Signature Elite 141 Owners Thread - Page 76

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I actually thought the Ultimate AV review was 'fair & balanced'. I have seen the same effect on my 151 with DRE engaged & disengaged. Since I see white clipping on both my Pioneer 05 (with all 05 settings at default) and on my PS3, I've come to the conclusion the new Kuros do indeed have a bit of white clipping.

I can easily dial it out by dropping brightness 1 click on the 05, but unfortunately there's no way to do that on the PS3. But I have found exactly what the author found, that engaging DRE at any level causes the white clipping issue to disappear. Frankly I'd rather keep the DRE off, so I use the 05 with the proper brightness settings.

I also think the author was fair in saying the PQ was the same on the monitors vs. the regular Elites and the choice really comes down to features (of which panel thickness could be one).

Originally Posted by Fanaticalism

Your experiences coincide with mine entirely.

While there may be mild differences in the actual measurements between the two, they are not visual differences in the least. Both displays are essentially perfect post calibration. To say that there is a visual difference, is a bit of a reach.

Originally Posted by xortam

The 141 is proving more and more to be the perfect solution for me, especially running several inputs with various resolutions (I run HDMI, DVI, HD through VGA, and S-Video).

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I actually thought the Ultimate AV review was 'fair & balanced'. I have seen the same effect on my 151 with DRE engaged & disengaged. Since I see white clipping on both my Pioneer 05 (with all 05 settings at default) and on my PS3, I've come to the conclusion the new Kuros do indeed have a bit of white clipping.

I can easily dial it out by dropping brightness 1 click on the 05, but unfortunately there's no way to do that on the PS3. But I have found exactly what the author found, that engaging DRE at any level causes the white clipping issue to disappear. Frankly I'd rather keep the DRE off, so I use the 05 with the proper brightness settings.

Originally Posted by xortam

While I've yet to read anything convincing on whether the Signature has better PQ or not vs. its Elite cousin I do think that a nice feature of the Signature monitors is it's elimination of some of the features on the TVs which just get in the way. I see a picture of the 151 with those side speakers and I just think it looks odd and excessively wide. I think the 141 looks much more elegant than the 151 with its speakers.

Originally Posted by info_dan

Hello Ken, I don't know if you follow the "Official Pioneer Elite BDP-05FD & BDP-51FD Owners Thread", but there are reports that the latest firmware (1.21) fixes the white clipping issue. Have you upgraded, and if so, have you re-checked if the issue is still present?

Dan.

Originally Posted by info_dan

S-Video??? My 141 doesn't have an s-video input. Guess you were thinking about another device? You receiver, maybe?

Dan.

Originally Posted by sillysally

I bet you a night on the town that controlcal was used on your 151. Not what that reviewer was talking about.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Actually I'd bet that many (most?) 151 owners like myself, don't ever bother mounting the speakers. …

… I disagree with you regarding the tuner. I always use the tuner for viewing 720p OTA channels like ABC, FOX etc. PQ is significantly better than those same channels coming from a typical cable/sat box set to a constant 1080i output.

I always set my STBs to a constant 1080i, as opposed to 'native', to avoid the constant resynching that occurs when going from 1080i to 720p and back again. The Elite does a much better job in converting 720p from its internal ATSC tuner to 1080p than any STB I've ever seen (assuming the STB even has a native output). It's also, IMO, much more elegant to have one less outboard component and use the internal tuner. I'd bet that whatever energy saving there is in the Signature series would be offset by the power consumption of a stand-alone ATSC tuner. …

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Peter, that depends on which 'town'.

But yes, Kevin did use ControlCal...I wouldn't have had it ISF'd if the tech wasn't ControlCal capable. I firmly believe that the 9g Elites (Sigs and non Sigs) are close enough to ISF spec out-of-the-box, that a bigger 'visual' difference is obtained using ControlCal than getting the display to ISF "perfection". I'm not sure if I've explained myself adequately, but what I'm saying is that you get a bigger 'bang for the buck' via the additional contrast & brightness that ControlCal offers than the ISF procedure itself...at least on a 9g Elite.

I'm not minimizing the ISF calibration at all, but man oh man, the ControlCal software surely unlocks more of the beast contained within these displays than any ISF calibration alone could achieve.

Now although I agree with you that the Sigs have more adjustment latitude, I've yet to see or hear from any ISF professional that this actually results in a visible improvement. In fact, from what I've read it's quite the opposite. Both displays are essentially 'visibly identical'. If a regular Elite can achieve what is essentially an ISF perfect picture, I'm not sure how this can be improved upon using the same panel with finer gradations of adjustments.

This is why I always respond the same way to people asking me which of these two displays they should get. Look at the features, look at the form factor and then decide. Two superb displays to fit a variety of needs. We're pretty lucky!

Originally Posted by sillysally

Ken, that all depends on what food and show the wives would like to eat and see.

