With the
plummeting prices seen over the past week for
Toshiba HD-A2 HD DVD players, the real winner is consumers. At these prices, it's worth
picking one up just for any HD DVD exclusives you're interested in. It's true that supplies were limited and the HD-A2 is a closeout, but it's a great deal still. In the virtual world, shoppers who clicked a little too late at
Best Buy's website were issued backorder notices, and rightfully expected Best Buy to fulfill their orders. The discontinued status on the HD-A2 looks like it will result in a double-bonus, though. Customers who got in on the deal late were sent an email from Best Buy informing them that they would be receiving
HD-A3s instead of the HD-A2. For those keeping score, this nice bit of customer service nets a $200 discount from MSRP!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
shawnmos @ Nov 5th 2007 11:48PM
Don't forget, the HD-A3 comes with 2 movies in box. Great deal!
HDpurist @ Nov 5th 2007 11:50PM
wow, if I was a recent A2 owner I'd be pissed! knowing that others have totally lucked out and got a better unit than the dated A2....ah well, sh*t happens. Then again, A2/A3 doesn't make a difference when the PS3 can be had for only a little more money.
wysiwyg @ Nov 6th 2007 12:23AM
I purchased my A2 3 months ago for $232 but I'm totally not mad. I'm actually happy to see more people adopting this format since it will definitely help with further content availability in the future. For the 3 months, the extra money I paid for it was worth every minute I used that machine. :)
Emisi @ Nov 6th 2007 12:30AM
I think most of us don't generally consider $300 or $400 to be "just a little more money." I'd consider that a lot more money.
Mike @ Nov 6th 2007 12:35AM
Then again, A2/A3 doesn't make a difference when the PS3 can be had for only a little more money.
A little? I don't consider the $99 I just spent at Walmart for the A2 to be a little money...much less pay 4 times that.
Porfirio Reyes @ Nov 6th 2007 2:00AM
The A3 is NOT a better unit than the A2. On the contrary, A2 has better audio when outputting via optical, because the A3 only does DD while the A2 does DTS over optical. Otherwise, they're the same exact player quality wise.
TrentD @ Nov 6th 2007 8:29AM
If you bothered to do any research, you'd know that the HD-A2 is actually a superior unit to the A3. It handles downrezzed audio formats at a higher bitrate (a small but significant, IMO, feature).
The problem with your PS3 is that it won't play HD DVDs :)
venk @ Nov 5th 2007 11:51PM
Just confirmed that my best buy for business order will be filled with an A3 also! man, I should have ordered more than one!
DeadPlasmaCell @ Nov 6th 2007 12:03AM
Good news!
HDpurist @ Nov 6th 2007 12:45AM
The only thing that the A2/A3 does better than the slightly more expensive PS3 is that it plays HD-DVDs. Otherwise, the PS3 is superior in every way including DVD upconversion. Frankly, the A2/A3 is good as junk, and imagine, retailers are still making a nice profit off a $99 price tag...imagine the sub-par hardware quality eh?
Smee @ Nov 6th 2007 1:21AM
@HD Goose
The only thing that the PS3 does better than the miles cheaper PS3 is that it plays kiddies games, well, it will when they eventually release some. Otherwise, the A2 is superior in every way including DVD upconversion. Frankly, the PS3 is good as junk, and imagine, retailers are still making a nice profit off a $399 price tag betta ray games console...imagine the sub-par hardware quality eh?
Smee @ Nov 6th 2007 1:22AM
@HD Goose
The only thing that the PS3 does better than the miles cheaper A2 is that it plays kiddies games, well, it will when they eventually release some. Otherwise, the A2 is superior in every way including DVD upconversion. Frankly, the PS3 is good as junk, and imagine, retailers are still making a nice profit off a $399 price tag betta ray games console...imagine the sub-par hardware quality eh?
