AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › HDMI 1080p24 output and audio bitstreaming: Better in $2K player vs $500 player?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HDMI 1080p24 output and audio bitstreaming: Better in $2K player vs $500 player? - Page 9

post #241 of 430
2/26/09 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

Whether one finds one player's image better than another is strictly a personal preference as there is absolutely no one-to-one relationship from encode to display.

The danger is that these differences suddenly take on the mantle of "better quality" when it may simply be different and subjectively some people prefer a particular image "look". Often it's the image that creates the illusion of sharpness/depth, clean, vivid etc. that people prefer.

D
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #242 of 430
2/26/09 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzerxxx View Post

The danger is that these differences suddenly take on the mantle of "better quality" when it may simply be different and subjectively some people prefer a particular image "look". Often it's the image that creates the illusion of sharpness/depth, clean, vivid etc. that people prefer.

I agree and at the same time disagree. If you look at the two images I posted you'll notice the second has a greater perceived sharpness. It accomplishes this by pumping the contrast level (a pure guess since I have no way of knowing what was encoded). It brightens the light pixels and darkens the dark pixels. This is exactly what a projector that has better contrast than mine would being doing. So does this make it bad or does it make it better?

Is it bringing the displayed image closer or further away from what was encoded? Since my projector has a ANSI contrast of perhaps 500 at best I'll take the pump since I'm sure the encode thought I was at 750 or greater.
Reply
Reply
post #243 of 430
2/26/09 at 10:22am
Now that we are getting down to the point where some are claiming differences lets bring back in the OP. A 500.00 player vs a 2000.00 player and the differences, if there really are any, do NOT equate to value or justification for a player costing 4 times the amount, or even double. That is where the focus of this convo and thread needs to be. There is no way anyone can justify paying 4 times as much for a player, there just isn't based on what we know and what we are seeing and hearing. Now a 4k dollar player is mentioned and the Bland said it best. Are we going to see double the quality over the 2k dollar player?
Reply
Reply
post #244 of 430
2/26/09 at 10:37am
For me things are really simple though and I always wonder why people rely so much on this pattern frenzy testing of static "crap" when in reality we are watching "MOVING" material. And by saying moving I mean who on earth notices all those little pixel level fine details from his seat, 10-20 feet away, in the middle of the film or action when 5-7 speakers roar all over your head.


For me it comes down to color vividness, movement jerkiness, and any artistic touches a manufacturer adds to my "MOVING" picture. Before I spent 2-4k for one of those players I will value what it gives to me from looks to picture and if I judge that I like the picture yes. It is as simple as that and I could not care less for measurements using patterns which I find wrong as a representation of a moving picture based on none geometric patterns.

The same holds for expensive speakers compared to those getting comments in reviews in the likes "They sound like 4 times their cost", for cables that alter the sound and a myriad of other things.

So for those players do you like what you see and can you get that from the cheaper alternatives if yes then it costs 2K or more.

End of story for me. Now get on with the rather interesting scientific approach.
Reply
Reply
post #245 of 430
2/26/09 at 10:40am
I think some people need to look at what their money is buying them. Having seen and heard the 4K player, a significant amount of the cash there is going to have gone on audio, and the video has what I will call the trademark 'clean' Denon look, whatever that is.

If you have no need for heavy duty analogue audio stages you are wasting huge amounts of money buying one of these type of players for just HDMI PQ purposes IMO. Maybe, just maybe, not all of these players are purely about PQ.

And in high end audio, when did the relationship between improvements and cost suddenly become linear?
Reply
Reply
post #246 of 430
2/26/09 at 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

Saying that the $10 chip that does this function is better because it's in a Denon is a nonsensical argument.

Just to clarify, its $5/chip for quantities of 250k or more... probably more for premium manufacturers as they aren't moving as many
Reply
Reply
post #247 of 430
2/26/09 at 11:04am
This thread is loaded, IMHO, as it compares two features of BDPs that by all accounts are *supposed* to produce similar (if not identical) results assuming properly functioning and adjusted equipment (lossless digital audio and direct 24p video). I don't know of anyone who purchases the top-tier players for these two features alone.

Surely Denon doesn't include the overbuilt analog section and Realta HQV with the expectation of using the player for a transport!
Reply
Reply
post #248 of 430
2/26/09 at 11:09am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_S View Post

And in high end audio, when did the relationship between improvements and cost suddenly become linear?

OK, I'm coming clean on my intent of this thread / poll.


I am still waiting for one of the 49 (combined from choices 1+2) responders above to better explain how bitstreamed audio is somehow better.. Its like saying my Zip file impacts better than yours... I want to know where the proof or theory lies...

