What's new

My disapointment w\ Denon DVD-2900 (1 Viewer)

Peter Loan

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 13, 1998
Messages
355
Brian,
The Phillips 963SA has been around for a while now. It's not universal in that it doesn't play DVD-Audio. It's a fine DVD Video/SACD player though with the Faroudja DCDI processing.
 

Lewis Besze

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 1999
Messages
3,134
Why did Denon switched Mpeg decoder from the 3800/9000 units after they were updated.They seem to passed this error?
For the record I'm still very much enjoying this palyer for both Video and audio.
 

Edward J M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,031
Chalk another one up in the "satisfied owner" column.

Yes, I have noticed the 3-2 alt. encoding error on a few of my DVDs, but it is not a deal breaker for me.

Not fixing the 3-2 normal encoding (i.e., the primary chroma bug) WOULD have been a deal breaker, however.

Can anyone speculate if eliminating the 3-2 alt. CB could be a firmware fix, or would the MPEG decoder actually have to be replaced?

Other than that, this is one fabulous universal player. I'm using Signal Cable Analog 2 interconnects for CD, SACD, and DVD-A and the audio performance is stunning in all formats. This is one fine sounding player and I had zero problems with BM following Denon's .pdf sheet.

And PQ on video is nothing short of amazing, miles better IMO than the DVD-900 and 1600. Layer changes might as well not exist - it flies through them.

Finally, function and reliability has been perfect at all times in all formats - much better than my error prone 2800 MKII.

Regards,

Ed
 

JamesDH

Grip
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
24
From what I've heard from DenonJeff over at the avsforum he doesn't think a firmware update could fix this problem. But you never know some engineers are pretty clever and could find a way to do it, but don't count on it. The real question comes down to wether it's viable for them to do so. On the other hand Denon should be commended for making mitshubishi fix the other chroma problems with their chips. It's beyond me why Mit. didn't fix the problem on their own long ago and that it took heavy pressure from Denon for them to get them to do so. I guess it comes down to what their(Mit.) bottom line is and if they think they could make more money by releasing an improved chroma free chip. Seems to me that that would give them an excellent marketing edge, but I am not a millionaire business man what do I know? -Jim
 

LanceJ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
3,168
I have to agree with CurtisC: if a person just wants a player with great video capabilities, why not just buy one of the many $150-$300 players available?

To me, this player was built primarily for audio usage. Heck folks, it plays THREE different audio formats! At less than a $1,000 I really don't think it's possible to build a universal player that does everything great. AND its physical build quality is super: most other dvd players are hollow-sounding & made of creaky, thin-gauge plastic.

I bought my Pioneer DV-656A strictly for its high resolution dvd-audio capabilities--that was all. I already had a basic-but-decent dvd player for video duty (Panasonic R31), so I cared less about the Pioneer's video section.

Somewhere recently on HTF someone was talking about the new cheapie Pioneer @$180 universal player. He said the dvd-audio & sacd capabilities were "nice extras" (or something to that effect) but he was more concerned about the player's video performance. Huh? Umm, why bother buying a universal player if you don't really care about the audio sections & their performance?

LJ
 

Dave Vaughn

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 8, 2001
Messages
186
Well guys...the wife has exercised her "VETO" power on the 2900. She thinks the picture is too "blurry" aka Soft. She like's our Sony 7700 picture better. I find it hard to argue the point with her...the picture isn't as clear as the 7700. Maybe my Hitachi doesn't like the 2900...Oh well...nothing ventured...nothing gained.

Dave
 

JamesDH

Grip
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
24
LanceJ I have to disagree with you and CurtisC. If this player didn't have the 3-2alt. bug I think it would be one of the top contenders on the market or THE TOP contender for video quality. Other than the picture being a little soft, which in my opinion is a matter of preference, this player has the most detailed picture that I have seen. The shadow detail is also extermely good as well. That's not even mentioning the layer changes, ohh yeah there are none. It gives me goosebumps to think what could've been with this player. Too bad this bug slipped through the cracks... -Jim
 

David.Kaiser

Auditioning
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
6
I'm late to then discussion, but I have to add my comments on the 2900.

