DVD Players?

 

Jeff Plous
So Im beginning to save for the rest of my components... My curiosity is what makes one dvd player better than the other? What is the advantage of progressive scan vs a non one? What should I be looking for in a great dvd player? What kind of connections should I be looking for as well?
In case you dont know I have a pioneer vsx-45tx reciever...
Thanks
 

G-Man
Basically, the differing chipsets, their implementation by the manufacturer, and the build quality differentiate most dvd players from one another. The chroma levels and the video playback abilities are different, though in the better players these are improving rapidly.


Progressive scanning allows one to take advantage of an HDTV-capable or digital tv monitors advanced pixel capability. As progressive scanning adds little to a dvd players price it is wise to get--particularly if you have or plan to get an HDTV capable tv.

The best connections currently are DVI (digital video interface). Currently there are only a couple of players---Bravo and Samsung---and they both have too many weaknesses to merit buying them. But if you buy an HDTV-capable tv it would be smart to get a monitor with DVI.

This leaves you with the next best connections--component, digital (coaxial cable and optical, and analog. Pretty much all good players come with these---including S-Video.

You have to decide on your dvd budget and whether you want to have SACD and/or DVD-Audio. Most can play MP3's and a bunch of other rarely used formats. You have to decide whether you want the ability to view JPEGS on your tv through your dvd player. Personally, it is of no interest to me. You may want to see your slides of europe on tv, but no one else does:-)

There are good players from $100 to $5,000.
 

Derek
I am going to make this as short as I can...
...but it's still going to long.

1. Progressive scan: DVDs are not neccessarily progressive scan but most come from progressive sources (film). That means the disk contains (about) 1/2 of a 720x480 pixles of data displayed every 1/60th of a second. The other half of those lines are displayed the next 1/60th of a second (this is called Interlaced Video). All of the lines are effectively being displayed every 1/30th of a second. A progressive-scan DVD player can recapture the progressive image from the disk or derive the image by guessing and display a full images every 60th of a second. The net result is an image that looks smoother, can have twice as much vertical detail and doesn't have the thin black scan lines of interlece video. The only problem is; progressive scan video is not compatable with standard NTSC or PAL - an EDTV, DTV or HDTV is required. If you don't have one, progressive-scan wont do you any good.

2. 3:2 pulldown: NTSC video is shot as 30 frames a second (see above). Film is shot at 24 frames a second. Most movies converted to DVD show every 2nd, then every 3rd frame twice (this is a GROSS oversimplification). This adds 6 frames the existing 24 for a grand total of 30 - perfect for NTSC Video. 3:2 pulldown converts the video back so that you see the film as it was intended.

3. Built in Dolby Digital and DTS decoders: These decoders and thier 6 analog connection allow the DVD player to do the audio decoding. Since most receivers have these decoders and since using a coax or optical connection skips a A/D-D/A conversion, these are pretty useless unless you listen to SACD and DVD-A. There were originally there to future-proof a player. To bad DTS-ES and Dolby Digital EX came along and made them obsolete.

4. DVD-A and SACD: These are newer audio standards that have wider frequency response, lower noise and more channels than a regular CD. SACD and some DVD-As require the analog ouputs mentioned in #3.

5. Composite and S-Video video jacks: These are the standard video jacks for most A/V equipment. These two connectors cannot display progressive-scan video. S-Video produces less color-bleeding and less dot-crawl. S-Video may also look slightly brighter.

6. Component and DVI: Component and DVI CAN display progressive-scan video. Component is analog. DVI is digital. DVI should look better on on Plazmas, LCDs and DLPs. DVI is copy protected and is just now settling down. There's even a version that sends audio with the video.

7. 96 or 192KHz audio converters: The DVD standard has provisions for audio sampled up to 192,000 a second. It's rarely used and unless your speakers are flat to 100KHz, don't worry about it. Any DVD player will convert the signal down to something it can handle.