I can tell you why I added the audio portion to this thread rather than just keeping things simple with 24P. It was really to ferret out those $2K owners that really, to me, knew what they were talking about versus the ones that bought a $2K machine and have to somehow justify it on the basis of 24P and lossless 'improvements'..
To some extent, I can see the arguments for saying a $2K player may have better video than a $500 player (though I don't agree). HOWEVER, the contention that the bitstreamed / packed audio stream is better than yours is utterly ridiculous. Moreover, of the 49 some folks that voted that 24P and Audio was improved, not one has attempted to defend the 'lossless is better' part of their answer. I made the poll public as I simply wanted to know who here would actually say such. I thought that choice #2 would end up with 0 votes (but 3 is pretty close). Most $2K player folks are bitstreaming / some LPCM With that, I am surprised about the high numbers..

When the majority of folks who own $2K players feel that 24P video AND bitstreamed / packed audio are improved, it means that those folks that own $4K Denon players down the road will legitimately be able to claim that it is TWICE as good as a Pioneer 09 / Denon 3800.... likely with the same flimsy supports.

Fact is there are many reasons to buy a $2K player, however, better bitstreamed audio, in particular, is not one of them!
Reply
Reply
post #249 of 430
2/26/09 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

OK, I'm coming clean on my intent of this thread / poll.


I am still waiting for one of the 49 (combined from choices 1+2) responders above to better explain how bitstreamed audio is somehow better.. Its like saying my Zip file impacts better than yours... I want to know where the proof or theory lies...

Well, do you believe that a DVD player sending a normal DD or DTS stream to an amp/processor over SPDIF can make a difference to SQ?
Reply
Reply
post #250 of 430
2/26/09 at 11:34am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_S View Post

Well, do you believe that a DVD player sending a normal DD or DTS stream to an amp/processor over SPDIF can make a difference to SQ?

I'll say this. I have never heard a difference between DD or DTS sent as LPCM or bitstream via SPDIF in my set up. I wouldn't expect lossless to be any different.
Reply
Reply
post #251 of 430
2/26/09 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

I'll say this. I have never heard a difference between DD or DTS sent as LPCM or bitstream via SPDIF in my set up. I wouldn't expect lossless to be any different.

Can you share some info on what products you use in your setup ?

Thanks

D
Reply
Reply
post #252 of 430
2/26/09 at 2:15pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzerxxx View Post

Can you share some info on what products you use in your setup ?

Thanks

D

Halcro Logic SSP-200 surround processor
Denon 3800 / Panny BD-10 / Oppo beta Blu Ray
QSC Studio Reference amps (X 4)
Servodrive SPL Runts LCRs
Reply
Reply
post #253 of 430
2/26/09 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjack View Post

But if people knew how much the HDTV rips apart even the HDMI input video, munches on the various pieces in various ways, and smashes it all back togther...that would create yet another thread...

True, but if players could bitstream avc/vc1/mpeg2 along with the hd sound codecs & also receivers could do the sound mixing of special features, etc, you could spend $150 on the player and put the other $1850 towards a display.

Still, and I guess this is your point, if you don't already have a very high quality display solution with Blu-ray it is not worth spending more than $500 on a player. You'd be better off putting that extra $1500 you'd spend on something like an 09FD towards a better display. Diminishing returns, for sure, in the higher price bracket of Blu-ray players. I still think the Pioneer 51FD is the king of image quality per buck, especially now that you can get them for $300. Awesome Blu-ray quality, but awesome upscaling as well. The 09FD is better, but is it worth $1700 better? Probably only if you have a super duper high end display and sound system already.
Reply
Reply
post #254 of 430
2/26/09 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Most $2K player folks are bitstreaming / some LPCM With that, I am surprised about the high numbers..!

what about the argument that Bit-Streaming yields better results than decoding LPCM (wondering what you think)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

When the majority of folks who own $2K players feel that 24P video AND bitstreamed / packed audio are improved, it means that those folks that own $4K Denon players down the road will legitimately be able to claim that it is TWICE as good as a Pioneer 09 / Denon 3800.... likely with the same flimsy supports. Fact is there are many reasons to buy a $2K player, however, better bitstreamed audio, in particular, is not one of them!

I would think the main reason to jump for the new Denon (DVD-A1UDCI) "super" universal player is for audiophile analog audio capabilities combined with SACD/DVD-A, DenonLink 4, and reference quality SD-DVD/BD playback. This unit has 2ch full balanced OUT's, discrete analog circuitry, two HDMI ports, AL32 (up-sampling), and much more. Yields a number of system configurations.
http://www.usa.denon.com/DVD-A1UDCI_Lit1222.pdf.

