Will Blu-ray make it ?
default -- Mon, 06/22/2009 - 21:19
Just wondering if anyone thinks if Blu-ray will make it. Last year was not a good year for the format...and I'm thinking if it has another year like that, it might be cancelled.
Part of the problem is that Blu-ray doesn't seem to be an improvement over a very good DVD player, displayed on average-sized screens (smaller than 50"). Robert Harley was noted for saying (on this forum) that "the difference is striking" between standard-rez and 1080 - with a typical-sized screen. I haven't been able to confirm this. I can - when viewing a large screen (over 50") seen from a greater distance, but not otherwise.
I am not alone - Steve Guttenberg wrote about this last year and came to the same conclusion. I mean, if DVD players can upscale to 720 and 720 is the most (most of us) will need - why do we need Blu-ray ? Maybe for those jumbo-sized screens.........
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
On my 55" bedroom system Blu Ray makes a difference. Check out Live and Let Die on Blu Ray and the scenes shot in NYC and Harlem. Look at the detail in the suits, the ties, the pavement, the club and the pimp mobils. You can't see the same detail when the same flick is upscale to1080p. Look at the detail when Bond is being chased in Harlem after escaping.
And this on Sony 350 and an older Rotel receiver that doesn't do the latest sound.
Checkout the Quantum of Solace upscaled you still lose the detail etc.
And sorry how long will it take to download a movie in 1080p even at Verizon FIOS' top downlaod speed?
I didn't think Blu Ray would make that much of a difference. 1080p upscaled to 4k is great but the few demos of real 4k I have scene are incredible.
Mr Harley or Mr Marten when you see a film in a quality theater in both analaogue and digital what does that convert to ie 1080P, 4k, 720P?
Sheepherder
Sheepherder
Shenandoah Valley, VA
I see a world of difference between Blu-ray and DVD on my Sony VPL-VW50 front projector (1920x1080) on a Steward 92" wide screen. I also see a significant, although less dramatic, improvement on my 42" 720p plasma between HD and SD sources. Even on the smaller 720p display, there's no going back to SD.
Thank you for your positive comments about Blu-ray. I'm currently trying to decide which Blu-ray player to incorporate into my "stereophile" audio system.
My system consists of Mark Levinson model 335 power amplifier / Hovland HP-100 pre-amplifier w/ MC phone stage / Esoteric DV50S universal disc player (for SACD, DVD, CD) / Wadia 23 CD player / Clearaudio Performance turntable w Satisfy tonearm and Benz M2 cartridge /Audiolab 8000T FM tuner / Martin Login Prodigy speakers / Kimber 8TC speaker cables (bi-wired) / Kimber Hero interconnects and various MIT, Audioquest interconnects,
For video playback I use the Sony Bravia KDL 40S-4100 flat screen TV. Overall, the system is very satisfying, the individual components provide a nice synergy for enjoying music and music video in stereo. I'm not a big fan of 5.1, 7,1 or other "home theater" surround sound setups.
The main reason I'm now interested in Blu-ray is the release of NEIL YOUNG Archives Box Set. From all accounts, including Neil's advice, Blu-ray is the way to go. Can you recommended the which Blu-ray players provide the best performance / value, especially for an audiophile to appreciate?
I remember you being a huge Neil Young fan, particularly on vinyl. Your recommendations would be greatly appreciated, Mr. Harley.
Thank you and best regards!
Strange that I, nor folks that I talk to, don't see it that way (pun). Esp. for screens under 50", viewed from no more than 10-11 feet away.
I should note that RH made similar statements concerning SACD in the late 90's and early 2000's. If RH's belief was that SACD sounded better (than CD) at lower to middle price points, then there would be no problem. Because this clearly was the case. But anyone familar with top 'o the line CD during this period struggled to put SACD ahead, inc. TAS reviewers HP and JV and Stereophile's J-10. What gets me is that RH put SACD ahead of CD *dispite* his worshipping (correctly so) of the Linn Sondek CD player. I don't think SACD was better than the Sondek, at the time.
Rh is also taking some heat with his comments on Rockport's reference loudspeaker. No doubt he may be right - but under the circumstances (whole new system being auditioned and only a few hours of listening) makes his comments hard to accept, as we have noted in his editor's blog.......
JR-1
Hoss check out the recommended optimal viewing distance for screens less than 50". Its much less than 10 ft for HD. Before you run your mouth watch the Blu Ray I suggested on a rear projection Sony SXRD with a Sony 350. Nothing special about the system and I use Better Cables or the HDMI and for the Toslink to the Rotel. Nothing special. Also see the same level of detail on my sis's Samsung LCD 46" and Samsung Blu Ray w/ the same Blu Ray.
Now if you want to detail try the latest Meridian projector and watch the Fox News and Business babes in 4k upscaled from whatever Fox broadcasts in. And if the gay man's poster child Sean Hannity is more your type he will probably look good to you along with his So Keith Olberman on MSNBC. Keithy is upscaled from SD to 4k. FIOS only has MSNBC in SD and I am sure Fox has something to do with this.
