HDMI worse than component video [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : HDMI worse than component video



smokinjoe73
04-05-2011, 08:34 PM
So I am confused. My sony reciever controls the signals from my sat box(HD) DVD, etc, I am getting better picture quality with just a simple RCA yellow video cable than either the 3 RCA component video, but BOTH are better quality than HDMI ! What gives?

bfalls
04-06-2011, 04:42 AM
It could be how you've configured your system, or a bad receiver. Provide more details, receiver model, how you have the component or HDMI configured. Have you tried going directly from the player to the TV? What model TV do you have? Player?

smokinjoe73
04-06-2011, 08:28 AM
Its a sony str-dg720. I realize that it will only output hdmi if inputed hdmi on that component. My concern with hdmi directly to the tv is that I would lose video switching capabilities. So far the best picture is from the single yellow "video" rca like I said which is backward of what it should be.

recoveryone
04-06-2011, 11:06 AM
WOW! you have an issue going on that is hard to pin down or even start to diagnose. If you single composite RCA line gives you the best PQ out of the 3 something is very very wrong, It could be in the settings on the BDP, for mine ask which method is being used to send out the signal (Composite, Component or HDMI) and ask which line will carry the audio. Now does this problem occur only with the BDP or with all of your sources? And is everything being ran through the AVR with one output to the TV? If yes to both questions then the AVR could be the problem. You may need to be more detail in how your system is connected (each piece of gear)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-06-2011, 11:06 AM
You might have a bad HDMI cable, or bad HDMI transmitters. In normal conditions there is no way that component outputs would look better than HDMI.

pixelthis
04-06-2011, 11:13 AM
Its a sony str-dg720. I realize that it will only output hdmi if inputed hdmi on that component. My concern with hdmi directly to the tv is that I would lose video switching capabilities. So far the best picture is from the single yellow "video" rca like I said which is backward of what it should be.

THE PHRASE "Sony receiver" is probably your problem.
Its "video switching" is either whats called "repeater"(passthru) or it has a video processing chip. If a chip, you can set the resolution, and it might be set wrong.
Video switching is nice, but if its hurting the picture q of your HT, you need to go direct to the TV. Hard to believe that a composite is giving a better pic no matter what.
Could also be a bad cable, BLU player could be set to a lower res.
One more thing you're wrong about, if your receiver has video processing instead of
passthru everything can be output through one cable, like HDMI.
My stuff all goes through my receiver and out my HDMI, including an older DVDA
player thats hooked up via component. All receivers with video processing have this.
EVEN THO my one lung video proc on my receiver is set to "pass" it converts everything to HDMI.:1:

GMichael
04-06-2011, 11:46 AM
THE PHRASE "Sony receiver" is probably your problem.
Its "video switching" is either whats called "repeater"(passthru) or it has a video processing chip. If a chip, you can set the resolution, and it might be set wrong.
Video switching is nice, but if its hurting the picture q of your HT, you need to go direct to the TV. Hard to believe that a composite is giving a better pic no matter what.
Could also be a bad cable, BLU player could be set to a lower res.
One more thing you're wrong about, if your receiver has video processing instead of
passthru everything can be output through one cable, like HDMI.
My stuff all goes through my receiver and out my HDMI, including an older DVDA
player thats hooked up via component. All receivers with video processing have this.
EVEN THO my one lung video proc on my receiver is set to "pass" it converts everything to HDMI.:1:

Dude. Get out of there. I'll buy you a cheeseburger.

bfalls
04-06-2011, 11:58 AM
Its a sony str-dg720. I realize that it will only output hdmi if inputed hdmi on that component. My concern with hdmi directly to the tv is that I would lose video switching capabilities. So far the best picture is from the single yellow "video" rca like I said which is backward of what it should be.

The only reason I mentioned going direct is to verify video out of the player is good/bad. Narrows the problem to either the player, cable or receiver.

If video is good on the TV with direct connection, the cable and player are good.
Bad with direct connection, cable or player could be bad, maybe receiver also, but we'll be able to tell once the problem is resolved with the player and cable.
Troubleshooting 101, configure the system in simplest form. Eliminate the variables.

BadAssJazz
04-06-2011, 12:00 PM
An interesting anomaly that I wouldn't think possible. A standard composite video cable that delivers a better picture than BOTH component AND HDMI?!?!??

Let's assume that your Component and HDMI cables are half decent quality and up to specs. Let's also assume that your definition of "Good Picture Quality" more or less coincides with normal human standard. :)

Remove the receiver from the chain and connect your SAT/Cable box directly to the TV and then see if the above still holds true. If it does, then your problem is either the SAT/Cable box or your TV.

If you have a DVD player with composite, component and HDMI connections (not likely, but ...), then hook your DVD player directly to the TV using all 3 methods. Again, if the above still holds true, the problem is your TV. However, if the component and HDMI images are better than the composite, then the problem is your SAT/Cable box.

IF after checking every link in the chain you still find your composite video cable to be better than component and HDMI, I strongly advise filling out paperwork for a name change to, say, Rumpelstiltskin and cornering the market on as many of those cheap composite video cables as you can find, because clearly you've stumbled upon the secret alchemy of spinning straw into gold. Long live the magic composite video cable!!!

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-06-2011, 01:47 PM
There is one huge problem with going direct to the television unless you have a HDMI 1.4 spec HDMI transmitters with a return channel. Signal latency and alignment is a problem when you send your audio down one cable, and your video down another. Instead of both going through the same processing, each could go through two different processing knocking each other out of time.

This is the benefit that HDMI 1.4 brings. It allows you to send HDMI directly to the television, and then send the audio to a reciever. The HDMI transmitters would keep the signal aligned.

GMichael
04-06-2011, 01:56 PM
There is one huge problem with going direct to the television unless you have a HDMI 1.4 spec HDMI transmitters with a return channel. Signal latency and alignment is a problem when you send your audio down one cable, and your video down another. Instead of both going through the same processing, each could go through two different processing knocking each other out of time.

This is the benefit that HDMI 1.4 brings. It allows you to send HDMI directly to the television, and then send the audio to a reciever. The HDMI transmitters would keep the signal aligned.
I think they mean to just do it for a few minutes for testing reasons only.

