Those of you with BluRay Players

[Jacksmyname]

Panasonic BD-30 here.
Some Blu discs take a minute or so to load, while others are quicker; it really depends on the disc.
I also don't mind the wait for those discs that take longer to load; gives me time to get settled with the muchies.
Very pleased here with the Panny, and my Tosh XA-2 (I use the XA-2 for SD's).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

In this month's HomeTheatrer Maagazine is a review of three Blure Ray players from Denon, Panasonic, and Samsung. They all got more or less good reviews but they differed from the feature sets. The one thing that was mentioned that the laoding and menu navigation for BluRay discs is frightfully slow and cumbersome. This was escopially true for the Denon, not so bad fopr teh Panasonic and the Samsung approached loading/navigation speeds of a standard DVD.

Is there really that much of a slow down in loading.navigation of the disks compared to that of standard DVD? Does it annoy you to th epoint where you regret having purchased a BR player? To me, its seems that HTR is going on about somethign that is trivial.

HT Mag pretty much says that the Denon DVD-3800BD has the most impressive video capability and built quality they have seen to date.

"The connections on the Denon's back panel offer the best quality I've seen in a Blu-ray player."

"When I watched the DVD-3800BDCI on my front-projection system, the Denon edged out all the other Blu-ray players in both depth and fine detail."

Only the Denon DVD-3800BDCI and the new Marantz BD player have the top-of-the-line Silicon Optix Realta chip for Video performance and the Burr-Brown PCM-1796 DACs for Audio performance.

 

[obscbyclouds]

HT Mag pretty much says that the Denon DVD-3800BD has the most impressive video capability and built quality they have seen to date.

"The connections on the Denon's back panel offer the best quality I've seen in a Blu-ray player."

"When I watched the DVD-3800BDCI on my front-projection system, the Denon edged out all the other Blu-ray players in both depth and fine detail."

Only the Denon DVD-3800BDCI and the new Marantz BD player have the top-of-the-line Silicon Optix Realta chip for Video performance and the Burr-Brown PCM-1796 DACs for Audio performance.

Do you have a link to that HT mag article? Was the test double blind? If not...it's pretty much useless.

I find it hard to believe that there's that much PQ difference between a PS3 or Panasonic BDP-50 and the $2000 Denon, but maybe that's just my bias?

Almost no one uses the DACs on their BR players anyway. I'd bet 90% at least use HDMI, and therefore use the DAC's in their recievers (for better or worse )

 

[3db]

Do you have a link to that HT mag article? Was the test double blind? If not...it's pretty much useless.

Double blind test while watching video Sorrry for the pad pun.. I just could NOT let that one go.

 

[dobyblue]

Almost no one uses the DACs on their BR players anyway. I'd bet 90% at least use HDMI, and therefore use the DAC's in their recievers (for better or worse )

Well in the case of the Onkyo 805, 875, 876, 906 and Denon 5308CI they'll be the same.

(PCM1796)

 

[Gatsby191]

Am I missing anything?

I have the Panny BD-30 running via HDMI to my Onkyo 875 and then my Samsung Plasma's(FPT6374)Audio out connected to the Onkyo 875 via HDMI also. I've really had no issues. My Toshiba A-35 is "hooked up" exactly the same way, and though it's a bit slower, the PQ and Audio are always right on the money.(or so I think) Everything is connected and ran to the plasma as "pass through". The load times seem justifiable, based upon what I get in return. (The squeeze is definitely worth the juice! <Guess what movie that tag line came from )
There is a sub conscious thought(if that is even possible)that constantly makes me wonder if I am possibly missing something that might make a huge difference: Whenever I watch a movie, whether it be a BD, a HD DVD, or even a SD DVD, I always have my sister turn around and check(she usually sits in the 2nd row and my gear rack enclosure is just behind the 2nd row)to see what movie sound mode my Onkyo is playing the particular movie we are watching in. Alot of times it is in Pro logic II , and at others it justs shifts itself into Dolby Digital or Dolby DTS, etc.. I don't want to seem like a total novice here(I've been an AV hound since I was 15 yrs old, and I'm 44 now) but the term PCM still baffles me, and I am under the impression that PCM was always suppose to sound worse than any of the newest Dolby Formats(DTS, DD, PL, etc..) My HT's speaker set up is in a 7.1 configuration, and I did it that way for the obvious reasons(I am a maniac that must always be prepared for the future even if it never comes) Anyway, I was so concerned that the extra 2 speakers would always be totally useless because if everything was currently recorded in 5.1, then what the hell was going to come out of my extra 2 Tannoys that I paid so much for?! I must have been drinking laced Koolaid or something during those moments of maniacal concern, because everybody knows that the 5.1 sound track just gets extended to include all the speakers. I did have a recent movie(on BR) play in 7.1, and my 875 displayed it that way.(very cool) I still often wonder if I should manually switch the 875's movie sound mode to a mode that would let the back speakers sound more noticeable. But the faintness of the sound that comes from those rear channelled speakers, are meant to play that quiet because that is how that particular movie soundtrack was meant to be heard, right? I know, I know, stupid questions. I just need some reassurance from those in the know, here at Audioholics.com.
So please tell me, am I missing something major? Am I doing something wrong? Is there anything I can do to better the overall Audio and Video quality in my HT? Hey, when you save up every extra nickel that's come your way for the last 3 years, and then you put together something as best as you can, you want to be positively sure that you are getting as many features as possible and the best available performance that is possible, out of all the gear that you have. That's me anyway.

