with a good precessor, does a $1000 DVD player make much difference than a $100 one?

[minye]

I have been wondering this question for a long time. If I use a good processor or decoder/ DAC, is there any big difference between a $1000 DVD/CD player and a $100 one?

[orgasmdonor]

I just bought a Denon dvd 1920 new for 350 shipped from crutchfield. Has dual burr brown dac's. Made a huge difference in my audio and vidoe quality compared to my 90 dollar pioneer I had as my "good" dvd player. You get the Denon and you wil not have any worries...it's an awesome machine. And has the capabilities of future growth.

[topspeed]

Absolutely, without a doubt, unequivocally...

maybe.

The transport will almost certainly be far sturdier and less prone to vibration in the more expensive player. There's also a good chance that everything leading up to the dac's will be of higher grade as well, and while I can't scientifically tell you why they make a difference, all I can say is that my personal experience is that they do. The video side will of course have much better scalers and vid processing on the more expensive player (at least I would hope it would!), as well as faster load times, better buffering, more storage, etc.

[minye]

what I mean is that I already I have good processor (like my Lexicon) which does a perfect work of decording and D/A convert. The DVD playerls job is only read the optical disc and transfer the 0,1 streams to the processor through digital output. I always think that even a $20 CD ROM drive of a desktop computer can read CDs and install softwares without a single bit error. And there must be some buffer in the processor before decording or DAC in order to cover the error retry while there is reading errors. And there should be same error correction mechanism in the cheap DVD players. So I don't quite understand where is the Big difference.

[minye]

You guys understand me, right? I am wondering the advantage of the digital tech. is to store and transfer the information easy and acurate. It can kill the interfering and keep the original looks....

[N. Abstentia]

Will there be a difference? Yes. Will there be a $900 difference? No.

Having a lighter wallet is the main difference..other than that.....a $1000 player will have a better power supply. If you're bypassing all the internal DAC's there goes most of the cost right there.

I've seen plenty of $1000 Denons that quit working just like $100 players. The difference there is it's certainly easier to replace a $100 player, and both players will just as obsolete in a couple of years. No difference there.

In the end...get the player you can afford.

[minye]

Haha!

N. Abstentia. How are you doing with your HT room?

[Feanor]

what I mean is that I already I have good processor (like my Lexicon) which does a perfect work of decording and D/A convert. The DVD playerls job is only read the optical disc and transfer the 0,1 streams to the processor through digital output. I always think that even a $20 CD ROM drive of a desktop computer can read CDs and install softwares without a single bit error. And there must be some buffer in the processor before decording or DAC in order to cover the error retry while there is reading errors. And there should be same error correction mechanism in the cheap DVD players. So I don't quite understand where is the Big difference.

Apparently this is an old debate: how much difference does the transport make. (I assume we're talking purely music, not video). The only transport function is to pass error-free S/PDIF to the DAC. So what are the possibilities that the transport will screw up :confused5: I'll admit I don't understand what's involved very well

First the transport must read and pass on the bits as recorded: what are the possibilites here? As you say, the $20 computer CD ROM seems to do this fine so why do we need an expensive audio player. But note that the downstream computer software can have error correction routines that somehow correct the errors, perhaps by re-reading the source recording.

Secondly I think the transport has to get the timing right, that is, not cause "jitter". I note that timing is somehow encoded in the S/PDIF signal output, but I don't understand how this works. Downstream DACs can correct timing errors introduced by the transport and/or digital connection, but again, I don't understand how this works.

For my part I don't know whether a better transport might help, but my pure guess is that the most difficult work is done by the DAC.

[minye]

I believe there should be error correction routines in the CD\DVD players. Another example is the portable CD players. Nowadays, most new portable CD players have so called "electrical anti-shock" function. The player reads and save the bitstream in the playing buffer. If any moment, there is a shock or interuptiong of reading, it does a retry while it doesn't interupt the playing side, because it is sending/playing the data saved in the buffer at any moment.

I think picking up the 0,1 data and passing it to output at 1X speed is not a difficult job since a $20 CD ROM can do it well at 40+X speed.

So can I draw the conclusion below?

1. Don't buy expensive DVD players because you always use Pre-pros or Receivers to decord and D/A convert to get 5.1 or 7.1 channels. So spend the money more on Pre-pro or receivers. ( I would like to try the $30 DVD player, like last Christmas in Futureship, which can play lots of computer file formats....)

