im buying a new blu ray player, and its between the pioneer lx52 and the denon 2500bt. on pure audio/video performance, which is better? any opinion welcome
WHF team - LX52 or 2500BT?
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
Purely on performance, the Denon is better, but I don't think you should buy one. I've used one for the last year as reference, and I've found its slow loading times and lack of online access an increasing frustration as time's gone by. The Pioneer is simply a great deal more modern to live with, and it's hardly a slouch in quality terms, either.
Andy Kerr:
Purely on performance, the Denon is better, but I don't think you should buy one. I've used one for the last year as reference, and I've found its slow loading times and lack of online access an increasing frustration as time's gone by. The Pioneer is simply a great deal more modern to live with, and it's hardly a slouch in quality terms, either.
The Denon DVD2500BT is a fantastic player, third only after the Pioneer BDP-LX91 (£2k) and Sony BDP-S5000ES (£1k). In pure A/V performance, it is better than ALL of the current blu-ray players. Yes, loading time is slow and it is a Profile 1.1 player.
It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
Based on his post, I think all he wanted to know was the former.
Purely on performance, the Denon is better, but I don't think you should buy one. I've used one for the last year as reference, and I've found its slow loading times and lack of online access an increasing frustration as time's gone by. The Pioneer is simply a great deal more modern to live with, and it's hardly a slouch in quality terms, either.
The Denon DVD2500BT is a fantastic player, third only after the Pioneer BDP-LX91 (£2k) and Sony BDP-S5000ES (£1k). In pure A/V performance, it is better than ALL of the current blu-ray players. Yes, loading time is slow and it is a Profile 1.1 player.
It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
Based on his post, I think all he wanted to know was the former.
Garland Genoho:It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
The poster asked for an opinion, AK gave him an opinion. What's the problem?
The poster asked for an opinion, AK gave him an opinion. What's the problem?
Andrew Everard:
Garland Genoho:It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
The poster asked for an opinion, AK gave him an opinion. What's the problem?
About not buying one. Why not buy one when this £900.00 player only costs about £400+ now???
Garland Genoho:It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
The poster asked for an opinion, AK gave him an opinion. What's the problem?
About not buying one. Why not buy one when this £900.00 player only costs about £400+ now???
For the reasons AK gave in his post, with best interests of the original poster's future satisfaction in mind.
The original price is now an irrelevance.
The original price is now an irrelevance.
bigboss
Moderator
I would agree with Andy here. The Pioneer LX52 is a more sensible purchase than the Denon 2500BT. The newer players in 2010 will have even faster loading times (Panasonic claims a loading time of 0.5 secs), & the Denon will look like a great grandfather of blu-ray players! That's my opinion.
Garland Genoho:Andrew Everard:
Garland Genoho:It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
The poster asked for an opinion, AK gave him an opinion. What's the problem?
About not buying one. Why not buy one when this £900.00 player only costs about £400+ now???
Because the usability/functionality of modern players is so superior that £400 is too much. Technology moves on very rapidly with new developments such as Blu-ray.. I payed £340 for a VHS recorder twenty years ago, but it does not compete with a £50 model now. Anyway, the first part of Andy's response directly answered the OP's question, so what harm could there be in an experienced user of the product in question providing extra information?
Garland Genoho:It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
The poster asked for an opinion, AK gave him an opinion. What's the problem?
About not buying one. Why not buy one when this £900.00 player only costs about £400+ now???
Because the usability/functionality of modern players is so superior that £400 is too much. Technology moves on very rapidly with new developments such as Blu-ray.. I payed £340 for a VHS recorder twenty years ago, but it does not compete with a £50 model now. Anyway, the first part of Andy's response directly answered the OP's question, so what harm could there be in an experienced user of the product in question providing extra information?
Andrew Everard:
The original price is now an irrelevance.
maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
The original price is now an irrelevance.
maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
Garland Genoho:Andrew Everard:
The original price is now an irrelevance.
maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
That is the point. The Denon is old technology so is poor value for £400. The original mobile phones cost thousands, but you can get better models free now (on contract) from Tesco.
The original price is now an irrelevance.
maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
That is the point. The Denon is old technology so is poor value for £400. The original mobile phones cost thousands, but you can get better models free now (on contract) from Tesco.
hammill:Garland Genoho:Andrew Everard:
The original price is now an irrelevance.
maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
That is the point. The Denon is old technology so is poor value for £400. The original mobile phones cost thousands, but you can get better models free now (on contract) from Tesco.
'Old' technology that is still superior to the 'new technology' of the BDP-LX52 and Sony BDP-S760 in picture and sound quality.
The original price is now an irrelevance.
maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
That is the point. The Denon is old technology so is poor value for £400. The original mobile phones cost thousands, but you can get better models free now (on contract) from Tesco.
'Old' technology that is still superior to the 'new technology' of the BDP-LX52 and Sony BDP-S760 in picture and sound quality.
bigboss
Moderator
Garland Genoho:
maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
You've not understood what Andrew meant here. Even 400 quid is a lot for what the player offers because you're getting excellent players for less today.
maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
You've not understood what Andrew meant here. Even 400 quid is a lot for what the player offers because you're getting excellent players for less today.
I have the 2500 BT and am very happt with the PQ & SQ, but sometimes I wish I'd gone for the LX52, which would have matched in with my amp. I demoed both at the same time and was persuaded by the sales guy and what I'd read about the Denon being better (and cheaper at the time), but beware it is sloooooooow.
thanks for the replies guys. i was going to get the 2500bt for £349 to match my denon amp, but can get the pioneer for £250 so am going to save the £100
Garland Genoho:maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
I have no idea of your income or outgoings, nor you mine, but that has nothing to do with what the player originally sold for, and what relevance it has to the price at which it's now on sale.