Ed @ Nov 6th 2007 2:11AM
@ HDpurist,
Whatever you are smoking you need to share. At the very least, at least you have a reason to use your PS3 for something since there aren't any f'n games. I'll be more than happy to spend the $300 I just saved on HD-DVD movies and games for Xbox 360 and Wii and let you stick to your fuzzy math.
And since you brought up the PS3, you do know that MSG4 has been delayed AGAIN until mid-2008?
In the meantime, here's food for thought: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6181474.html?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6181474
Ed @ Nov 6th 2007 2:17AM
Any relation to h4Idol, HDpurist?
Kevin Murphy @ Nov 6th 2007 2:36AM
What I find really amazing about the PS3 clowns who talk about low-ball prices is that they forget that SOny sold every PS3 it has ever made at a loss. They said at launch that they were losing $4-500 on every PS3.
Now when Toshiba does it (for the exact same reason -- flood the market), it's somehow different.
TrentD @ Nov 6th 2007 8:31AM
HDpurist, where are you buying your $150 PS3 consoles? You said they barely cost more than the HD-A2, so $150 must be the price you paid...I might go Beta-Ray as well if I can get one that cheap!
ckelly @ Nov 6th 2007 12:51AM
aaaahhaahahahaha...HDpurist is a bit bitter!!! aaaahahahahahahahaha. At least try and make a reasonable point man. And stop wearing your feelings on your sleeve......aaaaahahahahahahahahah.
Alex @ Nov 6th 2007 12:54AM
HDPurist --> BluRay nazi as well as Plasma Nazi.
what are you cradling in your other hand?
800lb Gorilla @ Nov 6th 2007 1:06AM
Back orders??? WTF !!
According to the Betta Disc Association, Toshiba's sales results have been poor and they didn't move much product at all. I read it is all Tosh spin, so how come there are back orders?
800lb Gorilla @ Nov 6th 2007 3:40AM
It's official.
h4idol, of HD DUD fame, has just announced that blu ray is now officially none as "Betta Ray" and the BDA is now known as the "Betta Disc Association"
Eric @ Nov 6th 2007 8:12AM
I would have to agree that the A2 may be better than the A3 in one aspect, reliability. When I bought my A2 at WalMart Friday, there were two A2's left that were made in Japan, and about 15 left that were made in China. A quick compare to the A3's in stock showed that all of the A3's were made in China. I bought the one made in Japan, as I feel they manufacture better stuff.
800lb Gorilla @ Nov 6th 2007 2:51AM
Wooooo, good read ED !
John B @ Nov 6th 2007 10:07AM
@Ed:
Probably not, but if you look into his previous posts you'll see that he also has used the childish "HD DUD" moniker, which is clearly indicative of his immature attitude towards the high-def war.
He's no less of a troll than h4ldol. He's just trying to push his luck to be as inflammatory as possible without generating the outrage that h4ldol created.
Kevin Murphy @ Nov 6th 2007 2:32AM
Over optical audio, the A2 does DTS at 1.5Mbps, while the A3 only does DD at 640K. Both support the full HD DVD DD/DD+/DTS/TrueHD suite over HDMI.
This appears to have been because many older non-HDMI AV boxes and TVs also don't support DTS, which was optional on DVD.
DC @ Nov 6th 2007 2:45AM
Hi Kevin, i always enjoy reading your posts, like Nfinity, plenty of good facts.
Can you put into layman's terms for those of us not as technically educated as yourself, what are the benefits etc for what you just described and IYO, which is better, A2 or A3.
Keep the info coming.
Thanks
Marshall @ Nov 6th 2007 8:51AM
What Kevin is saying, in Layman's terms, is that if you can not playback Dolby TrueHD (Lossless audio, the best kind of audio) because you don't have HDMI 1.1 in your Receiver, than you should use the optical audio input. And, as far as what signal is sent over the optical audio cable, the A2 send 1.5 mbps DTS (roughly 1500 kbps) versus the A3 which sends 640 kbps, both downsampled from the TrueHD signal. Simplified, think of making an mp3 from a cd. The A2 will make a 256 kbps mp3, were the A3 will only make a 160 kbps mp3.