I don't care what any reviewer says i trust my own ears and eyes before i lay down my hard earned cash. i don't care what Robert Parker says either i trust my nose and taste buds and prefer a nice local VA red with local VA prime organic steaks and produce. Forget the latest hot cab from Cali or a 100pt over priced red from France.
Now i can go from SD, to Blu Ray to 4k and I am really sorry JR-1 you can't see the difference. Sometimes life sucks. Someone told me running your hand up the thigh of Joy Behar's or Roseanne Barr's thigh feels just same as running your hand up the thigh of a Victoria's Secret model blindfolded. Sorry I pass on that review. Wouldn't life suck if you couldn't tell difference w/o the blindfold JR-1?
Sheepherder
Sheepherder
Shenandoah Valley, VA
Al little harsh on the words. But I call them as I see them and I am not alone for sure.....
And I thought the viewing distance should be 3X the diagnal of the display. This means for screens under 50" - say 42", 46" - we should be viewing 135" away - which is 11ft. But 10ft. is fine - and this setup for upscaled Blu-ray produces marginal-at-best improvements over SD. Remember, it's not just resolution, it's also contrast.
Here are a few pieces discussing the issue:
http://bluesky-web.com/numbers-mean-little.htm
http://electronichouse.com/article/expert interview 720p vs 1080p
Google-type "The case against 1080p CNET" and click on the first link it provides - it won't load directly from here.
For Blu Ray according to latest info you don't want to be 11ft away. Not sure where the website was but I check it last week and for my 55" for Blu Ray optimal viewing distance was approx 8ft. 10 ft is too far away.
Sorry hoss call your eye doc.
May be Mr Harley or someone else could provide the link.
Sheepherder
Sheepherder
Shenandoah Valley, VA
First of all this is referring to HDTV sets. I am actually using a front projector.
Secondly I do not disagree with the pixelation - distance issue. You might have seen from my comment elsewhere that my projector is only 720p, so I am not using all the pixels. if the distance is gret enough for you not to be able to distiunguish the pixels you do not suffer. I suppose you are likely to have a larger screen when using a frontprojector instead of a TV. I have to place my self carefully not to see pixels or I have to zoom the image a bit smaller than I would otherwise have it. But that is just the pixels.
Even on a lower resolution image Blu-ray still looks much better than DVD. On a well mastered disk you simply have much less perceptual compression since the available bitrate is MUCH higher. For me it is visually worth it. And in Europe Blu-ray players are selling like hotcakes and Amazon is offering Blu-ray disks at a price of about two cinema tickets.
Greetings from Brussels
That's upscaled *DVD*, not Blu-ray.....
And over *Blu-ray*, not SD....
Got the "Blue Sky" and "CNET" links. But for "Electronic House" I think we need _ before and after "interview" and before and after "vs".
Here's one I found:
http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/1544/the-facts-and-fiction-of-1080p/p2/
Thanks for the info....
...and want to apologize to everyone for my mispellings and inverted points on technology (SD, Blu-ray, etc.). I was quite under the weather yesterday and should have avoided typing on this forum.
Let's not forget that I agreed (in my original post) that Blu-ray is better - for jumbo-sized screens. The question was for screens in the 30's and 40's that so many people have. Then, like some of these articles above mention, is the improvement needed for broadcast...or only for playback ?
Finally, it wasn't my intention to berate RH in this thread. But it does seem that he hypes (and promotes) too many things over the years - esp. new encoding formats. The criticisms above put aside, RH must now face his strong comments in the past concerning the 16-bit standard for music playback. After auditioning the Meridian 808.2 CD player, I'm sure he no longer thinks that "16 bits isn't enough" !!
The point is that we should *all* be more open to technological improvement - esp. in the case of CD. Here, there was little reason - technically speaking - to ask for more bits. Red Book encodes far more than a symphony orchestra produces, never mind a rock band or string quartet. The statement that "it's not the total bits, but the total used at one time" doesn't hold water because of the high-bit capturing techniques used since the early 1990's. 20-bit recording absorbed all the "production losses" (intermediate calculations, headroom, etc.) that robbed us of Red Book's true potential. In other words, it took 20-bit recording for us to get the FULL 16 BITS of resolution on our discs. Only in recent years (and with products like the 808.2) have we begun to finally *hear* that resolution !!
Could the same thing happen to DVD ? I don't know. But with scanning improvements in both the player and display, I wouldn't count it out.......
Your contention that "Red Book [44.1kHz/16-bit] encodes far more than a symphony orchestra produces" is simply wrong.
I don't know of anyone who has conducted deeper research into this subject than Meridian's Bob Stuart. As you'll see in the new issue (August cover date), he states "In my AES paper on high-resolution a few years ago, I asked the question 'What are the parameters of a transmission channel that is completely transparent between the performers on a stage of a concert hall and a listener?' The answer is that it's actually more than 20 bits and it really has to be wider than 44kHz."
I'm at a loss to understand your single-minded devotion to the idea that higher bit-rate technologies (audio or video) offer no improvement.
Anyone who sees only marginal difference between Blu-Ray and a Standard definition DVD, may have some kind of vision impairment. There are rumours about 1600P resolution being developed. Anybody care to comment?
