I was talking about video, but you are talking about audio now. Make up your damn mind.That's my point. I'm not going to criticize someone for buying expensive cables, but I WILL criticize them if they are connecting them to anything but reference quality equipment. And an HTPC is FAR from reference.
In the end though, it's the other person's money. If they want to buy a $2K HDMI cable and connect it to a Vizio TV, hey, it's their money. But don't pretend to be a videophile just because you bought an expensive cable. It just means you don't know enough about balancing a system to get the best possible results.
Incorrect. Jitter is everywhere... both in digital and analog. There is no way to hide. You can however lower, or minimize jitter with better audio equipments, including cables. You don't fully understand what jitter is.3. Jitter is only a problem with real-time playback. When you rip to a storage medium there is no jitter because software (like EAC for example) have CRC to ensure that the data was copied bit for bit.
Gold is a bad source of electrical (or electrons) conductivity and resistivity.Build quality: I don't know what that means until you quantify. Aesthetic things like gold trimming do not qualify. This is the digital domain, putting gold on it doesn't make it better.
Kind of correct. As a general rule of thumb, HTPC can outperform external standalone blu-ray player. There is more to it than just 1's and 0's, sorry.Scaler quality: On an HTPC, you can (if you have the horsepower) upscale using a lanczos or spline algorithm, good luck doing that on any 'reference quality' player with a slow-ass ARM chip in it. At best you'll get bilinear or bicubic scaling.
Reference quality DAC isn't the end be all. You can lower the jitter and any other electrical noise to minimal, using solid silver cable with air tubing technology on cable structure. Surprised you didn't even know this kind of stuff when you work at studios..Analog quality: this only applies to audio, and again you would never be doing this in the HTPC or the 'reference quality' player for that matter. You would be doing it outside using a 'reference quality' DAC or integrated amp.
Big freakin deal..... I told you for the 10th time, I left out the COMMA between the word UNCOMPRESSED and MPEG2-TS. MPEG2 is one of the file types that can be used to compress, but other video formats are the same way, duh. And I know what TS means. I just used the abbreviation to save time. You typed "Transport Stream" to try to make yourself look cool. Trust me, you are not the only one.I'm not going to comment on your last paragraph, because it is regarding a subject (cheez) that doesn't interest me. The guy doesn't even understand that an MPEG2 transport stream contains MPEG2 encoded video.
When I said "uncompressed" I mean no further compression, say from the encoders that rip videos or movies to smaller file size. Sure the camera has settings that allow you uncompressed file recording. No, I'm going to keep on talking. Telling someone to shut up just because one thinks he knows more than the other person.cheez just stop talking dude, nobody cares anymore.
Uncompressed 1080i 60, 8bit, RGB+Alpha, has a data rate of around 250MB/s
That's roughly a TERABYTE per hour of video.
It's not garbage. It depends on recording technique too, as mentioned before. And these are not off the Satellite. But then, you could use a giantic dish for improved signal... 25+mbps should be easy. I don't have stuff that's 10 Mbps. The ones I have are 18~ 25 Mbps MPEG2-TS files.The garbage you're watching is MPEG2 compressed video which was captured from OTA/Cable/Satellite HDTV and is probably hovering between 10-20 Mb/s.
If the original recording is done poorly, it will look like garbage no matter what bitrates used. Bit rates isn't the end be all. America isn't the only place that does the recording. It's world wide, and the recording technique varies.What you don't even know is that more often than not, TV stations do not even get a proper master to broadcast from. The studio supplies them with just a high bitrate lossy DCT encode, which then gets re-compressed to MPEG2 in real time down to a reasonable broadcasting bitrate of 10-20 Mb/s, and arrives to your ATSC tuner/cable box/satellite receiver.
Bluray means squat when the recording is done poorly. Some cameramen don't know how to use the lighting, or tweak the settings on the camera. I was saying the recording technique alone can make a lot of difference and using an UNCOMPRESSED (meaning no further compression done by encoders from the individual) MPEG2-TS can do just as good if not better. I said this like 15 times already. Do you read??On the other hand, Blurays are encoded (at higher bitrates and with a much better encoder like AVC/VC1 for that matter), directly from the 2K or 4K master (which is generally stored on hard drives in 12 bit 4:4:4 sampling wavelet lossless) , and sometimes they even goes as far back as having to still telecine the original 35mm film.
I explained to you already. Read the post above. The problem we face today is that many people don't read everything before replying... Shame.How you think that your junk 1080i MPEG2 stream is better than a Bluray is quite amusing.