Luvin Da Blues
04-06-2011, 05:20 PM
You might have a bad HDMI cable, or bad HDMI transmitters. In normal conditions there is no way that component outputs would look better than HDMI.

That's my guess to. I have a bad HDMI cable that will pass 480p but not anything better. It took me awhile to figure that out. :crazy:

smokinjoe73
04-06-2011, 05:33 PM
So yeah, I will attempt all the patch-through and check HDMI cables against each other to establish consistency. BUT why would the reciever have the option for this to even happen? I would have to read more into the recievers "settings" but this seems crazy that I would have to even do this.
What I was saying was that according to the manual, if you say input via component or composite, that it wont send that signal to the monitor via HDMI. I think I actually tried this and was suprised to find it was true.
Good thing I built my entertainment center with wheels on it. It still a pia.

pixelthis
04-07-2011, 12:31 PM
Dude. Get out of there. I'll buy you a cheeseburger.

Not lookin for food. Flat screen TV's have killed the supply of boxes big enough to take a nap in.:1:

pixelthis
04-07-2011, 12:43 PM
So yeah, I will attempt all the patch-through and check HDMI cables against each other to establish consistency. BUT why would the reciever have the option for this to even happen? I would have to read more into the recievers "settings" but this seems crazy that I would have to even do this.
What I was saying was that according to the manual, if you say input via component or composite, that it wont send that signal to the monitor via HDMI. I think I actually tried this and was suprised to find it was true.
Good thing I built my entertainment center with wheels on it. It still a pia.

HEY, this is a Sony receiver we're talking about here, one step above a ten
year old Ukrainian alarm clock. Don't complain if you find out that your ten dollar
suit has a tag that says "made in Chernobyl". My main complaint about Sony receivers
is that they don't include the quikcrete to pour into them to make a boat anchor.
CHEAPSKATES.:1:

bfalls
04-07-2011, 08:43 PM
HEY, this is a Sony receiver we're talking about here, one step above a ten
year old Ukrainian alarm clock. Don't complain if you find out that your ten dollar
suit has a tag that says "made in Chernobyl". My main complaint about Sony receivers
is that they don't include the quikcrete to pour into them to make a boat anchor.
CHEAPSKATES.:1:

What crystal ball did you look into to determine the problem is with the receiver? From what experience do you speak about the quality and reliability of Sony receivers? I work for SonyDADC in their disc facility. We have a media test facility where dozens of titles are tested daily on their matrix of over 150 DVD and Blu-ray players.

The players are but in racks. Each rack has a monitor and Sony receiver which is used for switching and listening to audio streams. We currently have 25 racks and two full surround rooms. I can state as a fact the Sony receivers we use are and have been very reliable in function and durability. About 80% of the receivers are Sony ES Series. It really gripes me to hear someone rag on an entire product line because they had a bad experience or two. Maybe it's not the hardware! Haven't you gone through other hardware failures lately?

pixelthis
04-08-2011, 11:31 AM
What crystal ball did you look into to determine the problem is with the receiver? From what experience do you speak about the quality and reliability of Sony receivers? I work for SonyDADC in their disc facility. We have a media test facility where dozens of titles are tested daily on their matrix of over 150 DVD and Blu-ray players.

The players are but in racks. Each rack has a monitor and Sony receiver which is used for switching and listening to audio streams. We currently have 25 racks and two full surround rooms. I can state as a fact the Sony receivers we use are and have been very reliable in function and durability. About 80% of the receivers are Sony ES Series. It really gripes me to hear someone rag on an entire product line because they had a bad experience or two. Maybe it's not the hardware! Haven't you gone through other hardware failures lately?

I HAVE HAD ABOUT a zillion receivers, and had problems with two, a Yamaha and
a Sony.
THE Sony was not "ES", more like P.O.S. I paid 450 (about 800 today) and this was the top of the "mainstream" line. KEPT waiting for it to break in. It never did, bit it did
break, twice. THE LEFT AMP went out. Sent it in, and when I GOT IT BACK IT LASTED SIX MONTHS. Whole time I had it the performance was mediocre.
ERGONOMICS were great, the "remote comander" would turn on everything( had a Sony
vcr, laser, monitor) which impressed the chicks, mostly. AFTER THE 2ND FAILURE
took a look at the train wreck inside, wrote it off as a bad job. GOT ABOUT three years of use for a considerable amount of money, all of it bad.
NOW I knew this going in, but SONY WAS ALL my dealer had, and my credit was rough
(this was 1994 or so), so please don't tell me about Sony receivers, nobody
considers them a serious piece of kit, and you know it. BASICALLY a step up
for the know-nothings aspiring to leave HTIB world. MY brother loves his Sony receiver,
tho, but hes' tone deaf(bad inner ear infections).
So please don't get all up in my grille, I HAVE BEEN HEARING about Sony receivers for years. As far as making receivers, Sony is a great TV company.
HERE'S what I don't understand, SONY makes excellent monitors, I have had five.
Your "top of the line" ES, AVERAGE AT BEST. So why bother making something(or
more likely contracting it out) you aren't very good at?
I DON'T buy clothes from BEST BUY, I don't buy groceries at SEARS, and will never understand why anybody buys a receiver from a monitor company.
SURE, all of the other stuff you either contract out or build, I UNDERSTAND THAT,
but a receiver is the heart of a system, if you can't get it right, don't sully your name trying
with mediocre efforts. AND since you use the "es" stuff at work, I probably know more about it than you do, having made the mistake of buying one.
RANT all you want, I HAVE BEEN THERE, got the tee shirt and the bobble head doll.
I don't slam stuff unless I HAVE EXPERIENCE or close knowledge about that of which I
speak. A DECENT receiver is a product of magic, so much can go wrong.
MOST companies have several product lines, but I would never buy a receiver
from a company that didn't specialize in them, same with speakers.
OR monitors.BTW your receivers are at least better than your speakers, but then again a fat lady yelling in the yard is better than your "speakers".
SORRY.:1:

BadAssJazz
04-11-2011, 06:00 PM
HERE'S what I don't understand, SONY makes excellent monitors, I have had five. Your "top of the line" ES, AVERAGE AT BEST. So why bother making something(or more likely contracting it out) you aren't very good at? I DON'T buy clothes from BEST BUY, I don't buy groceries at SEARS, and will never understand why anybody buys a receiver from a monitor company.