When you compare many popular "dedicated" CD player attributes, like the $1500.00 Cambridge Audio 840C or the $3200.00 Musical Fidelity A5.5CD CD players for example, the $4500.00 price of the DVD-A1UDCI does'nt seem so far off. The Denon offers many more latest state-of-art features and technoligies than these one-dimensional, "single-purpose", players.

Moreover, even the Denon DVD-3800BDCI has 2ch CD playback quality that rivals these dedicated players as well. It features AL24 (up-sampling), combined with dual-differential outputs, and good quality DAC's.

The Pioneer Elite BDP-09FD has a great combination of analog audio design combined with reference quality SD-DVD and BD playback capabilities as well. Justifies the cost in my view (in comparison to other products).

So I would get the new Denon based, primarily, on it's analog audio prowess for CD playback combined with reference quality SD-DVD/BD audio and video surround capabilities. I would only be apprehensive of potential quality issues/failures. Would'nt expect 1080p24 BD output to exceed other players.....
Reply
Reply
post #255 of 430
2/26/09 at 3:57pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastD View Post

what about the argument that Bit-Streaming yields better results than decoding LPCM (wondering what you think)?
....

A false argument rooted solely in theory and completely not applicable to the multi-track nature of an 'invented from nothing', no reference movie soundtrack... Now a single solo concert of a cellist, for example, recorded in an ideal auditorium with known acoustics may be a recording more likely to show such recording aberrations. Moreover, a cello has a reference sound that can be referenced to the recording and compared. Now compare that to a man's voice, somehow, intelligible in front of an loud, exploding car or a 747 doing a fly by. Made up sounds and impossible integration of man shouting and somehow being easily heard amongst the mayhem.. Yep, I know I could pick up the jitter there...... That said, jitter is of low, low priority in a DTS MA / TRUE HD soundtrack and those who say otherwise well.... you know.
Reply
Reply
post #256 of 430
2/26/09 at 4:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastD View Post

what about the argument that Bit-Streaming yields better results than decoding LPCM (wondering what you think)?

I would think the main reason to jump for the new Denon (DVD-A1UDCI) "super" universal player is for audiophile analog audio capabilities combined with SACD/DVD-A, DenonLink 4, and reference quality SD-DVD/BD playback. This unit has 2ch full balanced OUT's, discrete analog circuitry, two HDMI ports, AL32 (up-sampling), and much more. Yields a number of system configurations.
http://www.usa.denon.com/DVD-A1UDCI_Lit1222.pdf.

When you compare many popular "dedicated" CD player attributes, like the $1500.00 Cambridge Audio 840C or the $3200.00 Musical Fidelity A5.5CD CD players for example, the $4500.00 price of the DVD-A1UDCI does'nt seem so far off. The Denon offers many more latest state-of-art features and technoligies than these one-dimensional, "single-purpose", players.

Moreover, even the Denon DVD-3800BDCI has 2ch CD playback quality that rivals these dedicated players as well. It features AL24 (up-sampling), combined with dual-differential outputs, and good quality DAC's.

The Pioneer Elite BDP-09FD has a great combination of analog audio design combined with reference quality SD-DVD and BD playback capabilities as well. Justifies the cost in my view (in comparison to other products).

So I would get the new Denon based, primarily, on it's analog audio prowess for CD playback combined with reference quality SD-DVD/BD audio and video surround capabilities. I would only be apprehensive of potential quality issues/failures. Would'nt expect 1080p24 BD output to exceed other players.....

All perfectly valid points, and articulated very well.
Reply
Reply
post #257 of 430
2/26/09 at 4:46pm
^^^ I was always surprised that the denon wasnt being released with balanced outputs for all channels.
Reply
Reply
post #258 of 430
2/26/09 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by vancouver View Post

perhaps I am asking the obvious but do you see value in high priced BD players when used a digital transport?

OK, I'll step into the firestorm...

I personally like the better build quality, they're designed to last a longer time. And what price do you put on the feel of the controls, smoothness of the tray opening/closing, nicer more durable finish, more metal than plastic parts in the drive/loader, etc.? These companies have their reputation on the line, so have an incentive to deliver a great user experience that makes you want to come back again. Great PQ and AQ are more important than the latest bells and whistles, such as NetFlix support...

I've seen a couple of mainstream BD players that wouldn't work when the power sagged to brown-out levels, so I would expect higher-priced players to have a better power supply.

