was actually superior to the Blu-Ray released at the same time.

300 proved many aspects of what I said true.

BD-Java, yeah, it is best described as "inconsistent" and admittedly a problem for hardware manufacturers but I experienced problems with HDi also.

I'd love to know what problems. HDi was the easiest to program and add features for.

I don't make purchases based on these types of extras though. I'm only interested in the best possible picture and audio quality and I would argue that there are more Blu-Ray titles available now and from the beginning that meet this criteria.

Once again, blame the studios and not the format for their shortcomings in the audio segment. In terms of video I'm calling BS. Lastly a good many of us like having the special features available and working properly. HDi and a finalized spec proved things worked the majority of the time compared to Blu-Ray.

I'm glad Blu-Ray won the war.

I'm not. HD-DVD had better features all around.

[jdryyz]

I beg to differ. You pay for it because you're willing to, it has nothing to do with being superior or not.

Take two recent examples of why more space makes a difference:

- Star Trek: The Original Series -- (Interesting side note, the Blu-Ray set sells for $65 on Amazon, the same set on HD-DVD sells for $80. I believe it may have even sold for more than that when it first became available.)

- Battlestar Galactica

Do you think the producers of the Blu-Ray versions just *decided* to make it better? No, they're better because there's more room to work with. And, if the product is better, I think you will find a lot of people willing to spend more. It is not just my decision. But don't take my word for it, look at any "hi-def" review site and they'll say the same. Need I include, *this* episode of HD Nation?


From a manufacturing perspective HD-DVD was cheaper . . . it had higher profit margins even with more discs.

Cheap manufacturing is fine but it isn't necessarily the bottom line in a format winning over customers.


The format was superior for movies regardless of what producers did with it.

The proof is in the pudding. Where is all the superior product to support this claim?


Second is the whole whining for lossless audio. A well done audio track is what matters with proper dynamic range and mastering. Transformers proved that.


Then why does the TrueHD track on my Transformers BD sound better than HD-DVD's Dolby Digital + ?

I agree with your CD vs vinyl argument. I'm a big proponent of vinyl. Why? Not because of mastering necessarily, but because of compression. Likewise, I can tell the difference between a compressed movie soundtrack and an uncompressed PCM and/or lossless track. Would you agree that a 320kbps compressed CD track sounds better than a 128kbps track? The difference is beyond subtle to me. The less compressed track wins.


300 proved many aspects of what I said true.

Right, and where are more examples of the same movie being superior to the Blu-Ray version?

Once again, blame the studios and not the format for their shortcomings in the audio segment. In terms of video I'm calling BS. Lastly a good many of us like having the special features available and working properly. HDi and a finalized spec proved things worked the majority of the time compared to Blu-Ray.

I blame the studios for producing bad HD-DVDs all around, not just on the audio side. Why didn't the folks responsible for the content exploit the medium to its full potential if they believed it was the better way to go?

[davmoo]

This is gettin' good...somebody pass me some popcorn :D

[shike]

Take two recent examples of why more space makes a difference:

- Star Trek: The Original Series -- (Interesting side note, the Blu-Ray set sells for $65 on Amazon, the same set on HD-DVD sells for $80. I believe it may have even sold for more than that when it first became available.)

- Battlestar Galactica

Do you think the producers of the Blu-Ray versions just *decided* to make it better? No, they're better because there's more room to work with.

Better than . . . ? I'm guessing you're saying "better than DVD", which is true. But after a certain point we have this thing known as the law of diminishing returns. Look it up sometime.

Cheap manufacturing is fine but it isn't necessarily the bottom line in a format winning over customers.

No, but prices would have been able to drop a lot faster.

The proof is in the pudding. Where is all the superior product to support this claim?

First gen release of 300 between the two formats. The only thing deficient about HD-DVD as a whole was how audio was mastered on lossy tracks by studios.

Then why does the TrueHD track on my Transformers BD sound better than HD-DVD's Dolby Digital + ?

Odds are it doesn't . . . look up psychoacoustics. If you can identify them in level matched DBT then something may have been done to one or the other.

I agree with your CD vs vinyl argument. I'm a big proponent of vinyl. Why? Not because of mastering necessarily, but because of compression.

*facepalm*

Do some research on the subject sparky. Especially in regards to the loudness wars. Understand that "dynamic compression" is different from codec compression.

Likewise, I can tell the difference between a compressed movie soundtrack and an uncompressed PCM and/or lossless track. Would you agree that a 320kbps compressed CD track sounds better than a 128kbps track?

Depends on the music and how it's ripped. Unless you're using EAC with secure ripping and the best LAME encoder you're really doing yourself a disservice. For extremely light music the odds of you telling a difference though are extremely low, but with complex music goes up.

