AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › 1610 vs 890 picture quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

1610 vs 890 picture quality

post #1 of 9
11/7/09 at 3:07am
Thread Starter 
Greetings. Am new to the AVR world so I apologize for my ignorance. I was recently given a Denon 1610 avr for my birthday. Had it 3 weeks land love it. I do not have a flat screen but could instantly see the difference in picture quality on my Zennith TV upon using component video cables.

I wanted more Wattage and Zone 2 features offered in other models so I exchanged it yesterday for the 890. As soon as I turned it on I could see that the picture quality is know where near what the 1610 had and I have no idea why. I have everything connected to the 890 as I did the 1610.

*Analog video cable from Cable box to AVR
*Component video from AVR to TV

The picture quality is not as vibrant, slightly dull and there seems to be a little banding. I've tinkered withe the video adjustments (1610 didn't have these) but it makes no difference. Any help and guidance would be most appreciated.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 9
11/7/09 at 3:38am
There should have been no difference in PQ using the 1610 as there is no upscaling performed, rather the signal is simply passed through as is, although there's not supposed to be any composite to component conversion so I'm surprised you got any video at all. The video chip in the 890 will provide an 1080p upscaled picture via HDMI once you get a 1080p HDTV. Try turning the upscaling to OFF from Analog (default) and see if that helps.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 9
11/7/09 at 5:32am
Thread Starter 
I'm not understanding what you mean by this: "although there's not supposed to be any composite to component conversion so I'm surprised you got any video at all" Do you mean I should have run analog to the TV instead of composite video because the connection from the cable box to the avr is analog? This is how I had the 1610 hooked up.

My cable box is a basic Motorola digital cable box. There is not option to turn off up scaling.

If you mean, and I'm sorry-bear with me, ip/ scaling for audio input at the avr I have it off.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 9
11/7/09 at 7:27am
Both models upconvert analog video. The 1610 only upscales to HDMI - Why the cheaper model gave you a better picture is a good question.

Your connection as you stated it:

"*Analog video cable from Cable box to AVR
*Component video from AVR to TV"

should not have worked on the 1610 according to the diagram in the Denon manual - unless that connection is s-video to the 1610 and composite to the tv from the 1610. The only converting of analog to analog is from s-video to composite.

Using composite to the AVR is the worst possible video quality. Try s-video - or even better use component output. Trying to get a decent picture out of a composite connection is like polishing a turd. You still end up with a turd.

Video processing isn't what many people think it is. There is no video processing chip made that can take a composite 480i and produce wonderful 1080P from it. It would be like taking the image from a 2mp digital camera and making a spectacular billboard image from it - it ain't gonna happen.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 9
11/7/09 at 7:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by seal66 View Post

I'm not understanding what you mean by this: "although there's not supposed to be any composite to component conversion so I'm surprised you got any video at all" Do you mean I should have run analog to the TV instead of composite video because the connection from the cable box to the avr is analog? This is how I had the 1610 hooked up.

My cable box is a basic Motorola digital cable box. There is not option to turn off up scaling.

If you mean, and I'm sorry-bear with me, ip/ scaling for audio input at the avr I have it off.

What I mean is you shouldn't expect to see any increase in video quality using the analog connections you are currently using. The i/p scaling feature involves the "video" input rather than "audio" input.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 9
11/7/09 at 8:48am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

What I mean is you shouldn't expect to see any increase in video quality using the analog connections you are currently using. The i/p scaling feature involves the "video" input rather than "audio" input.

Like I said, I'm knew. I appreciate your time. I'm not expecting to see anything that I didn't with the 1610. I know what I saw and what I'm seeing now sucks. The 890 makes the picture look worse. Even worse than If I didn't have the avr in the mix.

My digital cable box, motorola dct 700 only has outs for composite video and audio. Nothing else. I've contacted my cable co. and they'll bring a better model out on Monday.

Again. Thanks for you help.
Scott
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 9
11/7/09 at 8:51am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knucklehead90 View Post

Both models upconvert analog video. The 1610 only upscales to HDMI - Why the cheaper model gave you a better picture is a good question.

Your connection as you stated it:

"*Analog video cable from Cable box to AVR
*Component video from AVR to TV"

should not have worked on the 1610 according to the diagram in the Denon manual - unless that connection is s-video to the 1610 and composite to the tv from the 1610. The only converting of analog to analog is from s-video to composite.

Using composite to the AVR is the worst possible video quality. Try s-video - or even better use component output. Trying to get a decent picture out of a composite connection is like polishing a turd. You still end up with a turd.

Video processing isn't what many people think it is. There is no video processing chip made that can take a composite 480i and produce wonderful 1080P from it. It would be like taking the image from a 2mp digital camera and making a spectacular billboard image from it - it ain't gonna happen.

I understand that it shouldn't but believe me, it did. And it looked A LOT better than what I've got now. Called cable co. and they're going to bring me a better box on Monday. This Motorola dct 700 only has composite out jacks for audio and video.

For the hell of it I may just call Denon since I've got time to kill.
Thanks very much
Scott.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 9
11/7/09 at 9:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by seal66 View Post

I understand that it shouldn't but believe me, it did. And it looked A LOT better than what I've got now. Called cable co. and they're going to bring me a better box on Monday. This Motorola dct 700 only has composite out jacks for audio and video.

For the hell of it I may just call Denon since I've got time to kill.
Thanks very much
Scott.

I was going to recommend the upgraded cable box - and forgot.

Let us know how it goes.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 9
11/10/09 at 11:32am
Thread Starter 
Well, have upgraded the cable box. Have run optical audio cable and Svideo from cable box to AVR and Svideo to TV. PICTURE STILL SUCKS. Just switched all video from cable to avr and avr to tv to analog. STILL SUCKS. I'm taking it back.

Thanks for your help but this is making me angry that this thing cost $400.00 and it's crap.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › 1610 vs 890 picture quality