2. If you want to achieve HIFI stereo result,

a. buy expensive CD player that builds in HiFi DAC which is good enough beat your Pre-pro, and use its analogue output and a 2 channel pre-amp and a power amp.

b. or buy HiFi DAC and use it with cheap CD players

[N. Abstentia]

Haha!

N. Abstentia. How are you doing with your HT room?

It's DONE! Other than blackout curtains for the door..but other than that it's done :)

[EdwardGein]

The sound of the $30 DVD player connected to the $1,000 receiver is going to be like a $1,000 suit worn with $30 shoes. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken you know.

[musicman1999]

minye

are you not concerned about video quality on your dvd player.That is the big difference in dvd players between cheap and expensive.Audio differences would be subtle at best,depending on your associated gear.
thanks
bill

[minye]

Yes, the video is the difference.

I just can't figure out the audio differnce scientifically based on their working principle.

[musicman1999]

topspeed has it right.

bill

[EdwardGein]

I think alot of you people believe in the Easter Bunny I'm spotting a lot of mass induced hysteria here of feeling the need to agree on things so as not to be ostracised. There will be a huge noticeable difference in audio between a $30 DVD & a $250 DVD player etc. Here's some proof there is no Santa Claus: If there was no difference between audio on cheap DVD players & more expensive ones, this would have been written about in plain print in some national magazines or media. I'm daring anyone to come up with something that was. It hasn't been written because this simply doesn't exist Just like there is no proof of intelligent life on other planets here. Wishful thinking does not make things true. You're not back in Kansas anymore.

[musicman1999]

ed

read your last post,so i thought i would conduct an experiment.I have the Stargate collectors edition dvd,that has 2 discs with different versions of the film but both with 6.1dts.I put one in my Cambridge Audio 540d dvd player(about $500.00 cdn)and the other in my playstation2.The dvd player was connected by Ixos digital interconnect($90.00cdn)and the playstation by a nowname optical($30.00cdn)both to my Cambridge audio 540r reciever.I watched the opening credits/main theme on the playstation first,then the Cambridge.The results:on audio the cambridge had a slighty better midrange,highs were extended somewhat and the bass was a little tighter. Bear in mind that was running through $5,000.00cdn of Jm Labs speakers and wires and i have a good ear.On an average system,the average person would probably not notice the difference.On video,thats another story,the Cambridge killed the playstation2 totally.
Better dvd players are better,but for video or analog audio,not so much for digital audio.
thanks
bill

[Feanor]

I think alot of you people believe in the Easter Bunny I'm spotting a lot of mass induced hysteria here of feeling the need to agree on things so as not to be ostracised. There will be a huge noticeable difference in audio between a $30 DVD & a $250 DVD player etc. ...more.

Let's be plain: in this context we are not (1) talking about video quality, nor (2) the unit's build in DAC -- an external, downstream DAC will be used.

So maybe you're right: maybe, used only as transport, a more expensive unit is better. Please explain the principles involved. Allusions to Santa and the Easter Bunny don't cut it in this critical company :hand:

[minye]

Thanks Bill for the experiment. That is the result I am expecting. I have a Pioneer Elite DV-34 DVD player (MSRP$1000) and I use Lexicon DC2 processor. I couldn't tell much difference in audio over my $100 Samsung DVD player. The picture really got greatly improved. And also the analog CD output.

Normally when we setup the surround HT system, to watch movies, we always use digital output to the receiver to get 5.1/7.1 channels instead of only get 2 channels. So I am thinking, if we don't have a good, big TV, spend more money on the receiver/processor or other components before investing in DVD players.

[EdwardGein]

You made a good point which I overlook in reading alot of these posts that Joe Schmoe off the street who isn't a fervant gung ho collector of CD's might not notice differences that serious collectors & muscians/producers et. all would notice, and I'm guilty of overlooking that. A perfect example is my brother in law who just owns a couple of CDs & has a really low end home theater system. I've tried to talk him into upgrading his stuff but he says it will all be lost on him anyway, as he really isn't that aware of audio differences & doesn't care & is such a casual listener this isn't important too him. So I'll basically ammend all my previous posts concerning digital type equipment & cables, saying that for the casual listener, yes there probably will not be a noticeable difference what their hearing if played on equpment 10X more expensive & better. Good point Musicman.