It finally has sunk in, just this very minute, that Pioneer Elite will never ever EVER bring back its KURO line of plasmas. Dude, that sucks. :cryin: :cryin: :cryin:

Woochifer
04-11-2011, 06:23 PM
So yeah, I will attempt all the patch-through and check HDMI cables against each other to establish consistency. BUT why would the reciever have the option for this to even happen? I would have to read more into the recievers "settings" but this seems crazy that I would have to even do this.
What I was saying was that according to the manual, if you say input via component or composite, that it wont send that signal to the monitor via HDMI. I think I actually tried this and was suprised to find it was true.
Good thing I built my entertainment center with wheels on it. It still a pia.

As others have indicated, if your picture quality looks better connected direct than it does patched through the receiver, then there you have your answer. And it sounds to me like you got a defective unit, or a setting is way off.

HDMI and component are the only connections with enough bandwidth to carry 720p/1080i/p HD signals. There's no way that a composite video connection should look better, if you know what a calibrated reference picture looks like. The only situation where this is conceivable would be if you're using 480i signals.

Back in the first generation of HDMI -connected HDTVs, you did have instances where the component video produced better picture quality than the HDMI connection. This was a case where the analog video circuitry in the TV was better than what they used in the digital signal path. With newer TVs, the HDMI connection will typically result in the best picture quality, and many of the latest TVs have begun phasing out analog video connections.

And beginning with this year's Blu-ray players, the analog video outputs are limited to composite connectors. You need to get this straightened out at some point, because analog video is disappearing.

In a worst case scenario, we could just go with an auto-sensing HDMI switch. I use an older receiver without HDMI switching, so my video sources are switched using an HDMI switch. I simply plug the sources in order of priority, and the picture going to the TV switches automatically as I turn video sources on and off. Very simple, and they cost less than $100. Some I've also seen selling for less than $40.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812720001&cm_re=hdmi_switch-_-12-720-001-_-Product

Look into those options if you have a problem receiver, but can't afford to replace it right now.

bfalls
04-12-2011, 06:21 AM
I HAVE HAD ABOUT a zillion receivers, and had problems with two, a Yamaha and
a Sony.
THE Sony was not "ES", more like P.O.S. I paid 450 (about 800 today) and this was the top of the "mainstream" line. KEPT waiting for it to break in. It never did, bit it did
break, twice. THE LEFT AMP went out. Sent it in, and when I GOT IT BACK IT LASTED SIX MONTHS. Whole time I had it the performance was mediocre.
ERGONOMICS were great, the "remote comander" would turn on everything( had a Sony
vcr, laser, monitor) which impressed the chicks, mostly. AFTER THE 2ND FAILURE
took a look at the train wreck inside, wrote it off as a bad job. GOT ABOUT three years of use for a considerable amount of money, all of it bad.
NOW I knew this going in, but SONY WAS ALL my dealer had, and my credit was rough
(this was 1994 or so), so please don't tell me about Sony receivers, nobody
considers them a serious piece of kit, and you know it. BASICALLY a step up
for the know-nothings aspiring to leave HTIB world. MY brother loves his Sony receiver,
tho, but hes' tone deaf(bad inner ear infections).
So please don't get all up in my grille, I HAVE BEEN HEARING about Sony receivers for years. As far as making receivers, Sony is a great TV company.
HERE'S what I don't understand, SONY makes excellent monitors, I have had five.
Your "top of the line" ES, AVERAGE AT BEST. So why bother making something(or
more likely contracting it out) you aren't very good at?
I DON'T buy clothes from BEST BUY, I don't buy groceries at SEARS, and will never understand why anybody buys a receiver from a monitor company.
SURE, all of the other stuff you either contract out or build, I UNDERSTAND THAT,
but a receiver is the heart of a system, if you can't get it right, don't sully your name trying
with mediocre efforts. AND since you use the "es" stuff at work, I probably know more about it than you do, having made the mistake of buying one.
RANT all you want, I HAVE BEEN THERE, got the tee shirt and the bobble head doll.
I don't slam stuff unless I HAVE EXPERIENCE or close knowledge about that of which I
speak. A DECENT receiver is a product of magic, so much can go wrong.
MOST companies have several product lines, but I would never buy a receiver
from a company that didn't specialize in them, same with speakers.
OR monitors.BTW your receivers are at least better than your speakers, but then again a fat lady yelling in the yard is better than your "speakers".
SORRY.:1:
NO reason To bE SOrry, evERYoNE HAS thE rIghT to theiR OPINION (OK now I have my eyes straight after reading your text).
I knew if I yanked your chain, you'd growl:biggrin5: I submit to your expertise. How can my experience on Sony receivers compare to someone who owned one from 1997-2000 and has a tone-deaf brother who owns one he likes. I MUST HAVE BEEN CRAAAZZY! Or stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I agree receivers are not Sony's strongest suite, but they are not bad receivers. I have owned my ES for about four years and had one firmware issue. I called Sony about and had a replacement in two days with free return shipping on the defective unit. I had the option to have a local service center update it, but opted for the replacement.

Dollar for dollar Sony receivers usually have more features than most. Mine had 6 HDMI inputs when most had two, 120W/ch when most in the same price range had 100W, Zones 3 & 4 when others only had Zone 2, binding post for surrounds when many had spring-type, up conversion and up scaling for video. Sony has always been known for their Tuners. For a mid-fi receiver I would probably rank them about fourth or fifth behind B&K, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo. Harmon Kardon and Marantz are in there somewhere, depending on the model.

Sony is not generally known for their speakres, but they have manufactured some good ones. Their SS-M3/5/7/9 speakers were excellent speakers. The SS-M9 was reviewed very favorably in Stereophile. Their APM Series speakers were also good and sought after by collectors. Check out Audiokarma. Their Sountina NSA-PF ($10,000 only sold in Japan) are also well received and use leading-edge tech. I'm sure with your experience you've seen and heard them all. You always speak in generalities.

