Toshiba HD-A1 HD DVD player review roundup

Now that Toshiba's HD-A1 HD DVD player is finally available in stores -- and there are even some discs out to play on it -- reviews are starting to trickle in, mainly from dedicated early adopters, who've braved confused sales clerks, cumbersome boxes, and a remote with more options than Windows Vista, to try the player themselves. We saw one of the first such reviews, from The Man Room, yesterday. Now, we've had a chance to check out a few more (props to PC World's Martyn Williams, who not only got one of Toshiba's Japanese HD-XA1 players to review, but even checked out the bundled Japanese films "Biohazard" and "Moonlight Jellyfish"). If there's a consensus opinion, it's that HD DVD may be great for early adopters and HD connoisseurs, but less discerning viewers may not see what the big deal is. As Ben Drawbaugh puts it on HDBeat: "Bottom line is that HD-DVD is great, but will you notice? If you can't tell the difference between DVD's and HBO HD than you might be just as well off with a upconverting DVD player. If you never noticed HBO-HD's cropped movies, non-dynamic sound and compression artifacts you may be better off sticking with HBO-HD. If you do notice these annoyances you won't be disappointed with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray."

• HDBeat
• DVD Town
• PC World
• High Def DVD Digest
• CNET
• AVSForum (long thread of user reviews and reports)

[Palmer Woodrow @ Apr 19th 2006 6:17PM]

""Bottom line is that HD-DVD is great, but will you notice? If you can't tell the difference between DVD's and HBO HD than you might be just as well off with a upconverting DVD player."

How seriously are we supposed to take a guy who thinks you make something plural by adding an apostrophe and S? And WHICH HBO HD? Is he watching cable? DirecTV?

This is all about bit rate, and chances are that HD-DVD's is going to suck. Does he address that?

[Scott R @ Apr 19th 2006 6:50PM]

I haven't seen this first-hand, but I imagine that this is one of those things where you really need a big screen to appreciate the improved resolution. I personally think that anyone spending extra money on a HDTV 42" Plasma vs an SDTV 42" Plasma when used from 12 ft or more away is wasting their money. I just don't believe you'll see the added resolution. Now, I've got a 45" x 80" 16:9 pull-down screen coupled with a Panasonic AE700U 720P front projector, and I imagine that I'd see the improved resolution of a true HDTV DVD.

That said, content is always king. If the movie sucks, who cares how gorgeous the picture looks (see "The Fifth Element").

[Ryan @ Apr 19th 2006 7:06PM]

Scott, thats not true. I watched Serenity on my 45" with this and it looked amazing. This was from a decent ways back. Really large improvement.

[ryan @ Apr 19th 2006 7:10PM]

tell the reviewer to check his grammar. maybe the fact that he doesnt know the difference between then and than is the reason he doesnt have a real job in journalism

[Scott @ Apr 19th 2006 7:17PM]

FYI for those who don't know : this is basically a box housing the NEC HR-1100A HD-DVD drive. If you MUST a HD-DVD drive in your HTPC right now, it's basically plug and play as long as your fav. software app can play HD-DVD.

[Jeff @ Apr 19th 2006 7:41PM]

There are people out there who swear up and down that they can't tell the difference between SD and HD at all, including (maybe especially) people who have spent tons of money on EDTV plasma sets. So we're not just talking back-woods hicks here.

I think any time you go from a base level of quality to a higher level (in anything in life), there will always be people who don't know or care and there will be other people for whom the difference is obvious. Back in the early days of cable TV, you had people saying their rabbit ears were plenty good enough. When DVD was introduced, lots of people didn't see the advantages over VHS (or especially LD). People said the CD would never fly in car audio. They said HDTV itself would never catch on. Heck, a lot of people pronounced color TV unnecessary.

Naysayers say nay. That's what they do. The fact of the matter is HD-DVD has eight times the resolution of standard DVD. Whether a person notices that or not is not really relevant to me; you know, lots of people need glasses and they don't even know it. I'm not going to rely on the pronouncements of someone who says they can't tell the difference between DVD and HD-DVD.

I agree with Scott in that a person's setup may be more or less conducive to displaying that increased resolution. But people need to realize where their bottlenecks are before blaming the disc format. It'd be like saying a 3ghz CPU is no faster than a 200mhz CPU when you're only giving both processors 64MB of SDR RAM to play with.