[kexodusc]

I think alot of you people believe in the Easter Bunny I'm spotting a lot of mass induced hysteria here of feeling the need to agree on things so as not to be ostracised. There will be a huge noticeable difference in audio between a $30 DVD & a $250 DVD player etc. Here's some proof there is no Santa Claus: If there was no difference between audio on cheap DVD players & more expensive ones, this would have been written about in plain print in some national magazines or media. I'm daring anyone to come up with something that was. It hasn't been written because this simply doesn't exist Just like there is no proof of intelligent life on other planets here. Wishful thinking does not make things true. You're not back in Kansas anymore.

This comment baffles me...Ed, forget that there's no magazines revealing the DVD player myth (if there is one) - consider that there are no scientifically valid studies that prove that a difference in cables, or even higher-end amplifiers will contribute to improving sound quality, yet you seem to readily accept those concepts as fact.

So you assume because a magazine or newspaper doesn't write that it's false, it means that it's true? That's a big leap of faith. In the case of optical cables, digital signals, amps etc, we have hundreds, if not thousands of test results vs the absence of print in media. What's more valid?

One would think the companies that sell these products should be able to provide some evidence to support their claims that could stand up to reasonable scientific scrutiny.. The fact that they haven't been able to do so despite being asked for this evidence for decades now certainly isn't encouraging.

Now, I have my own beliefs (owning several amplifiers of different pricepoints and a bunch of cables of various grades), but, I'll be the first to admit that the media not revealing a fact in print doesn't mean that fact is any less true or false. I hope that's not all you base your decisions on.

[EdwardGein]

First off I was referring to the fact that I have never seen one magazine or newspaper article where someone has said the audio sound of a $40 DVD player will sound as good as a $1,000 DVD player attached to a good receiver with good speakers because all that is being produced is identical 0's and 1's, Nada.

A few months back, I posted a pretty good article from an online magazine where the guy stated unequivically that when you are connecting a DVD player by optic cable to a receiver, you will be getting better & hearing better audio sound from the better DVD player as sound is more then 0's and 1's, its the cables and players and receivers interpreting those 0's & 1's.. If I have some time, I'll try to find it on here.

[westcott]

The real answer is that spending more money will not insure you that you will get better video quality. I do believe the original question was about DVD performance.

All you have to do is look at the Secrets of Home Theater Benchmark to see that an Oppo, Panasonic, or Samsung can keep pace with players costing hundreds or even thousands more.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?function=search&articles=all

Now audio performace may be a different thread.

Here is a link I think someone was referrring too earlier. Also a good read.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/1104/

[EdwardGein]

Its fair enough to write & show the the article but I personally feel the writer of the article is an idiot who oversimplified too many things to have an incorrect premise. I posted a similar type article by someone of a different view a few months but have no idea hw to search for it on this forum & repost it. That articule took the opposite point of view basically stating that cables & a DVD player are going to affect the sound quality & interpretation of the 0's & 1's. Again my most obvious answer to the people who doubt this is the law of Supply & Demand in a Free Enterprise System. If sound quality was the same for a $50 DVD player and a $5,000 DVD player, there would simply be no market for the $5,000 player as the majority of people would buy the cheap one. Someone won't spend the extra money if quality of performance is no different, at least in regards to a large amount of the population.

[westcott]

Its fair enough to write & show the the article but I personally feel the writer of the article is an idiot who oversimplified too many things to have an incorrect premise. I posted a similar type article by someone of a different view a few months but have no idea hw to search for it on this forum & repost it. That articule took the opposite point of view basically stating that cables & a DVD player are going to affect the sound quality & interpretation of the 0's & 1's. Again my most obvious answer to the people who doubt this is the law of Supply & Demand in a Free Enterprise System. If sound quality was the same for a $50 DVD player and a $5,000 DVD player, there would simply be no market for the $5,000 player as the majority of people would buy the cheap one. Someone won't spend the extra money if quality of performance is no different, at least in regards to a large amount of the population.

Supply and Demand have nothing to do with good marketing.

Just ask Bose or Monster Cable!

[musicman1999]

westcott

I would take the enjoythemusic artical with a grain of salt,it is provided by a company that sells $5000.00 dac's so they have a vested interest.They also fail to take into account that anyone that bought a $30,000 cd player would certainly be using the onboard dac not an external one.
thanks
bill

[westcott]

musicman,

I merely supplied the link because I thought it may be the one that was referred to earlier.

It does have some relevance to the audio comments made earlier in that a cd player merely is a digital device. It you pass it digitally, you do not need a dac in your cd player. Either the player reads the data or it does not. It does not change or convert anything. rpm fluctuations or any other perceived affect is mute. Either a cd player works or it does not using a digital out.

Now if want to discuss dacs and passing analog signals out from the cd player to a digital AV receiver, then that is a different topic and one that seems pretty backwards to me but we wont go there.

[Cal Blacksmith]

Excuse me, if I may, I look at this from a different angle. I have chosen to go with a HTPC as a source for my Home Theater. I take the audio out of the sound card by way of optical digital cable and feed it into my receiver for de-coding into DTS, THX, ECT. I take the video signal and feed it through a dedicated tuner/scalar card to get output for my projector. I watch the image on a 108” screen and the quality of the image is stunning, near HD quality from a standard DVD. This is all done with a “cheap” PC DVD drive.

I used to have an inexpensive DVD player and I can agree that the audio (taken from the player with a optical digital cable) when played back through the same receiver and speaker setup was quite good. The video on the other hand was markedly worse. The player was not up to the task of reading the disk fast enough and producing a quality output to keep up with a HD projector. There were video dropouts, especially in fast action scenes and overall the quality of the video was fair at best, not to mention that my high quality VHS player is totally un-watchable on the projector. It does a very good job on the 32” TV but when enlarged, I would rather have sand ground into my eyes than watch it.

I do believe that the difference in stand-alone players comes down to the quality of the transport and quality of the decoders that are built in. It has been my experience that with better players comes better quality video. The audio did not change much if at all.

[edtyct]

Geez, not long ago in a thread not that far away, I posted a question. It may have sounded like a challenge, but it was meant to be so only in a mild way. Briefly, I asked what exactly do we mean when we say that one component sounds better than another, which we seem to say a lot. Nobody answered.

Sometimes the answer is relatively simple--more bass, better high frequency response, etc. Sometimes, however, it isn't easy at all to say exactly why one CD player or preamp sounds better than another one, though we may be convinced that it does. Price often has something to do with it, but, as Westcott say, not always. That kind of measurement is flawed, even though it certainly has numbers on its side.

A much longer time ago, two camps developed around this matter in audio (video doesn't have the same constraints)--the subjectivists (represented by, say, J. Gordon Holt and the Stereophile/Absolute Sound crowd) and the objectivists (Audio and Stereo Review). The objectivists take science at its word. To them, if measurements don't show a difference, then no difference exists. The subjectivists aren't exactly anti-science; in fact, many of them have impressive scientific credentials. But they are more willing to favor listening over measurement when the two conflict (remember, they often don't conflict).

The objectivists have a good point, but science is always a work in progress, not only instrumentally but also theoretically. In a sense, measurement is tautological, able to deal only with what it happens to know at any moment. In other words, we can measure only the type of empirical evidence that our instruments are programmed to read, but the possibility always exists that new empirical discoveries will open up new measuring opportunities. The subjectivists have the advantage in that respect; they aren't closed-minded in principle. They can hear something, check the measurements, and usually discover why they heard it. If they can't discover it, they can stick to their subjectivist guns.

The holes in both sides of the argument, however, should be obvious. They leave lots of room for each side to exploit any interests that it might have. We know that science in general bears a heavy responsibility for honesty and exactitude. Subjectivism in a more general sense can get into really deep water, which we need not explore. But in the little world of audio, it carries responsibility, too. It can't be a cover for hidden agendas or simply a naive denial of scientific methodology. It has to make good its points, even if they require a sensitivity to, and expertise about, sound that exceed what most people are willing to achieve. Audio subjectivists normally work in a rarefied air, well beyond the realm in which it's relatively easy to conclude that "everything pretty much sounds the same." Most credible audio subjectivists are extraordinarily familiar with a wide range of recording/playing equipment and live acoustics. None of these traits means that subjectivists will necessarily be able to convince others of what they can hear, or that it matters. Very few of them are foolish enough to claim that measurements have no value, but on the boundaries of experience, where measurement may not be able to discriminate fine differences, they may well be pioneers for more sensitive measuring techniques.

[westcott]

It has been my experience that with better players comes better quality video. The audio did not change much if at all.

On the video side, you will notice from the link I provided the names of the video processors inside the different DVD players. As pointed out earlier, a lot of vendors use the same hardware but improve or modify what was origially manufacutered or programmed by someone else. Faroudja\Sage\Genesis\Silicon Optics all come to mind.