I picked up a 2900 when my Sony 9000ES died. I was looking to add DVD Audio to the mix, along with SACD. THe 9000ES was a great player, regardless of the chroma issue.

I like the construction of the 2900, the remote is iffy, but neither matters -- it's the performance.

The video quality of the 2900 doesn't impress me at all. I tried a couple of DVDs that were glued into my mind from the 9000ES. Kenny Loggins (in the redwoods) and Shrek. Shrek can be challenging to a player.

The overall color from the 2900 was very good, but that is where my excitement stopped. There were two things that really annoyed me. First, the black level. Left alone at the factory default the blacks were not as sharp or deep as the 9000ES. Turning the darker option on produced better blacks, but took too much out of the picture. The second problem is the softness of the picture. In the Kenny Loggins DVD, Kenny looks like he's right in front of you on the 9000ES. On the 2900 he looks cloudy and distant, like a film. Shrek lost some of the CD feel I was used to. (Note: I used a Pioneer Elite Pro 520 for my monitor). I love HDTV and expect DVD to try to provide that type of sharpness and realism. The 2900 is a step backwards.

Audio on the 2900 was very good, better than the 9000ES except for basic CD playback. For basic CD playback, the 2900 was a bit more open, but also sounded flat compared to the warmer 9000ES.

My tastes may be more expensive than the crop of $1000 universal players affords. I went to an audiophile shop and an now trying the Arcam FMJ DV27, a unit without DVD Audio or SACD. That unit is fantastic. The reason I am trying this is for the new Arcam DV89 player which my dealer said is just as good as the DV27. The DV89 is selling for around $1600 and adds DVD Audio (but no SACD).

Video is key to me. The Arcam destroys the 2900 picture quality and even tops the 9000ES. The CD audio on the Arcam is stunning.

As I said, my tastes may just be too rich for the 2900 to handle. But as a comparison to the former $1200 9000ES, the 2900 doesn't stack up. (Note the 9000ES does not have DVD Audio, so you could argue that it would sell for even more with it).

I like Denon equipment, but the 2900 seems to be too much of a compromise in all areas.
 

Brian L

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 8, 1998
Messages
3,302
As I said, my tastes may just be too rich for the 2900 to handle. But as a comparison to the former $1200 9000ES, the 2900 doesn't stack up. (Note the 9000ES does not have DVD Audio, so you could argue that it would sell for even more with it).
Price is a poor predictor of player video performance.

For reference see: Panny RP-82, Denon 1600.

BGL
 

CurtisC

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
369
Jemes,the 2900 is the top contender in its price.David,the 9000es don't have dvd-a(mucho importante')it ain't in this race.
 

Jeff Kleinberg

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
105
David,
Did you recalibrate your Tv with Avia after changing DVD players? The fact that changing the set up level changed your opinion of the picture , implies to me that you did not do a full adjustment? I found that when I changed DVD players from an Onkyo to the Denon 2900, my settings were wildly different. Quite surprising actually, as the changes from my rp91 to the onkyo were slight.

Jeff
 

David.Kaiser

Auditioning
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
6
In response to a few points.

Yes, I did recalibrate my set each time. It had little effect. One note, my Pioneer Elite tends to be sharper than some other projectors and much sharper than plasma. On plasma, I find the video differences to be far less than on the Pioneer which tends to show the good and the bad a bit more.

For the other comments, I stand by my "opinions". I can sure understand people enjoying this player. I just feel there are too many compromises to stuff all those features into a $999 piece. The 2900 does beat many units on the market, but it doesn't offer the video performance I want to drive a $5300 Pioneer Elite. I picked it up because of the flexibility it offers. I'm sure a zillion will be sold and there will be many happy owners.