On a proper setup, yes, you will see the increased resolution, just as you will easily see the difference between SDTV and HDTV (DVD is an SD format). There is no doubt about this.

btw, I say this as a Blu-Ray fanboy. But more than that, I just believe in HD in general. Once you live with it for a while, you just can't go back to SD. I still remember the first time I saw a regular DVD up close on a 65" HDTV a few years back, and I just thought it looked horrendous. Now we've finally got formats that match the capabilities of our best displays, and I for one am happy about that. Even if HD-DVD does win over Blu-Ray (which it won't), at least we'll still have an HD movie format to go with our HDTV's.

[Ben Hobbs @ Apr 19th 2006 9:29PM]

I have to agree with Jeff (#4) If you cant see the difference between SD and HD then either

a)you haven't got a HD TV (HDTV Ready doesnt always mean its HD).
b) You haven't got your TV set up properly.
c) Your not that into movies/movie quality.

It really is as simple as that.

I have showed HD content to a number of customers and EVERY single one has basically said Wow, when can I have it.

Size of the TV has nothing to do with it, Resolution is resolution, you times the resolution by 4 or 8 (increasing detail at the same time) and yes it IS going to look better.

Ben Hobbs

[Scott R @ Apr 19th 2006 10:53PM]

Just to clarify...my point is that to really appreciate increased resolution, you need to either have a large display or be abnormally close to a smaller display. Sure, you can go to a Circuit City or whatever and look at their display model HDTV sets and say, wow, it looks so much sharper than an EDTV set nearby, but you're standing a foot away from it!!! At home, you'll be 12 feet away, and if you *can* perceive some of the added resolution, it will be a minimal, rather than dramatic, improvement.

Again, if you've got the right screen height to seating distance ratio, the difference may be significant. When I had Comcast HDTV for a short while, I marveled at the way HDTV looked as compared to regular-old DVD on my 45x80" 16:9 pull-down screen. So, yes, true HDTV offers noticeable resolution improvement over DVD if you've got a large display or sit closer than most people do to your smaller display.

But a 42" HDTV set watched from 12'+ away? I have trouble believing that any perceived increase in resolution could be considered anything but minimal.

[Scott R @ Apr 19th 2006 11:01PM]

...and as one more follow-up to my last reply...if you think I sound like a snob by mentioning my 45x80" pull-down screen (there, I did it again!), don't! Nowadays you can get an excellent HDTV-capable front projector/screen setup for under $2000. I recommend supplementing it with a 32" (or thereabouts) TV for watching the normal/boring 4:3 TV shows (and for daytime viewing, where front-projection watching is a problem, unless you have a completely light-controlled room).

So, my last bit of advice...if you don't already have a really big front-projector/screen display, don't spend $2000+ on a rear-projection/plasma/DLP/LCD display. For a truly glorious encompassing movie watching experience, I say: the bigger the better!

[Eric @ Apr 20th 2006 12:26AM]

@Jeff and Ben,

I think the point they are trying to make is that it will NOT appeal to the general consumer. You make good points against nay-saying and why it will become standard, but the fact that you are reading my reply indicates you give a damn about picture quality--you are NOT the general consumer.

I am not saying HD will never catch on, of course it will eventually for all the points you indicated. But for Average Joe CRT, HD will only catch on when it is accessile to his wallet. When HD tv's become commonplace, meaning that every tv on a store's shelves are HD tv's--when you find HD DVD's and Blu rays in the $9 bin--when you find HD players for $50 or under--thats when HD-DVD and Blu-ray will explode.

Side note, DVD caught on very well in my opinion--compared to how well HD players will. Simply because of the obvious advantages DVD had over VHS. I'm not going to get into them all but the obvious was that it was MUCH smaller and sleeker, crisp and clear picture quality, no fast forwarding/rewinding(ease of use is great to Average Joe CRT), and NO competing format!!
Now, look at the advantages of HD DVD and Blu ray over normal DVD: Better pic, better sound, possibly more content. These few advantages will not motivate Average Joe CRT to drop hundreds possibly thousands of dollars.

[tcc3 @ Apr 20th 2006 2:56AM]

I object to the term Average Joe CRT. Its only recently that any display tech could hold a candle to CRT. The only advantages LCD and plasmas offered were size and weight, despite the industry hype. Average Joe SD would be more accurate.

