Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide - Page 107

I think that is the bottom line.

If you don't need it why pay for it.

If you need it or PLAN to NEED it - then that is a different reason.

All I can say is with a Ruby and 12 FT. Screen - it does make a
difference.

Do you guys know if the Sony KDS-60A2000 will accept the 1080p/24 signal from the AVM50? Thinking of upgrading.

-Wayne

It is CONFUSING.

The Manual says --

It is only 1080i not even 1080p anything.

The Spec sheet says 1080p.

Don't know about 1080p/24 versus 1080p/60.

The spec sheet must be newer than the manual on the Sony Support Site.

Just enter the MODEL #


http://esupport.sony.com/US/perl/sel...?DIRECTOR=DOCS

Darn, just set up the PS3 and turned on the 7.1 PCMs. Back to the settings. There is not much software in the way of discrete 6 channel but with a 7 channel setup it is definitely more enveloping played discretely than synthesized (IIx style or otherwise). I would put this on the definite want list.

Has this been discussed as a future feature or is it limited to HDMI 1.3 or some hardware/bandwidth constraint?

Incidentally pretty jazzed by the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player, and working out the IR remote programming now, ie using a PS2 IR receiver/remote off a USB->PS2 adapter. I was thinking of going the Pio Blu-Ray route and could dump the 59AVi in the process to free up an HDMI port, but for about a third of the cost (595 vs 1500 +tax and/or shipping) and the fact that I like my old 59 and can keep it set up consistently for SD & most music, I'll slum it with the PS3

Having been through most of Pio's flagship receivers and LD and DVD players, I know there will be a better player out at half the cost with more features in a year, and I'm not losing anything in the interim.

Thanks! Will bookmark it.

For folks who have HDMI displays I'm curious how many of you have settled on YCbCr 4:4:4 format vs. YCbCr 4:2:2 format for output from the Anthems.

Not all displays will allow both YCbCr formats, and some HDMI displays (and ALL DVI displays) will require RGB format so it's not an option.

YCbCr 4:4:4 format sends 24 bits per pixel made up of 8 bits of luminance data (the Y) and 2 channels, of 8 bits each, of color difference data (the Cb and Cr).

YCbCr 4:2:2 format on the other hand cuts the horizontal color resolution in half -- one color sample is sent for every two luminance samples. But because of that it can, if the display supports it, send more bits per sample! What happens is that you can send up to 12 bits per pixel of luminance data and, in essence, 6 bits per pixel for each of the Cb and Cr channels. It still averages out as 24 bits per pixel. It's just that it takes two pixels to get the next color sample. That means both luminance and color data go out as more bits per sample, but you only have half as many color samples per line as compared to gray scale samples.

This works because the eye can not resolve fine color detail to the same degree it can resolve fine luminance detail. Of course the display has to convert this back to color data on a per pixel basis before it can light up the screen, but the result might be superior, particularly as regards gray scale smoothness.

[For reference: What comes out of the decoder in DVD players is YCbCr 4:2:2 data -- only half as much horizontal color resolution as luminance resolution -- but at only 8 bits per luminance sample and 8 bits x 2 for each of the half-as-frequent color samples. The video output stage of the player converts that as necessary according to the type of output cabling and the format requested. What's actually on the DISC is even worse -- what's called 4:2:0 format -- which ALSO halves the VERTICAL color resolution! The DVD player re-constitutes the missing vertical color resolution before sending the signal along to the video output stage. Think of it as another kind of scaling. This is true for all DVD players, even the old, original, non-progressive designs. It is tricky to do this right given both film and video based content. Players that managed to screw up this process suffered from the infamous Color Upsampling Error or "CUE".]

Now just because the TV accepts YCbCr 4:2:2 doesn't mean it ALSO supports 12 bit sample sizes. The data rate of 12 bits each, per Y, Cb, and CR channel sample -- leading to 24 bits per pixel (since Cb and Cr come along only half as frequently) is just the max. Other formats are 10 bits per channel sample and 8 bits per channel sample (as in DVD data). So it is not obvious which format, 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, should be better for some random HDMI TV. But I believe the Anthem DOES support the larger sample sizes for 4:2:2, and so it might be worth a try.

And thus my question. Who's using what, and do you see a difference?
--Bob

==============================
edited to add some detail.

I have it set to ATUO. So I don't know [GRIN]!

Making decisions is TOO MUCH LIKE WORK for me [GRIN]!

Well as I recall you are going into a DVI connection on your projector anyway, so AUTO will necessarily result in RGB for you.
--Bob

By the way, for anyone who wants to experiment with this YCbCr 4:4:4 vs. 4:2:2 stuff (presuming your display allows) be aware that you may have to adjust your calibration levels differently for the two different formats. So check calibration each way before you do any critical viewing to decide which looks better.

In addition, if you are going to see a difference here I suspect you will see it first in gray "ramp" charts from, say, a calibration DVD.

Note that the original 4:2:0 and then 4:2:2 data resulting from DVD discs does NOT contain the extra bits. Nor do they exist in any TV broadcast (not even HDTV) nor in HD-DVD or Blue Ray discs. The extra bits only result from image processing that goes on inside one device or another, such as inside the Anthem itself.

You should also check your display's owner manual. You may need to enable one or the other of these formats on the display side for it to work.
--Bob

I can switch between HDMI and DVI.

I like HMDI - WAY WAY BETTER.

Oh that's interesting. I thought your Ruby only accepted the 1080p/48Hz stuff over the DVI connection.

So are you using HDMI for 1080p/60Hz?

Can you describe the difference you see between the HDMI and DVI hookups? There is a real possibility that they need to be calibrated differently.
--Bob

Bob,

I am using 4:4:4, and do notice a slight improvement.

Lou

Can you describe the difference?

As I understand it you are saying 4:4:4 is better than 4:2:2 with your display. Remind me, what's your display? Do you happen to know if it is spec'ed to accept 10 bit or 12 bit samples via HDMI 4:2:2? If it only accepts 8 bit samples, then 4:4:4 is surely the way to go.
--Bob

Bob: Thanks for the answer.

I've read that if you're using an external VP, then having a display with 1:1 pixel mapping is critical since this allows complete by-passing of any processing by the display . Now I'm not so sure. It does seem clear that the D2 should do all the video processing. This should mean completely eliminating any display processing. Can this be adequately done without 1:1 mapping? If I send a 1080p/60Hz signal from the D2 to a 1080p/60Hz display won't that eliminate any processing by the display ... even without the display being capable of 1:1 mapping?

I've heard that there is often noise/garbage hidden in the overscan and that, without adjustment, 1:1 mapping can reveal the garbage. So, if I'm not using a PC, is 1:1 mapping all that important? That is, does its use really affect (help to eliminate) display processing to a point where it makes a difference in the final PQ?


Panasonic is working on an HDMI 1.3 board for the commerical 65" Panny plasma. It will just snap in. However, given the internal *refresh rate* of 60Hz and the other internal limitations (inability to process deep color and larger color space) will being able to add an HDMI 1.3 board have any advantage over the HDMI 1.1 input currently on the consumer model? I think this (kind of) relates to your current question:


I know some of these questions are slightly OT, but you know more than the members on the plasma threads. Don't tell them I said that.

Actually, the more knowledge we have in all these areas, the better we should be able to take advantage of the D2's capabilites. That includes the decison of what display to pair with it.


The problem is that my HT set-up is in a room with too much light. There's no way to darken the room enough. The room is in a very open area of the house. I'm also accustomed to direct view displays (CRT and Plasma) and I can't get use to rear or front projection with video sources. If I had a dedicated HT room, for film only, it would be different.

I'm thinking about waiting for a 65" + plasma with a 120hz *refresh* rate. I just have a feeling it's several years away and the price will be astronomical. I notice that there are at least 2 LCDs that now have a *refresh rate* of 120 ... but they're 1366 X 768 and the largest is 37" JVC 37" LCD TV with 120hz Clear Motion Drive Thanks again.

1) You are right - as of today the Ruby only accepts 1080p/48 over DVI.

2) After going through the Service Manuals and Schematics for BOTH the
Ruby and the Pearl - I'm convinced the Ruby can be MADE to Accept 1080p/48
over HDMI. To enable that - the internal Memory needs to be reprogrammed.

3) I'm still on a MISSION to find the Super Secret way to do that.

4) The sharpness on HDMI input outways the Judder Improvement over DVI.

You know you guys cost me a lot of money. I am just trying to get the picture on my Sony 13" black & white to look the best it possibly can.

Well currently my Hitachi 70VX915 only accepts 1080i, so 1080p isn't really a necessity at this point. Although if I don't keep my nose out of that dang plasma forum, it may matter sooner than I expect.

Well I will think it over for a couple days and wait for reports on the XA2 vs the A2. There are sure to be a couple AVM50/D2 owners who will make the switch. Bob weren't you going to buy both and giving us a comparison, could have swore that you said something about it (Kidding)

Thanks for the input.

This is very strange. There shouldn't be that kind of difference between the two connections. I wonder if it is a YCbCr vs RGB difference. If not, I wonder what the Ruby is doing differently for signals from those two inputs.

The calibration thing I alluded to was that the DVI input may expect Extended RGB instead of Studio RGB. But you've got Auto output on the Anthem anyway so that should take care of that for you.

Ah well, lots of things for you to experiment with -- when you get in the mood again.... (grin!)
--Bob

Dobe,
Since you have a 1920x1080p display, sending it a 1920x1080p signal should produce the identical result whether or not you have 1:1 turned on. That is the display should simply bypass its internal scaler, or the scaler should simply decide it has no work to do which is essentially the same thing.

Some displays offer artificially produced over-scan by default. Setting 1:1 turns that off.

For some displays, setting 1:1 may disable certain features you would like to use such as calibration level adjustments.

The primary purpose of the 1:1 setting is for computer graphics cards that produce an odd resolution close to but not quite the same as the display's native resolution. 1:1 keeps the scaler from adjusting that image at the expense of either losing some pixels off the side or having thin black borders.

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

There's no point in waiting for an HDMI V1.3 interface or paying a premium for one. But if they offer one at a reasonable price there's also no reason to NOT get it. It is unlikely you will see any advantage on screen unless their current HDMI card is known to have problems.
--Bob

Nope, I'm holding out waiting for someone to finally do it right.

Maybe Oppo will come out with one....
--Bob

In THEORY - I agree 100%.

In Theory there should be NO VISIBLE Difference.

Alain did confirm this REALITY - However.

Sorry in advance for the knucklehead question (I'm trying to get a grip on this newest technology):

I am considering a purchase of the AVM50 or D2 in large part due to its mating of audio and video processing. I also intend to purchase a proj capable of 1080p/24 input. If my Bluray or HDDVD player is outputting a 1080p/24 signal (doing its own upconversion/processing), this signal is "passed thru" the D2 to my projector. So assuming the Bluray/HDdvd player can perform this upconversion with SD discs as well, the only real advantage of the D2's gennum scaler is for cable box feeds (up to and including 1080i) or to function as a video switcher? Is it for easier management of lip synch delays and such?

Please set me straight here! Thanks.

Absolutely Correct. If all your sources are 1080p/24 - the Video Scaler is
just functioning as a switcher - unless of course your sources are SD.

The other Issue is - TO ENJOY new audio codecs - you need a Audio
processor that picks the audio off the HDMI interface. So even if the
D2 is just doing switching - because your VIDEO is 1080p/24 - you
still need that HDMI switching function to get the Lossless Audio from
either HD DVD or Blu-Ray.

Not all de-interlacing and scaling solutions are created equal.

The odds are high that whatever HD-DVD or Blue Ray player you get, the Anthem will do a better job of turning the 480i data coming off the standard DVD disc into the 1080p/24Hz signal you want to send to your projector.

