New 'secrets' benchmark up! (1 Viewer)

[Ray Tsui]

I'm so glad I was able to read these results. I was going to plop down money for the Zenith(LG) but I'm going to wait another generation because of its issues. My trusty RP82 will stay one more year. If the store I would buy it from had a proper return policy, I might be more inclined, but given these results, I'd better wait.

 

[James W. Johnson]

Thanks Lewis but I will speak for myself. You just go ahead and buy whatever the top rated player is and i'll keep buying the players that have the best PQ. good day.

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

What really suprised me was how poorly the Samsung 841 did. They didn't give a writeup for it or state what resolution they were running over DVI, but regardless it pretty much stunk it up for what was a highly anticipated player.

I was also suprised to see how bad the video frequency response was on the V880 over component. I know the sigma players almost all have this problem but the graph really shows how bad it can be.

Right now I'm pretty much stuck w/ my D1 since it, the D2, and the V880 are the only players that output DVI that's not HDCP (L300U projector has DVI but no HDCP).

 

[RudolphT]

There is never 100% objectivity (and a small touch on Denon bias... because it's good). I think the missing ingridient is cost benefit for features & quality vs price. The last 2% that most mere mortals cannot perceive is not worth twice the price (IMHO).

 

[Lewis Besze]

It seems that you thought I was "knocking" you,not at all,but whatever...........:rolleyes

 

[Brian L]

Yeah Lewis, I think he meant to slam me, but thanks for taking one for the team

I think what a lot of folks miss is the preamble at the intro to the Secrets tests that says something to the effect that even the cheapest player can look fabulous with good software.

The Secrets boys endeavor to see what a player does with poor software (bad edits, incorrect flags, etc), because there is more of it out there then one might think.

When I got my 1600, I did hours of head to head tests with my 45a. At the time, that was pretty much the best vs. the worst as far as Secrets was concerned. And with two copies of Monsters Inc., going back to back, there was not a whole lot of difference to be had.

But pop in one of my daughther's titles, 101 Dalmatians II, which is the text book definition of "combing" in the 45a, and its dead nuts solid in the 1600.

Sure I don't have many discs that have gross errors like that, but I like the fact that there is someone out there that will check for these things, and explain what they mean. Then the user can decide based on what is important to them.

Someone that evaluates PQ with just the Superbit Fifth Element is not going to tell me everything that I want to know.

BGL

 

[Jay Blair]

"And 100% subjective evaluations don't count."

Well, let's think about this.

Are you saying that the Secrets tests are totally objective? Of course they aren't. What software they use to test the players is subjective. Which sections of which discs do you use for bad edits, etc. etc.

What constitutes better performance is subjective. If the deinterlacing occasionally hiccups with some player with some material, is it a worse player than something that never hiccups but has a very soft image, or has color that is less accurate? What constitutes a DVD looking more like film? This is subjective, and nothing can make it otherwise. Do the upscaling players rate lower because most of them hiccup from time to time? But these same players may have a far sharper and more detailed image than other players, and eliminate scan lines far better, making them more like watching 35mm film. Why isn't how noticeable scan lines are not one of the tests?

I could go on and on like this.

OK, maybe I will...

And unless you think I hate the Secrets tests, you are very wrong. I think they are extremely valuable, but still have to be taken for what they are and their limitations exposed.

And if you think I hate the tests because they are badmouthing a DVD player I own, ain't so. I run everything through an iScan HD, which gets a perfect score of 100 in the new June tests. And my main player is the Panasonic RP91 which gets a strong review, except for its deinterlacing, but the iScan HD solves that problem.

Here again the limitations of these tests shows, because the iScan Ultra also gets a 100. But the upscaling feature of the HD makes it put out a far better image than the Ultra. Some of the other features of the HD have also been improved since the Ultra, such as the ability to correct for chroma errors. Using the iScan HD with the RP91 is very close to hi-def; the iScan Ultra with the RP91 is not even close to hi-def, though it still is very pretty. And the iScan HD is not infallible when it comes to deinterlacing, so why does it get a 100? It gets it because it doesn't hiccup on the test material, but I've seen it hiccup many times. I doubt a perfect deinterlacing solution well ever come out.

Ultimately, I will always take a subjective analysis of what is a better player from someone's opinion I trust over an objective analysis.

If someone, for example, is a filmmaker and he says his films that he has watched a thousand times look better on player A than player B because player A better captures the "film" experience in a theater, I want player A, no matter how good the objective tests say that player B is.

Everything should be considered, deinterlacing, y/c delay, responsiveness, chroma errors, detail, color purity, resolution, noise reduction, edging, etc etc. And ultimately what makes you happy is all that counts for you.
You just can't get away from subjectivity. No way.