The garbage you're watching is MPEG2 compressed video which was captured from OTA/Cable/Satellite HDTV and is probably hovering between 10-20 Mb/s.
What you don't even know is that more often than not, TV stations do not even get a proper master to broadcast from. The studio supplies them with just a high bitrate lossy DCT encode, which then gets re-compressed to MPEG2 in real time down to a reasonable broadcasting bitrate of 10-20 Mb/s, and arrives to your ATSC tuner/cable box/satellite receiver.
On the other hand, Blurays are encoded (at higher bitrates and with a much better encoder like AVC/VC1 for that matter), directly from the 2K or 4K master (which is generally stored on hard drives in 12 bit 4:4:4 sampling wavelet lossless) , and sometimes they even goes as far back as having to still telecine the original 35mm film.
How you think that your junk 1080i MPEG2 stream is better than a Bluray is quite amusing.
Maybe with your typical cable TV services in America. That's about right.If anything, OTA/Cable "HD" is actually 5mbps or less since they're typically stuffing 3 HD channels into what should be one channel.
Yeah and my MPEG2-TS stuff I have is around 20 Mbps. With better recording. Other than some fast motion or ligting the video quality is on par with the descent quality BD titles if not better. I said this like many times before.. Do you read??Quality encoded source BDs are between 15-30mbs.
I was talking specifically the video quality, not audio. You know.... some people don't care about "sound effects" from movies. This is where nice performing speakers come to play, to help with the sound.And with lossless encoded sound which your cable provider definitely is not giving you through the wall. You're getting Dolby Surround at best.
I provided all good reasons why blu-ray has issues and gave you insight about MPEG2-TS can be very good. You need to stop trolling.And Cheez is an enormous troll box of no useful information from the above text spam, holy moly.
descent class blu-ray titles
whether it's poor or descent.
descent quality BD titles
I laughed. Cheez is teh-douche.
descent
noun. an action of moving downward, dropping, or falling: the plane had gone into a steep descent.
decent
adjective. of an acceptable standard; satisfactory: find me a decent cup of coffee.
Maybe with your typical cable TV services in America. That's about right.
But I clearly stated I don't watch American cable TV..... as one of the biggest reasons is poor bandwidth since they broadcast too many stations.. America isn't the only place for cable TV. You must be new to this.
Yeah and my MPEG2-TS stuff I have is around 20 Mbps. With better recording. Other than some fast motion or ligting the video quality is on par with the descent quality BD titles if not better. I said this like many times before.. Do you read??
I was talking specifically the video quality, not audio. You know.... some people don't care about "sound effects" from movies. This is where nice performing speakers come to play, to help with the sound.
I provided all good reasons why blu-ray has issues and gave you insight about MPEG2-TS can be very good. You need to stop trolling.
When I said "uncompressed" I mean no further compression, say from the encoders that rip videos or movies to smaller file size.
Can someone explain this? it's such a basic thing.
Its not basic at all.
Streaming HD or files on the hard drive is SOOOO much better than a clunky disc.
It's not my fault you can't understand what I'm getting to you.. It seems you don't want to listen to what I'm saying. And no I'm not kidding.LOL. Read that sentence over to yourself and tell me how stupid it looks.
It was compressed, but after that initial compression it hasn't been touched so if you start there it's really uncompressed! Are you kidding dude?
If I tell you I'll have to kill ya.Where are you getting a re-encode that is better quality than a BD?
You meant to say "It's definitely not from American cable provider", meaning the TV stations in the states.It's definitely not from a cable provider.
$1200 just for the solid silver analog cable. Additional $200 for mid-end copper cable (Sydney) which was purchased two weeks ago.For someone with $1,195 in wasted money on a silver cable for 'audio only' purposes
I didn't buy the $1200 silver cable for HD video playback, young man... That was bought for music playback, though it can be used for watching videos. Now I have two cables that cost nearly $1500. Obviously you don't read carefully. There's an old saying, "think before you write".you certainly do seem incredibly uninformed AND missing the point of lossless 5.1 audio streams on BDs as well as how sound is sourced and reproduced but I realize now after typing this that that is par for the course since you did spend $1,195 more than you needed to on an audio cable with no recognition of other potential reproduction issues.
When I said "uncompressed" I mean no further compression, say from the encoders that rip videos or movies to smaller file size. Sure the camera has settings that allow you uncompressed file recording. No, I'm going to keep on talking. Telling someone to shut up just because one thinks he knows more than the other person.
