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

[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

[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!!!

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 ????

[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.