The Secrets stuff though is invaluable because, and I think this is really its primary goal in life, it keeps the manufacturers honest, and forces them to at least consider putting out a better product. But that doesn't mean that they can't cheat by learning the limitations of the tests being used, just as graphics card manufacturers have done for years to make certain software render faster and look prettier on the test bench and therefore make their card look like the best ever, when in the real world the card is second rate.

 

[Drew_W]

As an aside, it was good to read Pioneer is finally fixing up some of their "video issues". Now...if they'd only get to the AUDIO side of things...*ahem* bass management *ahem*

 

[Kwang Suh]

The test is objective within itself. That is, all players within the test are tested to the same measure. Having said that, any given person's criteria for what constitutes a "good" DVD player may not jibe with their criteria. And, as you mentioned, they have to be incredibly careful with what they use as test material - there may be biases in the test material that favour certain chipsets, etc.

The key is to have a very thorough understanding of their testing, and to pick the parts that matter to you. For example, I'm not nearly as picky as they are about layer changes and image cropping (whoopee, I lost a pixel on the left side), whereas bad edits are incredibly annoying to me.

And just because a player happens to get a very high mark, doesn't mean it has a great picture, nor does it mean it's an overall great player - it just means that it did well on the test.

 

[Jay Blair]

Kwang

Well said.

One footnote on layer changes. The DVD specs actually require a pause at the layer change for the DVD player to be in spec. So if a player has no pause, is it better than a player with a slight pause as required by the specs, and does it warrant a higher score? Ideally of course you want the layer change to be unnoticeable, as long as it doesn't create any incompatibility with dual layer discs. Like you, I don't care about the layer change pause, it's near the bottom of things I would consider when buying a DVD player.

I'm also not as picky about an occasional bad edit as most; probably because I've spent a good part of the last 30 years watching films in revival theaters, and the prints almost always have defects of one kind or another, and I've gotten used to print flaws, such as scratches and reel change markers, without being taken out of the film experience.

 

[Lewis Besze]

You might change your mind if you have lived with a player like the Denon 2900 for awhile, which completelly eliminates it.It wasn't on a top of my list,but now I'm sure would have a hard time to go back to the usuall 1-2 second pause.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I agree with Lewis, and I don't even have a Denon (yet). I've had Pioneers for years (414, 333, 05, 45a, 47ai) and I am personally sick and tired of being "taken out of the moment" when the layer change hits. I *would* have naturally progressed to the 59AVi, but not with the layer change it has. My next player will *not* have a noticeable layer change.

 

[Jay Blair]

Nope, won't change my mind about not being bothered by a slight layer change delay after living with a player without one. I have a Momitsu V880 without a layer change delay, but it is backup to my RP91 that has one. An RP91 run through an iScan HD is breathtaking. Even if the layer change doubled overnight, it would remain my primary player. But then I'm crazy, I still watch laserdiscs with over 10 second layer changes occuring every 30 minutes to an hour. Even that doesn't take me out of the film. Well, OK, the 30 minute side changes are a little annoying on the CAV laserdiscs.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Yep, that explaines alot!

 

[Drew_W]

What are some good DVDs with noticeable layer changes? I can't say I've ever really noticed one, but I've never looked or anticipated one either...

And I run all Pioneer machines...

 

[Kevin. W]

Question on AVIA Y/C delay. On my LG 7832 which is the sister player of the Zenith at 1080i via component the Y/C delay(in usec) is 0, -.07, -.07.(BRG). Would this be consisdered good or bad?

On the topic of layer change I hardly notice it like I did on my RP82. At the same time when DVD's are made the layer change should be integrated at a point when a scene change occurs that includes a darkening sequence. At the same time if manufacturers truly wanted to give us what we wanted the movie should be on one disc(optimum audio/video) and extras on another. Then you don't have to worry about the layer change.

Kevin

Kevin

 

[Brian L]

Towards the very end of Monsters Inc. is a good one. It is very noticeable on my Pio 45a and Denon 1600.

As some have said, it really depends on the disc. There are many where either there is no layer change during the film, or its done in such a way as to not call attention to itself.

Then of course, there are players like the 2900 where it just plain deals with whatever it gets.

BGL

 

[Chris PC]

With the SiL504 chip kicking arse as usual, it makes me wonder why there isn't as many DVD player coming out with the Silicon Image chip. Why is Faroudja always the one that gets so much attention. A good DVD player with the Silicon 504 chip and some scaling would be awesome. Of course, with the DVDO iScan Pro, Ultra and HD's, I guess a DVD player with built in SiL504 and scaling would compete with those!

 

[Kevin C Brown]

In addition to what Chris PC just wrote, I don't understand why SI hasn't done a newer version of the 504 including scaling. The 504 came out 3 years ago. That's aeons ago in the electronics industry!

 

[dpippel]

I would guess it's a cost issue. Faroudja offers an all-in-one deinterlacing/scaling engine with their chip. Silicon Image requires separate scaling circuitry to achieve the same end, resulting in higher manufacturing costs.