The market has already spoken and it's chosen Blu-Ray to be the replacement for the standard DVD. Oh sure, the standard DVD will be around for a long time also, but going forward Blu-Ray will be the default video format. I wish it'd be adopted for audio use also, but we all know that's not going to happen.
Regarding the PQ difference between Blu-Ray and upscaled DVD, my personal experience is as follows: On a HP 42" LCD the difference between an image generated by a Sony Blu-Ray player and an Oppo upscaling DVD is noticeable, but not overwhelming. However, the PQ is much more significant when viewing on my Samsung LN52A650. So, I guess size does matter!
Well, after hearing the Meridian 808.2, are *you* complaining at CD's sound ? I don't think so. And why did John Atkinson struggle to hear a difference between Red Book and (true) hi-rez files after hearing the Meridian ?
It's a fact that 16 bits encodes 93-95db of dynamic range - which is 20+db more than a symphony orchestra produces. The problem, as I stated above, was that the intermediate calculations done on the signal siphoned-off some of the resolution. This is a widely-accepted occurance. And *that's* why we needed more than 16 bits: FOR PRODUCTION HEADROOM. And we got it...with 20-bit recording, begun in the early 1990's.
I quote Malcolm Hawksford from the March '96 Stereophile article "Bits is Bits ?": "When corrected dithered using triangular PDF dither, a 16-bit digital audio signal possesses a dynamic range of 93.3db with zero distortion and zero noise modulation. The 16-bit format holds the possibility of even *higher* subjective dynamic range - up to 18db more - with minimally audible noise-shaping employed during CD mastering.
So there you have it - 20-bit recording, along with noise-shaped dithering (if needed) cured any problems CD had with sound quality. *I'm* at a loss why you never mentioned any of this in your book...or keep insisting that "16 bits isn't enough". Not enough where ? It's folly to say this when we knew this 20 years ago, then solved the problem where it was needed: IN PRODUCTION. 16 bits (on disc) is all we need - as players like the Meridian are starting to show. The kicker is that CD will continue to improve - this is by no means over...........
As the producer, engineer and purveyer of a catalog of High Definition music recordings (AIX Records does't release CDs or vinyl) and as a friend of Bob Stuart, I have to agree with RH regarding the move to higher resolution recording methodologies. The limitations of compact discs (44.1 kHz/16-bits, stereo) have been eclipsed for more than a decade with DVD-Audio and high definition PCM recording. I am not a supporter of DSD, the encoding format used on SACDs but do consider them in the HD realm. Vinyl, analog tape and standard definition digital are incapable of achieving the sonic accuracy of high definition PCM audio...and I believe the audiophile world is slowly begining to recognize it.
Recently, I did a large number of spectragrams of various recorded sources for a presentation I gave to the local audiophile society (of which I am a lifetime member). I examined a master analog 2-channel tape recording I made of a percussion ensemble in 1985 using my Nagra IVS reel to reel machine, tracks from the Reference Recordings HRx Sampler I (delivered on DVD-ROM as 176.4 kHz/24-bit stereo PCM files), several commercial CDs, a Grammy winning SACD and others, various MP3 files (from 64 - 256 kbps), a T Bone Burnett "CODE" track of John Mellancamps and a track from Laurence Juber's award-winning AIX Records DVD-Audio release (which is also available for download at iTrax.com).
I plan on posting the graphs and my observations on the iTrax.com webmagazine soon but the short story is that the MP3s were capped at around 16 kHz, tape was as good as tape can get (no safety copy of overprocessing) but failed to eclipse 20 kHz with any reasonable energy and had limited dynamic range, the CD squared off at around 20 kHz, the SACDs all clearly have the "cloud" of noiseshaping hash at around 30 kHz (not musical...just noise), the HRx recordings max'd at around 35 kHz (surprising for such a high sample rate) and Juber 96 kHz/24-bit tracks had meaningful content up past 45 kHz.
Given the listening that I've done on a very high end system (Benchmark, Bryston, Cardas, B&W 801 IIIs in my reference studio, it does make a difference when the source contains information above the threshold of hearing and has dynamic range commensurate with human hearing...especially when listening for extended periods. If you haven't experienced it...you cannot possibly know. But CDs, analog tape and vinyl just cannot complete with well done HD PCM. It's only disappointing that the audio community is locked so fervently into out-moded modes of thinking that perpetuate the formats of the past over real, audible and measureable improvements in audio technology and recording techniques. High definition music presented in surround is audio "at a whole new level" as Al Stiefel, the late head of the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, commented after hearing our HD music sampler for the first time. I couldn't agree more.
Finally, AIX Records just completed our first Blu-ray sampler disc. It will bundled with the new Oppo BD-83 player. I'm excited because content companies like mine can finally deliver HD Video with HD multichannel audio...DVD-Audio can give you the audio but not the video.
I'm not sure that Blu-ray will be an audio delivery format or if it will suplant DVD in the short to medium term...the only certainty is the audio will endorse more bits and higher sample rate AND will move to multichannel presentations AND it will be delivered via networks into music servers (wired of wireless).