Stay way from the $38 players unless it's for the kids. Some actually skip pixels to make the picture fit on the screen - it looks like you are watching the movie through a screen door. They wont have multiple clear fast scan modes, good error correction to read through fingerprints and may not have a display.

See http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_3/dvd-benchmark-introduction-9-2000.html
or
http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-zvo126nUGSJ/learningcenter/home/dvd_glossary.html
or
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=5&article_id=402&page_number=1

Hope this helps.
 

I have tried just about everythig to hook up a simple home theatre system ad I just cat get it to work out...I kow it sounds lame but is there someone who I can pay to do this? I live in Arlington Mass.
 

John A.
Jeff,
Great advice and technical insight from Derek and G-Man. I cannot add or disagree. If you want anecdotes, at around the $500 mark, roughly, I am delighted with my NAD T532 player. It delivers 96/24 for DTS 5.1 but is not a "real" DVD-A player. One that is, is the new Cambridge Audio DVD57 (well reviewed). Both are progressive scan etc.
 

Jeff Plous
I guess for me dvd player comes down to can it play the different formats for burned dvds... I dont use dvd-audio. I do watch a lot of movies tho... But since my tv doesnt have that new DVI nor does my reciever there would really be no reason to get that.. I do use compoent cords (got some awesome ones custom made from Sound Hounds for a super cheap price). Audio I definetely use optical.
I am still using my PS2 hooked up with optical and component right now... Would I see much improvement for audio and video with a regular unit? Even tho im just using a 27" song Wega?
Any suggestions for units that can be bought for cheaper prices?
On another note I have heard about a new yamaha dvd player coming out with like a 128m video card in it or somethin like that? Is it worth waiting for something like that?

This is all new to me and thank you all for the responses..
Jeff
 

John A.
Jedd,
There is a cheaper NAD T512. To look at the unit, it is identical with the T532, and even the user manual is the same, but I think the T512 does not have the same quality DACs.
http://www.nad.co.uk/dvd_players/index.htm
Also I think the CA DVD57 is cheaper than I estimated, possibly around $300.
 

John A.
Sorry, "Jeff"!
 

elitefan
Jeff,
I also have the 45 and the Elite dv45a dvd player. Its a universal player and can be had for under $400 mail order or under $450 or so retail. Very nice player for the money and has wonderful audio.
 

Phil
I got a Pioneer DV-563A... I'm very happy with it. Also plays SACD and DVD-A.

There's a great thread on it here :
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150437&perpage=30&display=&pagenumber=1
 

Terri Cooper
Does anyone have any input on the HK DVD 25 player? I just bought the H/K 525 receiver and will be hoping to get a new DVD player to go with it. I searched and read 3-4 good/great reviews by various magazines, but I would like to hear if anyone knows anything from personal use. We will be playing some DVDs, but mostly it will be used for music I believe. On a related note, should you try to stay with the same manufacturer when you pair the Receiver to the DVD player?
 

John A.
Shuhy,
It sure ain't easy to hook up home theatre. If you once had a separates stereo it helps. If not, it must be a maze. Your owner guides should help. Some magazines have nice, clear beginners' guides about how to connect things. The only one I know on the web is UK-orientiated, there are others.
http://www.whatvideotv.com/articles/
You also might find some useful threads under "Home Theater" here.
https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-theater/3.html
 

Jeff Plous
what would the difference be between the elite line of dvd players and the regular pioneer line of dvd players?
Thanks
Jeff
 

Derek
Jeff, I too have the Pioneer DV-563A. For $179 from Best Buy, it is a steal. It does almost everything.