It's not garbage. It depends on recording technique too, as mentioned before. And these are not off the Satellite. But then, you could use a giantic dish for improved signal... 25+mbps should be easy. I don't have stuff that's 10 Mbps. The ones I have are 18~ 25 Mbps MPEG2-TS files.
If the original recording is done poorly, it will look like garbage no matter what bitrates used. Bit rates isn't the end be all. America isn't the only place that does the recording. It's world wide, and the recording technique varies.
Bluray means squat when the recording is done poorly. Some cameramen don't know how to use the lighting, or tweak the settings on the camera. I was saying the recording technique alone can make a lot of difference and using an UNCOMPRESSED (meaning no further compression done by encoders from the individual) MPEG2-TS can do just as good if not better. I said this like 15 times already. Do you read??
I explained to you already. Read the post above. The problem we face today is that many people don't read everything before replying... Shame.
Maybe with your typical cable TV services in America. That's about right.
But I clearly stated I don't watch American cable TV..... as one of the biggest reasons is poor bandwidth since they broadcast too many stations.. America isn't the only place for cable TV. You must be new to this.
Yeah and my MPEG2-TS stuff I have is around 20 Mbps. With better recording. Other than some fast motion or ligting the video quality is on par with the descent quality BD titles if not better. I said this like many times before.. Do you read??
I was talking specifically the video quality, not audio. You know.... some people don't care about "sound effects" from movies. This is where nice performing speakers come to play, to help with the sound.
I provided all good reasons why blu-ray has issues and gave you insight about MPEG2-TS can be very good. You need to stop trolling.
What? Joke? I am being serious here. Everything I said about my $1200 cable is serious. You don't believe me? You want my receipt? ATM check card number? Hey you want my drivers license # too?Heh. I'm convinced cheez is one of those joke accounts by someone amusing themselves by taking up impossible to defend positions just to bait people into over-arguing the obvious.
It's Windows Server 2003 R1.Yeah, yeah, a $1200 audio cable *chuckle* with junk equipment, and let me guess, using Windows 2008 server as an HTPC OS
It's Core 2 Duo, with codename Conroe with 4MB L2 cache.running on a Pentium 4 that's supposedly faster than an IvyBridge.
Of course it's amazing, not amusing.Amusing stuff, I guess.
I told you already that I don't watch American movies or any of the trailers. Protected or not, it doesn't matter because I have no desire to watch any of those junk. Anything blu-ray or anything American movies (and European movies) I don't watch so your question does not apply. And I don't make my own movies. I'm not a movie director.Cheez are you watching stuff projected on a movie theater screened and then rerecorded like a camcorder, only higher quality? You keep talking about cameras but unless you have access to the pre edited movies you are not picking camera angles and making your own cut of the movie.
Yes I know what you are talking about. MPEG4 is more efficient as it doesn't require as much file size as the cool older brother MPEG2. But the difference isn't huge. You are not understanding that bit rates isn't the end be all. I said this before. It also depends on the recording quality or technique. Please don't compare BD to American Cable HD stations.... those are all junk. No comparison to the ones I have. Mine is "right there" with high quality BD titles, but not exactly "reference BD titles".You know that VC-1 and AVC easily can beat 20MBps and are considered higher quality than MPEG2 at that bitrate.
I stopped watching BD movies about 1 1/2 years ago.Did you stop watching BD's before any decent titles came out. I know the original MPEG-2 titles are of weak quality but that was a long time ago.
I told you already that I don't watch American movies or any of the trailers. Protected or not, it doesn't matter because I have no desire to watch any of those junk. Anything blu-ray or anything American movies (and European movies) I don't watch so your question does not apply. And I don't make my own movies. I'm not a movie director.
Yes I know what you are talking about. MPEG4 is more efficient as it doesn't require as much file size as the cool older brother MPEG2. But the difference isn't huge. You are not understanding that bit rates isn't the end be all. I said this before. It also depends on the recording quality or technique. Please don't compare BD to American Cable HD stations.... those are all junk. No comparison to the ones I have. Mine is "right there" with high quality BD titles, but not exactly "reference BD titles".
I stopped watching BD movies about 1 1/2 years ago.
MPEG2 *can* be dope. If the source recording is done well the PQ can be jaw dropping on MPEG2 file as well.
If I tell you I'll have to kill ya.
$1200 just for the solid silver analog cable. Additional $200 for mid-end copper cable (Sydney) which was purchased two weeks ago.