Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Hey Austin Texas Buddies? Can anyone help me out?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
974 replies to this topic

#21 of 975 Nils Luehrmann

Nils Luehrmann

    Producer

  • 3,515 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted February 02 2003 - 06:54 AM

Dave, Dave, Dave... what am I going to have to do to get through to you... lol
Quote:
To be fair, we need to consider a 65" RPTV vs. a good FPTV throwing a 65" picture.
Isn't this exactly what I said? lol - and the result IS clearly that the RPTV PQ will COMPLETELY outperform any digital FP you want to try and put it up against - I'll bet hard currency on this and will gladly set-up the comparison if you are prepared to discover how much better the PQ from a CRT RPTV is to that of a digital FP.

You yourself said, contrast is everything (although I would not agree with that statement, as there are so many other elements that determine a quality PQ than simply contrast), but that said, LCD, LCOS and DLP projectors (FP or RPTV), are not yet capable of reaching the contrast levels of CRTs and you should know this with your high-end AV industry experience.

I don't blame you on your perception that a 100" picture looks "better" than a 60" picture (given that you are viewing them from the same distance), but it is a perception that does not stand up to true picture quality (color accuracy, contrast, shadow detail, and fill factor). Digital projectors are simply not yet capable of reaching the levels of performance for each of those characteristics and are still plagued with dithering and digital artifacts for which CRTs are not prone to.

It doesn't matter what source you want to feed it, as long as digital projectors lack CRTs levels of color accuracy, contrast, shadow detail, and fill factor, and as long as they continue to show dithering and digital artifacts then the end result will always be an inferior PQ (but you do get a big picture, and as I originally listed, there are many other advantages to digital FPs as well, or else why would I own one - LOL).

It's one thing for you to play Devil's advocate, but I think my original comparisons were actually quite accurate and your statements against RPTVs puzzle me as they stretch the truth beyond reason.

If you want to make the argument that digital FPs and RPTVs vs. their CRT counterparts are better choices for picture size and low maintenance, then you would have no argument, but your statements definitely suggest that the PQ is superior, and that simply is not true. In time I believe digital projection will actually be superior in PQ to that of CRT, but that day is still quite a ways a way.

Now I suspect your interpretation that I was some how RPTV or CRT biased (which I most certainly am not) combined with your obvious enthusiasm over your personal choice of a digital FP resulted in your Devil's Advocate response, but if not, and you still feel that the PQ of your FP (or any digital FP you wish to compare) is better than a CRT RPTV, then I will gladly set-up an A-B comparison for you to discover for yourself the truth. Posted Image

I should warn you though, once you are pointed out the various PQ flaws in your FP, you will start noticing them each time you use your FP and it may very well distract you from enjoying an otherwise wonderful picture. Posted Image

I use to head Lucasfilms' THX TAP program in Texas and it practically ruined movie watching for me as I became so trained on picking up and focusing in on a film's visual flaws that even when watching movies for fun, I kept getting distracted by a print's quality rather than simply focus on the story and enjoy the film.

The old saying that "Ignorance is Bliss" is well placed in the world of A/V otherwise you could drive yourself crazy (and go broke) trying to attain a perfect A/V system. Posted Image

Like I said before, HT happiness is only attained by willing to compromise on areas of least importance such that you can have a system that addresses your needs and limitations. I suspect by your enthusiasm that you have done just that, but at the same time I am positive those that chose to go with a CRT RPTV HT system feel just as strongly about their decision. Posted Image

#22 of 975 Dave Elliott

Dave Elliott

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 174 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2002

Posted February 02 2003 - 09:14 AM

Nils,

My main point to Mike was to warn him of CRT burn-in, and the tradeoffs you have to go through to avoid it. I just reread your original message, and you didn't mention burn-in, so I wanted to offer a different opinion. So if I came across wrong, please accept my apologies. Posted Image But I do feel that burn-in is a VERY big issue that the majority of folks don't consider into their purchasing decision. I wanted to make sure Mike knew of it.

