Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
I think some of the "differences" people might be noticing are post processing effects that some manufacturers implement. Some of which might be preferable to a particular user. But even then I could not tell in a meaningful way the difference between a Bluray on the PS3 and the DBT 3313 which started at 900 quid.
Hi, being new to this topic I have only more questions because I was confused before, now even more.
Having tight budget, I want to buy Marantz UD5007, but no reviews here. Anyone have this BD, please?
Also, do I have to buy expensive AV receiver to have nice sound and picture, or this UD5007 does all?
If I choose Pioneer BDP-450, and some Marantz UD5007 SR 5008, would that be ok?
Or UD5007 and Onkyo TX-SR608?
I would like to have nice sound and upscalling capacity for almost all video content played.
What I am trying to say is that I understand that some models and manufacturers are better in sound and some in video, I am wrong?
So, the art is to pair the AV receiver and BDP to play well sound as well as video, right?
In my opinion Marantz (reading these reviews) are good in sound but picture is not that good?
Also do they upscale video (AV receivers)?
Many questions I know, but thanks for any clarifications.
Having tight budget, I want to buy Marantz UD5007, but no reviews here. Anyone have this BD, please?
Also, do I have to buy expensive AV receiver to have nice sound and picture, or this UD5007 does all?
If I choose Pioneer BDP-450, and some Marantz UD5007 SR 5008, would that be ok?
Or UD5007 and Onkyo TX-SR608?
I would like to have nice sound and upscalling capacity for almost all video content played.
What I am trying to say is that I understand that some models and manufacturers are better in sound and some in video, I am wrong?
So, the art is to pair the AV receiver and BDP to play well sound as well as video, right?
In my opinion Marantz (reading these reviews) are good in sound but picture is not that good?
Also do they upscale video (AV receivers)?
Many questions I know, but thanks for any clarifications.
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,368
- 1,289
- 27,570
What speakers have you got? An AV receiver is the heart of any home cinema system. I would personally spend more on an AV receiver than a blu ray player, as greater benefits can be had there. Your blu ray player, AV receiver and TV are all capable of upscaling video.
With regards to audio, if you allow your AV receiver to decode audio by bitstreaming it from blu ray player, all blu ray players will sound virtually identical (again the reason to invest in a better AV receiver).
With regards to audio, if you allow your AV receiver to decode audio by bitstreaming it from blu ray player, all blu ray players will sound virtually identical (again the reason to invest in a better AV receiver).
In dissproof that all blu ray players are the same.
I did a test the other day - between a PS4 feeding a PIoneer LX83 and a Pioneer Blu Ray Player feeding the LX83.
Both were going into LX83 which was going into a calibrated Panasonic 65VT65.
This test was to show if the PS4 can replace the Pioneer for blu ray playback duties - is essence are the all the same.
Within about 1 minute of having the Pioneer Blu Tay back on after watching the same section of film that was played previously on the PS4 it easily clear to hear and see that the Pioneer was significantly better for both picture and sound.
There was no weight to the sound by comparison from the PS4 and the Picture while still being ok was not as lush, with worse edge definition - people looked stuck onto the screen.
Now there was 2 different hdmi cables being used -
1.5m Chord Active (black plug) from the Pioneer to the LX83
Audioquest Pearl 1m from the PS4 to the LX83. But obviously this wouldnt make any difference of course.....
I did a test the other day - between a PS4 feeding a PIoneer LX83 and a Pioneer Blu Ray Player feeding the LX83.
Both were going into LX83 which was going into a calibrated Panasonic 65VT65.
This test was to show if the PS4 can replace the Pioneer for blu ray playback duties - is essence are the all the same.
Within about 1 minute of having the Pioneer Blu Tay back on after watching the same section of film that was played previously on the PS4 it easily clear to hear and see that the Pioneer was significantly better for both picture and sound.
There was no weight to the sound by comparison from the PS4 and the Picture while still being ok was not as lush, with worse edge definition - people looked stuck onto the screen.
Now there was 2 different hdmi cables being used -
1.5m Chord Active (black plug) from the Pioneer to the LX83
Audioquest Pearl 1m from the PS4 to the LX83. But obviously this wouldnt make any difference of course.....
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
Have you tried the Audioquest on the Bluray player? They say that they currently won't use any "active" technology as used in the Chord because it affects sound quality...
(this subject header being over 64 characters is really getting on my t**s!)
(this subject header being over 64 characters is really getting on my t**s!)
Hi David
Thats opening a can of worms on here to suggest a hdmi cable would make a difference.....
I didnt in that test - I know for a fact that the Chord Active black plug has a really a big and bold sound (more weight and bass) compared to other hdmi cables - I have tested them against several from QED, Cheap Nasties and a 5m Pearl in my own system. So that could have accounted for the differences between the PS4 and and Pioneer LX71.
However without running the risk of a cable debate the HDMI cable couldnt have made any difference - therefore the differences were obviously in the player.
I can get why some people may not see or hear differences between players based on their setups - how they have their kit setup, not the kit quality.
But they are there for sure in my eyes.
The owner of the fore mentioned system is planning on getting a new BD to get 3D playback, most likely a Panasonic BDT500 - I am looking forward to seeing if there are visual or sonic differences between it and the Pioneer LX71.
Thats opening a can of worms on here to suggest a hdmi cable would make a difference.....
I didnt in that test - I know for a fact that the Chord Active black plug has a really a big and bold sound (more weight and bass) compared to other hdmi cables - I have tested them against several from QED, Cheap Nasties and a 5m Pearl in my own system. So that could have accounted for the differences between the PS4 and and Pioneer LX71.
However without running the risk of a cable debate the HDMI cable couldnt have made any difference - therefore the differences were obviously in the player.
I can get why some people may not see or hear differences between players based on their setups - how they have their kit setup, not the kit quality.
But they are there for sure in my eyes.
The owner of the fore mentioned system is planning on getting a new BD to get 3D playback, most likely a Panasonic BDT500 - I am looking forward to seeing if there are visual or sonic differences between it and the Pioneer LX71.
I think that with all AV electronics, it is difficult to tell quality differences from looking at the manufacturer specifications. There are many products that look similar on paper but perform very differently.
There is lots they don't tell you as it is generally in their interest to make people believe that mass market consumer versions are close in quality to the uber expensive launch versions. The first 2 Sony 4k projectors, for example. The $25k launch model (the ES 1000) and the newer cheaper version (the ES 500) at over $15,000 less. The advertised specs would lead you to believe that the only real difference was an insignificant 300 lumen drop in brightness. Not a bad compromise for $15,000 in savings right? They don't like to advertise that the newer model uses many cheaper and inferior components like a plastic lens instead of glass, which makes a huge difference to image quality. There are other differences but this is about Blu Ray players.
In theory, any digital source should look similar because they draw from 1's and 0's that should be the same every time. In practice, some players seem to find more detailed imagery that others from the same source. I don't have the technical expertise to explain exactly why but my belief is that it is in the video processing and what it does to frame smoothness. Anyone with a tv or projector that has frame interpolation, love it or hate it, you can't argue that it does make the image look more detailed. There are a number of things that video processors can do to make content look better and high end Blu Ray players have better built in processing.
If you have a separate processor, or a high end tv or projector with decent processing, you might not need an expensive Blu Ray player as it would just duplicate what you already have. If your tv or projector is entry level and you have no separate processor, you may well experience a noticeable improvement in what you see on-screen with an expensive player. This might include smoother more detail frames with less blur, sharper edges and more vibrant and accurate colors. You may also have more control to manipulate such things to make it to your taste.
It's a shame manufacturers specs have become so useless and misleading. They focus on the parts that people look for like contrast ratios, number of speaker channels and brightness, but rarely enough to help you tell entry level from high performance.
If you have a choice between buying an expensive Blu Ray player with great built in video and sound processing, or buying an entry level player and great outboard processors, the latter would offer better value as the processors will be of use long after we say good night to Blu Ray and every other disc format. Streaming is more convenient and cheaper and, most people like those qualities. CD was better than MP3 but where are they now. If you don't already have a high end Blu Ray player, maybe give it a miss for now. It can't be long before a new format with 4k support is here. ( hopefully not another outdated disc format!). Put your money into an outboard processor and a better projector instead!
There is lots they don't tell you as it is generally in their interest to make people believe that mass market consumer versions are close in quality to the uber expensive launch versions. The first 2 Sony 4k projectors, for example. The $25k launch model (the ES 1000) and the newer cheaper version (the ES 500) at over $15,000 less. The advertised specs would lead you to believe that the only real difference was an insignificant 300 lumen drop in brightness. Not a bad compromise for $15,000 in savings right? They don't like to advertise that the newer model uses many cheaper and inferior components like a plastic lens instead of glass, which makes a huge difference to image quality. There are other differences but this is about Blu Ray players.
In theory, any digital source should look similar because they draw from 1's and 0's that should be the same every time. In practice, some players seem to find more detailed imagery that others from the same source. I don't have the technical expertise to explain exactly why but my belief is that it is in the video processing and what it does to frame smoothness. Anyone with a tv or projector that has frame interpolation, love it or hate it, you can't argue that it does make the image look more detailed. There are a number of things that video processors can do to make content look better and high end Blu Ray players have better built in processing.
