2910 Vs. 2900 (1 Viewer)

[MichaelOD]

Hi all,

I'm looking to replace my denon 2200 with either the 2910 or the 2900. To be completely honest, I like the build quality and looks of the 2900, but, I'm aware that the 2910 is basically using the same chip [FL 2310] found in the 3910 which has gotten rave reviews from the Secrets group.

So, more to the point - anyone have a chance to A+B the two. Any discernible differences? I can get the 2910 for 50 bux [CAD] cheaper than the 2900 - but I'm looking for the best picture quality for my money. I'm aware that the audio in the 2900 is superior; but I'm more concerned about the video.

What would you do if you could get either player?
For my uses, would you keep the 2200?

Thanks in advance for any responses...

Couple of other quick notes - anyone wonder why the 2900 scores [Secrets shootout] so much higher than the 2200 considering they are using the same Silicon Image chip? Does a large power supply [found in the 2900] really make that big of a difference?

 

[dpippel]

What kind of display do you have?

I haven't compared the 2910/2900, but I did directly compare the 3910/2900. I sent the 3910 packing. Even though its audio is superior to the 2900 I couldn't live with the Faroudja issues. The 480p component output of the 2900 looked much better to my eyes on my Hitachi 57SWX20B. The fact that the 2900 is about 1/2 the price of the 3910 was icing on the cake.

 

[EricRWem]

The 2900 is superior to the 2910 in every respect. The only thing it doesn't have is HDMI or DVI. Big deal. It has the best PQ you're going to see short of the Pioneer 59 in the

 

[MichaelOD]

Sorry for not mentioning the display.

I have a Toshiba 57HX83.

Excellent responses. So thorough, and well said that I have heeded the advice and purchased a brand new 2900S. I would have preferred black, but with limited quantity; I was left with little choice.

I replaced my RP82 with the 2200 and found that I really like the Sil504 picture. The RP82 didn't appear to have as many issues as the new Faroudja chip seems to. I find that odd. If the chip that was used in the 1600 and RP82 was so outstanding and award winning - why was it not used in following models?

Eric,
The heirarchy that you describe - is that your own [seen with your own eyes], or is that based from Secrets' reviews?

Again, thank you very much for your informed opinions!

 

[dpippel]

Because it has no scaling capabilities. The FLi23xx deinterlacers scale to 720p/1080i, which is why this chipset is found in almost all of the current DVI/HDMI upscaling players from Denon, Samsung, Zenith, Panasonic, etc.

Congratulations on your new player. I hope it performs flawlessly for you.

 

[MichaelOD]

Thanks Doug!

About the FLi23xx chipset - how is their 480p performance?

If one isn't going to use DVI/HDMI, how is their performance?

 

[greg_t]

I don't own either of the Denons, but I've read that the 2900 is more picky about what it will play. I've read that it has issues with some types of DVD-R media and such. I've read that the 2910 plays pretty much anything thrown at it. Depending on what you're going to be playing on it, you might want to factor that into your decision.

 

[EricRWem]

You're welcome.

 

[dpippel]

The artifacting issues were less noticable on the component outputs at 480p from the 3910 (and 5900 for that matter), but still there.

 

[Phil Nichols]

Eric,

"3910 is the successor to the 2900."

You might want to recheck the Secret's writup on the 3910. It is the successor to the 3800, not the 2900.

 

[EricRWem]

I stand corrected! I'd honestly have forgotten about that.

What's funny about this is, I can't begin to tell you how many people, especially salesmen , refer to the 3910 as "a 5900 in 2900's clothing."

As you can see even in the rest of that Secrets review and breakdown, many references are made in regards more to the 5900 anyways. I guess that's where some people got that idea from.

Did Denon "merge the product lines" as far as the 3910 "bridging the gap" from the predecessor 3800 and the 2900? Would that be more accurate?

Is the Denon 9000 the predecessor to the 5900? That's where I start getting confused. :b I know that the 5910 is going to be presented at the next CES. That, I would presume, is the next in line as a direct successor to the 5900, yes?

Thanks!

Even with this correction, I think the heirarchy that I mentioned earlier still holds out of current and available models. For the sake of fairness and the earlier discussion, let me amend the heirarchy with a concession:

3910
2900 2910* (I still consider the 2900 to be superior, but not by huge margins. Depending on your needs or wants, one of these will be over the other.)
2200

Better?

