Home > Podcast > AVRant #29: CES HD DVD DTS HD DHL and other Acronyms

AVRant #29: CES HD DVD DTS HD DHL and other Acronyms

November 22nd, 2007 Leave a comment Go to comments

Is Dina going to be at CES this year? You’ll have to listen in to find out. Does Tom have love for DHL? Take a wild guess. What does the holiday season mean to Tom? Tons of questions. Tom gives his Transformers review (finally). The duo come up with a great idea for getting out more AVRants, now they need is volunteers. What is DTS HD (core)? Why won’t high def players upconvert over component video cables? How can you know what size screen for your room? Tom reveals all. Check out the Black Friday links in this thread. Thanks for listening and have a great Thanksgiving.

Liked it? Take a second to support AV Rant on Patreon!

Categories: Podcast Tags:
  1. November 23rd, 2007 at 01:24 | #1

    Here is an interesting viewing distance calculator, btw…

    Tom, which Disc did you have DTS HD on, btw? I have watched a couple dozen HD-DVDs and haven’t run into one that actually uses the new DTS HD protocols.

  2. November 23rd, 2007 at 03:53 | #2

    It was The Host which I didn’t love.

  3. jnmfox
    November 26th, 2007 at 14:22 | #3

    Maybe I’m missing the boat on this one but with Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD MA both being “lossless” is there going to be a difference in audio quality? I understand DTS is a higher bit rate making it less lossy thus theoretically producing a better audio experience than DD but I don’t get what the difference will be with TrueHD and HD MA. It seems to me both will provide improved audio quality and any difference between them would be negligible.

  4. November 26th, 2007 at 15:11 | #4

    Great point and I’ve said that before. If they are both lossless, then why do we need two of them? Since Dolby is already everywhere and DTS seems to have less market penetration, it’s up to DTS to convince me (and us) that their lossless gives us something extra. But without a player that can decode it, I’ll never know.

  5. jnmfox
    November 26th, 2007 at 15:20 | #5

    A pointless and frustrating format war within another pointless and frustrating format war.

  6. jnmfox
    November 26th, 2007 at 15:54 | #6

    Isn’t the hot chick falling for the geek the most unbelievable part of most Hollywood movies today?

    Jessica Biel falling for Nicholas Cage in Next, more unbelievable than a man that can see into the future.
    Angelina Jolie falling for Nicholas Cage in Gone in 60 Seconds, more unbelievable than a Mustang jumping a traffic jam.
    Jessica Alba falling for that guy in Fantastic 4, more unbelievable than cosmic superpowers.
    Catherine Zeta-Jones falling for Sean Connery in Entrapment, more unbelievable than the actual robbery.
    Catherine Zeta-Jones falling for Michael Douglas in…errr…never mind

    And for the ladies,
    Matthew McConaughey falling for Sara Jessica Parker (umm no thanks) in one of his “the plot is the same just with a different actress” chick flicks, I think he has made about seven of them so far.

    There has to be many other gratuitous examples that you all can remember.

  7. November 26th, 2007 at 16:59 | #7

    Another good point. You are sage my friend.

  8. November 27th, 2007 at 22:00 | #8


  9. leitweight
    November 29th, 2007 at 19:01 | #9

    What a minute – you’re saying that all the hubbub about LCD flat screens having motion blur and using 120 Hz refresh rate to eliminate it is hogwash? I’m in the market for a flat screen and it seems the 120 sets have people taking sides. Haven’t been able to see one of them yet so I can’t say which side I’m on yet.

You must be logged in to post a comment.