If you have a separate processor, or a high end tv or projector with decent processing, you might not need an expensive Blu Ray player as it would just duplicate what you already have. If your tv or projector is entry level and you have no separate processor, you may well experience a noticeable improvement in what you see on-screen with an expensive player. This might include smoother more detail frames with less blur, sharper edges and more vibrant and accurate colors. You may also have more control to manipulate such things to make it to your taste.
It's a shame manufacturers specs have become so useless and misleading. They focus on the parts that people look for like contrast ratios, number of speaker channels and brightness, but rarely enough to help you tell entry level from high performance.
If you have a choice between buying an expensive Blu Ray player with great built in video and sound processing, or buying an entry level player and great outboard processors, the latter would offer better value as the processors will be of use long after we say good night to Blu Ray and every other disc format. Streaming is more convenient and cheaper and, most people like those qualities. CD was better than MP3 but where are they now. If you don't already have a high end Blu Ray player, maybe give it a miss for now. It can't be long before a new format with 4k support is here. ( hopefully not another outdated disc format!). Put your money into an outboard processor and a better projector instead!
Hello,
I can say that there is a difference. Due to upgrades in Lovefilm streaming which meant my Samsung BD-C6900 (£250 - maybe 350 at RRP I believe) wouldn't work with it anymore they sent me a BD-F6500 (£100).
Swapping out just the player, no cables or anything else, and accessing the same test calibration video patterns from my home network the picture is improved. Particularyl around black levels I can now see the various grey shades as required with a lower brightness level. It also pushed up the contrast so that to get the subtle differentiations in whites and bright reds / blues I needed to employ the white level adjustment on the projector, (but tellingly helps my LCD to better white levels).
Similarly my Humax HDR-Fox-T2 plays the same patterns from the network and needs different projector settings again to get the right birghtness, contrast, and colour balance, (and again seems to have the increased contrast).
So, all these devices don't produce the same digital content in the same way. I don't know if this is because the signals are processed to improve the picture in some way, or there is some kinf of degredation in the internal processing, but I suppose it must be something similar since technically they should all produce the same output for the same source signal.
It's much harder for a digital signal to become corrupted in transmission, (though not impossible and it's not always possible to accurately error correct it or resend it in real time processing like video and audio), and I'd be surprised if any player was fundamentally getting the transfer of information from the disk or other source wrong, so I guess it's most likely to be post processing in some way, maybe to make the picture better for some devices like LCD TVs.
I guess this is a perversion of the original content in some ways, but certainly I haven't seen any drawbacks when the dark response is better and contrast improved.
I can say that there is a difference. Due to upgrades in Lovefilm streaming which meant my Samsung BD-C6900 (£250 - maybe 350 at RRP I believe) wouldn't work with it anymore they sent me a BD-F6500 (£100).
Swapping out just the player, no cables or anything else, and accessing the same test calibration video patterns from my home network the picture is improved. Particularyl around black levels I can now see the various grey shades as required with a lower brightness level. It also pushed up the contrast so that to get the subtle differentiations in whites and bright reds / blues I needed to employ the white level adjustment on the projector, (but tellingly helps my LCD to better white levels).
Similarly my Humax HDR-Fox-T2 plays the same patterns from the network and needs different projector settings again to get the right birghtness, contrast, and colour balance, (and again seems to have the increased contrast).
So, all these devices don't produce the same digital content in the same way. I don't know if this is because the signals are processed to improve the picture in some way, or there is some kinf of degredation in the internal processing, but I suppose it must be something similar since technically they should all produce the same output for the same source signal.
It's much harder for a digital signal to become corrupted in transmission, (though not impossible and it's not always possible to accurately error correct it or resend it in real time processing like video and audio), and I'd be surprised if any player was fundamentally getting the transfer of information from the disk or other source wrong, so I guess it's most likely to be post processing in some way, maybe to make the picture better for some devices like LCD TVs.
I guess this is a perversion of the original content in some ways, but certainly I haven't seen any drawbacks when the dark response is better and contrast improved.
As long as the player is passing the infomation unhindered then there will be no difference, so maybe avoid the Samsungs and go with Panasonic or OPPO's.
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
That simply aint true, or you must be partially deaf & blind...
I got a rubbish free Panasonic DMP-BD79 with my TV and that compared to my friends Sony BDP-S790 & especially his Arcam FMJ BDP300 is enough for Stevie Wonder to notice!
The only way it's the same is when I pause it, but the clarity and especially the motion and speed are worlds apart.
As for the sound, I run mine through a DAC and a stereo amp (no av processor) and the sound quality is like the difference between a 160 mp3 and a FLAC!
Saying that a £50 player is the same as a £300+ player is like saying that my wife's fiesta is basically the same as a ferrari...