This is where video processors differentiate themselves from one another. How well they implement the standards set out for flag reading, scaling, cadence, and other video challenges of conversion. Some mfgs go to great lengths to make the video better, and others do not. The strange thing is is that price is not an issue. It is just the willingness of the brander to go that one extra step further to provide a quality product.

P.S. video software for HTPC's have a long way to go to match the performance of dedicated DVD players. They are listed at the the very bottom of the shootout!

[musicman1999]

I think we all would be better off if we stopped using the term better than or worse than.Audio and video quality varies from person to person.We all hear and see differently.Many people reach the point of "it's good enough for me"and have no interest in improvement,although they probably don't visit here.We live in a world of mp3's and htib's,those people are interested in quantity,not quality.Slap a digital tag on it and people will buy it,if it's better or not.Me i'm old school,my cd player,like most good cd players,is connected by analog not digital.It has a far better dac than my reciever.There are only 2 reasons to hook a cd player by digital,if the processor has a better dac or you have an outboard dac and then you connect it by analog.
sorry for running on.
bill

[westcott]

I think we all would be better off if we stopped using the term better than or worse than.Audio and video quality varies from person to person.We all hear and see differently.Many people reach the point of "it's good enough for me"and have no interest in improvement,although they probably don't visit here.We live in a world of mp3's and htib's,those people are interested in quantity,not quality.Slap a digital tag on it and people will buy it,if it's better or not.Me i'm old school,my cd player,like most good cd players,is connected by analog not digital.It has a far better dac than my reciever.There are only 2 reasons to hook a cd player by digital,if the processor has a better dac or you have an outboard dac and then you connect it by analog.
sorry for running on.
bill

In the old days, it took a quality cd player for analog playback. This I do not dispute. Analog to digital conversion has always been important but more and more, it is avoided altogether. This is 2006 and for the most part, digital is the world we live in and the discussion covers 99.9% of most users.

Does analog have its place? Yes. And so do horn loaded speakers, two channel audio systems, and SET amplifiers but this makes up a very small percentage of users (me, among them) and a very subjective area that has nothing to do with how digital equipment works.

HD video and Dolby Digital\DTS are here to stay and do not be surprised if it only available via a digitally controlled connection in the near future.

[Cal Blacksmith]

..............

P.S. video software for HTPC's have a long way to go to match the performance of dedicated DVD players. They are listed at the the very bottom of the shootout!

I didn’t go by any “shoot out” most of which I tend to discount the results of heavily. I went with what works for us and I will tell you the results are very good. I am willing to put our system up against a “dedicated” player of your choice and I am confident that the results will show how good a PC system really is
.
There is a difference in video quality that can easily be seen between the scalier card and the high mid level video card. The scalier does a much better job of getting it right.

Now with that said, someday I might go with a dedicated player, who knows? But until then, every time a “new” tech comes out it will cost you thousands of $ to keep up with the bleeding edge, for me, it is a $200 upgrade to the PC.:)

EDIT: BTW Westcot, we are probably closer than farther appart. I am also into tubes, lps and horns:D

[musicman1999]

westcott

unless someone is using a digital path reciever such as one of the panasonic or harman kardon digital recievers,all signals are converted from digital to analog before they are sent to the speakers.The only difference is where the conversion is done.Meridian manufactures high quality gear with all digital signal paths all the way to the speakers,but they are very expensive.Speakers are analog devices.

thanks
bill

[minye]

Westcott,

Whatever digital tech develops, what finally reach your ears and make you hear is analog. While DAC, the device converting the content from digital to analog is pivotal and may be costly.

Bill,

I think it is great idea for manufactures to work out some budget DVD players without good built-in DACs but can give good video performance like OPPO OPDV971H (according to the benchmark web link above).

Has anyone tried this model? OPPO OPDV971H, is it really as good as the web boasts itself?

[edtyct]

Barry Willis in the Perfect Vision does an informal evaluation of the audio and video delivered by a selection of DVD players at various price points. The video scores derived from Silcon Optix's HQV Benchmark DVD. The review does not pull its punches for the less expensive units but places all of the contestants on a level playing field. The review system was held as constant as possible. The Oppo, which received some kind words elsewhere in the issue, doesn't fare all that well in the scheme of things, and not just in comparison with the more expensive players. To give you an idea, its scores aren't substantially better than those of the $40 Cyberhome player that RadioShack sells, but they are better than those of the $750 Yamaha DVD-S2500BU and the $1800 Arcam Diva DV-79.