Yes I also agree with what you are saying. The real question is will the sig with its finer gradations of adjustments make a real world improvement in what we see. That is something I can not say for sure. However because of the finer gradations of adjustment of the sig, I think the majority of time you will see a better grayscale calibration report with the sig. That being said imo the closer you get to the NTSC standards with your settings and report, will more than likely insure a better calibration.

btw; in your reply to Info-Dan about the new firmware (1.21) for the BD-05/51 and the white crush using the 141/101.
eddi and me are the ones that are saying there seems to be a fix within firmware 1.21.
I think what you are saying is very good reasoning as to why.
However when I did a full ISF mode calibration for my 141 and BD-51, I used professional mode with the BD-51 and also HDMI color space 4:2:2:.
You may want to look at how the numbers line up using firmware 1.21. See link, attachments.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15546767

Originally Posted by eddiscus

As far as white crush I noticed that on a 05 to 101 combo with 1.21 firmware there was no white crush (at least with this customers setup).
About a week ago I updated Roberts 05 with 1.21 and ran some white patterns before and after and noticed no difference on the 141 (questionable white crush). But Roberts display set up is not your normal config. I don't know of many home owners that are running a gefen 4x4 HDMI switch. So I would expect to see some differences compared to a straight connection to the display.

So far it seems the WTW overhead with the 05 player decreases between the 110, 111 and 141. With the 141 having the lowest amount of WTW over head.

BTW I now have an accupel 4000 pattern generator so when I have a chance I will throw it onto one of the HDMI inputs and check it out.

Originally Posted by sillysally

Nobody is saying the 141/101 is better than the 151/111.

All that is being pointed out is the difference's in the RGB high low settings and how they work. And what can be achieved in a 141/101. imo the difference boils down to how good of a job was done when calibrated.

So please lets not go there. Both the 141/101 and 151/111 are great displays.

If you want post your calibration report and we can compare.

What model do you have ?

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Peter, that depends on which 'town'.

But yes, Kevin did use ControlCal...I wouldn't have had it ISF'd if the tech wasn't ControlCal capable. I firmly believe that the 9g Elites (Sigs and non Sigs) are close enough to ISF spec out-of-the-box, that a bigger 'visual' difference is obtained using ControlCal than getting the display to ISF "perfection". I'm not sure if I've explained myself adequately, but what I'm saying is that you get a bigger 'bang for the buck' via the additional contrast & brightness that ControlCal offers than the ISF procedure itself...at least on a 9g Elite.

I'm not minimizing the ISF calibration at all, but man oh man, the ControlCal software surely unlocks more of the beast contained within these displays than any ISF calibration alone could achieve.

Now although I agree with you that the Sigs have more adjustment latitude, I've yet to see or hear from any ISF professional that this actually results in a visible improvement. In fact, from what I've read it's quite the opposite. Both displays are essentially 'visibly identical'. If a regular Elite can achieve what is essentially an ISF perfect picture, I'm not sure how this can be improved upon using the same panel with finer gradations of adjustments.

This is why I always respond the same way to people asking me which of these two displays they should get. Look at the features, look at the form factor and then decide. Two superb displays to fit a variety of needs. We're pretty lucky!

Originally Posted by sillysally

Ken, that all depends on what food and show the wives would like to eat and see.

Yes I also agree with what you are saying. The real question is will the sig with its finer gradations of adjustments make a real world improvement in what we see. That is something I can not say for sure. However because of the finer gradations of adjustment of the sig, I think the majority of time you will see a better grayscale calibration report with the sig. That being said imo the closer you get to the NTSC standards with your settings and report, will more than likely insure a better calibration.

btw; in your reply to Info-Dan about the new firmware (1.21) for the BD-05/51 and the white crush using the 141/101.
eddi and me are the ones that are saying there seems to be a fix within firmware 1.21.
I think what you are saying is very good reasoning as to why.
However when I did a full ISF mode calibration for my 141 and BD-51, I used professional mode with the BD-51 and also HDMI color space 4:2:2:.
You may want to look at how the numbers line up using firmware 1.21. See link, attachments.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15546767

Originally Posted by Fanaticalism

Huh?

You start off by saying that no one stated that one is better than the other, and then you want to compare DeltaE results?

The difference in the CHARTS was my point in exactly. The differences are measureable, but hardly percievable to the naked eye. The 9G Elites are close to perfect. Anything beyond what they have achieved, will again, only be distinguishable with measurements.

Btw, I've had my display calibrated by umr, which I am fully aware that you couldn't care less for. Regardless, it cannot be argued that he is extremely talented, regardless of how some percieve him.

Edit: I have a Pro 151/950

Originally Posted by sillysally

The real question is will the sig with its finer gradations of adjustments make a real world improvement in what we see. That is something I can not say for sure.

Originally Posted by falcon123

Still debating on the two - whether to have the set professionaly calibrated (ISF modes) or go the DIY route using ControlCAL and posted setting, mainly by sillysally.

I guess I am trying to justify the cost of prof calibration as to me, it is a lot of money. I know there is a value of learning things, etc to a professional calibration. Once calibrated, if I note the settings, all that is required in the future is to re-enter the setting or will the set have to be re-calibrated down the road.

