HDMI 1080p24 output and audio bitstreaming: Better in $2K player vs $500 player? - Page 15 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: What improvements would you expect to find in a $2K player vs a typical $500 machine?
24P Video AND HDMI lossless audio is improved on a $2K machine versus a cheaper one 0 0%
24P Video is NOT improved but the HDMI lossless audio IS improved 0 0%
24P Video IS improved, but the HDMI lossless audio is NOT improved 0 0%
Neither 24P video or HDMI lossless audio is improved on a $2K machine versus a cheaper one. 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #421 of 430 Old 03-26-2009, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dazzerxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

But what is he using to evaluate? What test material?? Subjective commentary? Or does he cite specific examples of how one falls short of the other?

Price points tend to dictate reactions almost as much as investments do. How many people on these boards claim one player is superior or a revelation simply because they dropped the coin on it? PLENTY.

I have no doubt that the Pioneer is probably a great player. It uses the Marvell QDEO video processor, which is an excellent video processing solution. I am sure it is a far cry from their other players, which have been a bit disappointing in several areas.

I currently have the LX91 (the Euro version of the 09). To be frank I'm a bit disappointed with certain aspect of the player video performance. It certainly doesn't live up to the title of "reference" in terms of PAL DVD in auto cadence modes and I've now resorted to using source direct.

D
dazzerxxx is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #422 of 430 Old 03-26-2009, 03:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sergiohm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post

And this very simply proves that 1080p24 can be *different* from player to player due to the fact that the signal is internally decoded within the player in all cases. In this case, some player decoders had different ways of dealing with errors in the 1080p24 video stream than others.

Also, if a difference can be created using video post processing, a difference can also be created by improperly handling the internally decoded signal, incorrect colorspace conversion, or a number of other factors. One must also consider that a very large amount of Blu-ray Discs are MPEG2, which has more variance in decoder output than avc/vc1.

ex, there are studies on the subject such as this one:
http://compression.ru/video/codec_co...2_2006_en.html

Either way, regarding the original question of whether 1080p24 and lossless audio can be different from player to player - there is far more evidence pointing to "yes" than "no." In fact, no one has produced *any* evidence that shows there *can't be* a difference, but there has been several pieces of evidence brought up that demonstrates that there *can* be a difference due to various factors - decoder differences, improper colorspace conversion, player errors in handling the signal internally prior to output, etc. That is not to say that this is the main area you should focus on, because generally differences are minimal - 1080i60 deinterlacing performance, DVD upconversion, build quality, and analog stages is where you see the biggest differences with more expensive players.

I prefer to say "different" rather than "improved" because spending more on something does not guarantee you are getting something better, it just guarantees your wallet will be lighter!

Until a video format is available that can bitstream EVERYTHING to the HDTV and receiver, there will continue to be a potential difference between players. Blu-ray is definitely not that format as 1080p24 is decoded within the player and the many PCM releases (and those who use internal decoding to watch BonusView extras) leave room for errors in mixing or handling the signal internally (as we have seen with the BD30/BD2500 HDMI PCM LFE bugs). With Blu-ray you can't bitstream the video at all, and you can only bitstream 66% of the available lossless audio codecs; thus, there will continue to be less obvious variations in players in 1080p24 & lossless audio in addition to the more obvious areas of 1080i60 Blu-ray deinterlacing, DVD upconversion, build quality, & analog stage. Case closed.

The conclusions in your "Case Closed" are not entirely correct (at least in my book), how can 256K MP3 sound the same as lossless CD?

Notwithstanding there maybe differences in 1080p/24 but there should not be.
sergiohm is offline  
post #423 of 430 Old 03-27-2009, 06:37 AM
Senior Member
 
twenty/twenty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 403
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Oops, my mistake.

That HiFi News review of the new Pioneer blu-ray player was the latest April issue, not March. The Player reviewed was the LX91, not the 09.

Sorry for the mixup.

Are their any differences between the 09 and the 91?
twenty/twenty is offline  
post #424 of 430 Old 03-27-2009, 07:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dazzerxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by twenty/twenty View Post

Are their any differences between the 09 and the 91?

AFAIK mainly cosmetic but I don't if the 09 supports R2 PAL DVD but the LX91 supports R1 NTSC and R2 PAL via a remote hack. I'm not 100% but I don't believe the mag has reviewed very many Blu-ray players and it isn't really video oriented. The highest level player Blu-ray that they have reviewed to date is the Denon 2500 IIRC. I'm not sure how anyone can comment on apsects of a players color performance using a display that can't be color calibrated....

D
dazzerxxx is offline  
post #425 of 430 Old 03-27-2009, 10:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
LS2JSTS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

The video performance on the previous Pioneer's wasn't too bad at all. Their DVD performance could be better but their 24p output was fine. The main issue I had with the Pioneer units is there unbelievably frustrating load times and operability, especially compared to almost anything else on the market. They are also quite late with their full implementation of features, including the new 09. At this kind of price point, they are failing to compete in overall performance and features no matter how you cut it. I hope to see a turnaround though, Pioneer knows how to makes some seriously nice components and I hope they find their footing with Blu-ray players soon.