I'll give you that a properly ISF certified RPTV will have better color fidelity and contrast than a good FPTV. But how long will that perfection last? A year? What percentage of customers have their sets perfectly ISF converged? How much does it cost? What I'm saying is not that "all FPTV's are better than RPTVs"... just that if you were to compare the state of most newer RPTVs in homes that an FPTV could, most likely for a similar price, put out a more impressive image with several advantages (no burn-in, no convergence, flexible picture size).

Hey, I used to own a CRT FPTV (a Runco 990 spec'd Zenith Pro 900X). It was great. Perhaps if I had you come and converge it I would still have it! Posted Image I finally gave up with the monthly tweaking. I've also owned CRT RPTV's, though not recent models.

I *do* think contrast is more important than lumens. Granted, contrast doesn't mean as much if your color is off and you have scaling artifacts. But, all else being equal, I'll take a 1000 lumen/2000:1 CR projector over a 3000 umen/700:1 CR projector.

As for PQ, hey, my NEC has tons of flaws. I see them all. Rainbows, dithering, a green push, light spill, etc. But its a business projector that came out over 3yrs ago. I'm waiting on the next generation to upgrade. Until then, I can live with it. The improvements to the latest batch of HT specific models are nothing short of stunning. 3000:1 contrast, better color temp tracking, decent scalers/deinterlacers built in, and good prices. I still think a $3000 FPTV will outperform a $3000 RPTV for movies. For SDTV? Well, maybe -- it depends on lighting, install etc.

So, I guess I'll just say I defer to your expertise, but I do feel burn-in, to me at least, is a big enough issue to consider NOT buying an RPTV. Most of my issues with RPTV's deal with either burn-in or convergence. But I'm not ignorant (hey I never said you were wrong, only that I disagree). I just have different priorities in my choice of TVs. Now if I sat 5' from my TV maybe I'd reconsider....

What do you think of the new Samsung/Optoma HD2 DLP RPTVs?

-Dave

PS-Mike, Infocus is giving all purchasers before a certain date of the X1 a 3yr warranty, so its not just one vender.

#23 of 975 Hank Frankenberg

Hank Frankenberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,573 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 1998

Posted February 03 2003 - 02:03 AM

an ISF certified calibrationist


WHAT??!! Nils, why didn't you tell me you're an ISF tech?
If I'd know that, I wouldn't have paid Steve Martin to come down from Dallas to calibrate my RPTV last July.

Dave: I guess I'll wade in with my 2 Hz. I bought a Samsung 54" 4:3 entry level RPTV last February, with the plan to use it for 2 years and then move to FP. I will state that burn-in was NOT a considered factor and that I still don't consider it a factor at all. I don't play video games, so the problem of video game pause burn-in doesn't exist. I think you are putting too much emphasis on burn-in. Also, off-axis viewing is not a problem and no one has complained to-date. I do agree that constant tweaking is a factor to consider for ANY CRT-based projector. Jonathan and others who value the PQ of CRT's has accepted and will gladly do a monthly tweak of his high-end CRT FP. It's all in what you're willing to do to get the image you want, and also, some people frankly enjoy tweaking. I will move to FP for image size, and will give up ultimate best image quality by NOT buying a CRT-based FP.
I've been associated with front porjection for quite a while as my company has sold data grade portable projectors for a few years, and also, our lab guys have developed IMO, the best light engine on the planet via proprietary prism technology. It is LCOS-based and you would be impressed. LCOS is the future.
I don't watch much television, but for people who do, I'd recommend people buy a CRT direct-view television and save their projectors (front or rear) for movies and big sporting events.

#24 of 975 Dave Elliott

Dave Elliott

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 174 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2002

Posted February 03 2003 - 02:53 AM

Hank,

I totally agree with you on LCoS. If someone comes out with a native HD rez LCoS thats small and quiet for $4K, sign me up. Hopefully in the next 12-18 months.... Right now the JVCs are >$10K and the Hitachi has other issues.