[Nick @ Apr 20th 2006 9:15AM]

Speaking as a techy in the field, I have to say that there is some truth to the whole quality hype, but there is still more hype than truth.

I have a wonderful high contrast, high res lcd monitor on a dvi, and when running HD television on it, I can see the quality difference between that and regular tv, but not much difference between standard DVD and HD tv.

Granted my screen is only 19", but then again the "Average Joe" user isn't even using THAT large of an LCD for their computer setup (bear in mind that most users just use the low contrast ratio, 15-17" monitor that comes with their store bought system). I won't dispute that, on paper, HD content is technically higher quality, but the majority of consumers don't use equipment of sufficient quality or screens of sufficient size to see the difference in quality. HD is really aimed at the "high end" consumer market (which I myself even in my obsession with computers is at the tail end of)...and only those fanatics who spend a large percentage of their income on HD plasmas over 42" in size will truly benefit from the enhanced quality.

In layman's terms, HD content and technology is like a fine wine....you have to be wealthy enough to truly appreciate it, otherwise you just don't see the point of having more than a beer. News and weather broadcasts do their job without being in high definition, so really HD is aimed at the entertainment market only (for those of you who say DUH, to some people I know it isn't that obvious), so most people won't see the huge need to have the proper equipment to take advantage of HD content.

Just my $.03.

[Thill @ Apr 20th 2006 9:25AM]

I'll never forget the first time I watched an NFL football game in HD on my father's 46" HD television (LCD rear projection). It blew me away. I mean, you can actually see the blades of grass, the mustard stain on the fan's shirt in the stands, the incredible color of the grass, etc. It was really difficult for me to go back home and watch my "crappy" 36" CRT...

I now an the proud owner of a 56" Samsung DLP and, I for one, am a true HD convert. The truth of the matter is that until people actually sit-down and watch a "true HD" show or sporting event, they will not know what they are missing.

That said, I am really torn about the whole Blu-Ray HD-DVD format war. I know that the quality will be far superior to DVD, I just cannot bring myself to go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a player and hundreds more for movies that may not be around in a year or so if that format loses the battle.

You can now by an upconverting DVD player for around $100, and I am starting to wonder if this is not the safe bet for the next year or two until the cost and future of HD movie viewing is more stable.

I would be curious to know how much better an HD-DVD player is to that of a good upconverting DVD player..

[Ladyfox @ Apr 20th 2006 10:43AM]

Eric (aka post #9) wrote:

"Now, look at the advantages of HD DVD and Blu ray over normal DVD: Better pic, better sound, possibly more content. These few advantages will not motivate Average Joe CRT to drop hundreds possibly thousands of dollars."

And this has been what I've been saying about this for months yet everyone STILL seems to be overly dazzled by the entire "ooooh, SHINY!" factor. Early-adopters can preach all they want about the "oooh, SHINY!" factor but bottom line there just is not enough reason to get one of these over any of the upconverting DVD decks available for a 1/3 of the cost.

That being said, why has'nt anyone really done a side-by-side comparison using Serenity and The Last Samauri on one of these versus an Oppo OPDV971H; IMHO one of the best current gen upscaling DVD players out on the market?

[David @ Apr 20th 2006 11:30AM]

Palmer, at the risk of sounding trite, it is also okay to append an "apostrophe s" to acronyms to make them plural. Cheers

[The Jeremy @ Apr 20th 2006 6:37PM]

I consider myself a Blu-Ray fan, but I am really hating all these anti-HD comments I've seen popping up at places like here and on Digg. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have more than twice the resolution (if at 1080i or p) than current DVD. And yet people have the audacity to claim there's no perceived difference. You people are blind! Tech enthusiasts should be positively buzzed about either format, with the exception of the DRM concerns.

What I don't like with the current crop of Warner HD-DVD titles is the fact that they've chosen Windows Media 9 as their codec (and they might do that for Blu-Ray too). Its absolutely ridiculous. H.264 should be the codec used for all content - whether HD-DVD or Blu-Ray - not Windows Media 9 even if it is an official codec supported by both formats. Let us have the best from these next generation players... Go H.264.

