Well, that's what I did. And all you Pearl owners, take solace, because the unit is every bit as good as the Qualia which cost six times more, because technology has marched on, and blah, blah, blah . . .

Not.

The Pearl is not much different than the Ruby, which in itself is better than the Pearl, but to all those that glowed about the so-called improvement with the newer models, at the reduced price . . .

It's not even remotely true. And if you want to trot out the Greg Rogers' reviews and point to measurements, well, I can only point to what I see in the same theater, same screen, same sources. The Qualia had a razor-sharp image, a brightness and texture that was always gorgeous, and, while the Pearl is okay, the best that can be said about it is the value it offers, at least compared to the Qualia. I have fourteen hundred DVDs, organized with Escient controllers, and I see a lot of just plain stationary letters on a screen, as I navigate the Escient to choose a disc. Those letters, just like the credits that scroll down after the movie is over, tell a much different story than watching images in constant motion. Compared to the Qualia, it's like watching something a bit out of focus, although I saw the same thing with the Ruby. The optics with an expensive lens adds a lot more than often gets talked about on these forums.

The Pearl will be here to bide time until I get a JVC RS-1, but even then I'm not holding out a lot of hope. If it's still not up to par with what I got used to over the past two+ years, I'll probably go back in the market for a used Qualia.

Ciao.

Nick :cool:

If the Qualia was that good why in the world would you leave it?

Uhh, who ever said the Pearl was better than the Qualia? :confused:
Many Pearl owners praised this machine but I never read where anyone claimed it was better than the Qualia.

If the Qualia was that good why in the world would you leave it?

Because I was betting that advances in upcoming technology will ultimately even surpass the Qualia, and I wanted the flexibility to try them out. The Qualia was a large enough investment that it precluded experimentation, at least from my budget. It's also an expensive proposition to continue to replace the bulbs, which retail at $3000, and are needed every two years.

Notwithstanding, I could see myself migrating back to a Qualia, after seeing what this year's CEDIA shows unveil.

Nick :cool:

...The Pearl will be here to bide time until I get a JVC RS-1...

...It's also an expensive proposition to continue to replace the bulbs, which retail at $3000, and are needed every two year...
So you couldn't afford to replace the lamp every couple of years but you can afford a new projector every few months. :D

Uhh, who ever said the Pearl was better than the Qualia? :confused:
Many Pearl owners praised this machine but I never read where anyone claimed it was better than the Qualia.

You're right, but plenty of Ruby owners made the claim, and there's enough claims that the Pearl equals or exceeds the Ruby. You do the math.

The Qualia is still one of the pre-eminent projectors available.

Nick :cool:

It sounds like maybe you should have viewed the projector before buying.

Just a suggestion for next time.

Because I was betting that advances in upcoming technology will ultimately even surpass the Qualia, and I wanted the flexibility to try them out. The Qualia was a large enough investment that it precluded experimentation, at least from my budget. It's also an expensive proposition to continue to replace the bulbs, which retail at $3000, and are needed every two years.

So you dumped a $30K projector in favor of a $5K projector thinking it would match the quality of the Qualia, and when it didn't work out you expect a $6K projector to magically fill the gap?

Nick,
Thanks for proving what I and other Qualia owners already know.
BTW, my Qualia is not for sale.

PS: Are you OK???? This is really crazy behavior on your part.

So you dumped a $30K projector in favor of a $5K projector thinking it would match the quality of the Qualia, and when it didn't work out you expect a $6K projector to magically fill the gap?

:confused: :o :eek:

So you couldn't afford to replace the lamp every couple of years but you can afford a new projector every few months. :D

Well, like I said, I'm betting that advances continue. But you're the maven, William, so what's the better bet? Both economics and performance are at issue. Sure, if I could buy the Qualia it's not a big deal to replace the bulb every two years, but, in two years, where does the Qualia stand in terms of something that's available for, say, $10,000?

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

So let me try to understand.

The reason that you replaced the Qualia is because that in 2 years, maybe there will be something better?

Sorry, but absolutely makes no sense.

Selling at the right time is an artform. As long as you can get some good money from a Qualia and take a percentage from that to hold you over to the next great thing is not that bad an idea if you are the upgrade type.