Once calibrated, nothing one can do just go with those settings? But, if the set requires recalibration, than the setting will be useless?

I guess it is a recurring cost, unless one either acquires the tools or using ControlCal adjusts the settings themselves (but it might become more difficult as sets age and shift at different rate to use someone else's settings)

I think we are getting into that gray area of a discussion where most people would not notice a difference in sound between a $2k avr vs a $10k avr - same applies to tv?

Originally Posted by sillysally

Maybe the biggest question is did you do a full ISF mode calibration on Roberts 141. As you did with your clients 101 and BD-05/51 ?

Cograts on your accupel 4000 pattern generator. Nice tool.
However I don't see how that will help much to determine the white crush question between the 141 and the 05/51.

Maybe you could post your report on the calibration you did on the 101 and BD-05/51. Maybe by comparing your report and my report you may get some more clarification.
As far as I am concerned, I am happy with my calibration and the results. And I am satisfied that the white crush problem has been resolved, by installing firmware 1.21 and doing a full ISF mode calibration with my BD-51 and my 141.

btw; By all means bypass the gefen 4x4 HDMI switch.

Originally Posted by sillysally

Ok I will agree that to your way of thinking there is no differences and respect what you believe to be true.
That being said if you had your choice between a good calibration and a better calibration, would you choose the good calibration over the better calibration ?

You said "The difference in the CHARTS was my point in exactly. The differences are measureable, but hardly percievable to the naked eye."
So I guess from what you are saying in this quote is that you have compared the charts from umr's calibration on your 151 and the charts that are posted for the 141 calibration in this thread. Meaning the better of the two reports was the 141.

You said "Btw, I've had my display calibrated by umr, which I am fully aware that you couldn't care less for."

If your meaning of "couldn't care less for" is that I have no respect for Jeff, you are wrong. Matter of fact I have had many folks PM me about Jeff and I have never bad rapped him.

Given the fact that I have no interest in making money from calibrations. My only reason for sharing, is to improve on what the client receives in the fourm of a ISF calibration. And also doing my small part in educating the consumer in what to look for in a good calibration.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

And Peter it would seem to me that the fact that at this late date, with all the calibrations and ISF comments on this subject, that the answer is still in doubt, simply shows if there's any visible difference at all nobody has yet seen it.

So although you may get a very slightly more 'correct' ISF calibration, it surely seems after all of this, that nobody has yet observed a better picture as the result of it. I can't say this comes as any surprise to me as it just appeared to be very logical given the fact that the regular 9G Elites can achieve what is essentially a perfect ISF calibration. If your question now became "would you prefer a closer to perfect ISF calibration that resulted in no visible improvement?", my answer would probably be 'who cares'. If I can't see it, it does me no good.

BTW Peter, as soon as I upgrade my 05 to the latest firmware, I'll report back on the white crush issue.

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Well I just did the Pioneer 05 1.21 upgrade and I'm sorry to report absolutely no changes in the WTW behavior.

Behavior is precisely as it was before, WTW is clipped at default brightness settings and brought back with a one click decrease of the 'brightness' control on the 05. As I said before, I'm convinced this is an issue with the 9g Elites and, as Eddie said, ironically becomes more of an 'issue' as you progress up the Pioneer line with the 141 & 151 being the 'worst'. I've seen this behavior also reported in a couple of reviews on the 9g Elites. Of course this doesn't prevent any of these same reviews declaring the Elites the best displays ever, so I wouldn't get nuts over it as most owners may never encounter any visible effect from it.

Again, this is easily correctable with the 05 since a brightness control exists, but you have no such correction with the PS3, nor can it be dialed out with an ISF calibration unless you engage some level of the DRE control. Doing so will bring on other picture changes that some may not like.

This whole issue is not a big deal since properly mastered discs should not display WTW material and is exceedingly rare. I honestly don't know how this impacts broadcast material.

Originally Posted by eddiscus

Ken does the PS3 have the option of setting HDMI colorspace to RGB 16-235?

Originally Posted by Fanaticalism

Here is my take on this matter.

IMO, having a professional calibration is a key component to bringing out the most these displays (or any display for that matter) has to offer. Granted, we all perceive things differently, some saying the improvement post calibration was marginal, others saying substantial; I fall into the latter.

IMO, taking someone elses settings, and applying them to your panel, will not yield the same results. Will it be an improvement over OOB settings, yes, but there is no telling how much of an improvement w/o taking readings.

Now, if your question were "should I have a pro do it, or should I venture into the art of calibration, and give it a go?", I would most certainly say, "give it a go". To me, the hands on experience, education, and better understanding of the ISF process that one receives is absolutely priceless. You truly appreciate the art that this hobby/profession entails.

Since these were not the options you are considering, I would say, have a professional do it. Considering what you paid for this display, what a professional charges is truly miniscule in comparsion to the end result.

Originally Posted by vancouver

Turbe,
Any update on the next ControlCal version? Have you confirmed if it will offer IP access? Curiousl...how exactly will that work? Will it have to be loaded into the display and update the current web server?