I would expect better CD playback quality. I would also expect a higher-end unit to support high-quality SACD playback.
Reply
Reply
post #259 of 430
2/26/09 at 5:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjack View Post

OK, I'll step into the firestorm...

I personally like the better build quality, they're designed to last a longer time. And what price do you put on the feel of the controls, smoothness of the tray opening/closing, nicer more durable finish, more metal than plastic parts in the drive/loader, etc.? These companies have their reputation on the line, so have an incentive to deliver a great user experience that makes you want to come back again. Great PQ and AQ are more important than the latest bells and whistles, such as NetFlix support...

I've seen a couple of mainstream BD players that wouldn't work when the power sagged to brown-out levels, so I would expect higher-priced players to have a better power supply.

I would expect better CD playback quality. I would also expect a higher-end unit to support high-quality SACD playback.

Agreed.

Keith.. Why would many here feel bitstreaming is better on a $2K player? I don't get it.
Reply
Reply
post #260 of 430
2/26/09 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjack View Post

OK, I'll step into the firestorm...

I personally like the better build quality, they're designed to last a longer time. And what price do you put on the feel of the controls, smoothness of the tray opening/closing, nicer more durable finish, more metal than plastic parts in the drive/loader, etc.? These companies have their reputation on the line, so have an incentive to deliver a great user experience that makes you want to come back again. Great PQ and AQ are more important than the latest bells and whistles, such as NetFlix support...

I've seen a couple of mainstream BD players that wouldn't work when the power sagged to brown-out levels, so I would expect higher-priced players to have a better power supply.

I would expect better CD playback quality. I would also expect a higher-end unit to support high-quality SACD playback.

I really agree with the points on build quality and will go one step further and say the design/look is also very important.

I was talking more in terms of performance for digital streaming thou
Reply
Reply
post #261 of 430
2/26/09 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by vancouver View Post

I was always surprised that the denon wasnt being released with balanced outputs for all channels.

yeah, would have been nice! But I'd be very satisfied with the 2ch balanced OUT's, I used a balanced Parasound Halo A51 amp.
Reply
Reply
post #262 of 430
2/26/09 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastD View Post

yeah, would have been nice!

would have been more then nice...would have made sense. I mean anyone who can take advantaged of the balanced output must have an amp with balance connections. Since this player is meant to be a multi-channel player I believe it falls short huge in this regard.
Reply
Reply
post #263 of 430
2/27/09 at 12:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastD View Post

The Pioneer Elite BDP-09FD has a great combination of analog audio design combined with reference quality SD-DVD and BD playback capabilities as well. Justifies the cost in my view (in comparison to other products).

I'm not so sure about the "reference quality" SD-DVD playback of the LX91(fw 2.34) for PAL DVD. On some scenes it appears poor in terms of correct cadence detection which results in parts of the image twittering/shimmering using Auto1/Auto2 modes. The bias (still/motion) setting doesn't appear to affect the issue. It also fails some 2/2 cadence test material. The only way to resolve the issue to resort to source direct and deinterlace elesewhere which in kinda defeating the point of a reference player.

D
Reply
Reply
post #264 of 430
2/27/09 at 3:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Fact is there are many reasons to buy a $2K player, however, better bitstreamed audio, in particular, is not one of them!

But wait, I know that spending more can greatly improve the output of streamed bits...

...for example, I know, when viewing this site on a high end computer, the comments posted here often seem much brighter and more in depth.

True story!


...oddly enough, though, I get the same effect after consuming a great deal of beverages named after guys with first names that start with "J".
Reply
Reply
post #265 of 430
2/27/09 at 4:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by vancouver View Post

^^^ I was always surprised that the denon wasnt being released with balanced outputs for all channels.

The outputs would also have to be configured for volume control in order to be useful.

I agree that this and a good headphone section would have been a very nice selling point for the upcoming Denon. Many people interested in home theater and music listening only want the formats supported by the player, so it would have been an excellent and innovative all-in-one solution to connect directly to power amps.
Reply
Reply
post #266 of 430
2/27/09 at 7:29am
The reason they made the Denon with only two Balanced outputs for CD playback is because most serious pre-amps only have balanced inputs per pair for audio sources like cd and phono stage. I am not talking about AV Processors here that even the best is bad compared to a serious Audio only unit.

Yet balanced is seriously overrated and some of the best amps in the world (i.e. WAVAC at $350,000 and or Sovereign) do not even bother with it and are instead single ended RCA designs.