My last post was directed to RH. This one is for Mark W..:
To be blunt, your recordings have been rejected by audiophiles. Steve Guttenberg even notes this in the current "As we see it" (Stereophile). Although Guttenberg doesn't mention your label, he implies your recording style.
As for sound quality, again, I go back to the Meridian 808.2. Why is it in a virtual tie with 24/96 ? Maybe because 16 bits is enough on disc, as long as (symphonic music) was recorded higher...........
The blanket statement that AIX's catalog of surround music have been rejected by audiophiles is a very curious remark since the reviews of our stuff in printed publications like TAS and online sources rank our stuff among the best of the best. It's the audiophile community that has embraced our little label and kept us doing what we do for almost 10 years...in fact, the complaints that I receive take me to task for not producing enough real HD music. Having won "best of show" awards (Surround Music Awards", a Golden Ear from Anthony Cordesman and the Demmy award from the CES...I have no doubt that those who bother to listen to real HD music in surround favor it over simple stereo.
Steve's comments in the recent Stereophile are his opinion and he's welcome to express it. I believe that his viewpoint misses the mark on a number of levels...but his final statements about surround working only with video should cause him to endorse AIX. We provide two surround mixes or stereo at 96/24 PCM in sync with video. And now with Blu-Ray, we're positioned to supply exactly what he says he wants. As for me, I prefer to listen to the Jennifer Warnes tracks that I have without the video...the direct connection with the surround tracks cannot be duplicated with CDs or vinyl. She and the band are in the room.
The number of audiophiles or other music lovers that have come by the studio and heard our tracks on our 5.1 surround system could be counted in the many hundreds...and with very few exceptions, they absolutely love the sound and the immersive nature of the agressive mixes. If this is rejection...then keep it coming. Our tracks have been licensed and used by Meridian, B&W, Marantz, Microsoft and Intel to show off amazing sound quality. From my perspective, the proof is in the continued sales of our recordings to those who love music over machines.
Simple stereo make work for Steve and many other traditionalist audiophiles...but those willing to open their ears and minds can have a much more engaging musical experience...and thanks to Smyth Research they can have it in a pair of stereo headphones. It's amazing!
The Meridian is great piece of equipment...but it is not in a "virtual tie with 24/96"...16-bits and a sample rate of 44.1 are not enough...and neither is 2 channels.
Mark: We love your work. The AIX discs are perhaps the best-sounding recordings in my entire collection. Anyone can hear the difference.
JR-1: You have zero credibility. Stop wasting our time with your trash-mouth babbling. I don't care what your problem is. Just go away.
On my 82" screen, the improvement that blu-ray (and HD-DVD, formerly) make over upsampled DVD's is night and day. The three dimensionality that blu-ray brings is stunning. As reference, my two dvd players (doing the upsampling) are a Meridian G98 (Faroudja chip set) and a Toshiba HD-XA2 (HQV chip set). I suspect I am seeing the upper limit of what can be done with SD DVD, but Blu-ray still makes a world of difference.
Now if we could just get a bit more worthwhile content!
Here is a link to the chart that shows screen size and the distance you should notice a difference:
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
The picture quality between DVD upscaled and Blu-ray is noticeable. I have a 42" LCD full hd screen. I have both DVD and Blu-ray format of the movie "The Shooter" (Mark Walhberg). The opening scenes shows the picture quality of both format. (g. texture and brand of the rifle is well defined and readable in the blu- ray format. Also, the landscape is more detailed on the blu-ray ).
The only draw back of the blu-ray is the cost of the disc which is more expensive than the DVD.
Jr-1
Man you keep changing the parameters of this discussion. I don't care how many bits or what oversampling CD or DVD was recorded at. Who gives a lawyer's butt! What matters is do you tap your feet to the music and enjoy it. Are you involved in the music or not. You remind me of wine snobs who get all worked up about how many points a certain reviewer gave certain vintage etc. And then there are the ones who will only drink what Parker rates at 96pts+. Bits and oversampling don't matter what matters is how faithful is the recording to waht the musicians and producer wanted to put down for that track. If they are putting garbage than even state of the art recording tools won't make the recording great. I always found the CD or LP Jazz at the Pawnshop a well recorded piece of crap. No emotional involvement. For a live jazz recording I alwys preferred the mass market Live at Blues Alley with Wynton Marsalis. Just more involving. I dont care if I can't hear last bit of detail an someone putting change down of the table.
Now for viewing distance this is from THX site notice 10 ft is double the reccommended distance almost so its no wonder you can't see the difference. Also don't forget some Blu Ray discs are just awful for detail etc. Take a look at Live and Let Die and stay on topic bubba. Check out the gators and crocs. And you do have your TV and blu ray on the correct settings right hoss?
THX recommends the following set-up:
35 inch class TV = 3.5-5 feet away
40 inch class TV = 4-6 feet away
50 inch class TV = 5-7.5 feet away
60 inch class TV = 6-9 feet way
No 4k is latest not 1440 or whatever.
