Last issue the Seleco was hands down the best 1 chip period.
This is why you cant trust these magazines that review equipment that advertises and supports the magazines. Especially when not once in the review did he mention any of the issues with this projector. This shows this guy has no clue how to maximize a projector when setting it up or what to look for. He should not be doing reviews.
Alan, Thats the sad state of affairs in the world of HT magazines these days and one of the reasons that the AVS forums are so indespensible.
As one who has followed the Audio writings of JGH and HP since their beginnings it has been sad to see no comparable level of expertise devoted to the video field. Every time someone emerged who had the credibility, like Joe Kane, they have then quit writing and used their reputation to go off in some other commercial venture.
There are acouple of thing that I found very interesting in this review.
The first interesting thing is that the author says that he noticed there were stairsteping artifact on upscaled video even though the marantz uses the faroudja chips. He actually compared its scaler to the one in the sharp and found the sharp scaler to be superior???
The other interesting thing is that they found that the measured colorimetry response of the marantz was very similar to the one in the sim300.
I found those two things very interesting in light of some of the discussion that have been going on around the forum lately.
I find the jaggies issue bizarre. I've not seen any, particularly on the titanic clips they mention in the review. I actually suspect he was feeding the PJ via progressive and didn't realize it (or his DVD player was broken and sending prog when it said it was feeding interlaced).
And as for the Sharp, I did a/b demos and found the deinterlacing in the marantz EASILY noticeably superior. Jaggies were noticeable on the sharp from 1.5 screen widths away. On the Marantz (and on the Sharp fed via an NRS) the jaggies were all but eliminated. Something is not right there.
I'm a little surprised at the criticism of the review though. Alan, you mention that he didn't cite any of the issues with the PJ. There's only 1 that's widespread: the flicker. And now that it's been fixed, if he has a recent production model, he wouldn't have seen it. What else is there to mention by way of issues? Japanese warranty coverage from purchasing grey market? Short throw lense option? Come on, be reasonable. You can't expect him to write about stuff he did not experience!
Further, the technical analysis done shows that the Marantz middle color temp setting is actually remarkably accurate - in fact more accurate than most display devices *post* calibration! What further set-up is there to worry about? The user settings are easy to access and tweak with any number of reference dvds.
He even mentions the lack of DVI input.
Other than that, I can't imagine what you're talking about - what should he have mentioned?
You were pleased as punch when the HT300 was named king of the hill, yet somehow that review was beyond reproach. Maybe we should be suspicious not only of magazines...Alan, would you feel so strongly if you could sell the Marantz?
I agree with the first few posts expressing the view that one should take any review with a grain of salt. I might add that it really matters who does the review. As far as SGHT is concerned IMO it ranks third on the list of trustworthy mags. TPV first and WSR second. The big problem with SGHT is that they have there analog audio guru review the Sharp and Marantz and a different guy review the Seleco. So how the hell does SGHT compare the Marantz and Seleco?
Not only that TJN claims the gain on the Firehawk is only 1.08 in the previous issue. What is up with that?
I actually think SGHT is one of the better rags available though I don't care for a few of their writers opinions or style. TPV can be grossly innaccurate and seem to be headed down the HomeTheater path. I also read WSR but I'm embarrassed to say so...
At least you can look at TJN's measurements and directly compare with the other projectors on the same sized screen and in the same enviroment with the same measurement tools etc. I thought the interesting thing was the Marantz showed very good gray scale tracking compared to the Seleco which was lumpy at best. The Marantz had a few exta ft lamberts (on screen) which is a fair bit. The on/off contrast ratio of the Marantz was 736:1 compared to the Seleco's 495:1.
Just shows you how do both Seleco and Marantz claim such silly numbers when the Seleco was 1100:1 (495) and Marantz 1200:1 (736). I mean its crazy how they rate these things. I guess they just look throw darts at a dart board. none of them put out anywhere close to the specs in brightness or contrast ratio. With a bit of luck I will get a PR650 ISF calibration report on my soon to arrive Cineversum. It looks very good compared to the HT300 which the Barco guys had in Europe to directly compare.
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!