DVD players

I do wonder how many people have actually carried out a/b tests with dvd palyers on top plasma screens, rather than just buying a brand name.

A couple of years ago I tried a top £4k tag v £4k top linn v £1.4k cyrus dvd8. There was bugger all difference watchng Gladiator on the best pioneer screen. Even the sales guy couldn't see a damn difference. So I bought the cheap cyrus. Fast forward to today and my girlfriends new 300 quid player is exactly the same as my cyrus. So I sold the cyrus on ebay.

Waste of time spending a wedge on dvd spinners as it's a market with prices in absolute free fall (for the same performance). No other sector is changing as fast at the moment. Even computers, digital cameras and plasmas are slower moving. Todays £2.5k naim is next years 500 quid denon in terms of relative benchmark performance.

Spend your thousands on far better amps and speakers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to agree. In the past having already got a Sony DVDP that was more then adequate and must admit auditioning the Tag at home comparing DVDs on a CRT TV was not really inspiring video wise. Improvement was distinguishable but not 10X better. To regain sanity asking friends who recommended it confirm that is so true as the differences only comes in when using CRT projectors.

So why did I still bought it. I was keen to replace both DVDP and even older Linn Karik with a single player that was even better then both. It is when you are auditioning transports for their audio abilities that are when the apparent disparity between them becomes fascinating.
 
pauldixonuk said:
I do wonder how many people have actually carried out a/b tests with dvd palyers on top plasma screens, rather than just buying a brand name.
Click to expand...
I've carried out a/b/c/d tests using the largest, latest, brightest and bestest Plasmas & LCDs in the world.
Problem is, DVD always comes last :D
Much as I like the big Teacs, DVD video is simply not worth spending lots of money on IMHO.
 
The subject is indeed very fascinating.

I am not sure I am allowed to elaborate here as well. So here goes. After some :rds2: me think it would appear our eyes are more 'honest' then our ears.
 
Thanks for your honest responses.

Some of the videophiles do make me giggle with their arse over tit spending strategies. :D
 
Well in terms of not being able to tell the difference in DVD players. I remember (dont know if they still do) Sony used to put the exact same DVD video decoder chips in their their entire range from top to bottom. The differences to justify the high prices were (supposed) build quality and extra features. I found this out after auditioning about 4 years ago the Sony range of players and not being able to tell the difference between the £200 and £650 units. I settled on the £200 one. Still looks great today. I would not be surprised that the decoding hearts of many DVD players are very similar no matter how much you pay.

As for extra bells and whistles, once the DVD player is setup, I dont think I've ever used any functions other than stop, play, pause and FF.
 
The fundamental problem is that DVD is a fairly crap video format. I really can't see the point of spending big cash, on the visual side at least, until something significantly better comes along.
 
Its fine as a format for me. Its better than VHS so its an improvement.

The only fear I have is that the new HD formats are coming along too soon.

How many times can folks stand buying another version of Starwars and replace the 32" widescreen telly or 2 year old plasma to see the benefit?
 
wolfgang said:
The subject is indeed very fascinating.

I am not sure I am allowed to elaborate here as well. So here goes. After some :rds2: me think it would appear our eyes are more 'honest' then our ears.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether our eyes are more honest, but they are more easily deceived....

(I would like to put a big disclaimer in here as I may not know what I'm talking about)

...Our eyes will see about 25 discreet images per second as a continuous smoothly flowing picture eg a tv pic. 25 discreet tones per second would not sound like a continuous tone. I think you would need less than 8ms between each tone to hear it as a continuous tone (depending on frequency). That would be 125 discreet tones p/s to be perceived as a continuous tone. Thus are our ears less prone to deception?

Please excuse me if I'm talking nonsense!

Having typed this I realise that there must be loads of research on this so does anyone have a definative answer to...

?How many discreet tones p/s are needed to be perceived as a continuous tone?
 
Who cares? :D

All I know is cheap players now look the same as our previous expensive cyrus (and other very expensive tag / linn rivals).

Just watched bourne identity on our new marantz dv4500 player. The skin tones are perfectly natural and fast scenes are sharp on a panasonic plasma. A real giant killing bargain at 200 quid! Why waste more for a badge? You'd be quite insane.
 
pauldixonuk said:
Who cares? :D
Click to expand...

Cheers pauldixonuk,

I'm both a newbie and without thwack, is this the attitude I should expect?

Next time I see you on a 'pro-audio' forum being blamed for everything from nordost to brilliant pebbles I shall reg. and join in the fun. :p :D
 
Only kidding mate - it was very interesting :D

To be honest I'm not really into audio visual. I can bore you to death much more on just audio.
 
I seem to recall some old threads about studio cables on pro forums. I think the magic pebbles would have been someone else to be fair! My kit is pretty much all pro sourced these days, don't you know. Even down to the mogami studio cables. My one concession to magic dust is a townshend seismik sink to stop transport vibration. And a 7 quid maplin's 3.5 kilowatt plug :p
 

Latest posts

Back
Top