BTW with a zillion (-2) receivers, I'll bet your carbon footprint is large enough to cover the state of Texas. Yank. Yank.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-12-2011, 07:51 AM
As others have indicated, if your picture quality looks better connected direct than it does patched through the receiver, then there you have your answer. And it sounds to me like you got a defective unit, or a setting is way off.

HDMI and component are the only connections with enough bandwidth to carry 720p/1080i/p HD signals. There's no way that a composite video connection should look better, if you know what a calibrated reference picture looks like. The only situation where this is conceivable would be if you're using 480i signals.

Back in the first generation of HDMI -connected HDTVs, you did have instances where the component video produced better picture quality than the HDMI connection. This was a case where the analog video circuitry in the TV was better than what they used in the digital signal path. With newer TVs, the HDMI connection will typically result in the best picture quality, and many of the latest TVs have begun phasing out analog video connections.

And beginning with this year's Blu-ray players, the analog video outputs are limited to composite connectors. You need to get this straightened out at some point, because analog video is disappearing.

In a worst case scenario, we could just go with an auto-sensing HDMI switch. I use an older receiver without HDMI switching, so my video sources are switched using an HDMI switch. I simply plug the sources in order of priority, and the picture going to the TV switches automatically as I turn video sources on and off. Very simple, and they cost less than $100. Some I've also seen selling for less than $40.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812720001&cm_re=hdmi_switch-_-12-720-001-_-Product

Look into those options if you have a problem receiver, but can't afford to replace it right now.

Be very careful about those auto sensing switchers. Every one I tried could not pass any audio above 24/48khz. That means no Bluray concert video's or music only disc with 24/192khz. They just played back at 24/48khz.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-12-2011, 07:54 AM
NO reason To bE SOrry, evERYoNE HAS thE rIghT to theiR OPINION (OK now I have my eyes straight after reading your text).
I knew if I yanked your chain, you'd growl:biggrin5: I submit to your expertise. How can my experience on Sony receivers compare to someone who owned one from 1997-2000 and has a tone-deaf brother who owns one he likes. I MUST HAVE BEEN CRAAAZZY! Or stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I agree receivers are not Sony's strongest suite, but they are not bad receivers. I have owned my ES for about four years and had one firmware issue. I called Sony about and had a replacement in two days with free return shipping on the defective unit. I had the option to have a local service center update it, but opted for the replacement.

Dollar for dollar Sony receivers usually have more features than most. Mine had 6 HDMI inputs when most had two, 120W/ch when most in the same price range had 100W, Zones 3 & 4 when others only had Zone 2, binding post for surrounds when many had spring-type, up conversion and up scaling for video. Sony has always been known for their Tuners. For a mid-fi receiver I would probably rank them about fourth or fifth behind B&K, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo. Harmon Kardon and Marantz are in there somewhere, depending on the model.

Sony is not generally known for their speakres, but they have manufactured some good ones. Their SS-M3/5/7/9 speakers were excellent speakers. The SS-M9 was reviewed very favorably in Stereophile. Their APM Series speakers were also good and sought after by collectors. Check out Audiokarma. Their Sountina NSA-PF ($10,000 only sold in Japan) are also well received and use leading-edge tech. I'm sure with your experience you've seen and heard them all. You always speak in generalities.

BTW with a zillion (-2) receivers, I'll bet your carbon footprint is large enough to cover the state of Texas. Yank. Yank.

Do not pay Pixie any attention. Sony recievers are just as good as Yamaha, Pioneer or any other mid priced brand. Pixies understanding of quality components is about the same as his IQ....which would be zero.

pixelthis
04-12-2011, 11:24 AM
Do not pay Pixie any attention. Sony recievers are just as good as Yamaha, Pioneer or any other mid priced brand. Pixies understanding of quality components is about the same as his IQ....which would be zero.

AND FOR YOU to make the above statement displays your understanding of
what constitutes quality gear, about the same as a dog understands a cloud.:1:

pixelthis
04-12-2011, 11:52 AM
NO reason To bE SOrry, evERYoNE HAS thE rIghT to theiR OPINION (OK now I have my eyes straight after reading your text).
[QUOTE]I knew if I yanked your chain, you'd growl:biggrin5: I submit to your expertise. How can my experience on Sony receivers compare to someone who owned one from 1997-2000 and has a tone-deaf brother who owns one he likes. I MUST HAVE BEEN CRAAAZZY! Or stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.


Or had a brief stay at the local "rest" facility for the mentally tired.
MY "EXPERIENCE " with Sony receivers is a lot more than that unfortunately




I agree receivers are not Sony's strongest suite, but they are not bad receivers. I have owned my ES for about four years and had one firmware issue. I called Sony about and had a replacement in two days with free return shipping on the defective unit. I had the option to have a local service center update it, but opted for the replacement.


My one year old unit took a week to get back, cost me 125 bucks(plus shipping) and lasted about six months before it broke again.
AND NO, Sony receivers are not "bad" receivers, they are worse. THEY ARE
mediocre receivers, just good enough for the uninformed to be clueless as to what they're' getting. AHEM.
BTW you had a problem, and I HAD A PROBLEM. Two out of two
Out of all of my other receivers I have had two break, one being a Sony


Dollar for dollar Sony receivers usually have more features than most. Mine had 6 HDMI inputs when most had two, 120W/ch when most in the same price range had 100W, Zones 3 & 4 when others only had Zone 2, binding post for surrounds when many had spring-type, up conversion and up scaling for video. Sony has always been known for their Tuners. For a mid-fi receiver I would probably rank them about fourth or fifth behind B&K, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo. Harmon Kardon and Marantz are in there somewhere, depending on the model.


DENON has been known for their tuners. SONY receivers are known to have a bunch
of stuff packed in, all right, like IC amps, cheap power supplies, etc.
A friend recently blought an Onkyo for 350 bucks, has all of the stuff you mentioned,
and one thing you didn't mention, the most important thing, mainly...
THE SOUND. The sound of any given receiver from anybody beats the HTIB
masqurading as a Sony reciever any day of the week.