The problem with Burn-in is that a lot of regular folks DO buy an RPTV to play video games, watch regular 4:3 TV, etc. For those folks, it can be a big issue down the road. And when it does occur, its already too late.

I've mentioned a few times that CRTR FPTVs offer the best picture PERIOD, at least when properly calibrated. You'll get no argument from me there. I'd love to see Jonathans setup.

-Dave

#25 of 975 Jonathan DA

Jonathan DA

    Screenwriter

  • 1,033 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 11 2002

Posted February 03 2003 - 03:33 AM

Well, my setup has a long way to go before being considered reference quality. Right now I have weird electrical problem that is making the projector blink on and off about once every two hours, I need to build a new screen, the focus is off, astig is off, convergence is mediocre, and I see a weird blurring effect on motion sometimes. Of course, even with all those problems the image is as good as 90% of the digital setups I've seen and better than 98.1375% of RPTV setups I've seen. I'd say this primarily because 98.1375% of people who own RPTVs don't know what an ISF tech is. I don't know if Ian's RPTV has been ISF calibrated, but to date it's best looking one I've seen.

#26 of 975 Hank Frankenberg

Hank Frankenberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,573 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 1998

Posted February 03 2003 - 05:29 AM

Jonathan, it seems you need to invite Nils over for a pizza and calibration session. Maybe he never told us he's ISF certified for a reason Posted Image

#27 of 975 Nils Luehrmann

Nils Luehrmann

    Producer

  • 3,515 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted February 03 2003 - 05:33 AM

Quote:
WHAT??!! Nils, why didn't you tell me you're an ISF tech?
If I'd know that, I wouldn't have paid Steve Martin to come down from Dallas to calibrate my RPTV last July.

OK Hank, its time for your annual Alzheimer's check Posted Image

Speaking of which, I'm letting the cat out of the bag and letting you all know Hank's "39th" B'Day was last week so give him a virtual high five.

Hank, if I recall we only recently met when you had Steve come down to do your calibration and I didn't even know about it until after you had it done. Regardless, while I am more than capable of doing a complete ISF calibration (setting grey, gamma, chroma, and convergence) my certification only came about when I accepted the position as VP at CST (Custom System Technologies) and was going to be managing a group of ISF calibrators. It was important for me to be able to fully understand what they had to accomplish out in the field so for that reason I took the complete ISF course with Jim Burns. While I did very well in the course, I would be foolish to think that I was capable of doing an ISF as precise, or certainly as quickly as a professional ISFer with years of experience, after all, much of it is subjective and a good ISFer will adjust his calibration to meet the specific needs of each client.

Another problem with DIY ISFing is the cost of the calibration equipment. My training was done on various Sencore calibration equipment which at that time retailed for any where between $2,000-$10,000. On the other hand, I also did some calibration exercises with the use of only an optical comparator, or in laymen terms, a light bulb. There is a German company that makes a 6500D K bulb such that a calibrationist can visually align it to the center of the image and adjust the greyscale to match the bulb. It is hardly precise, but it can get the job done such that only someone armed with a color analyzer could probably tell the difference. The good news here is that the bulb only costs about $300, probably less by now.

I should also point out that many people interested in HT have the impression that only CRT based display units require ISF calibration - and this is simply not true. Digital projectors may not require any convergence, but convergence is secondary to what an ISF calibration does. The heart of an ISF job is setting the proper color of grey, and frankly I have yet to find a digital projector that came from the factory with a greyscale of 6500D. Sure, the settings menu will likely have an option for "Color Temp" and one of those options will "say" 6500D, but I'll be willing to put down a cash bet that if someone checked it with a color analyzer it would not measure 6500D.

In Dave's case his FP's (LT 150?) greyscale is clearly not set at 6500D thus causing him to notice the green push. Without even testing his FP I'd guess his greyscale is at least 5500 or less. Ideally you would want to be within 50 degrees of 6500D, but as mentioned before, video is subjective, and a good calibrationist can make fine adjustments that match the needs of the user.

Also even digital FPs will drift away from 6500D over time, but yearly calibrations for even CRTs is unnecessary. Convergence on the other hand should be done yearly, but this is something that can be done by the owner with a little patience and practice. Most modern CRT RPTVs now have convergence memory such that you only have to converge once! From then on the set remembers precisely the settings for a perfect convergence and will maintain that convergence for the lifetime of the TV - so again, lets not scare unsuspecting would be RPTV owners into thinking they have to spend money and time constantly tweaking their sets - that simply is not the case.

The reason many RPTV sets might not look spectacular is that many people who bought them simply turned them on and never changed the default settings. Just spending a few minutes adjusting the basic picture settings (sharpness, brightness, contrast, color, and tint) in conjunction with an over the counter calibration DVD like Video Essentials or AVIA, anyone could make their RPTV as close to perfection as one can without also adjusting the greyscale and convergence.

Given all that, I'll still say that even if I took an out of the box $2000 CRT RPTV and did an A-B comparison with a fully ISFed $10,000 digital FP, the CRT would still provide a better PQ than the digital FP. The fact still remains that CRT technology, even when not perfectly calibrated, provides the best color accuracy, black level, contrast, shadow detail, and fill factor) all of which are required elements to making a great picture.

As someone who had the option of having a CRT FP, but ended up choosing a digital (DLP) FP, obviously for me the difference in the quality of the PQ was not significant enough for me to make up for the many other advantages that a digital projector has over that of a CRT and that I personally found usefull, but for each person the story will be different, I just don't want anyone to be given the impression that somehow digital projectors can in any way provide a PQ that meets or beat a CRT. This goes for RPTV and FPs alike.

Sorry for the long posts, but I'm just trying to keep it real because I get tired of all the hype and misleading info that gets spread around the HT community. I think it unnecessarily scares would be HT users from buying a technology that could have easily been the best match for them, and the fact is both technologies coexist because they both have their place. I have no doubt that CRT will go the way of Vinyl records, but that day is still far far away, and will only really happen once digital can match the PQ levels of CRT.

#28 of 975 Nils Luehrmann

Nils Luehrmann

    Producer

  • 3,515 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted February 03 2003 - 06:37 AM

BTW: I should add that the hype and misinformation go both ways as there are plenty of CRT owners/sellers who love to stretch the truth about how poorly digital projectors perform. If you ever find yourself over at AVS' Forums Site you'll quickly see what I am talking about. The amount of "CRT vs. digital" threads is ridiculous. If nothing more than to put an end to all the needless bickering and misinformation, I hope that digital projectors will outperform CRTs as soon as possible. Until then, be ready to turn on your filtering devices otherwise you'll find it very difficult to tell fact from fiction from all the various threads and reviews.

#29 of 975 Dave Elliott

Dave Elliott

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 174 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2002

Posted February 03 2003 - 07:12 AM

Nils,

Given the very limited adjustments on the LT150, it seems impossible to tweak out the green push without compromising the red/blue (and those PITA yellows). But hey, its a 3yr old business projector that was never marketed for HT. I bought it because a few yrs ago nothing at the price could touch it, despite the color fidelity issues. But AVIA and VE only go so far.

Now, I could get Colorfacts for the LT150 (~$600 with equipment) and break into the gamma tables and set them much closer to 6500K. Mark Hunter of Milori has managed to get the LT150 VERY close in color temp and saturation. Only the reds were off (a little towards blue).

I'm more of a budget HT enthusiast -- I have probably $5-6K total in my setup. I know that pales in comparison to many folks here, but I'd still like to have folks come out and see it. I'm more than happy to trade beers/bbq for any suggestions, ISF certified or not. Posted Image Perhaps we should start to plan a March event.

But, for now lets just say if I had a $10K Marantz 12Sv2 I'd take you up on your wager Posted Image Since I don't, lets switch topics....

What do you think of Plasma? Posted Image Posted Image (IIRC, I think we agreed on that topic at Colin's...I hope)

-Dave

#30 of 975 Nils Luehrmann

Nils Luehrmann

    Producer

  • 3,515 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted February 03 2003 - 07:37 AM

"Plasma"... yikes!!!!! Danger Will Robinson, DANGER!

Yes, it may be as skinny as a 60's super model, but the problem is it also looks as good as a 60's super model (unless you happen to be someone who finds anorexic waifs pretty). Posted Image

I believe that should answer your question on whether or not we agree on Plasma's role in HT systems. Posted Image


Dave, I would gladly accept an invitation for an Austin Movie Night over at your miniplex. Just send us the details and I'm sure you will get an excellent response.

#31 of 975 mike_frontier

mike_frontier

    Supporting Actor

  • 670 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 2002

Posted February 03 2003 - 08:08 AM

WoW this discussion is getting big! Much bigger then I expected to understand at this moment Posted Image .

Nils that is great that we now your an ISF certified calibrationist Posted Image , I might need some help down the road Posted Image .

I did call a company called Projection People and a guy name Mike (no the other Mike) help me understand some more about projectors, which you guys were really helpfull also. I did mention to Mike about the Infocus X1 and he said it was no where near the quality as the Sanyo Z1 side by side comparison. He said something about the background was not clear as the Sanyo Z1 pic quality. He highly recommend the SanyoZ1 over the X1, but either way he can sell either of the two me,,, but he felt I will be much happier with the Z1. He E-mailed me this link and I was really impressed with it and what it had to offer. What you guys think?

http://www.presentin....=387&manuf=138


BTW...... as for screens is it better to make one homemade or buy one? I am willing to learn if it can save me the bucks.

Thanks
Mike AkA-Frontier
My dvd collection and still more to add. **UpDated**
http://www.dvdaficio...San&id=mikeysan

#32 of 975 Dave Elliott

Dave Elliott

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 174 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2002

Posted February 03 2003 - 08:57 AM

Nils, Colin, Hank, etc....

Since we've trampled the video side of things to death Posted Image, I'd like to solicit input on speaker placement for my 7.1 upgrade (my Denon 3803 should be here Weds so I should be done by this weekend).

My main concern is the rear 6th/7th speakers (which typically carry the same material, but having 2 rear speakers eliminates sound reversal issues some folks feel distracting in a 6.1 setup).

Both my side surrounds and rear surrounds are the same. Small white speakers with a slanted front, designed to mount flush in a corner and give you a 90 degree firing direction. They can be mounted vertically or horizontally. The drivers are Mid-Tweet-Mid with a metal dome tweeter and 2 3.5"s (if only I could have 6' tall towers for my rears like Colin, sigh...).

My options are to mount them in the back corners along the walls, like this:

Posted Image




OR... to mount them behind the sofa about 6-7' apart, like this:

Posted Image



I think the 2nd scenario might have a better sound to it but then I'd have a plainly visible speaker mounted on the ceiling above my kitchen counter, plus theres no back wall for that side. In the 1st scenario, they'd be hardly noticeable.

I'm not opposed to mounting them in either position, I just would like a few 2nd opinions before I start crawling through the attic Posted Image

Keep in mind this is just a mockup. The side surrounds will be directly perpendicular to my head when I'm slouching on the couch Posted Image


-Dave

PS-Now to find a good DTS ES Discrete DVD I haven't already watched .....

#33 of 975 mike_frontier

mike_frontier

    Supporting Actor

  • 670 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 2002

Posted February 03 2003 - 09:08 AM

2nd choice gives my two thumbs up .Posted Image Posted Image
Mike AkA-Frontier
My dvd collection and still more to add. **UpDated**
http://www.dvdaficio...San&id=mikeysan

#34 of 975 mike_frontier

mike_frontier

    Supporting Actor

  • 670 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 2002

Posted February 03 2003 - 09:12 AM

2nd picture gives my two thumbs up .Posted Image Posted Image

Since you are running an 7.1 setup the 2 speakers in the rear will sound more of an rear center and equal out even for dialog. With the rears spread out on the 1st picture I think the dialog sound will sound a little more broken up due to angels. Let the surrounds do that. But that is my take on this setup.
Mike AkA-Frontier
My dvd collection and still more to add. **UpDated**
http://www.dvdaficio...San&id=mikeysan