Sheepherder
Shenandoah Valley, VA
Those set up recommendations don't link up with Anonymous2's link above. Besides, it's silly to think that people are going to sit 5 ft. away from a 40 in. screen. Most sit much further back.
"Bits and oversampling don't matter". Sounds like an *ignorant* snob to me !! Please don't bother with technical details if you're not going to get them right.....
nd who do you think put more time into their set up recommendations and is more accurate bubba. I go with THX over some other crap. Who cares if they don't jive hoss the point is the other set up recommendations are too far away for the screen size. What part of this discussion dont you get. Simply you don't have a clue JR-1 and never will.
Sheepherder
Shenandoah Valley, VA
sheepman - you're the one who was proven wrong about viewing distance. And offered *nothing* else to this discussion. What a bore....
Bits and oversampling don't matter". Sounds like an *ignorant* snob to me !! Please don't bother with technical details if you're not going to get them right.....
No bubba what counts is the music. Back in the day when you were cruising in ZL-1 Vette or LS6 Chevelle sS or your Boss302 it was the music that counted
i prefer my Linn Sondek and Lps to anything digital.
However if the recording doesn't have you tapping you toes, snapping your fingers or singing along the oversampling and bits involved in putting down the track don't matter. Same holds true for an Lp. The who, Stones, Temptations, Ac DC on an 8 track were a hell of lot more involving than some of the current so called state of the art recordings with the latest oversampling etc.
No hoss I care about the music and if I start tapping my toes and get involved. Yeah I am probably ignorant because I dont give a f how the track was laid down. Its doesn't matter just like the it desn't matter if its tubes or solid state or what the drivers are made of if you don't get emotionally involved in the sound.
Bubba I dont care how its was recorded I do care how it sounds . If I dont tap my toes and get involved 1000x oversampling and the latest state of the art digital recording technology doesn't matter. I am still waiting for a recording of a Formula 1 car that truly conveys the experience. If you have never been to a F1 race and experienced it you never understand. Or a 1958 red head at full song.
JR the techniques you mention that you prefer can't record a sheep baaaaaing or a collie barking correctly.
Sheepherder
Shenandoah Valley, VA
I want to add my two cents.
I am currently viewing on a 57" Mitsubishi DLP, 1080p/24 , with a Panasonic BD-55 BD player, with B&W speakers all around , surrounds are THX Dipole, with an Onkyo Pro 885 Controller ( same as Integra 9.8) and a tubed JoLida amp on the front L-R channels, Carver 6 channel THX for the C and Surrounds, subs have thir own amps. My viewing position is 9.5 feet. A somewhat modest setup, by "high-end standards.
The images and sound from BD are noticably superior to DVD, by a large margin. The depth of color, detail, and overall "film-like" images make BD a film lovers format, presenting the images as close to a properly displayed Cinema. The HD sound from DD TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio are also much improved over the lossy "legacy" formats, and on BD, even those are improved over DVD, as their bitrates are much higher than from a DVD.
Upconverted DVD looks good, but you can't get blood from a turnip, as they say, so 480 is still 480. But, it looks pretty good, but nowhere near what I see on BD.
BD is the best delivery format we have, bettering HD cable/satellite by a wide margin. The discs are still too expensive, but there are lots of sales and specials, like at BB and Fry's weekly. I remember paying North of $100 "back in the day" for Laserdiscs, and will pay a premium for a BD, but $30 is too much!!
With the players at the price ponts they are, the Panasonics at $299 and $399 MSRP, lower "street" pricing, so ante' up and jump in! It would be hard to beat either of these players, at any price point, and they do it all well, by all accounts! Even DVD is very respectable on them, something which was a bit lacking on other units.
You won't be disappointed.
Mike
VinylGuy
With all these discussions we tend to forget quite a few separate tings.
Some standard CDs sounds wonderful. That single observation means the basic format is NOT fundamentally flawed. Many CDs sounds really poor though. Recording and mastering must take the blame.
I personally find that a well recorded multichannel recording blows away a stereo one for space and being there and do not forget that the room is loaded much better with multiple channels than with one.
What to say about Blu-ray? For video it has more pixels (which might or might not be of importance in your setup). A well mastered Blu-ray has a much higher bitrate than a standard DVD. THis means that on my 720p projector depending on how far back I sit I can see pixels or not. No difference to normal DVDs. What is visible to (and to my non-technical daughter) is that the image from Blu-ray and HD-DVD is clearer with better see through sharpness.
I do not find this strange at all, since you can have much higher bitrates and less compression due to perceptual but lossy compression. Is this important to you? I haven't got the faintest. It is to me.
For Audio Blu-ray is the ideal medium. You can can have high bitrate audio in stereo and multichannel on one disk. If you use DolbyHD or DTS-HD over HDMI you have a fairly jitter insensitive transmission. The prognosis for Blu-ray player sales is growing faster than the original DVD player sales in Europe at the moment. This means that you will have players supporting a format that will actually support most of our needs for a forseable future sitting in VERY many homes within a reasonable time. What more do you want?
Greetings from Brussels
Greetings from Brussels
Absolutely, Robert!
I totally agree on the discussion you present.