And yes, the players I like better are not universal and the point is correct that they are not direct competitors. Agreed. Once again, my point is the 2900 is too compromised to excel at any one area.

For those of you who haven't seen the Arcam units, check one out. Yes they are expensive and only do DVD Audio (no SACD, Arcam is not a believer). The Arcam shows how good it can get, makes a great reference piece when shopping other units.
 

Rodon

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Messages
290
David, I can definately understand your feelings on using it with a $5300 Pioneer Elite. I guess ultimately that same feeling was why I started even looking for a new DVD Player. I know price should not be the selling point but a $100 Player hooked to units costing 10X as much does not seem right. I f I am willing to spend the cash on teh rest of the equipment why settle for just OK on teh source. You can afford to have the best in your setup.

I also generally think you should not buy universal players, buy the best peiece for each.

Right now the 2900 is on par with the rest of my setup. The fact that it has SACD and DVD-A are major a major bonus as I probably would not have bought them seperately. It is great for MY setup and I love it.

I do like that others like other pieces as it gives us stuff to read about. Also gives us goals for the next level.

Disapointment with the 2900 is definately a subjective phrase and varies widely from individual. Also some people live outside their budget and having a player with flaws is not worth the pain of paying for it.

In my scenerio it was the best of the range I could afford that could do everything - in my opinion.
 

David Gotwals

Auditioning
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
7
I have owned the 2900 for over a month now. I agree with most posts that include disappointment with the video imperfections AND the posts that point out the fact that these are minor problems that most do not see. I haven't watched to many dvds through the new player, I have been steadliy increasing my SACD and DVD-A collection. MY PROBLEM with the 2900 is the manual fast forward. It is set to be incremental (2x,4x,8x....) which works great for video. But I miss the steady fast forward when listening to SACDs and DVD-A. I would have preferred an option for the control to be like a cd player fast-forward. Overall, I love the 2900, and I just hope the support for SACD and DVD-A continues to grow, and not to follow the consumer DAT path.
 

Phil Nichols

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 7, 2000
Messages
345
David K.,

Just as a reference point, I've had great success on my 58" Elite using the Denon 3800 player - but I have spent many hours getting the image just right. However, as you know the 3800 does not have the alt flag problem like the 2900 does and the 3800 puts out a tack sharp non-soft image due to it's different (IMHO, superior) analog video bandwidth response curve. I did have to spend an additional $30 on my 3800 to remove it's Y/C Delay, that this is of no concern on the 2900.

I did consider the ARCAM, RP82, Roundtable, and others before I was seduced by the 3800's video specs. In my case I guess I got lucky, as the video specs on paper proved to mean something in it's real world performance.
 

David Judah

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 11, 1999
Messages
1,479
I evaluated one with my equipment to satisfy my curiosity.

Video--I used a test disc that I got from one of our vendors and with video material, as expected, it trounced my RP-91. With film based material the 2900's deinterlacing was better, but not by a huge margin.

The main thing I noticed in overall picture quality was the softness that some have mentioned. I preferred the RP-91 because of its razor sharp detail, but I don't view it as good/bad or right/wrong, just a different design choice. Some who are used to the softer look, from other players they've owned, might like it better and perhaps it could hide some faults on some discs.

Audio--I preferred the Sony 555 ES for CDs and SACDs(by a very small margin)because of a little more detail in the treble(especially noticable with cymbals). For DVD-A it was a toss-up between the 2900 and the RP-91. I really couldn't tell much difference between them.

For me it really wouldn't be worth it unless I wanted one player instead of two. In some areas, especially deinterlacing and layer changes, the 2900 was superior, but for most film based DVDs, I think I would prefer my existing RP-91 for overall presentation(due to it having the sharp look I'm used to). On the audio side it would be convenient to have one player for both hi-res formats, since I switch cables between players right now, which is a pain.

If someone doesn't already have a decent SACD & DVD-A player, the 2900 would be hard to beat, and would definitely be worth the upgrade. It is the best universal player to date, IMO.

DJ
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,701
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top