The difference is that Pioneer hasn't had the luxury of just sitting on the sidelines and waiting for the loose ends to work themselves out. As an original OEM for Sony and the first BR players to hit the market, Pioneer has been knee deep in trying to get the bugs worked out for ALL other manufacturers.

Companies like OPPO, NAD and others can afford to sit by and wait while the big boys do the heavy lifting. One feature, not deliverd in one specific way does not make the players lacking in any larger sense. Did OPPO offer a DTS-MA capable player last year, or the year before that? Does the fact that OPPO hasn't even bothered to offer their customers a BR solution for the last three years count for anything? I guess in a bigger sense you could say OPPO is three years late to the party, couldn't you?

05-1.3H BJC-3808-1.3H BJC-5080
LS2JSTS is offline  
post #426 of 430 Old 03-27-2009, 12:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

The video performance on the previous Pioneer's wasn't too bad at all. Their DVD performance could be better but their 24p output was fine. The main issue I had with the Pioneer units is there unbelievably frustrating load times and operability, especially compared to almost anything else on the market. They are also quite late with their full implementation of features, including the new 09. At this kind of price point, they are failing to compete in overall performance and features no matter how you cut it. I hope to see a turnaround though, Pioneer knows how to makes some seriously nice components and I hope they find their footing with Blu-ray players soon.

I don't agree, your assessment seems more geared towards the older firmware on the 51/05. With current firmware 1.25a your comments do not jive. For reference I also have access to a Panasonic DMP-BD35 (bought 2 of them for friends/family) and with current firmware on both units I feel that the 51/05 performs significantly better than that machine... And the Panasonic is built like a toy in comparison.
Ruined is offline  
post #427 of 430 Old 03-27-2009, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjack View Post

Now let me pose a question...

If a $200 player and a $5000 player both use our chip and software (with no tweaking and adjustment done by or for the manufacturer), would you expect to see a difference?

In 1080p24? It depends. What functions does said "chip" perform? Does it perform the entire process from decoding off the disc to TDMS-encoded HDMI output?

Regardless of the answer to your question, it is not really relevant to Blu-ray. Reason is because there are tons of different chipsets out there for different Blu-ray players, you have different versions of Broadcom, Sigma, Panasonic, Pioneer/Renesas, and other chipsets. In addition to the different chipsets, you also have different video processors as well (which usually improve 1080i60/480i60 deinterlacing/upscaling). And on top of all of that, manufs will sometimes customize or implement the software for said hardware differently. So there very well may be a variation in the end result in audio, video, and java performance due to all of these different factors.

Also the previous poster made a good point about the Oppo machine. If one stuck exclusively with Oppo, one would still be watching DVD. They are clearly not one of the Pioneers of Blu-ray technology, don't mind the pun.
Ruined is offline  
post #428 of 430 Old 03-27-2009, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by sergiohm View Post

The conclusions in your "Case Closed" are not entirely correct (at least in my book), how can 256K MP3 sound the same as lossless CD?

That is what the study resulted in; you can click the link to read about it. People who claimed to be audiophiles and also engineers could not tell the difference. Placebo effect and marketing can go a long way. Plus, most still have a bad conception of MP3 due to the early days of terrible MP3 encoders like Xing, but today's quality encoders like LAME are fantastic. I have heard of other studies like this on Hydrogenaudio (though not as controlled as formal) and the result is generally the same: 5.5:1 or lower lossy compression ratio appears to be the point where the listener can no longer detect the differences.

Remember, although lossy codecs throw away information, they are designed to throw away information you cannot hear due to masking or limitations of the human ear. They are generally very effective at this at higher bitrates.

Can you find a study to counter mine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sergiohm View Post

Notwithstanding there maybe differences in 1080p/24 but there should not be.

There are numerous opportunities for a player to screw up its 1080p24 output or be different than another player's 1080p24 output, including when dealing with unexpected errors in streams. The point is that there can be a difference, and that seems to be what the poll asker was looking for. Until the video can be bitstreamed and decoded outside of the player, there will always be a chance for difference - and Blu-ray is not capable of bitstreaming video. Most of the time that difference will only be detectable when an error in the video stream is encountered, but there are cases where it could pop up in other areas if one of the many procedures needed to get the video from the disc to your display is bungled.
Ruined is offline  
post #429 of 430 Old 04-19-2009, 06:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GmanAVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ridgewood, NJ
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Jeff,

the 09FD fw upgrade is out, 80, 100, 120 Xover mgt, internal DTS MA decoding, etc.

When are you planning to demo one, will Gramaphone still lend you one?

edit, xover should read 80, not 800
GmanAVS is offline  
post #430 of 430 Old 04-19-2009, 11:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Luke212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ruined you are a good debater. The problem is that you are arguing exceptions. This is a slippery slope. For example cosmic rays can create a picture of Dame Edna on your television. This is entirely possible. The problem is everything is possible due to quantum mechanics.

You could say the universe is a simulation and it's creators could put an image of Steven Segal on your screen.

These are all possible. You are running down a rabbit hole to prove a point and it is nothing new but nothing useful.
Luke212 is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Players

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off