[Woochifer]

First off I was referring to the fact that I have never seen one magazine or newspaper article where someone has said the audio sound of a $40 DVD player will sound as good as a $1,000 DVD player attached to a good receiver with good speakers because all that is being produced is identical 0's and 1's, Nada.

And I've never seen a magazine or newspaper article that even evaluates the audio quality of a $40 DVD player in the first place. So, what does that say?

Your leap of logic by infering that a $1,000 DVD player must sound better than a $40 player because no articles have ever equated the two is an astounding bit of strawman creation.

[EdwardGein]

So you think that under free enterprise, if 2 items produce the same exact quality, people will be willing to spend $1,000 for what they can spend $40 on? I don't think so. Therefore, there obviously is a difference in quality. Since there obviously is a market for high dollar items, there must be a quality difference in the items or there would not be enough of a market to manufacture them if they didn't. Sometimes things are as they appear.

[edtyct]

Well, I've just alerted EG to one such magazine, and a magazine that has been accused of elitist tendencies--at least in the sense of reviewing more high-ticket items than affordable ones. I think that TPV's DVD survey might also help put to rest the ongoing accusation that magazines are afraid to do honest reviews for fear of alienating their advertisers. Yamaha and Arcam are too well-regarded companies who advertise heavily. Price point and sound/video quality are connected just enough to give false confidence in the accuracy of cost as a measurement of quality. Watching, listening, and comparing components with test equipment are the only ways to find out. Abstractions need not apply.

[edtyct]

So you think that under free enterprise, if 2 items produce the same exact quality, people will be willing to spend $1,000 for what they can spend $40 on? I don't think so. Therefore, there obviously is a difference in quality. Since there obviously is a market for high dollar items, there must be a quality difference in the items or there would not be enough of a market to manufacture them if they didn't. Sometimes things are as they appear.

Yes, there often are substantial differences in quality between expensive components and inexpensive ones, but you won't be able to tell just by looking at the relative costs. And, yes, some people will spend $1000 for something that performs only marginally better, if at all, than something much cheaper, because it may have other characteristics that make it worthwhile, like build quality, aesthetics, name appeal, company attributes, god knows what. No one is claiming that the $40 player is the same in all respects as the $1000 player.

One more point, if someone turns out to be dissatisfied with their $1,000 player, s/he probably won't swap it for a $40 model that overachieves. S/he will probably opt for another $1,000 player that performs at the expected level and has other desirable attributes.

[topspeed]

So you think that under free enterprise, if 2 items produce the same exact quality, people will be willing to spend $1,000 for what they can spend $40 on? I don't think so. Therefore, there obviously is a difference in quality. Since there obviously is a market for high dollar items, there must be a quality difference in the items or there would not be enough of a market to manufacture them if they didn't. Sometimes things are as they appear.
Auuuugh!!! :mad2:

Good Lord, Hershon you are a marketing department's dream!

Take this example.

Ferrari F430: fast, beautiful, exotic, Italian, $198,600 (good luck finding one at this price)

or...

Corvette Z06: much faster than the the F430, beautiful, not exotic, Amuricahn, $65,000

The Z06 outperforms the F430 in every measurable category yet costs less than a third as much. But people don't buy the Ferrari for all out performance, do they? Sure it's fast, but more importantly it has the pracing horse and provenance that goes with it. It's called EGO, and it's a marketing person's best friend. Performance has very little to do with it.

Geez, based on your logic the 4 times as expensive Bose Lifestyle system should easily trounce your Orb's, right? I think we both know the answer to that question.

To equate price with value is hugely irresponsible and astonishingly naive.

[EdwardGein]

In regards to Speakers, I don't think your analogy really holds up. While I think there are quality differences in Orbs and Bose, and personally prefer Orbs which as you said are cheaper, Bose is a Nationally Marketed Company, carried in retail stores, etc. Orb is a much smaller company that sells direct.

My perfect example for you is I chose to buy a Harmon Kardon 31 DVD Player retailing for $350 for which I paid $250 new over any Mickey Mouse $40 DVD player. The only reason I did because there is a difference in sound quality which I can plainly hear and others detect as well- IE, Consumer Reviewers praising the audio quality. If audio quality is the same on every system, you wouldn't praise it.