You are so right... CD can sound great, and the mastering is so important...what was the source? What tape did they use? What care in remastering? How much of any noise reduction used? On and on.
A slight clarification, however.
My reference to higher bitrates referred to DVD and BD audio on "legacy" Dolby Digital and DTS, where on BD, these bitrates are higher, sounding better than the lower rates on a DVD.
I really experienced this before I upgraded my controller to the new one, as it (a Classe'SSP-25), had only DD and DTS.
The resolution on video is much higher, too, from 480p to 1080p/24.
Yes, I agree wholehartedly..."what else do you want"!
Enjoy!
Mike (in US)
VinylGuy
Mike:
I posted this on another, older AVG thread and it may not have reached you.
I am not a sophisticated audiophile and need advice.
I noticed you used and liked the SSP-25 but apparently you recently dropped it. I have been without HT due to moves/travel and have my SSP-25 and Classe CAV-150 (6 ch) in storage. I am planning to set up HT soon and need your advice as my system is dated. I want both HT and Music with my priority being music. The 5.1 was perfectly adequate for me and don;t see what 2 more remotes would do for me.
Will blue-ray (which I assume is 7.1) play through my controller and amp or will I lose content?
How far can I take my present system? I have KEF 104/2 mains, KEFQ remotes and KEF 200C center - all like new with low time. I do like the 104/2s. I will purchase a new monitor (46-50") and blue-ray source. One factor is that i don't have space for a larger system.
Any help you can give me is most appreciated.
Andy
Hi, Andy.
Yes, I recently, and at first, hesitantly, sold my Classe' SSP-25 (to a really nice guy on Audiogon, also named Andy).
I got a Panasonic BD-55 Blu-ray player (upgraded to the BD-80) for Christmas. By all the reviews, this player is a great player, from all respects, from fast loading, to audio and video performance, and I must agree. With it's MSRP at $399 (I paid $325 before Thanksgiving for my "present from the family"), it is quite a bargain, and a very good performer. I have read, recently, the new Oppo is quite good, as well, but it's $600.
When I started using it in my Classe" based music-centered system, I connected it via the coax out, which gives only the "legacy", as they call it, Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 soundtracks. Since the Classe' has no HDMI or 7.1 analog ins, this is the only way that Blu-ray can be used in a multi-channel movie presentation with the Classe'. That said, the Classe' performed wonderfully with that setup, and on Blu-ray, the data rates are about doubled what comes off DVD in DD and DTS, and it sounded great!! I was reluctant to get rid of the Classe', but eventually did, to get the new audio formats of Dolby True-HD and DTS HD Master Audio. These formats do indeed sound more focused, fuller, and more natural, but I could have lived with the older formats just fine. I have not upgraded to 7.1, and will stay with 5.1, which is how most films are presented, anyway. You have 5.1 as an only choice with the Classe', and 7.1 available with the newer formats.
I upgraded to an Onkyo Pro PR-SC885 Controller, the twin (almost) to the universally raved and loved Integra 9.8. The Onkyo Pro has a couple advantages over the 9.8, a "pure audio" mode, which turns off all the display and video circuitry, and a cleaner look. The analog performance of it is very comparable to the Classe', IMO, and the extras I got, including HD radio, Audyssey Room Correction, etc, made it quite attractive.
If you want to save couple bucks, Panasonic makes an identical player, $100 less, which does not have the 7.1 analog outs, just a coax and an HDMI.
You would have a fine playback system with the Panasonic and Classe' as partners.
Hope this all helps.
Enjoy!
Mike
VinylGuy
Mike:
Thanks for the advice. I will stay with the SSP-25 when I set up HT again. (It's only had little more than 1 year's use since new.)
I will acquire the Panasonic BD and eventually go to the Onkyo you recommended.
Do you have any advice for an HDTV monitor in the 46-52" range?
Regards,
Andy
Great choices, with the Classe' and Panasonic, you won't be disappointed.
Hmm, a monitor. So many great choices out there in that range of sizes. Guess it depends on a lot of things, budget, viewing preferences (light or dark room, viewing angles, etc.)
Myself, I preferr the DLP rear projector I have from Mitsubishi, a 57" "Diamond". All the Digital Cinemas use DLP, and if you don't mind the slight depth of the cabinet, and the occasional lamp replacement, a great image at a small price, relatively speaking. The image is bright, sharp, natural with a wide angle of view.
You can get a 57" "standard" model for about $1500 or so, these days. Mits is now making one with a laser as the light source, but it's expensive.
LCD or Plasma?? I preferr the LCD, but the viewing angles can be really narrow, and even with the 55" Sony at around $5k, it's viewing angle is really narrow.
Of the LCD's, seems like Visio is making a great set for the $$.
Plasma, the Pioneer Elite is king, but it's expensive, and Pioneer is getting out of the plasma business. Panasonic is making some great plasmas.
Hope this all helps.
Mike
A consideration if you have a wide angle in your room.
Plasma doesn't have that issue, but has it's own.