Nick
Did you get a very good Pearl or a medium Pearl with respect to convergence.

No, I did not expect it to match the Qualia. It's more of a "playing" thing at the moment, wanting to get in the game for what's coming up with the advent of the newer projectors like the RS-1. The Pearl was simply a tide-over since the latter is right now unavailable. I expect there might be other experiments through this year.

And, like I've said, if I want to, it remains a very do-able thing to get another Qualia from the used market.

Nick :cool:

Selling at the right time is an artform. As long as you can get some good money from a Qualia and take a percentage from that to hold you over to the next great thing is not that bad an idea if you are the upgrade type.



I was able to get close to half of my original investment back, after using the Qualia for over two years. That was a guiding consideration in this whole thing. As the months march forward, you can certainly expect the Qualia to be available at a substantially reduced price.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

So let me try to understand.

The reason that you replaced the Qualia is because that in 2 years, maybe there will be something better?

Sorry, but absolutely makes no sense.

Well, then, if you own a Qualia, don't sell yours.

Nick :cool:

No, I did not expect it to match the Qualia. It's more of a "playing" thing at the moment, wanting to get in the game for what's coming up with the advent of the newer projectors like the RS-1. The Pearl was simply a tide-over since the latter is right now unavailable. I expect there might be other experiments through this year.

And, like I've said, if I want to, it remains a very do-able thing to get another Qualia from the used market.

Nick :cool:

Of course, there's always a G90 too. (like you didn't know that was coming?)

BTW, like the rest here, I look forward to the RS-1 arrival. My neighbor down the road has one on order. Lucky me.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Qualia Sony's premier line? And as such, doesn't Sony take great care to assure that each unit is manufactured to within very tight tolerances?

I've never seen a Qualia, but it stands to reason that a projector this expensive would have perfect convergence and very high quality optics, two things that are definitely lacking on my Pearl. The Qualia is also brighter, yes?

I would never expect my 4K Pearl to come anywhere close to a product like the Qualia -- the price gap is closing, but not in the area of lumens, optics, or quality control, three things that make a huge difference.

I expect my Pearl has better contrast. That's about it.

I agree with the person who suggested that its' a good idea to look before you buy. I also expect that Sony will eventually make a projector that exceeds the Qualia in every area -- and that it will cost a lot more than the Pearl.

While I agree with the sentiments in the original post (that the Qualia is likely an overall superior projector than the Pearl), what I don't understand is the apparent hostility. Were people really running around here saying that the Pearl was an overall superior projector? Or were they pointing out that the Pearl outperforms the Qualia in certain areas? -- which it does. But the issue is that we do not "see" contrast (or any other picture paramter) in isolation, we see them as part of a larger whole. And the Qualia, on whole, I'm sure is a much more finely tuned machine. And it should be.

Well, like I said, I'm betting that advances continue. But you're the maven, William, so what's the better bet? Both economics and performance are at issue. Sure, if I could buy the Qualia it's not a big deal to replace the bulb every two years, but, in two years, where does the Qualia stand in terms of something that's available for, say, $10,000?

Thanks,

Nick :cool:
Thanks, but I'm not the expert you think I am (or the William either ;) ) but I do PLAY one on the Internet. :eek: I do own a William Phelps optimized HD10K though...and yes he did steal my name. :D

I don't think William Phelps thinks too highly of the Qualia. This is his response to a post of mine when I was complimenting the Qualia. I also commented that I hadn't seen many used Qualias for sale.


"You have to be joking! The factory calibration and uniformity on the Qualia are terrible. The light output falls rapidly (and the color changes) as the lamp ages. I'm now getting some reports of low output *after* replacing the lamp. I know of several customers who have replaced their Qualia's with something else!"

There is no way I would dump my Ruby for a pearl so you know how I feel about doing it for a Qualia... :eek:

Well, that's what I did. And all you Pearl owners, take solace, because the unit is every bit as good as the Qualia which cost six times more, because technology has marched on, and blah, blah, blah . . .

Not.