For those using the optical audio cable who don't plan on upgrading their receiver soon, the A2 is the better choice.
(disclaimer for everyone freaking out right now: This is the simple explanation. Yes I've ignore the codec efficiency of DD versus DTS, as well as the likelihood of perceptual differences between the two. That being said, IMHO, the A2 is still the superior player.)
Marshall
------------
The Real HT Info Podcast
Kevin Murphy @ Nov 6th 2007 1:28PM
If your AV receiver (or TV) supports DTS sound over optical cable, and you think you might wire the sound that way (instead of over HDMI), then you are better off with the A2.
In every other circumstance it probably doesn't matter.
BTW, I don't think anyone uses s-video out of an HD box, as it's for analog 480i. Probably why Toshiba decided to drop the connector.
D@n @ Nov 6th 2007 6:41AM
Are none of you capable of having a civil conversation about the article without it degenerating into childish name calling?
Smee aka 800lb Gorilla, your comments have become tiresome! You have become the HD-DVD successor to H4idol, congratulations!
Jyncus @ Nov 6th 2007 8:04AM
Indeed.
I don't even bother reading through anything Smee/800lb Gorilla posts - every comment is full of instigative and inflammatory remarks. Very childish.
JeffDM @ Nov 6th 2007 8:46AM
Guys, "Betta" doesn't mean anything, unless you mean a genus of pretty fish. It would help your arguments if you don't respond to the troll and actually look like you know what you are talking about, instead of making obvious mistakes.
JeffDM @ Nov 6th 2007 11:48AM
I think there is a strong likelihood that HDPurist is h4idol's new ID. They are the only two posters I've seen that used "HD DUD" in their posting, and both mention the HD formats even in response to stories that are unlrelated to said HD formats, and both also have their unshakable hard-on for plasma displays too. There are other fingerprints as well.
Eddie @ Nov 6th 2007 10:49AM
JeffDM is such a Betta fanboi!! Koi is at least 2.5 times prettier than your Betta fish! Koi FTW
Before anyone takes me seriously, I'm trying to mock the whole "comment-inflammatory response" cycle that every post seems to degenerate into.
TheMikey @ Nov 6th 2007 11:22AM
Curious to those of you with A20s (supposedly the better player) and the ability to play Dolby TrueHD. How does it work? at my job we spent about two hours on the new Onkyo receiver trying to get lossless audio to work, but the signal kept being downscaled to PCM.
What's going on with that? The manual says it downscales the audio automatically and that the A2 does it as well. We were confused as hell.
Andrew @ Nov 6th 2007 11:35AM
You ARE getting losssless. The A20 is decoding the TrueHD and ouptutting it as 5.1 LPCM. There's no downscaling.
TheMikey @ Nov 6th 2007 12:54PM
Thanks Andrew!
Leonardo DiCrapio @ Nov 6th 2007 11:35AM
"For those using the optical audio cable who don't plan on upgrading their receiver soon, the A2 is the better choice."
Thanks for the info. Since my (less-than-year-old) receiver doesn't do HDMI, I may pick up a HD-A2 on EBay for $50 in about 6 months.
engadgetHD should start up a A2/A3 exchange program.
Jeff ATC @ Nov 6th 2007 2:22PM
I just searched the best buy website for the HD-A2 and could not find it listed for the $99 price. Is is still being offered? I see an HD-A20 that is listed for $399, but this can't be the same player, right?
Happy A3 owner @ Nov 6th 2007 3:27PM
$1B/year when? In the 1970s? Vs a max $31B in 1999? Not quite apples to apples. But, I believe the real reason VHS "won" over BetaMax with the consumer (as BetaMax was quite prevalent in pro level gear) was price, and then only really in the US. In Europe and Latin America there was more of a split, with a majority BetaMax IIRC.
