DBP2011 & DBP-1611 owner's thread. All questions and comments go here. - Page 3

It will be nice if the 1611 still has "source direct" video output for those of us who would like to mate it with an external VP (e.g. a Denon AVR that already has ABT-2010 or 2015 processor). I've been waiting for an affordable BDP that has source direct AND good media streaming options.... if the new Denon players had Pandora they'd have everything I need!

The Denon players are still obviously overpriced for the featureset though, relative to the BDP market... Denon is still gambling that people will pay a premium for the "denon" badge and a BDP that matches their AVR.


why would any mfgr do that when they can come up with some new gimmick like 3D and try and force people to upgrade AGAIN?


this limitation is only there for the PS3, any other Netflix player will work without having to use a disc. I agree that the quality isn't great but this is a situation where convenience trumps quality for the typical user -- it's hard to beat "on demand" content. You can always rent the Blu-ray via your Netflix subscription for movies that need "critical" viewing.

Denon DBP 1610 vs DBP 2010ci ???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hello, hope you guys can help. I have the opportunity to buy either a denon blu ray player dbp 1610 open box or an open box denon dbp 2010ci.

From what I understand the 2010 has an anchor bay chip and the 1610 a 10 bit video processor. however, when i look at them side by side, i don't see a difference? is it me? I also have this hooked up to a Denon AVR990. I have the DNR and video enhancer on the 990 set to off or 0. By the way, should I adjust these settings in my Denon AVR 990?

Everyone I speak to state the 2010 is a step up from the 1610 and is better regardless. My main use for the one I do choose is for playing blu ray movies.

Hope you guys can give me a more precise decision ability, I lean toward getting the 2010, but do i really need to spend the extra doo? is it worth the
extra cost over the 1610?

Help!1 Thanks, Ralph

Your best served asking this question in the OFFICIAL "HELP ME CHOOSE A PLAYER" thread.

This thread is for discussion of the new Denon DBP2011 & DBP-1611 SACD + Netflix models only

although not really on topic I'll help ya out

there is ZERO reason to spend extra on the 2010 if you are mating it with an AVR 990. The upgrades on the 2010 (vs the 1611) are the ABT video processing and a better analog audio section (e.g. multich analog outputs) but these are useless when mating with the AVR 990. The 990 has ABT video processing built in, and you will be using an HDMI connection so the analog multich connections are pointless.

Save your cash and go with the 1610, connect with HDMI, set it to "source direct" mode and let the AVR 990 do the video processing.

OK, now take it to the other thread

The BDP-1611 looks like a killer player.... for the money!
Here's a first look, comparing favorably with the OPPO..... http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/t...-dbp-1611ud-fl

Now about those load times, or lack there of

DreamCatcher

Thx, DC. More comments after a more through read later. But I skipped to the end and note that the Availability Dance has perhaps already begun: Maybe 'holics just has it wrong but Denon's press release says the 1611 would be available this month; this review says July.

Adding Netflix +YouTube streaming, being 3D ready (requires Denon FW update), and universal doesn't make the BDP-1611UD superior to the Oppo BDP-83. The BDP-1611UD is Denon's new low end universal player which is not using anchor bay processing, and lacks 7.1 audio outputs. For that you need to pay more and go with the more exciting Denon BDP-2011UDCI.

The Audioholics "first look" is massively flawed. The 1611 should be compared to the Oppo BDP-80, not the -83. The Denon 2011 would be compared to the Oppo -83. Unless you like comparing apples and oranges. Audioholics should be ashamed for posting that.

In my case, and I'm sure many others, VP is not really that big a deal since my receiver (Denon AVR-4310ci) already has a great Video processor (ABT 2010). Likewise 7.1 outputs are useless, again in my case, since HDMI does it all anyway. Still I'll keep my OPPO 83! for now
At least until I have a display, projector, that will do 3D,
and the AVR-4311ci.
Then the 1611 will be on my radar.... for sure.

DreamCatcher

Now I see you point about load times!

I'm a Denon dealer and that is the information they have given me. That is one of the step ups between the two players.

Thx for the reply.


I think the only "safe" comparative generalization we can posit is that some 83 owners/Oppo partisans will argue the player (and its customer service support) is incomparable. Some others who either don't have that deck or for whom Netflix streaming (not to mention 3D-"readiness") is more important take a different view.


And if they had compared the 2011 to the 83, you or other Oppo partisans would then say the comparison is inappropriate because of the price differential.

In any event, issues with any comparisons in the Audioholic piece (which does NOT say the 1611 is "superior") should be addressed to Tom Andry, not here.

I have and like the Oppo. I'm very interested in the 2011 (for 3D-"readiness" and probably less dodgy SA-CD and DVD-A playback). It sure would be nice if we could discuss the latter and the 1611 without perennial crosstalk from ad hoc Oppo Investor Relations/Corporate Communications staff.

Correct, the dual HDMI is specific to folk who want all-HDMI connectivity. And as you point out you would also be fine with a BD player that has 7.1 analog out and can decode lossless audio codecs and then use the sole HDMI 1.4a port to your 3D capable HDTV. The fact that the BDP-1611UD doesn't have 7.1 analog out might be a problem for some.

DC,

Thanks for the link. However, I'm more interested in the DBP-2011UD and their implementation of those Burr Brown DACs. I look forward to hearing more about the performance of the DBP-2011UD once it is released. The DBP-1611UD should be a fine player, but I wonder why he didn't compare it to the Oppo BDP-80 at $289.00. This would have allowed the reviewer to point out those features that make the DBP-2011UD worth $110.00 more than the Oppo BDP-80. Just a thought.