The Pearl is not much different than the Ruby, which in itself is better than the Pearl, but to all those that glowed about the so-called improvement with the newer models, at the reduced price . . .

It's not even remotely true. And if you want to trot out the Greg Rogers' reviews and point to measurements, well, I can only point to what I see in the same theater, same screen, same sources. The Qualia had a razor-sharp image, a brightness and texture that was always gorgeous, and, while the Pearl is okay, the best that can be said about it is the value it offers, at least compared to the Qualia. I have fourteen hundred DVDs, organized with Escient controllers, and I see a lot of just plain stationary letters on a screen, as I navigate the Escient to choose a disc. Those letters, just like the credits that scroll down after the movie is over, tell a much different story than watching images in constant motion. Compared to the Qualia, it's like watching something a bit out of focus, although I saw the same thing with the Ruby. The optics with an expensive lens adds a lot more than often gets talked about on these forums.

The Pearl will be here to bide time until I get a JVC RS-1, but even then I'm not holding out a lot of hope. If it's still not up to par with what I got used to over the past two+ years, I'll probably go back in the market for a used Qualia.

Ciao.

Nick :cool:

Well, this thread has gone in a different direction, but I will just say that I completely agree with your comments above, and the Pearl is nowhere even close to the Qualia in overall picture quality, especially wrt to sharpness, which you specifically mention.

I don't know how the RS1 will compete, but you should at least enjoy better contrast than what you got with your Qualia. :cool:

Nick,
I demoed the Qualia and own a Ruby. The optics, brightness, and convergence are superior. For a bat cave and reasonably sized screen the black level of the Ruby overcomes a lot of the Qualia's benefits once price is factored into the equation. Hopefully, you will find that the RS-1 lives up to the hype. If not, the Qualia used for 10k is a nice option...

Here's my question: WHy would you throw down 20K+ on a piece of electronic gear in todays rapidly changing tech? To each his own I guess......But of course Nick probably makes a lot more money than I do:) Just food for thought and I'll probably get slammed for this.........

Here's my question: WHy would you throw down 20K+ on a piece of electronic gear in todays rapidly changing tech? To each his own I guess......But of course Nick probably makes a lot more money than I do:) Just food for thought and I'll probably get slammed for this.........


I would guess the same reason Charles Barkley (Barkly?) can piss away 2.5 million in 6 hours gambling, because he can :) Both scenarios seem crazy to me, but I landscape for a living :D

It's not even remotely true. And if you want to trot out the Greg Rogers' reviews and point to measurements, well, I can only point to what I see in the same theater, same screen, same sources. The Qualia had a razor-sharp image, a brightness and texture that was always gorgeous, and, while the Pearl is okay, the best that can be said about it is the value it offers, at least compared to the Qualia. I have fourteen hundred DVDs, organized with Escient controllers, and I see a lot of just plain stationary letters on a screen, as I navigate the Escient to choose a disc. Those letters, just like the credits that scroll down after the movie is over, tell a much different story than watching images in constant motion. Compared to the Qualia, it's like watching something a bit out of focus, although I saw the same thing with the Ruby. The optics with an expensive lens adds a lot more than often gets talked about on these forums.
I have directly A/B compared my Ruby to my neighbor's Q004 several times. The verdict is always the same. In bright scenes the Q is slightly better, in dark scenes the Ruby is clearly better. As an example if you are watching a typical romantic comedy or sports, the Q wins. On Dark City, AVP, LOTR, ... the Ruby gives overall a better experience.

From reading this forum about the Pearl, I would suggest to make sure it is properly focused; apparently tapping on the focus control gives finer focus control. Turn off overscan. Overscan on the Pearl degrades the PQ!

We recently installed one of the last Qualia 004s available from Sony. Upgraded to 1080p. intergrated a Lumagen HDP until the Radiance is available. I have the Pearl at home and have used the Ruby at home as well.
As mentioned the optics on the Qualia are noticeably better. A super sharp image. This installation has a giant perforated screen and requires the higher ouput the Qualia offers as well.
That said, I have been watching the HBO Series "Rome" on the Pearl at home. The darker scenes come across beautifully! In viewing the same program material on the 004, it was easy to notice the light bleeding through on the darker scenes. Not nearly as nice. It would nice to see the combination of the Pearls contrast with the Qualia's sharpness and output! Perhaps at the Sony open house at the end of the month? Dreaming I guess

Okay that's it. I'm keeping my Pearl and not getting the Qualia after all. I like that show Rome and it kinda grows on you. If I can't see the shadow scenes like on the Pearl, it's not going for the Qualia.

