Comments on: Microsoft Xbox 360 HD DVD Drive

by: Deren Leeson

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:23:10 +0000

Is a fiber optic output available for my receiver on the Xbox 360 HD Dvd player?

by: Andy Gore

Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:25:29 +0000

Heh. It’s Microsoft, so I’d doubt it. Still, besides a cooler-running CPU, looks like the biggest difference between the old and new model is the HDMI port. Which I consider a nice-to-have but not a must-have (considering HD DVD only goes to 1080i resolution, not sure the video on HDMI will look much better than on component, anyway.)

I’m really surprised they didn’t incorporate an HD DVD drive, if the goal is to competitive with the PS3. Of course, if they had, I’d be pretty pissed about popping for that external HD DVD drive. And none of this is official, so there’s still a chance they could screw all the people who bought those external drives

Bottom line – if you bought a 360 this holiday, I don’t think this upgrade is really cheating you out of much. So, don’t feel too bad.

by: dinnyin

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:06:02 +0000

so… http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5591&ref=y

sucks to be an early adopter… I wonder if they’ll have a trade up program :-\

by: Andy Gore

Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:50:06 +0000

Hey there Dinnyin,

The 360 we tested with did have the hard drive, but I’ve checked the documentation, the Xbox site, and a couple of retailer sites, and no where does it mention you have to have a hard drive for the HD DVD drive to work.

So, I think it’s safe to say it’ll work fine on the core 360.

by: dinnyin

Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:27:03 +0000

does the drive require that you have an xbox with a hard drive?

by: Andy Gore

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:48:38 +0000

Strictly speaking, because component video is an analog standard and HDMI (which is simply a convergence of DVI video and an audio signal) is a digital standard, I don’t think there’s any way an HDMI video signal could be inferior to component. If you have really good quality component video cables that you’re not running over a long distance and aren’t close to any major sources of interference, the experience should be comparable, but not better.

However, because S/PDIF (digital optical) audio uses a fiber optic cable to carry a digital audio signal, it is immune to electrical interference and, therefore, could deliver a cleaner signal than HDMI digital audio, which is carried on an electrical signal. In most cases, however, there would likely be no difference in quality between the two cabling standards as both are digital and, therefore, benefit from error-correcting technology that should compensate for momentary drops in signal.

I think HDMI got a bit a of bad rap because some of the first TVs to implement the standard did so poorly. In fact, some early Sony True HD sets were not actually able to take a 1080p video signal off HDMI, something the standard is clearly capable of.

by: dinnyin

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:42:02 +0000

RE: “HDMI Controversy”:
I don’t know much about it, but I was told that, given the choice, high-end home theater installers use component video paired with digital, optical audio rather than HDMI as the quality of both is better. HDMI is just more convenient for the average consumer. Any veracity to that?