That part depends not only on each individual's own sensory system (we all don't see/hear exactly the same way!), but our own values, desires, and preferences. Those things are inheriently subjective.

You act like I don't understand what you're saying. I do, which is why, as I mentioned (and you ignored), your argument could just as well be that there's no difference between 1 pixel flashing on the screen and HD. A blind man could easily say we're crazy for not just listening to the radio. Subjectively, he's right. To him, there would be no difference.

The thing is, that argument has no bearing on reality, and please don't tell me reality is all about perception... Saying truth or reality depends on perception could be applied to anything. "When I see planes flying, it has nothing to do with 'lift'. Angels carry the planes." "Cellphones? Easy, fairies carry your voice to and from other phones. I see them!"

And maybe I really do see them--maybe I'm hallucinating. You certainly can't argue with me, because you can't see what I see. Anything you say is irrelevant when it comes to my subjective reality, my subjective truth...which is exactly why it shouldn't be mentioned in any sort of factual discussion.

And until you and the other BD fans grok that distinction, you'll never understand why BD hasn't gone anywhere in the market, and in its present form, probably never will.

I could not care less if Blu-ray never became more popular. You're lumping me into some generic group of "BD fans", as if my goal here is to espouse the merits of the format, decisively converting non-believers. It's really not... I simply thought it was silly for the GP to put "visual quality" in quotes, as if Blu-ray didn't beat DVD there--as if all those cable and satellite providers were wrong for selling HD channels.

I don't know how to state this more clearly. Since you've already ignored it twice now, I imagine it's going to happen again, but here goes... Just because you can't see the difference, just because that difference is not appealing to you, does not mean there is no difference.

I get that quality is subjective. I get that you can't see the difference. I also get that just because I can't perceive something doesn't mean it's not there. I'm not so egocentric that I believe what I see or don't see is reality.

What's the difference between MP3-320k and FLAC for me? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Yeah, same for me. Hell, I can't even hear a difference between 128kbps mp3s and FLAC. Now, repeat after me: That doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

Frankly, I don't even understand what point you're trying to make. That you can't tell the difference? Good for you, but who cares? Like I said and you quoted, just because it's not appealing to you doesn't mean it's not true. That's it. That was my whole point.

I'm not debating whether or not you can see the difference. Honestly, I don't care that you can't. You could just as easily tell me that you can't tell the difference between 1 pixel and HD and your argument would be the exact same.

Think about it: are you really wanting to claim that all a painter has to do to make a better painting is to throw more paint on the canvas? More paint *always* means a better painting?!?

Of course not, just like I'm not claiming that watching Gigli in HD makes it a better movie. It makes it look better--that's all. It doesn't make it a better movie. If a painter created a 2" x 2" painting and stretched it to fit a 50" TV, it would naturally not contain the same level of detail as if he had created it on a 50" canvas.

Why put visually better in quotes? It is visually better. That's the whole point. Sure, maybe that's not enough to make it appealing to you, but that's no reason to act like it's not true.