Originally Posted by ckronengold
Of course! I've got Spears and Munsil. I was just hoping there might be more of a "real world" example that people agreed upon. And with the quickness with which some people are seeing dramatic differences, I was hoping maybe not to need to bust out the test patterns.
And kudos to you for making it clear that this is some very nit-picky stuff we're dealing with. If I didn't already own my 103, and read this forum before buying, I'd be scared about my purchase. But this thing is simply awesome, and I guess this forum wants to make it as awesome as can be. Can't fault them for that, but dang! You'd think half the folks in the forum were watching laser discs.
First of all - and I'm one of the complainers - if it's looking good to you that's the really important thing. Each of us has different
things that bother us or don't (take plasma buzz - it drives some people crazy, others can't even hear it, sometimes on the same
display! No right or wrong, just different).
Also, since there are only some of us who are less than gleeful, we may well be crazy obsessive types (very possible - wouldn't
something like AVS tend to draw people who spend too much time worrying about 3% performance differences?) but different displays
could also play a role (interesting that there seem to be a lot of Kuros among those of us who are whining).
If you want to try and see it in 'real world' action, you're best off starting with an SD-DVD, since that automatically kicks up the NR on the
QEDO to a higher gear. Types of things where you can notice it are; hair or beards in harshly lit medium or closer shots - how much detail
do you see? Or, do the whites of eyes or other details start to disappear in shadowy, dark lighting, in looser shots (those were two
of the first things I noticed). Very contrasty scenes will bring it out more, there's a fall of of detail in shadow areas. Black and white
is good, film noir, even the grain of the film itself...
And even then, it's not screamingly obvious. I noticed it on films I knew really well, and I was specifically looking to
judge how I felt the new player performed. Then I confirmed by plugging in direct from the player to the same input in my Kuro
(taking anything else out of the circuit). I tried the 103 on HDMI 1, then 2, and then my old Oppo 983. Repeated several times
with several scenes. Watching the same scenes from each output produced some subtle but clear characteristics to each image.
Now, what's important is that none of the images were 'bad'. They all were very nice and watchable. But in watching
films I helped master, there were certain details (minor ones) that started to disappear on HDMI 1. Also there was
an artificial jump in contrast. That was eye catching, it even looked 'good' the way an over bright set can do at first
when it catches your eye, it had nice 'pop' but it wasn't the way it was mastered.
Again, if you're happy, you may not want to spend a lot of time on this. Once you see it (if you do) it may drive
you crazy knowing it's there, and you might never have given it a second thought otherwise.
All I'd suggest, as a film-maker, is that if you were watching a film of mine, especially on SD-DVD I'd rather you see it on HDMI 2,
because you're seeing something a touch closer to what I intended. So I would suggest HDMI 2 as a starting place if
you want the more neutral, unaffected image.
But, yes, you are talking subtle and arguably nit-picky things. But to some people they, subjectively, feel bigger.
I'm nowhere near as (over?) sensitive on sound. I hardly hear the difference between
$600 and $10,000 amplifiers. They usually sound very similar to me - maybe a tiny difference. I
have audiophile and musician friends who think I'm nuts (and deaf) for not hearing what they perceive
as tremendous differences. Are they 'right?' Should I feel bad for being happy with my equipment?
Anyway, hope that's helpful.