Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Juan_R, Jan 27, 2003.
Check it out. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-b...h&articles=all
I guess the Panasonic XP-50 would fall in there at the top as well, or would it?
Still no audio performance results...
As outlined in the shootout introduction here: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...ut-1-2003.html no audio performance is evaluated. Video performance is their main objective. Cheers, Sean
Audio performance is obviously the other half of the equation when it comes to DVD. And they do review the audio performance in individual reviews. For example: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...er-2-2001.html
While I'd like to see a comparison of the DVD-A (or SACD) performance of these players that have that playback ability, DD and DTS through the digital outputs sound the same on every player I've heard. Since the primary objective of a DVD player is movie playback, and many of the players do not have built-in DD/DTS decoders, audio evaluation for many of them (including the now co-top rated XP-30) would be of little use IMHO.
Yeah, My Denon 1600 received a 91. Not that I needed that to know it has an outstanding picture. The DVD-A is very good also. Optical audio out only light weight only weakness IMO. Just don't shake it or move it around a lot. But boy does it cook when it comes to video quality!
Including audio in the shootout would take for ever, remember these guys are doing this on their own time. Also audio is not so cut and dry, what sounds good to one person may not sound good to another, audio is more of a preference. I suggest that if anybody wants a shootout for the audio side then they should do it themselfs, these units are DVD players first and everything else second.
Juan- If you look at the individual player reviews on the site, a lot of the audio portion is measurements, which is not a subjective thing, which doesn't take that long to do. I guess I don't understand why y'all seem to to think that the audio portion isn't relevant... Most people with DVD players chucked their CD players years ago. Last time I checked, the DVD-V format *did* include DD/DD EX/DTS/DTS ES *audio* soundtracks... And the DVD-V format also includes the capability of 24 bit/96 kHz audio tracks ("digital audio disc") which can even be digitally passed through the coax and optical ports.
Kevin, If it is being passed thru the coax and optical port then wouldn't the receiver or pre/pro be doing the decoding, with the receivers DAC's. Also if DD, DD-EX, DTS, DTS-ES are pass thru the same way then why bother testing it. I don't think the same DVD player will sound the same with two different receivers.
Simple, just compare players with the *same* pre pre/receiver, so that effect is not part of the comparison. (A good enough one, so that that component's performance is less of a variable.) Actually, I'm less interested in what some *other* person's opinion of what a player sounds like. More the measurements that I'm after. Secrets *does* do the best DVD player reviews in my opinion. I just wish they'd include audio in the shootout. So for a person like me who uses a player for 80% redbook CD playback (and slowly but surely more SACD & DVD-A), I can make a decision based on video *and* audio performnace. Like I said, just have to wait and compare the individual reviews when/if they do them for a particular player. And even though I do believe that Secrets does quite excellent DVD player reviews, there *are* the HT mags as well.
Kevin, What exactly do you want them to measure(!) on the audio side that some other publications don't already?? Also, what makes you think a few simple measurements of the audio output will really show you how faithful the players are to the original source signal?? For example, the bulk of the shootout actually did NOT rely merely on simple measurements of the video output. The deinterlacing tests all relied on their eyes to see what's being displayed on a large display device, and the tests are pretty clear cut and simple because they know exactly what to look for. But w/ audio, it won't be nearly so clear cut because they will NOT know exactly what to look for. There won't be an easy reference for audio quality. And basically, the shootout folks have already pointed this difficulty out to some extent. If they just did a few simple measurements like frequency response, will that really help you very much in determining audio quality? Probably not. Also, even w/ the video quality, I suspect players that perform identically across all the tests may still yield slight appreciable differences in overall picture quality. But for simplicity's sake let's say 2 players performed identically, except for video frequency response. One player rolls off by 0.5db at the upper end while the other rolls up(?) by 0.5db. Presumably, the one will look very slightly softer while the other will look very slightly sharper. Which one is really better?? Now, let's say their FRs are actually close to flat throughout, but look like mirror images of each other along the 0.0db axis. Now, which one is really better?? Also, measurement of a test signal doesn't necessarily tell you too much about how actual performance will be w/ realworld signals. As an audiophile, you should know that. If they simply did such measurements, the results might totally mislead people into thinking a truly inferior player outperforms an audiophile quality one. _Man_