AS FOR SPRING TYPE BINDING POSTS, these are on the most cheap recievers,
although they usually sound better than Sony


Sony is not generally known for their speakres, but they have manufactured some good ones. Their SS-M3/5/7/9 speakers were excellent speakers. The SS-M9 was reviewed very favorably in Stereophile. Their APM Series speakers were also good and sought after by collectors. Check out Audiokarma. Their Sountina NSA-PF ($10,000 only sold in Japan) are also well received and use leading-edge tech. I'm sure with your experience you've seen and heard them all. You always speak in generalities.


I LIKE TO talk about mainstream gear, not stuff most won't ever see, much less buy.
My favorite brand, B&W , has a NAUTILUS speaker that looks like a NAUTILUS
shell. You have to get an audition to hear it. SOUINDS great, and has almost nothing to do with anything.


BTW with a zillion (-2) receivers, I'll bet your carbon footprint is large enough to cover the state of Texas. Yank. Yank.

CARBON FOOTPRINT? There is your problem, you live in a fantasy world, believing
in chimera like global warming and other nonsense.
Loyalty to your company is touching, really, but I consider the source.
Anybody that has been hanging around this hobby (in my case over 40 years) for awhile
can look at a Sony receiver and tell its quality pedigree by sight, but I would forgive the
cheap construction if the sound was there, and it isn't. AND YOU KNOW IT.
Sorry:1:

pixelthis
04-12-2011, 11:58 AM
BTW, besides the slight slam at Sony receivers, my main reason for blaming the receiver
is that, if it has a video proc, that could be set too low, down converting all
output signals to 480p or worse. WHENEVER I put in a receiver for someone, I set
the video proc to "passthru" in order to avoid this.:1:

pixelthis
04-12-2011, 12:03 PM
It finally has sunk in, just this very minute, that Pioneer Elite will never ever EVER bring back its KURO line of plasmas. Dude, that sucks. :cryin: :cryin: :cryin:

Gee, a receiver company making a monitor.
That would be like a monitor company making receivers...oh, wait.
ONE thing about Kuro, it had the right name. A CURIOUS product costing an arm and two legs, with a limited marked(people who pine away for a phosper based product), and
limited distribution.
Wonder it lasted as long as it did.:1:

BadAssJazz
04-12-2011, 02:43 PM
Gee, a receiver company making a monitor.
That would be like a monitor company making receivers...oh, wait.
ONE thing about Kuro, it had the right name. A CURIOUS product costing an arm and two legs, with a limited marked(people who pine away for a phosper based product), and
limited distribution.
Wonder it lasted as long as it did.:1:

Whatever your misgivings about PE's marketing -- which by the way, is no different than any other company that targets a specific niche in the consumer base -- the overwhelming consensus at the time was that the KURO line yielded the best flatscreen performance nonpareil.

Now I'm not recommending that if you're looking for clothes that you should ever go rummaging through a BestBuy warehouse. But if you're homeless and need temporary cover from the elements, while BestBuy doesn't sell homes or rent rooms -- and wouldn't be the best at it if it did -- you might find a cardboard box to sleep in if you're open to the possibilities.

bfalls
04-12-2011, 03:28 PM
[QUOTE=bfalls]NO reason To bE SOrry, evERYoNE HAS thE rIghT to theiR OPINION (OK now I have my eyes straight after reading your text).


Or had a brief stay at the local "rest" facility for the mentally tired.
MY "EXPERIENCE " with Sony receivers is a lot more than that unfortunately





My one year old unit took a week to get back, cost me 125 bucks(plus shipping) and lasted about six months before it broke again.
AND NO, Sony receivers are not "bad" receivers, they are worse. THEY ARE
mediocre receivers, just good enough for the uninformed to be clueless as to what they're' getting. AHEM.
BTW you had a problem, and I HAD A PROBLEM. Two out of two
Out of all of my other receivers I have had two break, one being a Sony



DENON has been known for their tuners. SONY receivers are known to have a bunch
of stuff packed in, all right, like IC amps, cheap power supplies, etc.
A friend recently blought an Onkyo for 350 bucks, has all of the stuff you mentioned,
and one thing you didn't mention, the most important thing, mainly...
THE SOUND. The sound of any given receiver from anybody beats the HTIB
masqurading as a Sony reciever any day of the week.

AS FOR SPRING TYPE BINDING POSTS, these are on the most cheap recievers,
although they usually sound better than Sony



I LIKE TO talk about mainstream gear, not stuff most won't ever see, much less buy.
My favorite brand, B&W , has a NAUTILUS speaker that looks like a NAUTILUS
shell. You have to get an audition to hear it. SOUINDS great, and has almost nothing to do with anything.



CARBON FOOTPRINT? There is your problem, you live in a fantasy world, believing
in chimera like global warming and other nonsense.
Loyalty to your company is touching, really, but I consider the source.
Anybody that has been hanging around this hobby (in my case over 40 years) for awhile
can look at a Sony receiver and tell its quality pedigree by sight, but I would forgive the
cheap construction if the sound was there, and it isn't. AND YOU KNOW IT.
Sorry:1:
I should nickname you "Charlie Brown" because whenever you talk all I hear is "mwaw, mwaw mwaw mwaw, mwaw mwaw, mwaw". Which actually has more value than what you've said. Yawn.

I'm sure you also believe all amps (tube and solid state) sound the same, cryogenically-treated fuses in the power supply make your system sound better and the Easter Bunny is real (because Santa Claus told you so). Far and above anyone on this site, I value your opinion the least. At least Simon Cowell is controversial to get better ratings. You argue for the sake of argument. Only a single "Yank" this time, let's see what happens. Tag your IT!

pixelthis
04-13-2011, 12:36 PM
Whatever your misgivings about PE's marketing -- which by the way, is no different than any other company that targets a specific niche in the consumer base -- the overwhelming consensus at the time was that the KURO line yielded the best flatscreen performance nonpareil.

Which proves an addition to P.T Barnum's statement "no one ever went broke
underestimating the intelligence of the American public" that I like , mainly,
but those trying to sell quality at high prices go broke all of the time.
Not that the Kuro was high q, it was a plasma, after all.
AND JUST BECAUSE SOMETHINGS EXPENSIVE, doesn't make it good by default.:1:



Now I'm not recommending that if you're looking for clothes that you should ever go rummaging through a BestBuy warehouse. But if you're homeless and need temporary cover from the elements, while BestBuy doesn't sell homes or rent rooms -- and wouldn't be the best at it if it did -- you might find a cardboard box to sleep in if you're open to the possibilities.