On the same token though, with an extremely well ripped CD in 320kpps vs. lossless odds are you can't tell a difference in ABX testing.

The difference is beyond subtle to me. The less compressed track wins.

Great, so you can tell 240kbps vs. 320? Probably not.

Right, and where are more examples of the same movie being superior to the Blu-Ray version?

How about any version that handles extras properly? Save the audio masters HD-DVD did a lot of things right.

I blame the studios for producing bad HD-DVDs all around, not just on the audio side. Why didn't the folks responsible for the content exploit the medium to its full potential if they believed it was the better way to go?

I still want to know where you got the DVD to HD-DVD transfer BS.

[jdryyz]

Better than . . . ? I'm guessing you're saying "better than DVD", which is true. But after a certain point we have this thing known as the law of diminishing returns. Look it up sometime.

In the context of Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, no of course I'm not talking about DVD.

First gen release of 300 between the two formats. The only thing deficient about HD-DVD as a whole was how audio was mastered on lossy tracks by studios.

Okay, we've already established that. That's one. Got anymore?

Odds are it doesn't . . . look up psychoacoustics. If you can identify them in level matched DBT then something may have been done to one or the other.

I trust my ears. Just like we both trust our ears when we hear the superior fiedlity of a well produced vinyl. :)


Do some research on the subject sparky. Especially in regards to the loudness wars. Understand that "dynamic compression" is different from codec compression.

Sparky? Hmmm...that sounds familiar. Patrick, is that you?!?

Well, you've ventured over into name calling territory now. Too bad. I was keeping it civilized.

Ohh, and I goofed. I didn't mean to bring compression into the CD vs vinyl thing. I meant to point out CD's loss in resolution and, ultimately to say that anytime you're throwing out bits, it's a bad idea. Blu-Ray offers the more lossless audio titles and I will always pick lossless over lossy.

How about any version that handles extras properly? Save the audio masters HD-DVD did a lot of things right.

Though I have heard others cursing at their BD-Live enabled software, I have yet to personally experience a single problem with my Blu-Ray extras. Perhaps the right hardware makes the difference here. I have the Sony BDP-S550.

[shike]

In the context of Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, no of course I'm not talking about DVD.

Here's the problem with your comparison. The HD-DVD versions were released well before the BD release. This allowed them to fix any issues that had occurred before.

On the other hand an already solid HD-DVD release like Batman Begins that had been considered almost damn perfect by high-def digest basically got ported to Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray didn't offer anything that HD-DVD didn't besides the IMAX preview (a weak gimmick at best IMO).

Okay, we've already established that. That's one. Got anymore?

How about any HD-DVD that didn't have a bug in the extras or offered more features while the BD did suffer or offered skip features in comparison?

I trust my ears. Just like we both trust our ears when we hear the superior fiedlity of a well produced vinyl. :)

I don't need to use my ears, it's been proven to have more dynamic range in practice compared to "loud" CDs. For example a properly mastered CD will sound just as good if not better to its vinyl companion. Guns N' Roses Chinese Democracy would be a great recent example.

For an explanation of what I'm actually talking about go here (http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4).

I trust no ones' ears . . . not even my own. It's too easy to adjust to sound, depends on one's own quality of hearing, and can garner misrepresentation thanks to psychoacoustics. It's the largest reason someone's hearing impressions are really crap to about anyone else.

Sparky? Hmmm...that sounds familiar. Patrick, is that you?!?

Well, you've ventured over into name calling territory now. Too bad. I was keeping it civilized.

Sorry?

Ohh, and I goofed. I didn't mean to bring compression into the CD vs vinyl thing. I meant to point out CD's loss in resolution and, ultimately to say that anytime you're throwing out bits, it's a bad idea.

CD is still a superior format . . . once again let's look at mastering. Here's (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122228767729272339.html) an article from the sound engineer that both worked and was ultimately disappointed with how Death Magnetic turned out. In fact it was found out (http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/09/does-metallicas/) that the Guitar Hero version of the game sounded better . . . using Dolby Digital (which has a lower bitrate compared to CD no less!).

Scientifically speaking vinyl can't get into loudness wars due to the limit of the medium (if it's too loud the needle won't track right!). This why why you have big sweeping dynamics in vinyl compared to most modern CDs.

So what you're really hearing is lack of impact, and more often than not album clipping (not enough headroom) which leads to distortion in CDs. It's not a difference in resolution in any sense of the word unless you're arguing the distortion is destroying the ability to resolve.

Blu-Ray offers the more lossless audio titles and I will always pick lossless over lossy.

I guess that's good because they're using a more dynamic master, but it's not because it's lossless. It's a misrepresentation of the technology by the studios much to the dismay of us that are audio savvy.