Panasonic and Philips make standard DVD players with WMA and 3:2 pulldown respectively and they cost only around $100. I have a Philips 724S in the closet that the Pioneer overthrew... It was VERY good but the Pioneer is better.
 

elitefan
Jeff,
I have no doubt that the 563 is a steal and is a fine player as was my old Pioneer 525 but the difference between the two is the 45a has better resolution in both audio and video. Video on the 563 is 10bit/27sam.freq while the 45 is 10/54. Audio is same spec wise as 24/192 but I don't think they use the same processors. The remote on the Elite is one of the best I have ever had and of course it has that "Elite" look. If you can pay the extra price go with the Elite. For more info go to the Pioneer website. I think the 45a is one of the best bargains in audio/video and for the $449 I paid a real steal. I love it.
 

G-Man
While I have a Pioneer Elite 47txi, I would definitely recommend the cheaper Pioneer 536. You have an older 27" tv--I can see no point in buying an expensive player for this tv. The Pioneer 536 will send more than everything your tv is capable of showing.

If you ever upgrade to a large screen HDTV then you can consider possibly upgrading the dvd player.But from all I have read the Pioneer 536 is one very good deal and a solid performer.
 

Jeff Plous
A sony wega from 2 years ago is an older TV?
 

G-Man
Sorry--older is a relative term. But I presume it isn't capable of HDTV reproduction.
 

Anonymous
If you listen to music more than watch movies than don't get the Elite. Trust me.

Unless you buy a heavily mod'd Elite that is.
 

G-Man
My Pioneer Elite 47txi is connected via I-link (fire wire) to a Pioneer Elite 49txi receiver and 4 Monitor Audio Gold Reference 10's, one GR center channel and a HSU VTF-3. It plays music wonderfully--particularly cd's and dvd-audio. It automatically steers the dvd-audio with the bass management correctly---wish SACD was configured the same as dvd-audio. SACD is more problematic, but I hear that Sony plans on upgrading the SACD software on new releases to take care of that.

I almost always listen to my cd's in the Prologic II mode. I am amazed at how well the prologic II algorithm splits and steers the instruments to different channels--not perfect, but quite good.

I also have a Denon 2900 universal player which is excellent for non-fire wire hook-ups, such as the Aragon separates I have downstairs.

I am waiting for a great universal player that has DVI. When that happens I will get a new DVI monitor.

I heard that some new dvd's will eventually be released in progressive or full pixel mode that can take advantage of DVI and HDTV.
 

Anonymous
More bells and whistles=less quality parts and average sound. Its got to be that way given Pioneers price point.

SACD and DVD-A are gimmicks only to pull in more sales of overpriced software to make up for the sagging CD market. I know this first hand from someone in the industry.
 

Mark

Quote:

SACD and DVD-A are gimmicks only to pull in more sales of overpriced software to make up for the sagging CD market. I know this first hand from someone in the industry.




While I don't believe that there's no audible benefit to SACD/DVD-A, I do believe the industry wants to obsolete the CD as quickly as possible and replace it with a new format with heavy copy protection/content restrictions. Good luck to them; if I can't make personal copies of my CD's, or copy the content to a portable player, or a PC (without restrictions or reduced quality), I won't be buying them.
 

Jeff Plous
I definetely watch many more movies than I listen to music. That pioneer unit good then? Or go with an elite model?
Jeff
 

G-Man
As long as you do not have an HDTV I would get the the cheaper Pioneer. It plays cd's very well and plays a raft of different DVD formats.

While I don't doubt that a big reason for the creation of SACD and DVD-Audio is profit---all I can say to that is DUH! What formats are made to lose money? A well engineered DVD-Audio disc sounds far superior to an excellently engineered cd played in Dolby Prologic II.

Now there are those that prefer listening to cd's in stereo, just as there are those that still prefer lp's over cd's. While I listen to many cd's in stereo and enjoy them, I certainly enjoy dvd-audio discs played in discrete 5.1 surround a lot more.

Protection on DVD's has nothing to do with cd's. All digital media can have encrypted protection and if you look at todays news section in ecoustics you will find a news blurb from Stereophile saying that cd manufacturers will be encrypting cd's. Personally, I think it is a moronic move that will mainly serve to anger ipod owners, but the music industry has made many a stupid move in the past and will continue to do so in the forseeable future. They are making great progress at marginalizing themselves and in the process push people that would normally buy their products elsewhere.
 

elitefan
I wonder if the people trashing sacd and dvd-audio have ever heard Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" on sacd. If so they wouldn't make such wild claims.