GOOD luck on that, as I stated earlier the flatscreen revolution now limits hobos to
refrigerator boxes.:1:

pixelthis
04-13-2011, 12:53 PM
[QUOTE=pixelthis]
I should nickname you "Charlie Brown" because whenever you talk all I hear is "mwaw, mwaw mwaw mwaw, mwaw mwaw, mwaw". Which actually has more value than what you've said. Yawn.

I'm sure you also believe all amps (tube and solid state) sound the same, cryogenically-treated fuses in the power supply make your system sound better and the Easter Bunny is real (because Santa Claus told you so). Far and above anyone on this site, I value your opinion the least. At least Simon Cowell is controversial to get better ratings. You argue for the sake of argument. Only a single "Yank" this time, let's see what happens. Tag your IT!

You don't know my "opinion", having stated several items that are contrary to what
I believe, as anyone on this site could tell you, or if you actually read something of what I HAVE POSTED.
You don't like what I say, fine, but how about reading it first?
Solid state and tube don't sound the "same", tube is vastly inferiour, delusions
of so called "audiophiles" to the contrary.
AND "CRYOGENICALLY " TREATED FUSES? Using cryogenics to reduce the temperature of fuses would cause them to shatter, rendering them useless.
JUST getting them cold would serve no purpose.
AS for "SANTA", see the picture below, which I post all of the time.
And I DON'T "ARGUE" for the sake of an argument, I state facts in order to counter
the non scientific prattling and nonsense touted by those who ought to know better.
And you "value" my opinion the least?
THANKS. When the village idiot disagrees with you it means you're doing something
right.:1:

pixelthis
04-13-2011, 12:57 PM
AND i do apologise for calling you the "village idiot", hes' a nice guy and I WOULDN'T WANT TO INSULT HIM. And yes, Santa is not real, beliefs of socialist democrats to the contrary not withstanding.
SORRY.:1:

bobsticks
04-13-2011, 04:37 PM
I state facts in order to counter
the non scientific prattling and nonsense touted by those who ought to know better.
And you "value" my opinion the least?


Well, that's not entirely accurate.

You tend to use a smattering of context-dependent factoids, theory, and opinion to reach broad conclusions.It's also your M.O. to do that directly after having said something remotely sensible.

I'll give you an example: You express a distaste for Sony audio products. It is a provable fact that they have a higher than average failure rate, which you sort of cite. Further, it is the larger opinion that Sony frequently compromises sound quality in favor of supplying a gaggle of gadgets. All of this is, to a greater or lesser degree, documented so that when confronted by an opposing opinion you at least sound relatively sane.

However, by using the same logic that one company that specializes in monitors has produced inferior audio equipment necessarily means that every other company must suffer the same inadequacies is logically inconsistent.
The Pioneer Kuro has consistently tested at the top of class. I've spent time with one and can assure you that those models beat the living hell out of a majority of today's models hands down...lcd, plasma, dlp, or led.

That your hatred of a specific technology makes you equate someone wo disagrees with you lower than the "village idiot" makes me question your grasp on reasoning.

When you pulled the trunk on the ceramic elephant, did the light go on?

BadAssJazz
04-13-2011, 05:10 PM
GOOD luck on that, as I stated earlier the flatscreen revolution now limits hobos to
refrigerator boxes.:1:

Ha! Ha! Well, I never said that one should limit themselves to a flatscreen box, now did I? If the refridgerator box suits...go for it. :thumbsup:

bfalls
04-13-2011, 07:33 PM
Sorry Bobsticks, those are Pixie's words not mine, I've never used the word prattling, never had a Kuro, only a Pro-100 back in the day. Not sure how it happened, but you described his M.O. Nice analysis though.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-14-2011, 08:53 AM
Well......this thread went well...LOLOL

Sticks, you summed it all up nicely, we can turn off the lights now.

bfalls
04-14-2011, 09:22 AM
Well......this thread went well...LOLOL

Sticks, you summed it all up nicely, we can turn off the lights now.

Was the cause of the problem actually determined? I did have fun.

recoveryone
04-14-2011, 09:28 AM
once the battle lines were drawn, the original issue went out the window about after the 5th post or so.

pixelthis
04-14-2011, 09:28 AM
Well, that's not entirely accurate.


You tend to use a smattering of context-dependent factoids, theory, and opinion to reach broad conclusions.It's also your M.O. to do that directly after having said something remotely sensible.


Appreciate it if you could translate your gobbledegook yourself, left my universal translator on the Enterprize



I'll give you an example: You express a distaste for Sony audio products. It is a provable fact that they have a higher than average failure rate, which you sort of cite. Further, it is the larger opinion that Sony frequently compromises sound quality in favor of supplying a gaggle of gadgets. All of this is, to a greater or lesser degree, documented so that when confronted by an opposing opinion you at least sound relatively sane.


SORRY if you misunderstood. I don't have a "distaste" for Sony audio products, just the receivers. DO SOMETHING RIGHT or don't do it at all.
Main thing is that their "ES"(elevated standard) line is presented as a cut above,
while the only thing its a cut above is Sony's line of HTIBS pretending to be
receivers. Kind of pretentious



However, by using the same logic that one company that specializes in monitors has produced inferior audio equipment necessarily means that every other company must suffer the same inadequacies is logically inconsistent.


DIDN'T SAY "MUST", just said they did


The Pioneer Kuro has consistently tested at the top of class. I've spent time with one and can assure you that those models beat the living hell out of a majority of today's models hands down...lcd, plasma, dlp, or led.


AND yet failed in the market. Good or bad, doesn't matter if it doesn't sell.


That your hatred of a specific technology makes you equate someone wo disagrees with you lower than the "village idiot" makes me question your grasp on reasoning.


You are lower than the "village idiot" if you claim not to agree with someone, then demonstrate that you haven't even read their posts. I just don't appreciate having
a bunch of statements attributed to me that I don't even believe.
Like tubes and solid state being the same. ANYBODY who has read my posts knows
how much I hate the regressive tendencies of so called audiophiles in their love of antique gear.