"At $399, not only is it a very affordable player, it's the cheapest Universal player we've ever seen." I guess he's never heard of the Oppo BDP-80 for $289.00.

Denon seems to be mute on the speed of these players, which is not a good sign to me. These look like two nice offerings from Denon, but these players NEED to be as speedy as other players being offered in 2010.


Respectfully,
Willie

Paul.R.S,

I don't know why they saw fit to do an early comparison anyway. They didn't tell us anything we didn't already know are far as the differences in the features of both players. 3D-"readiness" and streaming are going to be the norm for most players being released in 2010 and there are new televisions coming out stream Netflix and other internet apps. The TV is probably the source to offer this feature IMO.


Respectfully,
Willie

Why is an extra 10 to 30 seconds that big of a deal? You are going to sit down for two hours or so to watch a movie and that little extra time to load a disc is going to ruin the experience? I like things to happen as quickly as the next person but is it really that big of a deal?

I think it is something that Denon should address and fix but it will not stop me from buying one when they come out.

Don't take this as being argumentative, but fix what? Is it broken because a player they make is slower than a different brand? Why does that need to be fixed? Why does every player have to be the same speed?

I think it's reasonable to expect that an expensive BDP (and Denon players ARE much more expensive than the competition) should have comparable operating speed to the competition. Every other manufacturer -- LG, Panny, Samsung, Sony -- has been able to solve the problem of slow load times with BDP's.

So, no, it's not a "big deal", but slow operating speed has long been a criticism of BDP's and it is annoying to many consumers. It's doubly annoying when you are paying a premium for supposedly high quality brand-name. It's not going to trump featureset as the core buying decision factor, but again, I think it's a reasonable expectation that the Denon players should at least be in the same ballpark as the rest of the market.

I have been in high level sales now for about 22 years and I can tell you that anytime a customer sees an issue as a perceived value or lack thereof the company in this case Denon runs the risk of loosing customers. Is it an explicit need for me? No. Is it an implied need? Maybe and after reading many of the other posts it is a yes for some. Do they need to fix it? That is question only Denon can answer.

If you are going to sell units at this level and some your customers are telling you it is an issue you have an opportunity to show them that you are listening to them. If you do not fix it the perceived value equation, then you might need to address it with a lower cost at some point if your competitor is addressing the issue. I am very impressed with Oppo and it seems as if they listen to their customers'.

The 1610/2010 were based largely on panasonics and made by funai (just look at the freezing issue that was solved via the identical memory caching fix). Panasonic has now implemented a quick-start feature in its players to help cut load times. I would guess that we might see some similar improvements.

The powered off eject times have largely stayed constant amongst panasonics and denons around 13-16 seconds; the quick start feature has reduced those down significantly.

You are right. It is not a really big deal but here are 2 reasons why it is important to me:
1. I have had a few rental BDs that failed to get me into the right audio format or that locked up at some point. Both require a re-load and doing that in the beginning or middle of a movie is annoying if it is slow.
2. I have a growing number of music BDs and I often listen to only one or two tracks with the result that load time is now proportionally more significant.
(3. I also often compare BD music discs but I side-step the frequent reloads by having multiple players.)

I personally do consider them in the same ballpark. The first and second generation Sony and Pioneer players were really slow to the point of aggravation. I don't consider the current Denon players in that category and closer to the newer players from Sony, etc. Could they be faster, sure, but they are not so slow that they appear cheap or poorly made. The little extra time is not that big of a deal.

Being a reviewer for a magazine puts you in a little different category on this topic than most people. I could see where going back and forth with a couple of discs for comparisons could get tiresome if a player isn't the quickest available. In most cases that doesn't happen.

I've never had to reload a disc because it didn't get into the correct audio format. What discs have done that do you? A player locking up I've experienced before.

Is the quick start like Sony's where the player consumes a lot more energy in the quick start mode? Sony does it by keeping the player almost fully powered up so it starts faster but the energy consumption is almost the same in standby as on.

yes. almost all quickstart features draw a reasonable amount of power even when on standby. The bottom of my Sony 1000ES is warm to the touch at idle as it's kept half alive with quick start.

Bigger question is will source direct remain in effect with netflix (ie 480p or 720p)?

Yes it is a big deal. Especially during those extra 10 to 30 seconds you have to wait in addition to other players. No pun intended. Besides, if we accept that argument what is 30 seconds extra nobody would have moved away from the first generation blu ray players.

This is a tough area to compete. It is manufacturing. Lots of players, all skilled, not huge profits per product. Minor differences make the note in the end. It is like saying, well, what is up with the 5th guy in the finals in the Olympics 100 meter, he is excellent, he is only 5 miliseconds behind the first guy. Who remembers the 5th? 5 ms made the difference.

Cannot recall. I rent movies only once.

hifiguymi,

Do you know that it is only an extra 10 to 30 seconds. In my experience the speed differences between the players I own is night and day. If it was consistently between 10 to 30 seconds, then the question would not come up, but it is not. Also, it is not a big deal. I just posed the question. People are TOLERATING speed deficiencies and players being brought to market in 2010 should behave more like a DVD player and not like a blu-ray player from 2 generations ago. If the speed of the player doesn’t concern you, then enjoy the movie, but some may factor this into their buying decision. I find it comical that people are finding other things to do while their movie loads. (lol)


Respectfully,
Willie

Has it been confirmed the 2011 won't have Denon Link?