Jeff,
I think you need to decide how much you are willing to spend. If you can swing the price get the Elite45a. After all you have an Elite receiver, right? You will love the 45a. I think it might be the best product for the money Pioneer/Elite has ever made.
 

Mark
Yeah, protection is being added to CD's, but the CD standard was never designed for protection, and all the protection systems tried so far have had unintended problems, like some car stereo's being unable to play the discs.

And, of course the whole point is to make it hard or impossible to read the discs in PC CD-ROM drives. At work, many people use their PC's to play audio CD's. If they can't play a disc on their PC, or if they're forced to play the disc in some poor quality compressed format, they're not going to buy a CD they can't listen to. (Well, they'll buy it because they didn't know, but when they can't play it, they're gonna be pissed.)

With DVD-A and SACD, they had the opportunity to design the protection in at the beginning, making it harder to break. (DVD-A's introduction was delayed for quite awhile after CSS was cracked so they could re-design the protection scheme.) So, if they can convince the masses to switch to DVD-A/SACD instead of CD, that will make it harder for people to extract the digital music off the discs and share it, or use it on other devices.

I think they might have had better luck if there was only one standard, instead of SACD and DVD-A. I have a DVD player that will play DVD-A, if a disc I want is only available in SACD, I'm not buying it.
 

John A.
DVD-A has some benefits. Like surround sound. SACD is a protection racket. It was only two-channel until DVD-A made Sony-Phillips rethink, and jump on the bandwagon. So Pink Floyd on SACD probably sounds almost as good as it would have done on DVD-A. In two-channel SACD you would not have heard the difference compared with CD, on the same mix. Remember the original was stereo analogue, on tape and LP. The capabilities for much stronger encryption are the main selling point for SACD to recording companies. It is there on DVD-A, but not as strong.

On any player, there has to be something analogue, in the end, going to the power amp and then the speakers. Intercept that, and record it, and you can copy anything.
 

G-Man
No doubt, if you are able to plug into the analogue portion before it gets to the speaker you would be able to make a copy. But I imagine most people won't know how to do this or won't bother. Besides, analogue copies wouldn't be quite as excellent as the pure digital--but I imagine it may well be good enough for MP3's, or a slightly degraded cd. Can't say whether it would be audibly noticable or not, as I have never heard this done. It would certainly be a lot worse if you recorded after it hit the speakers.

What the "record companies" are really worried about is direct digital copies that are every bit as good as the original. It is too bad they are doing this as people in most western countries just want personal copies for archiving and personal listening purposes. Certain individuals in countries such as China and other Asian countries are more motivated to copy vast quantities to sell cheaply to the masses that live there. It is a business to them. We end up paying the price for their theft.
 

John A.
G-Man,

I totally agree. Except a quality analogue copy will give you a sound indistinguishable from that of the original. It will not actually be the original, I agree. And you are right that "most people won't know how to do this or won't bother". That is all the producers need, and they will try to keep it that way. Digital copying is easy and cheap, so it must be stopped.

Digital data transfer introduces the possibility of encryption, so you can sell the key. It is there in many things, satellite reception, DVD "regionalization". You are in the favoured DVD region 1, and I wonder if you even know that DVDs in Europe (region 2) cost twice as much as in US for exactly the same product.

Honest makers and vendors who want customers to be able decide for themselves, on quality and value, have no chance. There is no free market in this industry, only control. Adam Smith would be spinning in his grave.

Re SACD, there you have the same global cartel producing the players and the discs to play on them. No wonder copy protection and strong encryption were the major factors in SACD format development. Whether it sounds any good is a different question. But we should be clear: that was not their main objective.
« Previous Thread Next Thread »



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us