When you pulled the trunk on the ceramic elephant, did the light go on?

MORE nonsense.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-14-2011, 09:45 AM
AND yet failed in the market. Good or bad, doesn't matter if it doesn't sell.

It did not fail on the market, and it did sell. I bought one. Pioneer PULLED it off the market when the price of panels began to fall. Pioneer is not a bottom feeder brand, which is probably why you have such little respect for its performance. As I have said many times, you are not interested in good quality performance...just cheap price.

pixelthis
04-14-2011, 09:53 AM
It did not fail on the market, and it did sell. I bought one. Pioneer PULLED it off the market when the price of panels began to fall. Pioneer is not a bottom feeder brand, which is probably why you have such little respect for its performance. As I have said many times, you are not interested in good quality performance...just cheap price.

Oh, you bought one. NEVER MIND, it was a raging success, talky bought one.
And the great maker of cheap plastic receivers is not a "bottom feeder" brand?
DID YOU MAYBE think that the reason the Kuro failed is because nobodies (except maybe you) is dumb enough to buy a 5,000 item from a company that sold out to the mass
market long ago and sells primarily sub five hundred dollar plastic gear?
AND CHEAP PRICE and quality performance are not mutually exclusive .:1:

pixelthis
04-14-2011, 09:56 AM
Well......this thread went well...LOLOL

BECAUSE your participation was minor, probably


Sticks, you summed it all up nicely, we can turn off the lights now.
Try turning them on first.:1:

bobsticks
04-14-2011, 11:13 AM
Appreciate it if you could translate your gobbledegook yourself, left my universal translator on the Enterprize

Sorry, I used the English language without listing learning tools or reference material.


SORRY if you misunderstood. I don't have a "distaste" for Sony audio products, just the receivers. DO SOMETHING RIGHT or don't do it at all.

You also mentioned the speakers ( I believe there was a comment about a fat lady singing) making it plural.


DIDN'T SAY "MUST", just said they did

Actually what you said was:


Gee, a receiver company making a monitor.
That would be like a monitor company making receivers...oh, wait.
ONE thing about Kuro, it had the right name. A CURIOUS product costing an arm and two legs, with a limited marked(people who pine away for a phosper based product), and
limited distribution.
Wonder it lasted as long as it did

Didn't someone mention somethng about broad conclusions? The devil's in the lack of details, eh?


AND yet failed in the market. Good or bad, doesn't matter if it doesn't sell.


This is completely independent of your assertions.


You are lower than the "village idiot" if you claim not to agree with someone, then demonstrate that you haven't even read their posts. I just don't appreciate having
a bunch of statements attributed to me that I don't even believe.
Like tubes and solid state being the same. ANYBODY who has read my posts knows
how much I hate the regressive tendencies of so called audiophiles in their love of antique gear.

I'll agree that you have taken a no nonsense approach to your audio journey and have been a vocal opponent of "the regressive tendencies" of some...just not so sure someone who routinely engages in non fact-based generalizations and vagaries wants to call someone else "lower than the village idiot" for the sin of assumption.

bobsticks
04-14-2011, 11:25 AM
AND CHEAP PRICE and quality performance are not mutually exclusive .:1:

Is that why the Funai went back, Hershon?













(see how I did that? I used your own modus operandi against you)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-14-2011, 12:00 PM
Try turning them on first.:1:

Pix, there are no lights on when dealing with you, and that is part of the problem. I was referring to the discussion.

bfalls
04-14-2011, 12:02 PM
IIIIIII love it! He's like the toy chattering teeth, or the toy monkey playing the cymbals, you just wind him up and watch the fun. He can't help himself. Wait, I'm going to get some popcorn.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-14-2011, 12:12 PM
Oh, you bought one. NEVER MIND, it was a raging success, talky bought one.

Your extremes are what make you such a buffoon.



And the great maker of cheap plastic receivers is not a "bottom feeder" brand?

Can you name a brand that does NOT use plastic in the construction of their receivers? Not all plastic is cheap right(wait, I don't expect an intelligent answer from you)



DID YOU MAYBE think that the reason the Kuro failed is because nobodies (except maybe you) is dumb enough to buy a 5,000 item from a company that sold out to the mass
market long ago and sells primarily sub five hundred dollar plastic gear?


Once again(we know you are intelligence challenged)..the Kuro did not fail, it was pulled off the market. Do you have the capacity to know the difference?...wait, never mind we all know the answer to that. Most every CE manufacturer has products placed at different price points using different materials to meet that price point. Pioneer is no different. Just because the same manufacturer outsources its cheaper products, and makes its own quality stuff does not mean you should dismiss that manufacturers. They ALL do it. Sharp does it, Panasonic does it, Sony does it, and Pioneer did it.


AND CHEAP PRICE and quality performance are not mutually exclusive .:1:

Since you dwell in the former, and know nothing about the latter, excuse me if I take this comment with a bag of salt.

pixelthis
04-15-2011, 12:11 PM
[QUOTE=bobsticks]Is that why the Funai went back, Hershon?

The Funai went "back" because I got my original player to work.
Which would you prefer, a player with an original list of 300$, or one that runs around 68 bucks?: A full chassis player of something resembling a cheap DVD player?
Obvious to me, sorry if its not to you.:1:

pixelthis
04-15-2011, 12:19 PM
Sorry, I used the English language without listing learning tools or reference material.

"Used"? More like bent it over and raped it.














[QUOTE]I'll agree that you have taken a no nonsense approach to your audio journey and have been a vocal opponent of "the regressive tendencies" of some...just not so sure someone who routinely engages in non fact-based generalizations and vagaries wants to call someone else "lower than the village idiot" for the sin of assumption.

If your comprehension of "facts" were the standard, there wouldn't be any.

AND AS FAR as "generalizations", every scientific law is a "generalization".
Please try to keep up, thanks.:1:

pixelthis
04-15-2011, 12:33 PM
]
Your extremes are what make you such a buffoon.


AND YOUR personality (or lack thereof) is what makes you so much fun to talk to



Can you name a brand that does NOT use plastic in the construction of their receivers? Not all plastic is cheap right(wait, I don't expect an intelligent answer from you)


This from a person who keeps harping about my lack of concern for "quality".
HOW plastic is used is key. Pioneer goes way overboard, Sony is not much better.