#35 of 975 Hank Frankenberg

Hank Frankenberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,573 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 1998

Posted February 03 2003 - 09:40 AM

Unscientific opinion is placement #2, because of a few posts I've read, NOT from experience, as I only have 5.1 and am in no rush to do 7.1. I do like the placement of your side surrounds, being just a tad behind the sofa. Also, I prefer dipole side surrounds, but realize that many folks like direct firing surrounds. Did you listen to both during your purchase decision process?

BTW folks, Nils has a nickname: "hot jalepeno"

Nils, you are now my official converger.Posted Image

#36 of 975 Dave Elliott

Dave Elliott

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 174 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2002

Posted February 03 2003 - 10:04 AM

Hank,

I have listened to quite a few setups with multipolar speakers. I was originally thinking of getting the CSW Newton S200s (I think someone here has a set?) but I tend to prefer direct. I think that direct, when positioned properly in a big room, can become diffuse enough for the source to dissappear. I'm hoping that is the case. In smaller HT rooms, I think multipolar speakers work really well. But I also listen to music and I really dislike bipoles in multi-channel music like DVD-A (which is why I'd use the direct rear surrounds for music if I were to go di/bipoles).

If anyone has a set of the CSW dipoles (which can be had on ebay for ~$160/pr) I'd love to audition them. My system would be ideal for a comparison.

I have a really big (~18x24') room, so I think 7.1 will add some more rear soundstage. Plus I needed a receiver with component switching anyways, so it was a good opportunity upgrade.

BTW, anyone want to buy a like new Denon AVR2800 receiver or a DVDo iScan? Posted Image

-Dave

#37 of 975 Jonathan DA

Jonathan DA

    Screenwriter

  • 1,033 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 11 2002

Posted February 03 2003 - 10:32 AM

Configuration 2 conforms toDolby's specifications for Surround EX speaker placement. The lack of a rear wall may make the speakers stand out visually, but from an acoustic stand point it is actually desirable for accurate imaging.

The dipole/bipole/monopole debate was supposed to be settled with the move from Pro-Logic to AC-3. I believe the AC-3 spec states monopole surrounds, but a great many people still find dipoles to offer the most ambient presentation. Personally, I find that dipoles work best in large rooms, while monopoles generally work better in small rooms.

#38 of 975 Nils Luehrmann

Nils Luehrmann

    Producer

  • 3,515 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted February 03 2003 - 12:04 PM

Mike, I checked out that link that the other Mike from Projection People sent you:

aka Bogus Review Posted Image

I am going to save this link as a great example of why there are many very angry consumers out there that were told one thing only to discover later on that they got duped.

Here are some memorable quotes from that link that still have me grinning away...

Quote:
PLV70, widely regarded by just about everyone as the best in class for home theater,
"everyone" of course refers to the group of salesmen affiliated with Projection People that get commissions from PLV70 sales. I have spent a lot of time tweaking and testing a PLV70 and frankly I was less than impressed. It is certainly far from being best in class!

Quote:
the Z1 represents awesome performance at a shockingly low price, considering the high quality HT image. Especially noteworthy are its high contrast ratio (800:1)
Hmmm, since when did 800:1 contrast ratio rate as being noteworthily high? 1200:1 is pretty good, 2000:1 is great, 3000:1 is the best so far, but 800:1? lol

Quote:
this projector is all it takes to make $3000 big screen TV's look like first class junk!
OH lordy, see, its garbage like this that feeds all the ridiculous misinformation.

Quote:
The Sanyo's only real competition really comes from a couple of new HT projectors sporting DLP technology, such as new entries from Sony and Optoma.
Sony has a DLP unit? No comment is necessary, just pure laughter! Posted Image

Quote:
In fact consider this - most people consider plasma displays to be the pinnacle of image quality, and the pixel structure on a plasma is more visible than a projector like this!
OMG, now they have gone too far... did they really just put "plasma" and "pinnacle of image quality" in the same sentence???