 

[dpippel]

The 3910 might be the "successor" to the 3800 as far as the model number lineup goes, but the two players have almost nothing in common inside. They're very different pieces of equipment. The 3910 is basically a scaled-down 5900 with a cheaper power supply configuration, a less robust analog output stage, and other cost-cutting design changes.

Likewise, the 5910 is going to be a completely different beast than the 5900.

Denon's DVD player model numbers have more to do with their pricepoints than technological pedigrees.

 

[EricRWem]

Thanks, Doug! That's pretty much what I figured. It gets kind of murky if you're watching the numbers too closely.

 

[Phil Nichols]

Denon (marketing?) has done IMHO confusing and dumb things with their DVD player higher end numbering. Do you remember their chronological player releases, i.e.:

- The 4800?

- Then the 2800?

- Then the 2800 MKII?

- Then the 9000?

- Then the 3800?

- Then the 5900?

- Then the 3910?

- Now the 5910?

When will we finally see a correctly numbered >40lb 9010 with HQV guts and RP91-type scaling for our old non-anamorphic DVDs?????

 

[Erich_Weidner]

What/where is the "Secrets group"? :b

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

"They're very different pieces of equipment. The 3910 is basically a scaled-down 5900 with a cheaper power supply configuration, a less robust analog output stage, and other cost-cutting design changes."

Doug,

While I agree with some of your comments, this one is a bit mis-leading, IMO.

I have the 2900 & 3910 currently and have had the 5900 in my system. The 3910 is certainly not a scaled down product from the 5900. There actually is a different implementation of the power supply vs. the 2900. The analog output stage is as or more robust than the 5900, considering a new DAC structure, as well as adding the HDCD ability that the 2900 lacked. Also, the ability to add the Alpha24 processing to all channels.

A/B comparisons in my system were extremely hard to hear differences between the 5900 and 3910...especially with audio only applications...Redbook, SACD, and DVD-A.

In the video arena, the 3910 trumps the 5900...YMMV.

Jeremy

 

[dpippel]

Jeremy - I'm a little confused by your post because you're going back and forth between comparing the 3910 to the 5900 and the 2900. From everything I've read about the two machines, the 3910 is indeed based on the 5900 and some sacrifices were made to meet the price point. You can check out the Secrets evaluation of the 3910 HERE.

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

Doug,

I'm sorry to be confusing...only commenting on experience with the three units.

I've read the Secret's review. It is an excellent review on the video section, but not a whole lot about the audio so far. Merely speaking from experience, not what I've read about the three units.

I felt your post was a bit mis-leading about the stripped down feeling of the 3910 compared with the 5900.

It's not as "scaled down" as you may think.

Jeremy

 

[Vladimir]

"The analog output stage is as or more robust than the 5900, considering a new DAC structure, as well as adding the HDCD ability that the 2900 lacked. Also, the ability to add the Alpha24 processing to all channels."
---------------------------------------------------------

In which way the analog output stage of 3910 is more robust than that in the 5900? May be because the DACs used in 3910 are actually worse than DACs in 5900 based on their specs?
And I don't see how scaled down power supply of 3910 can actually improve its analog output stage.

I am also not sure that 3910 trumps 5900 in video department. 3910 does not have macroblocking which could be a big issue for some but not for all people. Aside from macroblocking, 5900 seems to be as good or better than 3910 in video according to the Home Theater tests:

"The test results for the DVD-3910 were almost identical to the DVD-5900...Another change we noticed was the analog frequency response. While it was quite good, it wasn’t quite as flat as the DVD-5900, which has a slightly better analog stage and filtering."

Based on the Home Theater tests, it appears that if macroblocking is not a problem for your display, 5900 is a better player in all respects, may be slightly better but still better.

Vladimir

 

[Jay Heyl]

Can anyone address the media compatibility issues with the 2900? I'm leaning in that direction, but problems with reading some media -- even commercially produced discs -- is one of the reasons I'm shopping for a new player. I'm particularly interested in hearing about DVD-R compatibility. Most of what I have on DVD-R is on Ridata G04 discs.

Update -- I found what I needed in another thread. Ordered the 2900 just a few minutes ago.