VinylGuy
I find both Blu-ray video and Dolby-HD/DTS-HD miles better than DVD video and Dolby/DTS. If you don't see or hear a significant difference, either a) you do not have a high resolution system or, b) the differences are not meaningful to you. My wife loves music and to her my Mark Levinson/B&W Signature system isn't any better than her B&W Zeppelin iPod player!
I have an Epson TW2000 1080p projector (PowerLite Pro Cinema 1080 UB), an 86" high quality screen and we sit at a distance of 9 to 10 feet. As could be expected, the difference between a BD/1080p and an upscaled DVD/480p or even 576p is HUGE and sometimes I dread having to watch a DVD that my wife picked. Well into the movie I'm getting used to it, and I can finally focus on the story... But the difference between 720p and 1080p is not striking. I have some 720p movies and I have almost as much fun watching them as I have with 1080p movies. I think many people could have lived with 720p as next standard. To my opinion, 1080 is overkill for screens smaller than 52". Because at practical viewing distances, the difference between 720p and 1080p is (almost) unnoticible on those screens. The earlier mentioned chart (http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html) is in line with my own experience. Better than 1080p is crazy. I know for sure I will never be an early adopter of higher than 1080p resolution. By the way, I have perfect eyesight. I don't have glasses and I can see the great Andromeda nebula on clear nights.
My ears are probably not as good though, because I cannot hear differences between a DTS track and an AC3 640 kbps track that I converted myself from the DTS track. I do hear some differences with AC3 448 kHz when I listen VERY VERY carefully to music only (the hi-hat roll off is my favorite for comparison). I have a good sound system and a good pair of headphones. I have had my ears tested but they came out to be normal for my age. Normal hearing range, no significant dips. Considering my hearing to be average, I have strong doubts about the use of "better than DTS" sound formats. It looks to me like they mainly exist to satisfy audiophile lust since most people won't hear the difference. And certainly not when watching a movie. But maybe Dr. Waldrep is right that I can only judge after experiencing it. My father says the same thing about letting God into my life: I have to experience it to feel His presence. Well I have tried, but possibly not only my ears are insensitive. Personally, I can see pixies, but that must be my great eyesight.
KC - interesting. But can players and/or displays upscale DVD to (true) 720 ? If they can, then that gets to the central question here. Others on this thread have insisted that there's a "huge" difference between DVD and 1080p, for screens over 52". Are they upscaling ? Do they have the latest equipment ? Are they following the recommeded viewing distance from "carlton bale ?"
Why are some reporting huge differences beyond 720, even for screens your size ?
Good Morning.
Om my 57"DLP, sitting 9.5 feet away, the networks showing 720p nd 1080i seem to be roughly the same as far as visual qiality goes. ABC, FOX, and ESPN show 720p. But a BD disc looks better than either of those, most likely due to the limitations of cable/satellite feeds and their compressions, and BD being more pure.
I think that 1080p/24 is a great display rate and will surely be with us from now on.
Yeah, a lot of people won't see any difference between a DVD and BD, but we need to have it as good as we can get it, as we always strive for the best we can do. We are audiophiles and videophiles!
I watched a great film, last night on DVD, as Blockbuster only had that format for this film, and the upconverted 480 to 1080p/24 (my Panasonic will actually convert DVD to that) looked quite good, but it was softer than BD. You can't get blood from a turnip, and 480 is still 480. But, even a state of the art Cinema, which we are fortunate to have close by, which projects all "Super HD" using Christie $200k DLP projectors, at 2k (I think that's 2040p), at 50 feet large, looks a bit soft at that size. Just a bit, mind you, as it is quite stunning. They also use the best Klipsch speaker systems, calibrated at a "THX level" (they are not THX certified, however, but surpass the local 35mm THX cinemas by a wide margin in quality). It is "Cinetopia". Check out their website www.cinetopia.com.
We just pursue the "best it can be", and try and enjoy the best. Just like I will always select a BD if available, and the state of the art cinema presentation over a regular Regal Multiplex, even if it costs a bit more, is my mode of choice.
That's what it's all about. I did not enjoy the DVD last night any less, but a BD would have been better.
Enjoy!
Mike
VinylGuy
"720 is the most (most of us) will need" - ? When it comes to "need", my ols tube TV is enough for my "needs". BD is way better than upscaled dvd and 1080p is certainly a world better than 720p.
Just my 2 cents ...
More (big) differences of opinion !! From KC and mecowell to this take from vidvandre. Sometimes "not much of a difference" to "huge". At least when talking about 720p vs. 1080p.
This reminds me of high-end audio - NO consensus as to what design-ideas work best. And this is proof we're still in the development stage(s) of these fields......
Just like High end audio, so many opinions and viewpoints, which makes it interesting.
The great thing about it, is we all get to enjoy what is best for us. Some would say a 57" DLP 1080p/24 projector is not good enough for a true Cinema experience, while othrs say a 42" 720p is good enough.
I enjoy my system immensely, while others would probably say it is not good enough, not "reference" enough, while others would lust over it.
We can all....
Enjoy!
Mike
VinylGuy
I really do suppose that it the level of immersion you're after which decides. My wife prefers a television (and not too large) and I a big screen where I am within 2 screenwidths distance of the screen. I am talking about wathing movies, not general TV.