Quote:
it seems to have at least as much umph as DLP units rated 1200 lumens (or even more).
Yeah... right.

Quote:
For most users, we recommend a high contrast "gray" screen like the Stewart Grayhawk (if budget allows), or DaLite's Da-Mat High Contrast screen.
OK, someone call the cops on these folks. These screens are designed specifically for high lumen projectors. With an 800 lumen LCD projector you are going to loose a significant amount of shadow detail and the picture will look quite dim on any screen larger than 96".

Just to add a little irony into this pathetic excuse for a sales pitch, they go on to rave about the 1/4 HD resolution. Why would that be important? Well the theory is that scaling is easier to resolve and therefore less of a chance for any scaling artifacts if you can scale with a factor of 2. The problem is that first of all there are currently two different HD resolutions being used (1080i and 720p). If you are watching 720p material than the scaling will now be way off 1/4, but here is the real catch... The problem is that this projector has no DVI input, let alone DVI-HDCP, which we now all know is going to be required for displaying HD material. So in the case of the PLV-Z1, HD material would be down scaled to 850x480 which will leave this projector in a scaling dilemma and would certainly have less resolution than that of a NEC HT1000 when displaying HD (or any source for that matter), which once again contradicts their statement...
Quote:
NEC's highly acclaimed (and $5000+ street price) HT1000 has basically the same resolution (number of pixels in use) when handling 16:9 sources like DVD and HDTV.

If Pinocchio wrote this so-called review, his nose would be longer than the state of Texas!

I would strongly recommend you send Mike "The Salesmen" a link to this post and see exactly how he responds.

Now all said and done I am not suggesting the Z1 is a bad machine. For the cost and performance it is a reasonable option to be considered, but it doesn't come close to the standards as described in that link. This is a great example of buyer beware when taking the advice of a source with an obvious agenda.

Be patient Mike, and do your own research, don't get all excited after hearing one person's opinion, especially if that opinion is coming from the person who is trying to sell you something.

#39 of 975 Nils Luehrmann

Nils Luehrmann

    Producer

  • 3,515 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted February 03 2003 - 01:54 PM

Dave,

2nd scenario = Posted Image Posted Image (although not having a rear wall is unfortunate)

Also I suggest Dipoles for all four surrounds for no other reason than to provide an excellent sound field for all viewers. The problem I had with direct firing surrounds is that those sitting closer to a specific rear speaker get a very unbalanced surround field. However for just two viewers I would then prefer all the surrounds to be direct firing. From your proposed layout, you might get away with direct firing L/R surrounds, but with the additional seating from the raised futon I would suspect dipoles for the rears would be best.

One thing to consider is that CS also offers a Newton Series surrounds that are switchable to any of the three possible configurations, monopole, bipole, and dipole. This might make even more sense for your 7.1 layout thus allowing you to adjust the sound field that best meets your needs at any given time.

In the meantime, I own a pair of the CS Newton S200s (which can be switched from bipole to dipole, but not monopole). You are more than welcome to borrow them to try out with your system and layout. I have personally been very pleased with the results I get from them and would not hesitate in recommending them to anyone.

#40 of 975 mike_frontier

mike_frontier

    Supporting Actor

  • 670 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 2002

Posted February 03 2003 - 02:42 PM

Nils,

Thanks man for your opinion I really will take your word for it. I know that sales reps will do anything to make an sale,,,, but thats so sad to hear. I had my hopes on the Sanyo. As I agree patience is what it is going to be. Since I only have about 10 days to either return my 42" 16:9 HDTV to get a FP or just going to have tp keep my 42" since I am still debating which FP to get. The time is ticking and its not getting any slower. So what shall I do, or must I say which shall I get??? Now thats the question.
Posted Image
Mike AkA-Frontier
My dvd collection and still more to add. **UpDated**
http://www.dvdaficio...San&id=mikeysan


Back to Home Theater Forum Meets



Forum Nav Content I Follow