The same thing applies now to BD vs HD DVD. BD is certainly better for data storage, but I doubt any significant numbers will go for it until the burner's drop below $500, and blanks start coming in at
Happy A3 owner @ Nov 6th 2007 2:54PM
Seems that the optical audio out issue could be easily resolved with a software update? Or is the quality of the hardware subpar on the A3?
On a side note, most DVDs with DTS only have 640Kbps on them.
Marshall @ Nov 6th 2007 3:44PM
My understanding is that it is a hardware issue (SHARC DSP not present in the A3?, and can't be fixed with a firmware update.
Also, regular DTS may traditionally be 640, but the downsampled DTHD, obviously a much higher bitrate, is downsampled to 1.5mbps.
Marshall
--------------
The Real HT Info Podcast
ryan @ Nov 6th 2007 3:48PM
This is not a difference between a yugo and a mercedes, it's more like a mercedes vs a mercedes with heated seats, in florida.
Any advantages it has are only on paper.
Why would I spend $400 more for a standalone player that isn't future proof (spec 1.0) yet has the same picture and sound quality?
I'm not an elitist, I'm not out to waste money on that when I would rather spoil my kids or put some aside in savings.
Ben @ Nov 6th 2007 5:50PM
I ordered an A3 from Best Buy on Sunday and they were offering 3 free HD-DVDs of your choice for $199. With the two that come in the box and the five by mail that makes ten free movies.
pretty good.
Wow @ Nov 6th 2007 6:40PM
@Rich
"If you're a true high definition fanatic, quit talking cost."
Are you serious? You can't possibly be serious. Everyone can argue how Blu-Ray or HD DVD is better than the other, but let's face it, they are SMALL differences.
If you can tell me the difference between a 1080p HD DVD and a 1080p Blu-Ray in terms of picture and audio quality, you are some sort of genius. And before some Blu-Ray nut jumps down my throat, I am not talking about the A2 or A3, I'm talking about the A20, A30, A35, etc. Every one of those players can be had for less then a Blu-Ray player.
It comes down to this, I consider myself a high definition fanatic, and I'm sure alot of others reading this do too. I would love to own both a Blu-Ray and HD DVD, but sometimes a little thing called "real life" gets in the way, and yes, cost becomes a factor.
So, my question is this....WHY OH WHY would you pay more for what boils down to basically the same thing???? The only answer that does not make Blu-Ray fans look foolish is that they like the movies available on BD more than the ones on HD DVD. No other answer makes any sense.
Rich @ Nov 6th 2007 9:13PM
I wish all the HD-DVD people out there would REALLY do their homework and look at the REAL advantages with BluRay (you don't have to believe me and you shouldn't...go do REAL research for yourself....don't listen to friend...go to the real tech sites). If you are a true High Definition fanatic, quit talking cost. You should gladly pay for the advantage and future growth capabilities in BluRay. There IS a difference and its a big one....and its NOT the quality of the picture. Another example; You aren't going to get (at today's prices) a good quality HD TV (let's say LCD, 52" under $2500.00). It's just not possible. You'll end up with a TV with motion blur (not 120Hz) or one with poor resolution (not true 1080P). Back in the days of Beta vs. VHS, it's no secret that Beta was the superior product. Marketing was bad and Sony would not support the porn industry which was the final blow to Beta (look it up, don't trust me). Bottom line, it will be real sad if HD-DVD wins out over the far superior BluRay only because of cost. Do your homework and then go with the advantages of BluRay because the winning format will be with us for a long long time. Let drive a Mercedes, not a Yugo.
Dster @ Nov 6th 2007 2:40PM
Hi -- you're an idiot. Also, you're bad at spreading misinformation. Whenever someone on teh intarweb says "hey, buddy, x, don't believe me, look it up" they're lying.
I'm just going to pick ONE: "Marketing was bad and Sony would not support the porn industry which was the final blow to Beta" (pun not intended, I take it).