Keep the thread alive! :)

One thing I will say: The difference in the Qualia and the Pearl from HD sources is not a big difference at all. I've now watched several BD discs, some HD-DVD, and HD cable from a TiVo Series 3.

It's on regular DVD viewing that the biggest differences are seen. The Qualia could take many regular DVDs and render them near-HD quality. The Pearl (and my prior observations of the Ruby) did not do that.

Nick :cool:

...It's not even remotely true. And if you want to trot out the Greg Rogers' reviews and point to measurements, well, I can only point to what I see in the same theater, same screen, same sources. The Qualia had a razor-sharp image, ... Compared to the Qualia, it's like watching something a bit out of focus, although I saw the same thing with the Ruby. The optics with an expensive lens adds a lot more than often gets talked about on these forums.
From my Ruby review:

"However, edges are slightly softer on this projector than the Qualia 004. The gaps between individual pixels are more clearly visible on the Qualia, which is likely the result of a higher quality lens with a better MTF (modulation transfer function). The new, smaller panel may also be a factor. Regardless of the reason, high-definition images appear slightly softer and more like a CRT projector, although they are still considerably sharper than a CRT projector."

And from my Pearl review:

"However, the contrast depth within the maximum resolution burst is not as deep as when rendered by a much more expensive 1080p DLP projector, such as a Marantz VP-11S1. The edges of lines and objects are less sharp, and the gaps between the individual 1080p pixels are less visible. The VPL-VW50 produces full resolution 1080p images, but the sharpness and detail are less defined than they are on the single-chip DLP projector."

Nick,

I strongly advise you to go for a Sony SRX-R110 PJ. It is still in production and has the best quality you have been dreaming for, for a price you can afford. ;)

The difference in the Qualia and the Pearl from HD sources is not a big difference at all. I've now watched several BD discs, some HD-DVD, and HD cable from a TiVo Series 3.

It's on regular DVD viewing that the biggest differences are seen. The Qualia could take many regular DVDs and render them near-HD quality. The Pearl (and my prior observations of the Ruby) did not do that.

Nick :cool:
Nick,
Did you ever use the Ruby's DVI input and take advantage of its DRC-MFv2.5 chip? Haven't seen the Qualia, but I've never seen a better regular DVD picture that was as close to HD sources than with the Ruby and DRC combination.

Paul

If you focus on one FP parameter, as most folks here are wont to do, you will never be happy. I'm willing to accept a lesser black level in my Qualia, because the overall experience is so exquisite.

the real question is: Is the $25k price different worth it?

Frankly, I'd be much more enthusiastic for Nick if I knew he was switching to 3 panel 1080p DLP.

I think Nick's main point is being lost on some of the posters who may not have caught or had reason to pay attention to many of the threads here when the Ruby was announced. Their were rampant claims that the Ruby outperformed the Qualia and many people in not so many words and some in so many words even mocked Qualia owners for being early adopters who had spend 30K on a PJ that was now bested by the 10K Ruby. And then the Pearl came out and was (is?) supposedly better than the Ruby.

Anyhow, I think it is those rampant posts I refer to above that Nick was addressing with this thread. And his opinion is obviously that The Ruby/Pearl does not outperform the Qualia at all. There have been other people who switched that have a different opinion. As always, it probably depends on ones priorities (film or sports, hd or non-hd, bright and sharpness vesrus maximum contrast etc).

I'd buy a used Qualia as an extra PJ for a secondary room for the sexiness factor alone when they drop to 3K - if only a new bulb didn't cost 3!