Though I have heard others cursing at their BD-Live enabled software, I have yet to personally experience a single problem with my Blu-Ray extras. Perhaps the right hardware makes the difference here. I have the Sony BDP-S550.

I only had issues with first gen releases myself. Then again my BD collection still pales compared to my standard DVD collection. All of my HD-DVDs and player were sold . . . took about a $30 hit for the equivalent of renting it for a year.

[mpicker21]

In regards to the MET Opera HD feeds... a lot of these are broadcast in-the-clear over satellite to the theaters that show them. If you have a FTA setup (IE: Ku band dish and an FTA reciever) you can get them for free. A good source for the feed locations is http://rickcaylor.websitetoolbox.com/
Hope that helps someone. Also, I love the show.

[peter-gandalf]

Audio CD's are still only sampled at 44.1KHz at a resolution of 16bits. This is barely acceptable. At least with analogue the entire sound wave is being reproduced with out any missing pieces. CD's should really be sampled at 48KHz minimum.

I don't think many bands actually record to analogue anymore but most are using 96KHz 24bit for the master recordings.

[shike]

Audio CD's are still only sampled at 44.1KHz at a resolution of 16bits. This is barely acceptable. At least with analogue the entire sound wave is being reproduced with out any missing pieces. CD's should really be sampled at 48KHz minimum.

I don't think many bands actually record to analogue anymore but most are using 96KHz 24bit for the master recordings.

1) The entire soundwave IS produced with CD. See Nyquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem) theorem.

2) I have yet to see one person prove they can hear the difference in a DBT that is volume matched and shares the same dynamic range.

[peter-gandalf]

44.1KHz still isn't enough to to reproduce some types of music. According to that link you sent me optimal sampling is 64 to 80KHZ depending on particular frequency range of whats being recorded.

[shike]

44.1KHz still isn't enough to to reproduce some types of music.

Proof?

According to that link you sent me optimal sampling is 64 to 80KHZ depending on particular frequency range of whats being recorded.

I fail to see where you got that. The sampling rate of CD is 44.1khz per channel. That's twice 22.05khz (the highest frequency CD can produce) which is above the threshold of hearing.

I suggest you read the thread here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=9311) as it goes over the point we could make back in forth, but is just so much faster for you to read.

[shanmac]

I just watched HD nation for the first time. Absolutely love the show and its fast pace. Will definitely be subscribing to this and checking out the recommendations given. Thanks guys!

[maxhdrm]

Finally...FINALLY someone other than me explains static vs. dynamic contrast ratios. I find it to be better quality TV with a higher Static CR. Samsung is really good at posting the information on their site and I have found that they will label Static CR as simply Contrast Ration on the specs on the box. I have also found that more over then not that the better manufacturers will honestly put this information on the box it is the retail stores that put the Dynamic on their tags.

Personally if a company chooses not to divulge this information I feel they have something to hide. I have been following HD specs since the first wave of plasmas and CRT HD TVs (only a handful ever made i.e., Toshibas 27" 16:9 CRT HD 480i/p TV. A beast of a TV but great clarity)

I agree with what was said about 720 vs. 1080 and a great deal comes down to the actual “native” resolution of that set. A 1080p TV looks great if..IF the signal being broadcast or the game/movie being played/watched has been hard coded for a native resolution of that TV set. If not, then there is signal degradation because it has to down convert (de-interlace) to the lower resolution. This can also go in the opposite direction. Personally, considering that the majority of every media/median market still does 720p natively, 1080 isn’t a financially sound decision to me until 720 becomes extinct (yeah well some of you though 480i/p wouldn’t be but now look all gone) . Unless by some miraculous engineering feet, they make up conversion “native” and not “simulated” to the interlacing/de-interlacing scenario.

This article might help.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-720p-and-1080p-hdtvs.htm

Of course this isn’t the only info out there. There is a montage of information backing this person up.

[tokenuser]

Finally...FINALLY someone other than me explains static vs. dynamic contrast ratios.Finally? 23 episodes ago? ;)
A 1080p TV looks great if..IF the signal being broadcast or the game/movie being played/watched has been hard coded for a native resolution of that TV set. If not, then there is signal degradation because it has to down convert (de-interlace) to the lower resolution. This can also go in the opposite direction. Personally, considering that the majority of every media/median market still does 720p natively, 1080 isn’t a financially sound decision to me until 720 becomes extinct (yeah well some of you though 480i/p wouldn’t be but now look all gone) . Unless by some miraculous engineering feet, they make up conversion “native” and not “simulated” to the interlacing/de-interlacing scenario.What you say is perfectly true, but you are ignoring a large art of the equation - Bluray movies. They are 1080 by default and look best at that resolution.