Once again(we know you are intelligence challenged)..the Kuro did not fail, it was pulled off the market. Do you have the capacity to know the difference?...wait, never mind we all know the answer to that. Most every CE manufacturer has products placed at different price points using different materials to meet that price point. Pioneer is no different. Just because the same manufacturer outsources its cheaper products, and makes its own quality stuff does not mean you should dismiss that manufacturers. They ALL do it. Sharp does it, Panasonic does it, Sony does it, and Pioneer did it.


It was pulled off the market because it failed, do you understand that Pioneer is not
a charity, and they like to make a profit?



Since you dwell in the former, and know nothing about the latter, excuse me if I take this comment with a bag of salt.
THIS FROM THE GREAT defender of plastic receivers
Would it kill Pioneer to use some aluminum every so often outside of their "Elite" line?.
Like below.:1:

bobsticks
04-15-2011, 12:57 PM
If your comprehension of "facts" were the standard, there wouldn't be any.

AND AS FAR as "generalizations", every scientific law is a "generalization".
Please try to keep up, thanks.:1:

There are facts that I know and there facts that I do not know. I have suppositions and opinions. I try not to include the latter three in discourses on fact or the implication thereof. Clearly you have opportunities in this regard.



"Used"? More like bent it over and raped it.

Oh no, my friend, I engaged the language with a knowing glance and allowed for its coquettish response...I served the language an intricate but not ostentatious '91 Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, whispered things of great intimacy in the language's ear and lay in gentle repose until, trembling, the language succumbed in libidinous supplication.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-15-2011, 02:29 PM
]

AND YOUR personality (or lack thereof) is what makes you so much fun to talk to

Wow, you can tell my personality over the internet? Riiiiiight, and Treasure Island in the middle of San Francisco bay can be had for $1.42





This from a person who keeps harping about my lack of concern for "quality".
HOW plastic is used is key. Pioneer goes way overboard, Sony is not much better.

And your Integra is better? Nope, no different than Pioneer or Sony. You still don't know a damn thing about quality, and how your equipment is set up proves that.(it looks like that little fella you use at the end of your posts.....in other words GHETTO)




It was pulled off the market because it failed, do you understand that Pioneer is not
a charity, and they like to make a profit?

This disputes this silly notion from a total fool.

http://www.t3.com/news/pioneer-kuro-to-be-discontinued-in-may?=38466

pay attention to this line if you have the capacity to do so

So why is Pioneer pulling out of plasma biz if its KURO sets are so wonderful? It’s simply a money issue. It just cost too darned much to make these stunning tellies and the profit margins to be made on rival, yet inferior, LCD technology is considerably more appealing. We always knew there would be victims to the credit crunch and with Hitachi and Panasonic scaling down their plasma business, LG threatening to back out and Pioneer abandoning it entirely, it looks like plasma’s number could soon be up.

and this

http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2009/03/25/pioneer-to-discontinue-kuro-plasmas-in-may/

It was not that it didn't sell, they did. It was the profit margins were getting to slim because of falling panel prices. The sold them alright, but they were not making enough profit to justify continued R&D on the panel. When it first came out, profit margins were very high, and they didn't have to sell that many to make money on them. As the profit margins drop, then you have to begin selling a lot more of them to justify the cost of making them. This is premium panel, not a mass market one.




THIS FROM THE GREAT defender of plastic receivers
Would it kill Pioneer to use some aluminum every so often outside of their "Elite" line?.
Like below.:1:

Who said I was defending ANYTHING?

Your integra does not have any more aluminum in it than than a Sony receiver from their ES line. It certainly does not have any more aluminum in it than the top of the line Pioneer receiver.

pixelthis
04-17-2011, 12:05 PM
Wow, you can tell my personality over the internet? Riiiiiight, and Treasure Island in the middle of San Francisco bay can be had for $1.42


JUST when I smell the wind blowing from the west.








And your Integra is better? Nope, no different than Pioneer or Sony. You still don't know a damn thing about quality, and how your equipment is set up proves that.(it looks like that little fella you use at the end of your posts.....in other words GHETTO)


SAY that when PIONEER or SONY offers a three year warranty, gold plate plugs, 12v triggers, aluminum faceplates, etc.
AND hanging out with crackhos doesn't mean you know anything about ghetto.
You probably crap wonderbread



So why is Pioneer pulling out of plasma biz if its KURO sets are so wonderful? It’s simply a money issue. It just cost too darned much to make these stunning tellies and the profit margins to be made on rival, yet inferior, LCD technology is considerably more appealing. We always knew there would be victims to the credit crunch and with Hitachi and Panasonic scaling down their plasma business, LG threatening to back out and Pioneer abandoning it entirely, it looks like plasma’s number could soon be up.


YEP, plasmas number is up, what I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS




It was not that it didn't sell, they did. It was the profit margins were getting to slim because of falling panel prices. The sold them alright, but they were not making enough profit to justify continued R&D on the panel. When it first came out, profit margins were very high, and they didn't have to sell that many to make money on them. As the profit margins drop, then you have to begin selling a lot more of them to justify the cost of making them. This is premium panel, not a mass market one.

why should it be? Nobodies buying one.


Your integra does not have any more aluminum in it than than a Sony receiver from their ES line. It certainly does not have any more aluminum in it than the top of the line Pioneer receiver.[/QUOTE]

PROBABLY not as much as that shopping cart you use on "can" days.
I do like the ELITE line Pioneer puts out, but put a Sony anything next to an Integra
and see which one people choose.:1:

pixelthis
04-17-2011, 12:06 PM
BESIDES which, I have posted pics of my gear, wheres yours?
I GUESS taking pictures of vaporware would be rather difficult:1:

pixelthis
04-17-2011, 12:14 PM
BTW the pic above is a pic of my older receiver, a DTR 7.4.
HERES a link to the newer one, if anybodies interested.:1:

http://www.integrahometheater.com/model.cfm?m=DTR-6.9&class=Receiver&p=s

pixelthis
04-17-2011, 12:25 PM
NOT much cosmetic diff from my older one, basically:1: