Secrets 5910 review and Digital Shortcomings

The following quote is form the Secrets review of the Denon 5910:

"As much as I love the inclusion of the DVDO scaling to this player; it is also the source of my biggest gripe. The 5910 only supports three NTSC resolutions via HDMI or DVI; 480p, 720p, and 1080i. This is a glaring oversight in my opinion and really the Achilles heel of the player. It supports two of the best scaling solutions the market has to offer today, yet it does not take advantage of them to the extent I feel they should. In my opinion this player should have come pre-programmed with most, if not all, of the common resolutions available. I was expecting at least the pre-programmed resolutions one finds with the iScan HD processors. There are way too many odd resolutions out there right now because there are so many display technologies. The drawback of not supporting these resolutions means that the end display has to rescale the image to its native resolution and therefore negates the advantages of having these spectacular resolutions in the player. I also think the 5910 should have supported custom resolutions similar to the Bravo and Momitsu offerings. This would allow anyone to dial in the resolution of the display and achieve 1:1 pixel mapping, which should be the goal of any videophile. This tends to produce the best picture from almost any given display as most if not all of the internal video processing is bypassed and the full benefits of the player�s processing is shown.

At the price point this player comes in at, I think it is a glaring omission by Denon�s engineers. The reality is, I can buy a DVD-5900 or DVD-3910 and feed its digital signal through either via DVI or SDI, to an outboard scalar and basically outperform the 5910, and it would still be cheaper. The de-interlacing and scaling performance would take a bit of a hit but I would still save quite a bit of change. Granted you also wouldn�t reap the other benefits this player may bring to the table such as a huge step up in build quality and what might be an improvement in audio (we have not started our tests on the audio side of this player yet) but this will probably depend more on what you are currently using in your own setup. I tested this idea in my own setup. My reference setup is comprised of a DVD-5900 that has been modified with a SDI output and feeds an iScan HD for video processing. The iScan is sending a 1:1 resolution to my plasma via DVI. The difference between this feed and a standard 480P feed via DVI is startling. This has been the case regardless of the digital display I�ve tested it on at any resolution. The fact is most of the inboard processing in consumer displays does not match the quality you�ll find in outboard processors or high end DVD players.


Conclusion: (added this word)

If your display does indeed have a resolution that is different from the standard 5910 modes, going with an outboard scalar would still probably be the preferred route."


While Kris reviews are improving and he is on the right track, I wish to add some clarity to his review. When I read the above paragraphs I got confused, yet I understand the technical issues he is discussing! What I had to do was understand Kris thought process as he was writing it. Only then did his points start making sense.


To clarify his conclusion (as life is not so simple)

1) Does your display even offer 1:1 pixel mapping?

2) Does your display offer 1:1 pixel mapping at 60Hz?

3) Does the display offer 1:1 pixel mapping at 60Hz and at its native resolution?

4) Is your display designed to accept the DVI /HDMI levels being generated?

5) Is the display designed to accept the HDMI color-space and bit-depth being generated for each resolution?

6) Does the display "secretly" convert digital data to analog and then back to digital?


If any of the above are true then it is probably best to forget this elaborate (and not ready for prime-time) digital path and send your display a 480p analog component signal. Multiple digital conversion/scalings/enhancements are probable worse than one analog conversion.

The fact is most displays do not even offer 1:1 pixel mapping. Price is no limitation as even the SOTA Sony $29K projector falls short. The underlying and never discussed secret is that display manufactures do not want their "TV" sets being used as computer displays. Their fear includes the liability to damage caused by displaying static images and incompatibility to accept all signal timings.


7) HTPC's are another valid processing option and should be revisited. The latest high-end Nvidia GeForce 6 chipsets, drivers and software players are all making substantial progress in improving video image quality. This route offers the superior advantage of not being stuck with using a fixed and substandard MPEG decoder (as Kris points out as used in the Denon 5910 player).


8) Expensive under-the-table SDI player modifications (besides being illegal) are no longer necessary as stand-alone video processors can accept HDCP encoded signals.


9) While HDMI offers an intelligent and superior protocol, which player/display is making use of these optional features? No one? Secrets needs to report which HDMI capabilities are being omitted. As of today HDMI offers NO advantage over DVI (with HDCP) other than that the connector is smaller and can go a bit further.


10) Some built in display de-interlacers are excellent. I've never had a single complaint with either of my Sony displays with 1080i sources. Other than black level the HD picture quality is first-rate.


11) Please report which Dvd players make use of the standard three prong power connector. The newer flimsy cost-cut two prong detachable cables are inferior. I recently modified a Denon 2200 to accept a double shielded three prong cable and feed it external isolated and balanced A/C power. The results were spectacular improvement for both the audio and video. This proves that the native analog component video is just as good today as the best digital implementations using normal sources (not test patterns we hardly ever see in real life). The fact is that 12-14 bit oversampled video D/A and A/D converters introduce very little noise of their own. What little noise they must generate can be thought of as dither and is not at all objectionable. (I don't even see it). To put everything into perspective, the lossy MPEG encoding and decoding introduces FAR more distortion than any D/A A/D conversion. And so does the high level and very visible single chip DLP dithering. So does 8 bit integer digital processing. Recommending such a noisy and grainy result (aka the 23XX chipset) is mind boggling. Remember these players are at the top of the recommended list!


12) While the Secrets 5910 text review was overall fair and balanced you guys lost credibility here:

"We've tested hundreds of DVD players, and Denons 5910 delivers the highest-quality image that we've ever seen. The addition of the Silicon Optix Realta HQV chip is a breakthrough feature of this player," stated Kris Deering of Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity ( www.hometheaterhifi.com ).

"Denons 5910 transforms DVDs to near-HD quality and is a perfect companion to anyone who has an HD display and wants to get the most from the thousands of DVD�s that are available today,� continued Deering."


So why do you guys allow yourself to be taken out of context even on your own web-site? Is this not nothing more than crass commercialism?
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum...ead.php?t=2147


13) Lastly if Denon is truely on the "bleeding edge" of technology, what will be the model number of their HD Dvd player when these players are released (as announced) in the fourth quarter?