Anyway, this whole argument is getting boring. Obviously I'm not going to change my point of view and neither are the people who disagree with me. If anyone wishes to think its admirable that if a person had say a $50,000 home theater system, consisting of speakers costing $25,000, a $24,950 receiver & a $50 DVD player, go ahead. That's why we're in Iraq, right!

[SlumpBuster]

So you think that under free enterprise, if 2 items produce the same exact quality, people will be willing to spend $1,000 for what they can spend $40 on? I don't think so.

It happens every day of the week. my man. Basic marketing 101.
See: http://www.slate.com/id/2133754/
http://www.slate.com/id/2134489/

Oh, and I just wore a $1000 suit with $30 clearance Floreshiems today. No one paid a notice, and my $350 Johnston Murphys didn't get ruined in the rain.

[minye]

Well, Ed, we are not saying $50 DVD player and $1000 player are the same, but don't sound that diffenent as the price especially when most of the jobs are done by the "$24950 receiver". We gave our reason from the point of view of their working principle.

It is quite common idea accepted by most folks here that $5000 or $20000 components are not always worth the price )especially the stuff sold BestBuy Futureshop.). BOSE could be the No.1 example.

[EdwardGein]

I'm not arguing that some items are overpriced and that some less expensive items outperform more expensive ones. I however do not believe in the Easter Bunny & to use what seems to be the people's choice here, the Denon 1910 DVD player as an example, if you took 100 people randomly off the street and connected this player by optic cable to a decent receiver with decent speakers & also connected a $40 DVD player to the same system by Optic cable & played the same CD without them knowing which DVD player was which, at least 70% if not higher of the people could identify the more expensive player.

[minye]

yes, Ed. My opinion would be 70% people can't tell the difference and I have given my reason.

[JeffKnob]

I'm not arguing that some items are overpriced and that some less expensive items outperform more expensive ones. I however do not believe in the Easter Bunny & to use what seems to be the people's choice here, the Denon 1910 DVD player as an example, if you took 100 people randomly off the street and connected this player by optic cable to a decent receiver with decent speakers & also connected a $40 DVD player to the same system by Optic cable & played the same CD without them knowing which DVD player was which, at least 70% if not higher of the people could identify the more expensive player.

More and more like a troll everyday.

[EdwardGein]

Get a life, man. You obviously are a very closeminded person who seems to vent at me for everything because I'm your superior. This will probably be deleted too. The only Troll is you.
I pity the fool.

[EdwardGein]

"Yes, Ed. My opinion would be 70% people can't tell the difference and I have given my reason." - Minye

Well you guys seem to have invented the bowl haircuts and you probably think they're just as good as a hair cut from a good stylist.

[orgasmdonor]

All right fellas....I am a musician...I do feel that I have a decent ear "not perfect". I ordered some new HT stuff as we all know. I received my Denon 1920 dvd $350 to replace my Pioneer dvd270 $90. I unplugged the pioneer via coax and hooked up the Denon to my cheap sony receiver via coax. There was a noticable difference in audio quality over the pioneer. They flat out do not sound the same PERIOD. Any of you would be able to notice the difference if you have decent hearing. The video quality I might add was even more noticeable. It is easier for the brain to see than to listen if you have both senses operating properly. That is why alot of us close our eyes to relax and listen to music. I must say that I agree with some of what Ed says. There was a definite difference in audio clarity with the Denon playing audio cd's. Anyway...Why can't I be rich instead of well-hung ????:5:

[edtyct]

First of all, the Pioneer may not have been able to pass 24 bit, 96 khz or better, audio in a digital stream. Second, transports do make a difference--not a huge difference, perhaps, on a reasonably level playing field, but a highly stable and highly buffered transport might just conceivably outperform a corner cutter.

Also, surely out of everything that EdG writes, we must be able to find some common ground. And the reason why you can't be rich instead of well hung is that you'd have an identity crisis.

[orgasmdonor]

I think you are right...I do have an identity crisis. That explains why my wife could never be a carpenter....I convinced her a long time ago that two inches is a foot. Well I guess it's time to go to therapy and renew my meds.....:8:

[JeffKnob]

Get a life, man. You obviously are a very closeminded person who seems to vent at me for everything because I'm your superior. This will probably be deleted too. The only Troll is you.
I pity the fool.

The only thing you are superior to me in is ignorance.

Oh yeah. I agree with you. I pity you too.