After all, if something originally sold for £2500 and is now on sale for £1000, does that mean you are getting a vastly superior product to others also on sale for a grand? Or that the product was originally 150% overpriced, and has now found its true worth in the market?
I have no idea of your income or outgoings, nor you mine, but that has nothing to do with what the player originally sold for, and what relevance it has to the price at which it's now on sale.
After all, if something originally sold for £2500 and is now on sale for £1000, does that mean you are getting a vastly superior product to others also on sale for a grand? Or that the product was originally 150% overpriced, and has now found its true worth in the market?
jase fox
Well-known member
jase fox
Well-known member
Garland Genoho:Andrew Everard:
Garland Genoho:It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
The poster asked for an opinion, AK gave him an opinion. What's the problem?
About not buying one. Why not buy one when this £900.00 player only costs about £400+ now???
Totally agree Garland, its a steal !
Garland Genoho:It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
The poster asked for an opinion, AK gave him an opinion. What's the problem?
About not buying one. Why not buy one when this £900.00 player only costs about £400+ now???
Totally agree Garland, its a steal !
jase fox
Well-known member
bigboss:I would agree with Andy here. The Pioneer LX52 is a more sensible purchase than the Denon 2500BT. The newer players in 2010 will have even faster loading times (Panasonic claims a loading time of 0.5 secs), & the Denon will look like a great grandfather of blu-ray players! That's my opinion.
OMG loading times, loading times?! What is it people with loading times? It seems like whenever anybody is giving there little reviews of bluray players its "loading times slow" or "takes ages" what about PERFORMANCE IN PQ & AQ?? Nevermind something as trivial as loading times, now if a player took around 5mins ish to load then id completely agree, but it takes over a min at worst.
As far as im concerned it can be a great great grandfather with the performance it knocks out.
OMG loading times, loading times?! What is it people with loading times? It seems like whenever anybody is giving there little reviews of bluray players its "loading times slow" or "takes ages" what about PERFORMANCE IN PQ & AQ?? Nevermind something as trivial as loading times, now if a player took around 5mins ish to load then id completely agree, but it takes over a min at worst.
As far as im concerned it can be a great great grandfather with the performance it knocks out.
michael hoy
Well-known member
jase fox:Garland Genoho:Andrew Everard:
Garland Genoho:It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
The poster asked for an opinion, AK gave him an opinion. What's the problem?
About not buying one. Why not buy one when this £900.00 player only costs about £400+ now???
Totally agree Garland, its a steal !
Have to agree with Garland and Jase, I have seen the LX52 recently, and the PQ on the Denon is better.
Garland Genoho:It is not right that you should say to the OP not to buy one. It is for him to decide what he values more - best picture and sound OR faster loading times and interactive content, for his money.
The poster asked for an opinion, AK gave him an opinion. What's the problem?
About not buying one. Why not buy one when this £900.00 player only costs about £400+ now???
Totally agree Garland, its a steal !
Have to agree with Garland and Jase, I have seen the LX52 recently, and the PQ on the Denon is better.
jase fox
Well-known member
Garland Genoho:hammill:Garland Genoho:Andrew Everard:
The original price is now an irrelevance.
maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
That is the point. The Denon is old technology so is poor value for £400. The original mobile phones cost thousands, but you can get better models free now (on contract) from Tesco.
'Old' technology that is still superior to the 'new technology' of the BDP-LX52 and Sony BDP-S760 in picture and sound quality.
Exactly, newer technology doesnt always mean better, i remember when i bought a Panny VCR that cost me £500 it was of awesome build quality & PQ/SQ to die for, then several years later when they brought out there latest VCRs they were awful plasticy build & the quality on performance didnt come close IMO, i have the luxury of demoing just about the majority of most bluray players at the local hifi store & nothing ive seen has made me want to trade in my Denon. Who knows, maybe that time will come, maybe it wont, but the 2500BT is still up there with em all.
The original price is now an irrelevance.
maybe not to you, but yes to a poor person like me. has to be best value for money.
That is the point. The Denon is old technology so is poor value for £400. The original mobile phones cost thousands, but you can get better models free now (on contract) from Tesco.
'Old' technology that is still superior to the 'new technology' of the BDP-LX52 and Sony BDP-S760 in picture and sound quality.
Exactly, newer technology doesnt always mean better, i remember when i bought a Panny VCR that cost me £500 it was of awesome build quality & PQ/SQ to die for, then several years later when they brought out there latest VCRs they were awful plasticy build & the quality on performance didnt come close IMO, i have the luxury of demoing just about the majority of most bluray players at the local hifi store & nothing ive seen has made me want to trade in my Denon. Who knows, maybe that time will come, maybe it wont, but the 2500BT is still up there with em all.
I agree with all your post's jase fox. Load time's irrelevant, older definetely can mean better, newer definetely is not always better, the cheaper stuff gets they often have to start stripping the quality somewhere.
I definetely like to pick my purchases from certain year's and would not always go with the new, just what I like. Be it cheaper or more expensive.
I definetely like to pick my purchases from certain year's and would not always go with the new, just what I like. Be it cheaper or more expensive.
jase fox
Well-known member
gel:
the cheaper stuff gets they often have to start stripping the quality somewhere.
Exactly !!
the cheaper stuff gets they often have to start stripping the quality somewhere.
Exactly !!
i agree re. loading times , a minute as opposed to ten seconds or whatever , so what , if the denon has the best pic , sound quality , compared to others in its price range , then its the best player.......
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Is hi-fi really getting better? Our technical editor ponders its progression- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 18
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram