I compared the Denon DVD2910 and Pioneer DV696A in my cinema room, display used was the Sony Ruby VPL VW100 (1920 x 1080 SXRD) 100" screen.

Both players were set to 1080i. I don't know if this will answer any of you questions.

I started with the resolution patterns on Avia. The 6.75MHz pattern was clearly visible and very well defined on the 2910. The Pioneer was not so clear and defined, the only way I can explain it is, a loss of information, blurred. This was evident with all high resolution patterns.

Next was black level test using DVE's pluge test pattern. The Denons IRE level, contrast and brightness levels had been previously been set to the correct level, (updated firmware, corrected 7.5 IRE black level gain ) so I knew the blacks were at their best. The Pioneer has very limited adjustment and results were sometimes washed out. May be a bit more time setting up may have improved things slightly.

Finally I popped in a few movie discs.

Fifth Element Superbit:
This is a favorite of mine, it's a good reference disc. The cityscape scenes are very good test. Again the Denon comes out on top with more detail and depth. The Pioneer is very good but just can't drag the last bit of detail required to make it really shine. Colours were vibrant on the Denon, not so much on the Pioneer, the best overall picture quality has to go to the Denon because of the better blacks and whites, there is also more detail in the darker scenes/shadow areas on the Denon.

Finding Nemo:
Always find these a bit of a cheat, animation should look good on all players really. A couple of things I did notice were a halo effect round some of the images and the slightly weaker colours on the Pioneer, I tried increasing the colour to try and match the Denon, but some bleeding occurred. This was only a quick look, further testing would be needed for a proper comparison with this movie.

Tried a few other discs with similar results. The Denon drags out every bit of detail off the disc, where the Pioneer doesn't go the full 9 yards. It was the same with the audio. To me this has to be down to the better quality components in the Denon player.

So in my experience paying 4-5 times as much for a decent player will reap it's rewards, not only in picture quality but audio as well.

Everyone knows vinyl has better sound quality then CD.

CD has a limited/capped frequency range, 20Hz - 20KHz, vinyl hasn't.

CD needs conversion, vinyl doesn't, wave is stored on vinyl exactly as it was originally produced.

A high quality turntable/stylus hooked up to a decent sound system will sound far superior than even the best CD player. I have heard some vinyl systems that really do put CD to shame. And no, I haven't got bad hearing.

Only thing going for CD is it is a portable format.
Last edited by TommyW : 30-08-2006 at 14:20

It may not need conversion to digital and back again, but it sure isn't stored on vinyl exactly as it was originally produced. Recordings were often deliberately compromised before pressing, because the vinyl / stylus combination couldn't handle certain dynamics - that's one reason why remastered CDs often sounded better than the first issues of old recordings - sometimes the first CDs were made from recordings which had been compressed and equalised for vinyl.

And the process of printing the signal into black vinyl, then vibrating it back into a stylus to be converted into an electrical signal is guaranteed to lose some of the fidelity of the recording, and that's before you consider scratches, dust, and general wear.

Trouble is, when you are of an age to be able to appreciate / afford a decent sound system, your hearing range has dropped well below that range

Well at least you can still feel it.

I'm still waiting for you to contribute a sensible reasoned argument instead of the above tosh.
Look on the other threads-Jarrak has already explained the technical reasons why SD on LCD is inferior-please wake up

And the lack of pops,scratches etc

The best vinyl has to offer will beat the best CD has to offer.

CD isn't, never has been and never will be perfect. Digital *is* better than analogue for music storage, but only if the digital format is of sufficient resolution.

CD was your classic boardroom fudge; 16-bit 44K is pretty much the bare minimum resolution to cover the full range of human hearing. The newer 24-bit 96K is far more like it.

However, vinyl is also much more prone to degradation (obviously), so it is rarely optimal. At its best, it gives 24-bit audio a run for its money. CD categorically does not.

As for LCD vs CRT, you have to bear in mind that SDTV signals are designed with CRTs in mind, so any other display device is left having to deal with problems inherent in the signal.

When you move to HDTV, LCD is on a much more even playing field. Think of a CRT vs LCD computer monitor at 1024x768, this is broadly similar to a 720p signal. The LCD is superior to the CRT in most cases. The only exception to this is fast movement, but this area is being slowly sorted out with each new generation of LCD panel -- the newest ones are not far off the quality of a good CRT screen.

LCD suffers when the resolution of the data is different to the resolution of the screen. Where LCD resolution is by definition fixed, CRT is infinitely variable (you can alter the relative resolution with a variable resistor). This is where the "inferior LCD" idea comes from.

As for the relative contrast ratios of CRT vs LCD, this is a bit of a red herring anyway as it's pretty much impossible on most CRTs to get true black whilst still retaining correct contrast/brightness. LCD hue/brightness tends to look "wrong" to a lot of people anyway, because the CRT is more adjustable and most people's preferred settings are a mile off -- how many sets do you see in other people's houses with orange faces due to the colour being set way too high?

Due to your diminishing reasoning you have lost the thread!!
For one last time......T h e p i c t u r e o n M Y L C D i s f a r b e t t e r t h a n o n t h e C R T i t r e p l a c e d. Your entire argument has been driven by trying to prove me a liar.
I would never go back to CRT now that I have experienced the pics I get on MY LCD. Not the one in Currys, not the one in comet, not the one in Sevenoaks, not the one in anyone else's house!!!
There are other people saying this on here and other forums. I'm afraid the evidence of experience will far outweigh your arguments in this camp.
Technically......a Bumble Bee cannot fly.............
I don't give a flying f*rt that you think CRT is superior, I don't disbelieve you when you say the pics you see are better than LCD. How can I? After all, I cannot see the pic you are looking at to compare. All that bothers me is that I have a TV that gives me all I want and more from it..
Stop being an idiot. If you want to put a technical point forward, do it, but don't call others liars for pointing out the experience they have, Which may differ from your point.
Last edited by call100 : 31-08-2006 at 12:26

The fact is, he's right! this guy talks a lot of sense! The good majority of LCD owners know this too. I'm not hugely dissapointed with my LCD, although it may sound like I am, I'm just telling the truth which is, LCD pictures aren't as good as CRT pictures. Show me an LCD that can cope with fast moving images and looks good up close (like CRT does) and I may just change my mind!

As before you have missed out the main point which is that with SD pictures,CRT IS better,thats a technical reality-not just what I think.
I said before that I was happy that you were happy with your LCD.
Jase1 (just above your post) has now also joined in explaining why SD suffers on an LCD.
If your LCD picture of SD is better than it was on your CRT then your CRT was (your favourite) incorrectly setup.
However,I do agree we will have to agree to differ.
If you like your LCD--brilliant.But don't try and convince those up for buying one that the pix are excellent on SD.
Its a lie(yes it is).
There are enough threads from both LCD owners and non LCD owners backing this up.
I just saw your post on the HD forum saying that you think extras on dvd's are a waste of space.
I don't know why you don't just stick with VHS,you are obviously not a film fan,but just another one of the "masses",sucked in by the LCD hype too.
Last edited by mongosito : 31-08-2006 at 22:56

Strewth! All I can say is that you are lucky this is a forum and not a face to face debate. Calling people liars can cause you serious injury.
As your only refuge is to use that as your argument then whatever else you have said becomes invalid.
You are a very stupid man. I didn't miss the point at all. I just pointed out my original statement. You have been unable to cope with the fact that people do have a better pic on their LCD than the CRT they replaced.
During the same discussion on a proper AV board, a proper debate was had. This all done without anyone calling anyone a liar and with complete understanding of the fact that not all CRT's are better than LCD. Therefore, the experience of some was that their LCD was better.
I suppose the debate was more civilised as you were not contributing. I dare say that the contributers were far in advance of yourself when discussing the merits of each technology. Even on this thread, others have not resorted to calling people liars. Yet, they have managed to put their point across.
So it just seems to be you that is a cantacerous rude old man.........Bless!

Thanks for that. As helpful as my local Sony centre usually are, their one and only V2000 model was stuck on the wall in a Sky HD display, so I couldn't play a test DVD through it.

I suspect most of their LCDs are set to vivid. Far too much colour, crushed blacks etc.

I didn't see the problems with movement that I've seen before (but didn't get to use my favourite test disc!). The blacks, and the over exageration of artefacts, could be down to the settings.

They've certainly improved. The X2000 fed straight from a PC looked stunning, though not perfect.

Not quite sure how people cope with HD/SD at the moment - I'd want to sit about 2-4 ft away for HD, and 9ft+ away for SD!

Cheers,
David.

Just re-read your post.

Might be wrong here.

I would say, normally, you should see a difference between two players. Especially when one is 2-3+ times more expensive and connected via HDMI, where as the much cheaper player is only connected via scart.

My understanding is, feeding a display a 480i/576i resolution via scart will only give you an image of that which is the screens native resolution.

Feeding a display an upscaled resolution of 720p/1080i is increasing the resolution (be it guess work) so theoretically should give you images much closer to HD. High end products do this well, so cost will come into it.

My comparison was to see how different the upscaling was. I'm pretty sure the gap would have been much wider comparing the Denon via HDMI and the Pioneer via scart.
Last edited by TommyW : 01-09-2006 at 15:09

I'm not calling you a liar.
I know that you believe what you are saying.
I'm actually calling you stupid as its been clearly shown by both owners and non owners of LCD that a CRT gives better pictures of SD for the technical reasons given by Jase1 and Jarrak.
If you don't believe them thats up to you.
I think once its been shown that what you say is wrong,then the idiot is the one who carries on .
If you are happy with your LCD,fair play-----but if you continue to say that LCD pix are better than CRT on SD across the board,then you ARE lying.
I know what they say is true (as do most apart from you and a couple of others) as we have all seen it with out own eyes.
I believe you were the first to start throwing insults when it became clear that you had nothing except your opinion to back up what you were claiming.

Now before wasting anymore of anybody's time by repeating that you would like to cause me physical harm as you are too inept to come up with any sensible retorts,just have another look at the posts by Jarrak and Jase1 that clearly spell out why SD pix suffer on LCD compared to CRT,then come back with some reasons why they are wrong and not your usual dirge
Last edited by mongosito : 01-09-2006 at 22:27

Well Looks like you called me a liar. So you are not looking very good in all of this.
You still have not grasped the point. That makes you the stupid one.
It's strange how the others have made a point without resorting to your level. Which is pretty low.
Now is the time to finish this as you are now becoming ridiculously boring..... :yawn:

Don't you mean -"Sorry I can't actually come up with anything constructive,or anything sensible that makes your argument look incorrect,or indeed anything to counter the points you raise".
Or possibly -"Na Na Na Na Na---I think my LCD looks great--so there".
I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see right through your pathetic non argument.
But you are right,it is time for you to finish as as you cannot in any way shape or form offer any points whatsoever that can contradict the technical points raised by Jarrak and Jase 1.
You've caught yourself out.
I hope you and your LCD live happily ever after
Last edited by mongosito : 01-09-2006 at 22:35

You are right there for once.
What IS your point?
Let me guess.
If someone posted on here that their analogue pix looked "excellent" on their widescreen set via an aerial input stretched to fill the screen ,it would be fair to say that their opinion was inaccurate,so I would in effect be calling them a liar.
So if you take your opinion that SD pix on your LCD are "excellent" compared to CRT in the same way,then yes,I suppose that would be calling you a liar.
But as anyone could see, that would be the wrong way to take it---you should take the criticism as being that you are NOT a liar,just uninformed.
But as many many posts on this forum have informed you,both from a simple "look in the shops" point of view,and a technical point of view,and from both your fellow LCD owners and non LCD owners,then the factthat you remain uninformed goes hand in hand with my assertion that you are ,in fact ,stupid
Last edited by mongosito : 01-09-2006 at 22:44

Please stop now you moronic idiot.
Stop trying to get around your Lack of intelligence by quoting others. As I said..I don't have a problem with anything they have said, as they did not resort to the depths you have.
You cannot see through anything as you are looking in the wrong place.
You started on a campaign that was solely based on calling me and others liars. You then tried to say you hadn't called us liars.
I'm afraid any credence your argument had was lost once you did this. That is why the other CRT fans are not drawn into this. They just relied on stating their views backed by technical information. You have made yourself look Stupid in resorting to calling us liars.
Well the time has come for, me to take the higher ground and allow you the final say on this as you are the sort who can only continue shouting until you get your own way.
And, truth be out, I am so bored of you now....
Last edited by call100 : 01-09-2006 at 23:06

What language is this?

Taking no sides, but time to call a halt I think...

A cross between redkneck and txt-speak.

I just have the pheling that things are getting out of hand

I just find it amusing that you go on about my argument lacking credence,yet each and everytime you just throw insults and simply cannot come up with ANYTHING than the fact I called you a liar.
I have given you evidence to support the fact.
Please try and answer this question directly and without waffle....if you can.
Can you give me any information other than your opinion that can counter the info given by Jase1 and Jarrak that clearly states why SD suffers on LCD?
There you go,simple,straightforward,direct.
Now answer or shutup

I don't know what you mean.
Your spelling is out