Sherwood's two new universal dvd players, one with DCDi and Firewire output (1 Viewer)

[LanceJ]

Check them out here.

I hope they got the bass management right for the hi-res signals (if they even have bass management for the hi-res signals).

 

[PaulDA]

It's a rare player at that price range or higher that has NO bass management, these days (Linn Unidisk 1 excepted, of course). How well it's implemented remains to be seen (or rather, heard), though. My next universal (not for some years I hope) will have iLink or its functional equivalent and my next receiver the same, as I am far too fond of the BM/TA on my MCH inputs with my current receiver (despite the A/D/A involved) to go without that capacity in some fashion in the future for hi-res.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I didn't think the P-965 pre/pro had an i.Link input?

On paper, the 871 looks a heckuva lot like what the Yamaha 2500 is supposed to be. ??

 

[dpippel]

These players look interesting, but unless Sherwood has squashed the macroblocking problems with the Faroudja FLI23xx deinterlacer they're not worth consideration IMHO.

 

[LanceJ]

Doug: maybe this is just me, but I think most people who buy a universal player are really buying it for its hi-res and/or surround audio playback capabilities--movie playback usage is a secondary consideration. Because there are many $100-$150 dvd players that have great imaging capabilities, so why bother plunking down $300+ for a universal?

And anyway, doesn't that macroblocking thing only happen in progressive mode? So if you don't have the digital TV neccessary for progressive scan and you're more interested in music than HT, then........

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Huh? You don't need a "digital" TV for progessive scan playback.

People buy universal players ... because they are universal: DVD, CD, DVD-A, and SACD playback. Anything with an FL23xx deinterlacer chip can have flawed video playback on the wrong display. That, to me, is not a "universal" player. The industry has known for over a year that Faroudja chips have this problem. And yet manufacturers keep using them. And people keep buying them. Sigh...

 

[LanceJ]

I'm using the term "digital" to describe HDTV/EDTV/etc monitors. Regular (i.e. analog) monitors cannot handle a progressive signal. This is the same reason some progressive dvd players first display a warning box asking if your TV is progressive-capable when you choose that option in their set-up menu.

 

[dpippel]

I'd argue that universal players are usually purchased for just that role - a machine that will play any disc format thrown at it and play it well. I certainly wouldn't plunk down the kind of cash that a good universal player commands knowing that one of it's primary functions was compromised.

The macroblocking problems with the Faroudja FLI23xx deinterlacer are documented and have been around for over a year now. Manufacturers are well aware of this, yet they continue to release products incorporating a flawed component. At the MSRP of the new Sherwood you're within the price range of the Denon 2900 and the Pioneer DV-59AVi, neither of which have macrbolocking issues.

Personally I wouldn't purchase any player with the FLI23xx deinterlacer. But that's just me.

 

[LanceJ]

Don't forget the less-expensive SD-860's MSRP is only $499--nowhere near the Denon's (you meant the 2910, right?) or especially the Pioneer's asking price. It still has progressive scan but doesn't use that Faroudja chip. And anyway, how many people can use the 871's BNC video connectors or Firewire connection?

Frankly, I'm not much of a fan of universals--maybe these Sherwoods will be different but except for those TEAC "Esoteric" machines with their stratospheric price tags, most other universals have too many compromises for my taste.

And for ME, since the sacd format still has only six titles I would buy right now, an all-in-one player would be a waste.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

This is incorrect. I had a progressive scan DVD player with an "analog" TV as far back as 1998. No such thing as "EDTV" or "HDTV" back then.

All you need is a TV with component video inputs. Nothing "digital" about it. Component video is analog.

 

[LanceJ]

Kevin: do a Google search & you'll find lots of references to this issue.

Like this from C-Net:

my emphasis

Are your sure your dvd player back then had true progressive scan and not that "fake" system that was actually a line-doubler? I know for sure one VERY large manufacturer was caught doing this.

 

[dpippel]

I don't know about the BNC connection, but there are plenty of people who want a universal player with Firewire for audio and HDMI for video. The SD-871 has both, as does the DV-59AVi.

 

[Bobby T]

Firewire is mandatory on the universal player and receiver I will be purchasing soon. In the process of narrowing down my choices now. I'm just waiting for the new Yamaha 2500 to finally come out and the new 4600 receiver.

 

[PaulDA]

I have a player that does prog scan hooked up to an old fashioned CRT TV (non EDTV or HDTV capable). If I set it to output prog scan, I get a mess, certainly nothing resembling a clear image. If I set it to interlaced, I get a great picture. If a TV is not capable of EDTV playback--at minimum--it will be able to "read" a prog scan signal.

 

[Brian L]

I am curious about this Lance. Progressive is progressive, even though you may need a deinterlacer to get there. All DVD Video is native interlaced. If a DVD layer has a progressive output, by definition there would have to be a deinterlacer in the box.

I have always considered the term "line doubler" and "deinterlacer" to be somewhat interchangeable, although some line doublers also include scalers that can upconvert to higher rates.

IMHO, IIRC, AFAIK.........

BGL

 

[LanceJ]

Brian, do a search with these words: "DV-414" or "DV-444" and "line doubler".

 

[Kevin C Brown]

To be an EDTV (maybe) or HDTV (definitely) set, it has to accept 720p or 1080i, right? I don't think the early CRT sets that accepted 480p accepted either of those. The set required the higher scanning rate, obviously, but that alone doesn't require it to be a "digital" set.

 

[Brian L]

My argument is that even a CRT based HD Monitor is not a digital set, at least in terms of its display technology, which is clearly analog.

Or, I suppose you could agree that any set with a digital chassis (most anything made in the last 15 years or better, I would wager) is a "digital" set.

SDTV would be 480i. EDTV would be 480P. HDTV would be 720p and/or 1080i (and probably other formats that qualify as HD but we don't use at present)

Lance, I seem to be search impaired (tried Google and the HTF, but did not find anything that resembled a debate about the players line doubler or lack thereof).

Can you throw my a bone on the DV-414 and 444?

BGL

 

[LanceJ]

DV-414

DV-434

DV-444

Back in '99 I remember reading more detailed info about this issue, but since server space is limited............

 

[Kevin C Brown]

The 414 at least was never sold or marketed as a progressive machine:

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...etailComponent