Blurays measured to be different

[Andrew Everard]

Not sure why all the highlighting in bold, but...

i see, but if said known source found no difference then we'd be in either locksville or deletevill, right?

No.

they don't preclude debates on the merits of the various AV cables, the loss or not of digital data, the validity of mains cables etc, but they're increasingly more discouraged here?

Not sure either who 'they' refers to, not whether this is a statement with a nasty case of ARI or a question.

if you didn't participate then how do you know? you surely don't believe everything you read on the internet?

Did I suggest I believed or otherwise in what the article in question said? And no, I don't believe many things I read on the internet, including why you seem determined to dig yourself into an ever-deeper hole.

no, i'm trying to point out that until the spectacular revelations of this test, one that nobody here participated in, any other test revelations disclosed here were ridiculed, and the op's and those whose stance was backed by said tests revelations were asked if they believed everything they read on the internet.

I got lost halfway through that sentence. Or possibly just lost the will to read any more.

unless i've misread something again?

Given the weight of past evidence, I'd suggest the probability of that being the case is pretty high.

 

[Clare Newsome]

And neither did I comment on the validity (or otherwise) of the test. I merely asserted that

a) in our own experience, testing using a well-calibrated projector, we often see differences between players, with motion being a key issue and

b) you'd expect the best premium players to outperform/out-spec the more affordable ones.

c) other opinions are valid - it's best to experience different products yourself

None of these viewpoints are any different to what we print in the magazine and regularly discuss here.

So what's different about this thread?

 

[idc]

Cant post the source as usual

But ive just now been looking at a list of measurements from some OPPO players and a sony S570

The different types of HDMI 'colour spaces' were measured

The OPPOs were all pretty much perfect (except HDMI 2 output on the Oppo 93 was very slighly out in one case)

The S570 was all over the place, no colour space was correct and 'proved' that not all bluray players are the same

They then put a test disc on to see these differences on a huge calibrated projector - which to the people involved were 'possible to see'.

All of which is good evidence that there is a difference between blue ray players. The evidence can be futher improved upon, particularly the 'possible to see' part.

 

[aliEnRIK]

You haven't confirmed if people should be able to perceive a difference on a 14 inch screen of the measurements you've stated. From your post, I can only deduce that people don't need an expensive BDP if they have a Pioneer Kuro TV.

I said I cant be bothered - thats pretty obvious dont you think?

Pioneer tvs have good scalers in them, but theyre not as good as the latest OPPOs (or indeed quite a few bluray players).

Why did you buy the Pioneer? Is it because it 'measures' well? I can only assume it is, because if you werent bothered about measurements then youd have gone for the 5090.

Dont tell me in one breath that measurements dont matter whilst paying a high premium for the best measured tv on the planet. Your arguments make no sense

 

[The_Lhc]

You haven't confirmed if people should be able to perceive a difference on a 14 inch screen of the measurements you've stated. From your post, I can only deduce that people don't need an expensive BDP if they have a Pioneer Kuro TV.

I said I cant be bothered - thats pretty obvious dont you think?

Pioneer tvs have good scalers in them, but theyre not as good as the latest OPPOs (or indeed quite a few bluray players).

Why did you buy the Pioneer? Is it because it 'measures' well? I can only assume it is, because if you werent bothered about measurements then youd have gone for the 5090.

Dont tell me in one breath that measurements dont matter whilst paying a high premium for the best measured tv on the planet. Your arguments make no sense

I didn't read any measurements about the 500A before I bought mine, I bought it because I wanted the best TV on the market, the 500A has Pure mode which the 5090 doesn't and I needed the separate media box for my installation.

 

[Anonymous]

The nature of this site/mag is that the reviews are subjective.

The staff are also journalists and (mainly) not from a technical background.

That is not to say their reviews are not useful when combined with others to give a variety of opinions.

 

[Andrew Everard]

The staff are also journalists

I know: employing journalists on a magazine is pretty radical, isn't it?

 

[bigboss]

I said I cant be bothered - thats pretty obvious dont you think?

That's because you don't have an answer.

Pioneer tvs have good scalers in them, but theyre not as good as the latest OPPOs (or indeed quite a few bluray players).

True, but why are we discussing scaling when the topic is about blu-ray discs?

Why did you buy the Pioneer? Is it because it 'measures' well? I can only assume it is, because if you werent bothered about measurements then youd have gone for the 5090.

The only reasons I went for the 500A over the 5090 was because 1) it had a slimmer profile to wall mount, & 2) it had a separate media box, making it easier to access other HDMI ports given the complexity of my home cinema setup.