Any and all imput is greatly appreciated as usual. Joe B.

 

[jostenmeat]

I find that surround modes, etc, can be based on personal preference. Also, I think maybe different modes recommend differing spacing b/w the rears (such as Ultra having them within 4 ft??).

Matrixing gets a lot out of a 5.1 track. And that's not to talk about quite the selection of native 6.1 and 7.1 tracks out there. Matrixing algorithms are not a cheap trick, but rather an effective and unique way to get you your surround wrap. They take certain info away from surrounds to put into rears.

To the best of my knowledge, to get the most out of 7.1, you want your sides at 90 degrees. In a 5.1, more obtuse angles like 110 are recommended because the two surrounds have to encompass both the side and rear zones.

Some people would even recommend placing the rears as you would the fronts. For best stereo effect.

PCM is a weird one. All of your codecs, all of them, start as a bitstream and are unpacked into PCM. So there's no way that it "can be worse". However, I believe that this is how we call this stuff for ease of nomenclature (or lack thereof as is so common in AV, whether "upconverting", "120 hz", "24fps", "1080 passthru", etc, etc, etc), but someone might say that they are all in fact bitstreams and PCM at the same time. Anyways, the codecs are compressed, come out as bitstream(s), unpacked (either by player, or by the receiver), and the unpacked PCM is played back. Uncompressed PCM tracks don't need any unpacking.

Why the codecs to begin with then? They save space as they are compressed. Whenever there is a DTS or Dolby track on a movie, there were paid costs to have them.

Perhaps try to use an SPL meter to level match all of your speakers. If your rear row is too high, and blocking the rears, well that could be a very possible hindrance to your enjoyment.

We have very similar setups. Multi row, with BD-30 and A35. not 875, but an 805 feeding an outboard amp.

hope this sheds some light, my best

jostenmeat

 

[Gatsby191]

And How!!

I find that surround modes, etc, can be based on personal preference. Also, I think maybe different modes recommend differing spacing b/w the rears (such as Ultra having them within 4 ft??).

Matrixing gets a lot out of a 5.1 track. And that's not to talk about quite the selection of native 6.1 and 7.1 tracks out there. Matrixing algorithms are not a cheap trick, but rather an effective and unique way to get you your surround wrap. They take certain info away from surrounds to put into rears.

To the best of my knowledge, to get the most out of 7.1, you want your sides at 90 degrees. In a 5.1, more obtuse angles like 110 are recommended because the two surrounds have to encompass both the side and rear zones.

Some people would even recommend placing the rears as you would the fronts. For best stereo effect.

PCM is a wierd one. All of your codecs, all of them, start as a bitstream and are unpacked into PCM. So there's no way that it "can be worse". However, I believe that this is how we call this stuff for ease of nomenclature (or lacktherof as is so common in AV, whether "upconverting", "120 hz", "24fps", "1080 passthru", etc, etc, etc), but someone might say that they are all in fact bitstreams and PCM at the same time. Anyways, the codecs are compressed, come out as a bitstream(s), unpacked (either by player, or by the receiver), and the unpacked PCM is played back. Uncompressed PCM tracks don't need any unpacking.

Why the codecs to begin with then? They save space as they are compressed. Whenever there is a DTS or Dolby track on a movie, there were paid costs to have them.

Perhaps try to use an SPL meter to level match all of your speakers. If your rear row is too high, and blocking the rears, well that could be a very possible hindrance to your enjoyment.