I once auditioned a system (actually close to my home) consisting of Tidal Speakers (better than Wilson by far for me) and sovereign gear and I was absolutely stunned considering I am using B&W 800Ds.

No wonder while I was entering the demo I saw a rich guy that just got rid his Grand Utopias for a measly 11,000 Euros considering them crap compared to the Tidals. So in conclusion I would not be too much worried about XLRs as if I am going to run 200 meters interconnects which is the reason those plugs where made in pro applications.


Finally, I would always prefer a dedicated solution for cd playback than those Jack of all trades players that once some of their characteristics are outdated are just using more bulk than they should.For me a good pure CD Transport coupled with an Orpheus DAC (for me the best DACs ever) is all I need. Not to mention that the DAC can also upsample other sources.
Reply
Reply
post #267 of 430
2/27/09 at 5:15pm
Joerod,

Can you explain this 7-8% improvements for BD?
Reply
Reply
post #268 of 430
2/27/09 at 5:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-HD View Post

Joerod,

Can you explain this 7-8% improvements for BD?

He editted that out.
Reply
Reply
post #269 of 430
2/27/09 at 6:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JargonGR View Post

The reason they made the Denon with only two Balanced outputs for CD playback is because most serious pre-amps only have balanced inputs per pair for audio sources like cd and phono stage. I am not talking about AV Processors here that even the best is bad compared to a serious Audio only unit.

Yet balanced is seriously overrated and some of the best amps in the world (i.e. WAVAC at $350,000 and or Sovereign) do not even bother with it and are instead single ended RCA designs.

I once auditioned a system (actually close to my home) consisting of Tidal Speakers (better than Wilson by far for me) and sovereign gear and I was absolutely stunned considering I am using B&W 800Ds.

No wonder while I was entering the demo I saw a rich guy that just got rid his Grand Utopias for a measly 11,000 Euros considering them crap compared to the Tidals. So in conclusion I would not be too much worried about XLRs as if I am going to run 200 meters interconnects which is the reason those plugs where made in pro applications.


Finally, I would always prefer a dedicated solution for cd playback than those Jack of all trades players that once some of their characteristics are outdated are just using more bulk than they should.For me a good pure CD Transport coupled with an Orpheus DAC (for me the best DACs ever) is all I need. Not to mention that the DAC can also upsample other sources.


true about being overrated, but my classe amp has 5 balanced connections but you are right about the number of inputs on most high end processors.
Reply
Reply
post #270 of 430
2/27/09 at 6:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

I have been reading for months about the claims by folks with $2K BD players (e.g. Sony 5000ES, Denon 3800, Pioneer 09) that 24P is somehow 'better' than 24P from the run of the mill Sony standalones, PS3, or Panasonics...

Personally, I have owned 6 BD players of all flavors (prices). I have a Denon 3800 but have owned a Sony S500, S300, Panasonic BD 10 and OPPO beta piece.

Frankly, on my large 14' wide screen (or 58" plasma), I have yet to see any appreciable difference. Personally, I am at a loss for such claims. The only thing I can see as a root cause is I know the Pioneer's have been said by owners to somehow manipulate the 24P signal with the deep color thing or such (I think I read an explanation from SillySally). Now, taking the original and manipulating it, would change it and make it technically less accurate. But to some eyes may make it look 'better'. And that is fine for them.

The same with audio... I have read many folks with $2K players claim that bitstreamed or LPCM seems 'better' when compared to their cheap PS3 or lesser player in their rack..... again, I think this is hogwash, too. I don't buy the jitter argument for lossless multi-track movie soundtracks either (now for single track, audiophile recording of an instrumental solo (where a reference to the instrument's true sound is known), there may be a noticeable improvement.

What is the general consensus here in lossless audio and 24P video on a pricey machine versus a standard one?

I have never owned a 2K blu ray player nor will I ever be able to afford it so I will never be able to make a fair comparison for myself. However my feelings is that HDMI bitstream most likely will not differ between blu ray players as you're utilizing the AVR's DACs. If you really need to use analog outs on a player and want a blu ray that sounded great with analog then I would rather suggest buying a $1700 AVR and a $300 blu ray player and using hdmi rather than attempting analog with a 2K blu ray player. As for properly displaying 24p, I guess that depends partly on the player, but mostly likely dependent on the TV. As for the OP, I'm not sure if the 58" plasma was a Panny, but if it was then I'm not sure if he is aware that Panny's haven't been able to display 24p properly so that may not have been a fair test. If it was a Sammy, then that's a different story.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › HDMI 1080p24 output and audio bitstreaming: Better in $2K player vs $500 player?