Dont tell me in one breath that measurements dont matter whilst paying a high premium for the best measured tv on the planet. Your arguments make no sense

I for one, did not rely on "measurements" while buying my TV. I formally auditioned it & bought what looked best to my eyes. I don't care about the measurements, because they don't always automatically translate to a visible / audible difference.

 

[aliEnRIK]

I cant be bothered splitting up so im going to make it easy for myself -

"That's because you don't have an answer." - Not true. Your making assumptions. Dont forget im highly ristricted to what links I can post (and ive taken a vow to never post links on this forum ever again anyways)

"True, but why are we discussing scaling when the topic is about blu-ray discs?" - Because you mentioned having a pioneer tv. If it wasnt about upscaling them im a little lost as to why you referred to that particular make.

"The only reasons I went for the 500A over the 5090 was because 1) it had a slimmer profile to wall mount, & 2) it had a separate media box, making it easier to access other HDMI ports given the complexity of my home cinema setup." - I wish I had your money. Id buy a Bugatti - just because

"I for one, did not rely on "measurements" while buying my TV. I formally auditioned it & bought what looked best to my eyes. I don't care about the measurements, because they don't always automatically translate to a visible / audible difference." - odd that when I looked at the pioneer in a shop it looked awful. May I ask where you saw it, what it was up against and was it calibrated? If you dont rely on measurements, which is what this thread is about, I think we shall call it a day........

 

[aliEnRIK]

I didn't read any measurements about the 500A before I bought mine, I bought it because I wanted the best TV on the market, the 500A has Pure mode which the 5090 doesn't and I needed the separate media box for my installation.

PURE mode is what makes it measure so accurately. So clearly measurements do matter to you (or you dont understand why you went for 'pure' mode?)

 

[Clare Newsome]

Rik, you're being confrontational and obtuse - please stop both.

 

[BenLaw]

It's a shame this thread has descended into the usual bickering and intransigence, but I'd like to thank Rik for the spot and posting about it. I think it's a very interesting article - while I don't research the topic especially, it's the first I've seen with proper measurements and some sort of an explanation as to why they occur.

My thoughts are:

(1) The sighted test isn't the best or in any way conclusive, but that's not really the point of the article - the fact that there are scientifically measurable differences (using $18k of equipment) is.

(2) Because of what is being measured it is clear that there is the potential for this to have a visible difference. If you read the article, it is accepted that there are certain levels of error which would not be perceived. However, given the percentages involved, I can see the force in the suggestion that the colour inaccuracy and the reduced dynamic range at least could be visible. Some figures on WHF 3* budget players would be interesting, given the 'faults' that exist even with an award winning budget player.

(3) One of the points that is made is as to why getting an accurate blu ray player is important: your display may also not reproduce what's on the disc faithfully, and having a problem with source and display compounds each other.

(4) The article says, "In this case, as the video output is bypassing the image processing of the Blu-ray player, any color errors introduced are often the fault of a hardware component and are often not able to be fixed in a software update since it is a hardware flaw." I would still like somebody knowledgable to explain the nature of 'hardware faults' that cause the described problems.

(5) The feedback from HDMI.org makes interesting reading:

“The HDMI Specification defines a clear data protocol that allows test equipment makers and product reviewers to get detailed, accurate information on how a product behaves”, said Jim Chase, Director of Technology at HDMI Licensing, LLC. “This feedback allows product manufacturers to achieve a greater variety of product options and a higher level of performance and quality than previously attainable.”

I guess it was fairly obvious, but they're saying the whole point of HDMI is to be able to measure in this way and that the manufacturers have always been able to test how accurate their players are. From the talk of 'variety of product options' etc it must be assumed there is a correlation between cost (and therefore end price) and performance of blu ray reproduction, as well as scaling, SQ, features and build. Should be obvious, but good to know.

That makes it somewhat disappointing that the manufacturers don't publish this information - if there's a good product, it's good publicity, it would be a competitive incentive to improve quality at any given price point and for the savvy (perhaps forum-dwelling) buyer it would make life a lot easier.

EDITED BY MODS for House Rules violation

 

[The_Lhc]

I didn't read any measurements about the 500A before I bought mine, I bought it because I wanted the best TV on the market, the 500A has Pure mode which the 5090 doesn't and I needed the separate media box for my installation.

PURE mode is what makes it measure so accurately. So clearly measurements do matter to you (or you dont understand why you went for 'pure' mode?)

I went for it because it gave the best picture, I didn't need to measure it to work that out. Like I don't need to measure the diameter of the pie I had for lunch to know that it tasted nice or was actually far too much for me.

I could have done but it wouldn't have made any difference to the end result.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I think we shall call it a day........

Good plan. And I can't be bothered to do the Ceremony of the Keys, so I'll make it easy on myself.