With reference to audio I do believe more people pick up the visual clues than the audio ones, although when you have picked them up it is (at least for me) very difficult to ignore them.
Greetings from Brussels
It's easier to be able to appreciate higher resolution video...remember the first time you saw HD? It takes an experienced listener (i.e. audiophile) to be able to detect and describe what one is hearing with higher resolution audio; HOWEVER, the inexperienced listener can still benefit from high resolution audio. They may find the music or movie soundtrack to be involving, moving, engaging, with little appreciation for what enabled the experience.
JR-1: I'm alway upscaling to 1080p and this is done by the PS3 which I use to play the movies. I have tried only once to have the projector to do the upscaling and this looked a little worse if I remember correctly. When playing SD movies on a HD screen there is always upscaling, but there are multiple algorithms. Some chipsets use very good algorithms, like the Faroudja earlier mentioned by Steven Becker. I agree with his conclusions: even when having the most optimal DVD upscaling, the picture still isn't even close to 720p quality. And the difference with good 1080p material is huge.
In the end it's all down to screen size and viewing distance. Like Mike demonstrated, even 1080p isn't good enough on VERY large screens - if you are too close! A 50 feet screen should be watched from 70 feet distance. The front rows in a theater are way too close to the screen. If the picture was a bit soft at 70 feet distance, the focus was probably not optimal.
On my 86" screen with recommended THX viewing distance of 1.4x the screen diameter (10 feet) we have the perfect picture and full movie experience. It took a couple of movies to get used to having such a big picture right in front of us but now we really love it when watching blu-ray or 720p material. With DVD's, the compression artefacts and lack of sharpness are annoying, but I can live with it. In the Netherlands the DVD's mostly have 576 lines i.s.o. 480, which helps. The subtitles look terribly blocky though.
TV broadcasts (analog or digital) we watch on our 32" tube TV because the quality is simply too bad for large screens (resolution, artefacts). On the TV it looks great. Also, for watching the news it's more convenient to switch on the TV than to darken the room, drop the screen, switch on the projector and switch on the receiver.
JLeeMD: I agree that high resolution audio can sound better although one cannot pinpoint what makes it sound better. But I have the impression that the differences come from a different soundstage mixing. This is comparable to the different settings on modern amplifiers (e.g. theatrical, spectacle, hall,...). Often the different tracks have different mixes. Or people have their amplifier set to treat e.g. DTS different than AC3 (can be factory default) !
There were already many sound format discussions (DTS vs AC3, mp3 vs original PCM, mp3 vs AAC, ....) and now DTS-HD or True HD vs DTS or AC3 is added to that list. I can just speak for myself that for 5.1 sound I cannot hear improvement beyond AC3 640 kbps. Equally I cannot hear improvement for stereo mp3's beyond 192 kbps (I can hear difference between 160 kbps and 192 kbps though).
For video material it is comparable if one sits at the right distance. Most people do not sit at the recommended THX distance from their screen because it is not large enough to practically do so. One will not go sit at 3.7 feet from a 32" TV. Staring at a screen that close for a long time is tiring for the eyes and only one person has a good viewing angle. But when at THX recommended distance, 1080p is sufficient for my eyes and upscaled DVD looks much worse.
So, it's not possible to upscale DVD to 720p ? I thought it was. If you're right, then Blu-ray will make it after all........
Well my old Denon 3910 will upscale to 720p. Actually what the most players will allow you to do is setting an output format.
I have tried this as well as scaling to 1080i and letting the projector scale down.
I am not really sure which I like the best although the scaling to 720p should theoretically be the best
Greetings from Brussels
Again, if we can upscale DVD to 720p and the consensus (here) is that there's no big gain beyond it, why do we need Blu-ray ??
At least two things.
1. Upscaling does not recreate the original picture. You don't (usually) get back resolution that was lost. You might get a less pixellated picture depending on how good the upscaling actually is. Not all upscalers are the same.
2. I have attempted to explain in other posts that the amount of data matters as much if not more than the number of pixels. Consider that normal DVD is like music in MP3 with a bitrate of 128kz. If you encode the same song from lossfree to a 352kz bitrate it will much closer to the original. DVD is highly compressed. Lots of information has been thrown away based on the (perceptual) assumption that you won't notice (too much). With HD from HD-DVD and Blu-ray you can simply see that there is more information no matter whether you are showing 720p or 1080p. The less compressed image simply looks better. After I got a HD player and while still projecting with a 720p projector my daughter walked in to the home cinema, took look and said "That looks much better" turned around and left. She is certainly not driven by videophile ambitions and is much more into her chosen subjects for film (Bollywood as it comes).
3. finaly although I have not seen it myself (living in EUrope) I have read reports that even though many channels are available in 1080 in the US, many of them offer a poor picture quality since they compress too much.
Thats the issue as I see it.
Greetings from Brussels
Mod
Why were my posts deleted? Someone not like being called bubba or hoss but JR1 can call me ignorant snob. TIA
Sheepherder
Shenandoah Valley, VA