I think Nick's main point is being lost on some of the posters who may not have caught or had reason to pay attention to many of the threads here when the Ruby was announced. Their were rampant claims that the Ruby outperformed the Qualia and many people in not so many words and some in so many words even mocked Qualia owners for being early adopters who had spend 30K on a PJ that was now bested by the 10K Ruby. And then the Pearl came out and was (is?) supposedly better than the Ruby.

Anyhow, I think it is those rampant posts I refer to above that Nick was addressing with this thread. And his opinion is obviously that The Ruby/Pearl does not outperform the Qualia at all. There have been other people who switched that have a different opinion. As always, it probably depends on ones priorities (film or sports, hd or non-hd, bright and sharpness vesrus maximum contrast etc).

I'd buy a used Qualia as an extra PJ for a secondary room for the sexiness factor alone when they drop to 3K - if only a new bulb didn't cost 3!

Thank you, QQQ. Yes, that was one of the main points. I had viewed the Ruby when it came out and was wondering if those threads were populated by people who had done any extensive viewing of the Qualia. And, yes, it seemed that a lot of posters took up the mantra that early Qualia adopters were suckers, with a bit of glee. Then when the Pearl posts started, it was off to the races again . . .

That said, Ohlson also picked up on my other point: I enjoy experimenting and upgrading. While I've got a lot of nice equipment (my speakers were a lot more than the Qualia, and I've no intent to replace them), I don't by any means have an unlimited budget, and I've been accustomed over the past ten years to getting a substantial part of my purchase price back, when the upgrade--even the "lateral upgrade"--opportunity arose.

While I could have lived with the Qualia for a lot longer, this was the time to sell, if it was ever to be sold. I received a decent enough price for it that I can have no regrets--had I not gotten my price, I would not have sold. While I expect the Qualia to hold its price for a lot longer than some on these forums have speculated, the fact is that the projector market is headed nowhere but down, and a model like the Qualia suffers worst in that type of market. There will be probably a half-dozen "latest, greatest" pieces that will emerge this year alone that will continue to contribute to its decline in price. I may return to a Qualia in the future, but it will be after I've had had some fun experimenting. To have waited another 18 months to experiment, and then to take literally dimes on the dollars was a calculated judgment. But things are moving at a fast enough pace that I made the judgment to retool now.

While it may be fair to call me crazy now, I might have felt crazy had I not sold it now, when I could get serious money back; not now, but a year from now, when a Qualia might be able to be had for something significantly less than what they can bring at the moment.

I enjoyed the Qualia immensely, and, yes, I still smell those old Ruby threads. But I get to have fun trying other things (in my own theater, where I can make my best judgments) and it won't be a big deal to put a Qualia back if that's still the best thing I've experienced a year from now.

Thanks,

Nick :cool:

I think you've made a wise decision Nick. I also think once you've received your RS1, the toughts of wanting to purchase another Qualia will be non-existent. The upgrade from your RS1 will be the RS2 or another Sony that bests the Qualia AND the RS2, or maybe even a Laser PJ. :)

Well I'm one of those people who got rid of their Qualias in favor of a Ruby. My decision came as I'd gotten my Qualia very late in the piece, no thanks to delays from Sony locally. To that end I only had it in for 4 months(with the install not even totally signed off on) before the Ruby debuted. So rather than sitting there and potentially losing value with the Qualia, I asked to have the Ruby demoed in my theater. I was able to borrow a new one, set it up and do A/B comparisons with my Qualia. I concluded very quickly, once I'd seen the black level improvements, I no longer wanted to keep the Qualia. As for lens quality, I really struggled to see any differences with the sources I had, DVD, DTV, and PC.

More recently in not wanting to wait around for the RS1 to turn up, I installed a Pearl in weekender's living room HT. So far I'm very impressed with it. The one omission that would have perhaps addressed any lack of sharpness would have been DRC 2.5 as featured and which I've come to appreciate greatly in the XBR2's.

I am seriously contemplating moving my Ruby on for an RS1 at the moment. But then again, it seems over the last couple of years Sony hasn't let JVC get the upper hand for that long. I am suspicious that they will have a new significantly improved model out before too long.

The Sony Emerald... perhaps.

The Sony Emerald... perhaps.

Emerald, Diamond..... could be but it's still pretty murky at this stage I'd say.