Here's wikipedia's (cited) take on the matter:
"Another amusing (and false) theory is that Sony refused to allow pornographic material on their system. A quick perusal of the Betamax library reveals that adult entertainment was readily available. For example, Playboy Industries released their videos in a dual format, both Betamax and VHS, for most of the 1970s and 80s (and can be confirmed with a quick search through Ebay's adult section, or other used video markets). Second, the adult industry is too small to have any lasting impact on standards selection. According to Forbes.com, adult video income is approximately $1 billion. "The industry is tiny next to broadcast television ($32.3 billion in 1999), cable television ($45.5 billion), the newspaper business ($27.5 billion), Hollywood ($31 billion), even to professional and educational publishing ($14.8 billion). When one really examines the numbers, the porn industry while a subject of fascination is every bit as marginal as it seems at first glance."[3]"
wow, you really give bluray trolls a bad name.
Cam @ Nov 6th 2007 3:09PM
@Rich:
What future growth capabilities are you speaking of? I'm interested. It seems that your comment makes many claims that you cannot even backup yourself with any citations or examples. I wouldn't exactly consider Profile 1.1 and so on "future growth capabilities" considering most people will have to buy new players if their current ones don't support the firmware updates. For example, what happens to the users who bought BD players without internet jacks? They can't use internet features on future discs because no firmware update can install an ethernet jack magically for you.
Besides, many BD supporters trash talk HD DVD for all their interactivity that they say is useless because most people just want the movie and don't care about all the extra stuff. Well if that's so, then only video and audio quality matters, and if HD DVD is capable of producing 5 star reviews on both audio AND video on sites like hidefdigest, then why does it matter what format its on? The quality is the same. So you may as well go for the cheaper one as long as it has the titles you want (titles and studio support is a whole other story, I'll concede that to BD).
andyg8180 @ Nov 7th 2007 11:42AM
@Rich... BOOOOO
Thats a horrible obvservation... Besides size, what is "far superior" about blu-ray... Last i heard, blu-ray is still catching up to what HD-DVD already put on their formats... Spec's youre talking almost mirror images... Extra features, Blu-ray is still catching up... Profile 1.1? and now profile 2.0??
Do me a favor and sit down and watch both players... Enjoy a couple movies on each... Keep your opinions unbiased and choose like that...
I did it and HD-DVD blew away the PS3... the video quality was cleaner... So instead of coming here misinforming people about what is superior, come in to the ring with some real data... Dont be mad because you bought one player and are scared you are going to lose... The fight isnt over, but you need to watch both players first...
PS... $99 vs $399/$499 is a hands down easy choice for me...
Rich @ Nov 6th 2007 9:13PM
I guess I have to spell it out. Here's the big difference (and if this is not important to you, you are two dimensional and only care about the quality and price. There are more things to consider for future growth):
Disk Capacity
HD-DVD
15GB (single layer)
30GB (dual layer)
45GB (prototype triple layer)
BRD
25GB (single layer)
50GB (dual layer)
100GB (prototype quad layer)
If you don't know the difference, or don't think this is that big of difference, then you haven't seen what all is available on BluRay disks!
Kevin Murphy @ Nov 6th 2007 10:39PM
It's not how big it is, it's what you can do with it.
Why don't you talk about why BD player don't support lossless compression (required on all HD DVD). So BD discs are all filled up not by video, but by uncompressed audio.
Wow @ Nov 6th 2007 11:01PM
@Rich
"You only care about the quality and the price."
I guess you'll have to educate me on this one, but since when has great quality at a reasonable price been a bad thing?
Sure HD DVD may not have the future storage capacity of BD, it's still an unfinished product, that's what bothers me. I love the potential of BD and the studio support, I just don't like that they're trying to sell something that, by their own admission, may not be able to play future discs.
You keep talking about let's go for the Mercedes over a Yugo. I agree, but first, let's make sure the Mercedes has a complete engine under the hood.