We have very similar setups. Multi row, with BD-30 and A35. not 875, but an 805 feeding an outboard amp.

hope this sheds some light, my best

jostenmeat

Talk about addressing every concern I listed! All I can say is THANK YOU!!
The rears are mounted on the back walls behind the back row of seats. (the wall is only 5 feet in back of the back row of seating. say that fast 3 times!)
Those 2 rear speakers are positioned exactly as the 2 front left and right speakers are. The only difference being that the rears are mounted a little over 6 feet up on the wall(the ceiling is only 6 foot 8 inches from the floor)while the 2 front speakers are floorstanders. *the center speaker is mounted directly underneath the plasma. The reason I did this was because the back row of seats sit on a riser, and because that's how I always thought they should go. The 2 side surround speakers (left and right) are positioned at the same height as the 2 rear speakers. Only difference being that there is one of them on each of the 2 side walls. They have a swiveling type of base to them, and I have them aimed down a bit. I wish I knew how to just copy one of the pics that I have in a file on my desktop, and then just paste the picture(s) directly underneath this post, rather then using a link.
All the best. Joe B.

 

[jostenmeat]

You're very welcome.

 

[Treozen]

In this month's HomeTheatrer Maagazine is a review of three Blure Ray players from Denon, Panasonic, and Samsung. They all got more or less good reviews but they differed from the feature sets. The one thing that was mentioned that the laoding and menu navigation for BluRay discs is frightfully slow and cumbersome. This was escopially true for the Denon, not so bad fopr teh Panasonic and the Samsung approached loading/navigation speeds of a standard DVD.

Is there really that much of a slow down in loading.navigation of the disks compared to that of standard DVD? Does it annoy you to th epoint where you regret having purchased a BR player? To me, its seems that HTR is going on about somethign that is trivial.

Panasonic BD30 owner here - only just got it mind you but so far its been a dream to operate and as for loading times, not that bad really -slower than regular DVD players obviously but maybe a min or so, give or take. Once i got used to it I didn't really notice it that much. Picture / sound is more than worth the wait anyway IMHO.

 

[gus6464]

I am currently in grad school and I am taking this class on signal theory. My professor was explaining about optical connections and ADA conversion so I stayed after class to ask him some questions.

I asked him about optical connections on cd players and the whole digital vs analog fiasco and he completely explained it to me. Basically an optical connection like toslink or coax is not digital at all but analog. For example a CD player hooked up via toslink will convert the digital data from the CD into analog and pass it through the optical connection then when it hits the receiver it will convert it to PCM which is an Analog to digital conversion. Then when the receiver does the PCM conversion it will convert it back to analog in order to send it though the receiver. He basically told me that with audio there is no such thing as a fully digital connection whatsoever.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

For example a CD player hooked up via toslink will convert the digital data from the CD into analog and pass it through the optical connection then when it hits the receiver it will convert it to PCM which is an Analog to digital conversion. Then when the receiver does the PCM conversion it will convert it back to analog in order to send it though the receiver. He basically told me that with audio there is no such thing as a fully digital connection whatsoever.

Wow. That is very different from what I've thought.

I thought that when you use the Optical (digital) link you avoid the Analog-to-Digital conversion.

If Optical is analog, then why even bother? Using the L+R RCA analog would be the same.

 

[gus6464]

Wow. That is very different from what I've thought.

I thought that when you use the Optical (digital) link you avoid the Analog-to-Digital conversion.

If Optical is analog, then why even bother? Using the L+R RCA analog would be the same.

Yeah the signal passed through an optical connection (toslink or coax) is still an analog signal. He said that an example of a fully digital connection from one end to the other would be something like an USB mouse, USB printer, a dvd-rom drive connected to a computer, and some others. He said he wasn't sure about HDMI because it's so new but if it's a serial based connection then it can be fully digital.

The reason for toslink being considered superior to standard RCA analog is because it is less susceptible to attenuation, noise, etc. when traveling across the medium.

So far I am thoroughly enjoying this class as we have been covering a lot of material that has to do with those audio myths about cables, AD conversion, DA conversion, DACs.

We also talked about conductors like copper, silver, and gold. While he said that gold is the best possible conductor one could use with silver being next best and then copper, it really would depend on how far the signal has to go. The benefits of using the gold or silver cables would only be that they can just be thinner than the equivalent copper length.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Ask him about alluminum vs. beryllium vs. diamond tweeters in speakers.

And also ask him what kind of system he has.

And ask him if he likes Def Techs.

 

[gus6464]

Ask him about alluminum vs. beryllium vs. diamond tweeters in speakers.

And also ask him what kind of system he has.

And ask him if he likes Def Techs.

He is not into audio at all. All we talked was about analog and digital signals, conversion, and conductors.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

He is not into audio at all. All we talked was about analog and digital signals, conversion, and conductors.

What a NERD!