[ThePete @ Apr 20th 2006 8:31PM]

Haha--nice to see that they have some truly great movies coming out on HD!

MAN, I can't wait to watch SERENITY and THE LAST SAMURAI (starring Tom Cruise)!!

Oh wait, I can, actually.

As far as the quality of HD, I've got to agree with those arguing the "it's for high-end folks, only". I grew up around HD--my dad worked in R&D in the broadcasting field for 25 years and showed me an HD set ages ago--probably in the mid-80s, I think. He pointed at it and said something like "look how much detail you can see!" I looked at it, saw it was a football game and didn't care. I'm a scifi geek, dad, I miss that Battlestar Galactica Laserdisc you let me watch when I was 9. (Yes, I like the BSG movie, but not Serenity, shoot me.)

Anyway, the point is that I do think HD will never fully take off until the prices come waaaay down and HD is the only thing we can choose. Until then, I'm watching Colossus: The Forbin Project on my iPod. ;)

[Jason @ Apr 20th 2006 9:33PM]

I might as well toss my .02 in to this whole thing. I really do find that it depends on the individual whether or not they percieve the big step up in quality that HD really delivers.

I am absolutely floored by the quality improvements of HD and watch almost 100% HD content now.

On the other hand, my fiancee, while admitting HD looks better does not see it as being much better than DVD (to me the difference is night and day). She does however wear contact lenses also.

[Danny Elliott @ Apr 21st 2006 1:23AM]

I notice that most talk about HD displays revolves around big (expensive) screens but even if you don't have the cash for a 50" display you can still enjoy High Def. I have my Xbox 360 hooked up to a mere 19" (wide screen) monitor and notice a huge difference between the 720p video I download from Marketplace and a DVD (and keep in mind that the 360 is a progressive scan DVD player). I look forward to learning more about the HD-DVD add-on Microsoft will be talking about at E3.

I'm not sure but I think the PS3 will hook up to a VGA display so there's the possibility for some Bluray to VGA goodness there as well.

It seems to me that regardless if you follow tech or not HD is quickly becoming ingrained in the public mind just like broadband internet. Take my father in-law for example. Even though he hates widescreen movies (he feels the black bars cut into his viewing space) he owns an HD tv. Why? Because he knows it's better.

[Lorin Thwaits @ Apr 21st 2006 9:29AM]

I bought one and made a video as a friend and I dismantled it, piece by piece:

http://geekswithblogs.net/lorint/archive/2006/04/21/75795.aspx

Particularly interesting is that it has a USB flash disk on a daughter card inside!

[Sam Zant @ Apr 27th 2006 11:34AM]

Well, if it is an "intel inside", 845 motherboard and has a Pentium Mobile 2.5GHz processor, 1 GB DDR RAM, runs Linux, USB BIOS chip, IDE HD-DVD drive and performs so sluggishly that it s irritating to operate, it is definitely not worth $500 for a "glorified" PC.

[thermon @ May 11th 2006 1:18PM]

I do have a question for some one out there, I brought
the new Toshiba hd player, and for some reason when
I use the hdmi on my Samsung 61 dlp and connect to
my hd dvd player it said no signal, and I do not understand this. Do anyone else have this problem.

[MILT R. SMITH @ Aug 29th 2006 1:43AM]

Perhaps a second entry after more
weeks of looking at both the HD-DVD
player from Toshiba and the Samsung
Blu-Ray: what I've seen pretty much
matches the professional reports from
Los Angeles Times Research as reported
by staff writer David Colker.

There's just no real 'WOW!' factor and
hence no real 'bang for the buck' so
far. A first-class upconversion of a
high-quality standard DVD is little
different from what you'll see on
either of these players with the
titles released to date. Specifically,
I saw 'Serenity' hi-def version with
an upconverted standard DVD version
side-by-side with 5 other people
at a local major store in the L.A.
area and we were all surprised at
how little was the difference:
incrementally better resolution,
color saturation and contrast, but
nothing to spend hundreds of
dollars on.

I suspect the problem is the
relatively low transfer rate
(HD-DVDs have been measured
at around only 12-15mbps vs.
about 28 for D-VHS which
looks better to me), so
perhaps something along the
lines of a SuperBit HD-DVD or
SuperBit Blu-Ray will do the
trick, but right now it's
no way Jose.