 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.154.170.99
Is it possible? Does it asomehow violate HDCP? Why burden myself with buying new recievers every year as the HDMI spec incrementally improves in it's high def multi channel audio support? This is really starting to piss me off.
Follow Ups:
< < Does it somehow violate HDCP? > >Yes. An HDCP compliant source will only transmit to an HDCP compliant sink (receiver). The HDCP license terms prohibit extracting the digital content and sending it around in un-encrypted form.
Plus it cost $15,000 a year for an HDCP license plus another $15,000 a year for an HDMI license. (You need both to make an HDMI compliant device). So don't look for any specialty manufacturers to include HDMI anytime soon -- it's just not economically feasible.
< < This is really starting to piss me off. > >
It's called "marketing" -- planned obsolescence.
Mostly it's just a bunch of BS designed to steal your money. Why do you even want HDMI? It's only an advantage if you have a digital display. But there is no digital display made today that looks as good as a nice CRT set.
If you can live with a 34" widescreen picture, connect a good DVD player via the analog outputs to a Sony XBR-970. It's only $1000 list, and it will *crush* the picture from any digital display. Screw HDMI. Screw DRM. Screw planned obsolescence.
And as for HDMI, I'll be adopting this summer with the right preamp.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
But there are no NICE CRT's, only old rude ones :)
Seriously, after you've seen the JVC and Sony 1080P displays can you say that with a straight face?
A CRT front projector has a wonderful advantage in that it has no shadow mask. Didn't you ever make it to the demos that DTS used to put on at CES? Talk about film-like! The problem is that this technology only works well in a light-controlled room.If you ever made it to our room at CES about 4 years ago, you would have had a chance to see 480p on a $40,000 Panasonic 30" professional mastering monitor (direct view CRT).
If you think *any* digital display can hold a candle to a CRT, all I can say is that you must have never seen a properly setup CRT. If you like rainbows, screen door effects, and shitty black levels, then digital displays are the way to go.
I must admit that I am curious to see Pioneer's new plasma technology (announced at the recent CES) and also SED (if they ever launch the damned thing). But keep in mind that the best these things will ever be able to do is to *equal* CRT performance (albeit in a slimmer package, possibly with larger screen sizes). It's kind of like audio recording. Some day, they may be able to *match* the performance of a 30 ips half-track 1/2" tape. But it still ain't happened yet...
(If you think *any* digital display can hold a candle to a CRT, all I can say is that you must have never seen a properly setup CRT. If you like rainbows, screen door effects, and shitty black levels, then digital displays are the way to go.)Charles, the latest generation of 1080p micro displays don't have these problems. I know it's tough to get away from your own booth to see demos, but trust me on this, both JVC and Sony are now shipping projectors that smoke CRTs on contrast range and relative black levels. I'm ISF certified and I know how to optimally set up a CRT, and sorry, but what was true four years ago ain't true now. Time marches on CRT displays have not.
As for digital recording vs. 30 ips tape, I assume you've heard (and or used) the latest Sound Devices recorders? Ask any location engineer which they'd rather do a live performance recording with?
< < both JVC and Sony are now shipping projectors that smoke CRTs on contrast range and relative black levels > >Uh ... sort of.
By playing games with automatically adjustable irises, they can maybe get close to a CRT as measured by specific test equipment under specific conditions. And that's good enough to fool some of the people some of the time. But it still leads to visible artifacts in certain situations (such as scenes in real movies).
Like I said, I'll wait for a digital display that is *actually* better than a CRT. It ain't happened yet (although it could in another year or two).
((Like I said, I'll wait for a digital display that is *actually* better than a CRT))The JVC and Sony are both better than CRTs in the following areas:
1. sharpness
2. color fidelity
3. stability
4. noise (both physical and electronic)
5. cost per hour to useBlack levels shouldn't be your only or even primary criteria. It is just one of many parameters that make up picture quality and overal value.
Even if these micro displays were only CRT's equal, their ability to use direct digital video inputs which eliminates both a D/A and A/D from the video path gives them a major leg up in picture quality.
*** both JVC and Sony are now shipping projectors that smoke CRTs on contrast range and relative black levels ***You referring to the HD1/RS1 and the Pearl/Ruby?
I agree, I prefer watching the latest generation 1080p displays over a CRT projector any day.
The truth is nothing is perfect - sure CRT has good absolute black levels, but I hate convergence issues and the poor brightness. SDE is pretty much a non issue at 1080p and a reasonable viewing distance. It wasn't even an issue when I was running 768p.
*** Ask any location engineer which they'd rather do a live performance recording with? ***
I would prefer tape, only because I don't have to worry about peaks clipping. But I have to admit nothing beats the convenience of those portable digital field recorders that are about the size of a largish mp3 player! They sound pretty good too.
Christine, you have it right.The New Sony and JVC 1080P projectors are very, very good, AND they stay in convergence for the entire movie! (actually they are always in proper convergence, unless you happen to go through an earthquake and they fall off the ceiling.
Tape machines require tape, which can be hard to get lately. Reliably.
The newest Sound Devices machines allow for four-channel discrete surround recording, which if you use the Jerry Bruck, dual figure-eight method render full 360 degree phase coherent location recording. Add in their complete dual media redundancy (hard drive and SD) and you have a recording methodology that can deliver remarkable results and not give you a hernia or heart palpitations doing it.
*** AND they stay in convergence for the entire movie! ***Not to mention it's relatively easy to dial in accurate colour temperature (with the right equipment). Problem with CRT is that after a few years, the colour temperature is way off.
Lately tape has been making a comeback, at least in the studio anyway. But for field recording I agree, tape is a pain.
Man, I figured it was going to be something like that. That is less than ideal."Why do you even want HDMI?"
I'd rather not burden my soundsystem choice with this, cough BS cough, standard, BUT on the other hand....In the 1,3 version there are supposedly allowances for some very high def multichannel audio information. That might come in handy.
Eventually it will come in handy, but it may be at least several years before we have any universal hardware standards and compelling software to make 1.3 necessary.Currently, and in the immediate future, keeping the HDMI and other video switching chores in a seperate box divorced from all audioo streams is IMHO a more sensible and sonically superior way to go.
"Eventually it will come in handy"That's just the thing, when? The right software release could have me standing in line for the hardware as soon as it becomes available.
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