What you want to do is to set the HD-DVD or Blue Ray player to send HDMI 480i to the Anthem for standard DVD discs. Let the Anthem do all the de-interlacing, scaling, and frame rate conversion. Meanwhile, set the HD-DVD or Blue Ray player to send HDMI 1080p/24Hz to the Anthem for HD-DVD or Blue Ray movies presuming they are known to do that well. Otherwise set them to send 1080i/60Hz to the Anthem.
--Bob

Thanks, that helps. One more compound question if you could oblige:

I have been seeing much banter regarding HDMI 1.3 though I remain unsure if I should care. I have a 5.1 system now and plan to keep it this way for at least the near future. If I understand correctly, the upcoming HDMI 1.3 will allow lossless audio which should theoretically sound better (though many past years of loud music may likely have rendered my ears less capable than many a resident here). Does the D2/AVM50 process the HDMI 1.3 info (or has Anthem said it can be upgraded to do so should I decide I want to have it)?

Lastly, what are the major differences between the D2 and AVM50? I have been to the Anthem website and looked at the comparison chart. It appears that the D2 has more DSP capability, longer lip synch delay, and DTS 96/24differences . I am not familiar with the 24/192 upsampling though this would appear to be important. I would prefer to keep the extra $2K in my pocket if it only buys me bells and whistles I wont be using much or at all (however would gladly hand it over if there were significant sonic or video differences I would perceive).

Thanks for any light you can shead on this for me.

You do not need HDMI V1.3 to get lossless audio from these players. The HDMI V1.1 in the Anthems does that just fine. What happens is that the player sends lossless, multi-channel PCM to the Anthems. It works today.

The D2 and the AVM-50 have the same video solution.

The D2 has a better power supply and a more exotic audio solution than the AVM-50.

In addition the D2 has spare DSP processing power which will be utilized by a Room EQ solution next year.
--Bob

Well if it is that noticeable, I'd say there is something wrong with the DVI input on the Ruby. I could think of a number of things the Ruby might be doing to screw up here, but this is the first I'd heard anyone had image quality issues with the Ruby's DVI input.

Have you tried running resolution test charts to see if it is as gross as the Ruby mistakenly dropping things down to 540p before resetting back to 1080p?
--Bob

As ALWAYS - I have to agree with Bob's OPINION - IN THEORY.

However my NEW results confirm what I thought I was seeing.

I have been using the Toshiba HD-A1 to do upconverting of SD
DVDs to 1080i before it goes to the D2 to be converted to 1080p.

I have stated here that the upconverting ability of the Toshiba was
as good as one might want. After all remember - the SOURCE is
still SD and some COMPUTER is doing its thing to make it better.
So - it will never be as good as HD.

Bob and Others have said - I need to trying SD at 480i over HDMI
and letting the D2 do the upconverting. Before last week I had no
way of testing that to see if they were right. Last week I got a
Pioneer Blu-Ray that outputs 1080p/24 [WOW is the WORD].

But for the first time - I could play a SD DVD at 480i over HDMI
to the D2 for converting to 1080p.

I STILL STAND PAT - the Toshiba does a better job than the D2.
I'm sorry to say that Bob - But that is what I SEE!

Alain Levesque - Confirmed that is what us Ruby Owners have to live with.
I'll take it up with SONY at CES. Just to name a few things I will be talking
to them about.

I do not know that the Pioneer Blue Ray has yet been certified to do a proper job of turning standard DVDs into HDMI 480i.

That aside, if you are seeing a better result from letting the Toshiba do the de-interlacing and scaling (to 1080i) of standard DVDs then I have to believe there is something wrong with the way you have 480i set up from the Pioneer. It could be as simple as YCbCr vs. RGB input selection, or it could be levels, or it could be clipping near blacks or near whites.

Pioneer has a long history of making standard DVD players that do, umm, peculiar things with HDMI 480i, requiring workarounds in the way they are set.

I'd be more surprised if you said that you thought the Toshiba solution was better than what the Anthem could do with input from an Oppo 970.

Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
--Bob