Originally Posted by kb01
You obviously have not looked at the picture from the Anthem. I totally disagreed with the 1 and 0 statement. While the data does travel in 1s and 0s, the way in which the data is read and processed from the disc before it is transferred will affect the final outcome. Same can be said for HDMI audio. There is a huge difference in sound from all of the Blu Ray players that I have auditioned. If you cannot see a difference in picture quality or hear a difference in audio quality I would suggest that it is due to the quality of the equipment that the player is connected to.
You're shooting blanks here. You can't be better than accurate when it comes to digital video. Digital video is 1s and 0s PERIOD. And the player can read and convert the data accurately or not. And since you had no known-accurate reference present when you viewed the Anthem player, you simply cannot make any judgement calls because your (and my) perceptions are so easily fooled that you simply cannot rely on uncontrolled observations.
Digital video and digital music are 2 very different things. Music is a continuous playback process - even though the data may be digital, there's still an analog component that's well understood. Malcolm Omar Hawksford has extensive mathematical proofs of how jitter (an analog "wiggling" of bits in time) can make obvious changes in what we hear. Thie is completely understood by anyone who has ever read through his proofs. Digital video is COMPLETELY without any analog component. ~6.2 million pixels worth of data go into a buffer and sit there until it is time for them to flash up on the screen for 1/60th of a second. Those pixels disappear to be replaced with the next ~6.2 million pixels of data - it matters not whether the pixels all arrive at the same time or not... the buffer lets all of them get "settled" before it's time to flash them up on the screen. The 1s and 0s in the buffer are either accurately represent what is on the disc or they don't. There is no room for discussion on that point. The degree to with they don't agree is the only question and that is resolved by using a know-accurate reference player and observing the accurate player and player under evaluation using the same input on the same display. Anything other than that leaves everything open to question and makes the observation invalid.
I'm just trying to be real here - I'm not questioning that you saw something you took for "better". I'm questioning whether it was better (more accurate than players known to be relatively accurate) or whether it was a trick... either intentional or unintentional. And if it was a trick, whether it came from Anthem or whether it was a result of settings on the display or who knows what. I can CERTAINLY create conditions where a "worse" BD player looks as good as or possibly even "better" than an accurate reference display - if I can do that, anybody can do that.
The data on the disc is the reference - anything that claims to make the data "better" than what is on the disc is playing tricks. Take a sharper image for example... the data on the disc defines the edge between, say, an actor's face and the sky. If the player reads the data, converts it to 4:2:2 and sends it to the display without dinking with the data, you see what the director and cinematographer intended you to see. But if the player adds some edge enhancement to sharpen the 1s and 0s defining the outline of the face and sky... that's less accurate than the data that is on the disc, but you might be led to think what you are seeing is "better" even in a side-by-side with a reference player. Which player should then be your reference? The one that's more accurate or the one that looks sharper than the accurate image? This is rhetorical - just pointing out how digital video can muddy thoughts and impressions. The player with the sharpest image or most vibrant color is not necessarily the best player... in terms of accuracy. If you don't care about accuracy/fidelity you can simply use whatever appeals to you. But if you do value accuracy/fidelty, having a known-accurate reference is the only way to ferret-out the "cheats" who try to improve on accuracy.