and early CD players beat the most expensive compact casette players.
Hmmm... First-generation Philips player or Nakamichi Dragon?
Unfair. The PS3 has been lauded as the best BR player until fairly recently, and you are comparing 1st generation optical disk spinner?
Technology has come a long way since then.
I have seen some good DVD players, but none has the resolution and detail of the PS3 playing a good BR disc. (They do obviously destroy it in DVD playback mode)
How about Rotel RCD 865 v Nakamichi Dragon ?
Of course their is also a difference in scale too.
The difference between 2 audio formats is generally quite small, and many people can't even tell them apart CD and SACD for example. But a modern 40+ inch television, with a 1920x1080 pixel monitor displaying a standard DVD is having to add 3 times more information to the picture than is on the media. There is no way it can ever compete with a disk that contains information for each pixel.
Try getting a small section of a digital photograph (say 600x400), from a Canon 1D (say), and resizing to 1200x800... The best interpolation software in the world isn't going to render it as good as a standard 1200x800 original from a Canon 1000D (say)
this is a fair representation of the fact that even with a huge cost, and quality increase, the sheer scale of the information advantage of the cheaper machine will win over.
And thats a pretty bad analogy. In reality we are talking about a display mechanism displaying media from the same source, except one with 4 times the detail.
“Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex” - Karl Marx
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” - Mahatma Ghandi