Pioneer bdp-320 is rubbish when outputing 480p

[margetti]

Went for a demo today to compare the 320 with the Panasonic BD80... the TV being used for the demo nothing less than a 60" Kuro...

Everything was set up for me when I arrived, and was left to my own devices to have a play. Expectations were high for both players, although I was particularly hoping to be completely blown away by the Pioneer.

Started off with The Dark Knight. The Pioneer was truly terrible - straight lines were so jagged I hankered for the days of VHS. The Panasonic was fantastic in comparison.

Then tried Quantumof Solace. Again the Pioneer was terrible, the picture grainy beyond belief. The Panasonic won hands down. At which point I knew something must be wrong - and low and behold, the Pioneer was set to output at 480p.Shocking incompetence on behalf of the staff member who set it up, in my opinion. If I'd have been a "newbie" (for want of a better term) I'd have simply purchased the Panasonic without a moments hesitation (in fact I'd probably have bought anything over the Pioneer).

So, anyone wanting to buy a 320 and output it at 480p - don't bother - it's rubbish!

BTW... Also had a PS3 running during the demo. It looked and sounded like a "good dvd player" in comparison to the dedicated bdp's. Any other PS3 owners thinking of going for a dedicated player, it's definitely worth a demo. Of course, only you will be able to decide if the outlay is worthy of the improvement (it's not like the PS3 is terrible by any means).

 

[matthewpiano]

Sheer incompetence. Some training very much needed there by the sounds of it. I've seen someone demonstrate a 5.1 system with a blu-ray set to output 2.0 before now, which is pretty much on the same par.

Its a good job you had the knowledge to see through the mistake. As you say, not everyone would.

 

[Sliced Bread]

It's worst when it's intentional. Quite a few years ago I was demoing a smallish pair of speakers. I went into the demo room and I couldn't believe how deep the bass was for such a small pair of speakers. After listening for a few minutes I thought that it wasn't quite right and I asked the uy in the shop if there was a sub running along side it (there were a few in the room). He said "No". After he left the room I had a little walk about and found a Rel sitting in the corner carefully underpinning the sound.

I did eventually buy the speakers, but not from them.

Yes it is possible that it was an accident (that is why I didn't make a fuss and I won't name the shop), however the demo room was pretty big. Such a small pair of speakers (mission 780's) would have been lost in there without the sub, so it was a very convenient accident and the sub was set up to integrate with the speakers pretty nicely hmmm!

 

[Sliced Bread]

So how did the 320 compare to the BD80 when it was setup correctly? WHF favour the BD80. Is that what you found also?

 

[margetti]

JohnNewman:So how did the 320 compare to the BD80 when it was setup correctly? WHF favour the BD80. Is that what you found also?

You mean the 320 was favoured by WHF?

The initial setup of the 320 threw me at first, but once corrected it shone through. Closer than I thought I must say - you could happily watch a BD80 and not feel like you were being robbed of anything.

It took 4 or 5 AB comparisons to come to the conclusion that the Pioneer warranted the extra money. PQ was certainly better - colours in particular. And I know what the WHF team mean about the extra sense of "three-dimensionality". At first I thought the sound was better on the BD80, but soon realised it was simply louder (without the AVR volume being unchanged). I didn't explore the audio differences as much as I'd waned to, but came away thinking the Pioneer's sound was a bit tighter (and therefore IMHO better).

At £400 for the Pioneer I'd have to say that if money was tight you'd not go wrong with the BD80. But I've seen the 320 online at £330 (nb stock availability unconfirmed) and at that price I'd say it was a no-brainer.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I can't understand why any Bluray player in a store would be set to anything other than 1080p. It's not something you can do by accident either.

 

[margetti]

FrankHarveyHiFi:
I can't understand why any Bluray player in a store would be set to anything other than 1080p. It's not something you can do by accident either.

The excuse made was that it had been plugged in straight out of the box (with the implication being that 480p was the default setting). It was of course at this point that I knew I wasn't going to be giving this retailer my hard earned cash.

 

[ear]

I dont give a rubbish to the retailer as long as I know what I am buying.

 

[aliEnRIK]

margetti:
Went for a demo today to compare the 320 with the Panasonic BD80... the TV being used for the demo nothing less than a 60" Kuro...

Everything was set up for me when I arrived, and was left to my own devices to have a play. Expectations were high for both players, although I was particularly hoping to be completely blown away by the Pioneer.

Started off with The Dark Knight. The Pioneer was truly terrible - straight lines were so jagged I hankered for the days of VHS. The Panasonic was fantastic in comparison.

Then tried Quantumof Solace. Again the Pioneer was terrible, the picture grainy beyond belief. The Panasonic won hands down. At which point I knew something must be wrong - and low and behold, the Pioneer was set to output at 480p.Shocking incompetence on behalf of the staff member who set it up, in my opinion. If I'd have been a "newbie" (for want of a better term) I'd have simply purchased the Panasonic without a moments hesitation (in fact I'd probably have bought anything over the Pioneer).

So, anyone wanting to buy a 320 and output it at 480p - don't bother - it's rubbish!

BTW... Also had a PS3 running during the demo. It looked and sounded like a "good dvd player" in comparison to the dedicated bdp's. Any other PS3 owners thinking of going for a dedicated player, it's definitely worth a demo. Of course, only you will be able to decide if the outlay is worthy of the improvement (it's not like the PS3 is terrible by any means).

Surely the reason behind that is the fact it would be forced to scale DOWN (Something its not supposed to do)

Id guess if a dvd was set to output its standard resolution it would look pretty good (Tv dependant of course)