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,368
- 1,289
- 27,570
AV Forums reviewers are also ISF and THX trained. This is what they say in their every blu ray player review:
"Every player should be able to output the content on a Blu-ray disc equally as well over HDMI because it is a digital signal."
So there is some substance to the argument. The main differences between cheaper and more expensive players are:
1) Build quality
2) Ability to play other formats like SACDs etc.
3) DVD upscaling
4) Sound, if analogues are used instead of HDMI.
"Every player should be able to output the content on a Blu-ray disc equally as well over HDMI because it is a digital signal."
So there is some substance to the argument. The main differences between cheaper and more expensive players are:
1) Build quality
2) Ability to play other formats like SACDs etc.
3) DVD upscaling
4) Sound, if analogues are used instead of HDMI.
BenLaw said:
Borrowed his players in my system
Sound wise they are connected to my DAC the same way, using digital out. Either Coaxial or Optical. So that's bypassing any internal DAC the players may have and essentially just using it as a digital audio source.
bigboss said:
I understand where they are coming from as the transport mechanism in each is made by sony as they own the rights, but that is like saying that every CD transport should be able to output the same as they are all made by Phillips but in reality it isnt true.
I agree that each is capable of being equal as the starting point is the same, but the other internal circuitry and software will vary between each manufacturer and the processing power will dictate how smooth the images are etc etc.
That's why you also get certain manufacturers who generally do better than others, and why a £100 Sony performs similarly to a £200 Sony as alot of the circuitry and software etc will be the same and the price difference is as you said down to additional connections or compatibility.
BenLaw said:
Well in the absence of an answer to this it can only be concluded that you haven't conducted any meaningful audio comparison between £50 and £300 players. I am also skeptical about your conclusions as to video. Obviously if having the more expensive player is important to you that's fair enough.
From reading this thread it seems if you bought a mid level Blu ray player and your movie collection is pretty much all blu ray there is no benifet from buying a high end Blu ray player unless you intend to use it as a CD player aswell.
i went from the Panasonic 220 to the oppo 103 and I would be lying if I said I found a difference in picture quality.i have about 200 DVDs that I will never rebuy on Blu ray and that's when the oppo works it magic.im watching napoleon dynamite right now and it looks no different to an average Blu ray.
Spend the extra money on a better tv and get a decent hdmi cable the set the tv up properly and the Blu ray player shouldn't really matter that much.i love the oppo but I'd rather have the £500 in my pocket .the Panasonic 220 won the what hifi budget award player in 2012 and that player instead of being relegated to the bedroom should have done me proud until 4k Blu ray players are released .hopefully they will be backwards compatible with 1080p I'm not holding my breath tho combined with the non backwards compatibility of the consoles I'm going to end up with a 20ft high rack!
i went from the Panasonic 220 to the oppo 103 and I would be lying if I said I found a difference in picture quality.i have about 200 DVDs that I will never rebuy on Blu ray and that's when the oppo works it magic.im watching napoleon dynamite right now and it looks no different to an average Blu ray.
Spend the extra money on a better tv and get a decent hdmi cable the set the tv up properly and the Blu ray player shouldn't really matter that much.i love the oppo but I'd rather have the £500 in my pocket .the Panasonic 220 won the what hifi budget award player in 2012 and that player instead of being relegated to the bedroom should have done me proud until 4k Blu ray players are released .hopefully they will be backwards compatible with 1080p I'm not holding my breath tho combined with the non backwards compatibility of the consoles I'm going to end up with a 20ft high rack!
theflyingwasp said:
At the risk of returning to an old argument, I find it interesting and rather inconsistent that you agree there is no difference in blu ray picture quality between players but continue to advocate buying a more expensive HDMI cable.
BenLaw said:
Wrong!
I have tried more than I care to count from friends and family probably 12 or 13 without counting, most were older so have a digital out of somekind, those that didn't I had to run the audio cable from the tv to the DAC but that was only 3 of them in total.
The biggest difference by far was the audio between players but the picture quality really only noticeably changed between makes. The £100 to £200 approx sony and panasonics were identical in picture quality but the sound was noticeably better with the more expensive ones. But then everything was noticeablyy better with the £1k Arcam.
Personally I have just bought a £250 Pioneer BDP450, which to my ears and eyes was the best value for what I wanted. If I had a large collection of DVD-A and SACD I would have bought the Arcam but I do most of my music streaming via Qobuz FLAC.
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,368
- 1,289
- 27,570
m0n5t3r said:
I cannot talk about Digital Out, but via HDMI, there's no difference between players. You cannot get HD audio via digital optical or coaxial, so I would recommend an AV receiver for your future upgrade.
By the way, I hope you bought the Pioneer BDP 450 for £179 and not £250. I posted a link to the deal in your other thread.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram