 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I ask this because the latest batch of DVDs have been rather ordinary in video & audio quality, many being inferior to what I can videotape on VHS using an SVHS recorder (but not SVHS tape) from digital satellite broadcasts.There have been one or two exceptional DVDs in PAL format but, in general terms, I'm getting far better pictures via the Pioneer HLD-X9 on NTSC laserdisc than from the Toshiba SD-K319 in either PAL or NTSC. The LD pictures are now far better with the HLD-X9 that with the Theta Data III so maybe it is a hardware problem & it is time to upgrade the DVD player? Or are DVD releases generally of mediocre quality compared to laserdiscs?
Note that the Barco VSE40 (quadrupler & switcher) & Barco 808s video projector to the 112 inch screen shows up deficiencies pretty clearly. Maybe this is punishment for having a hi-end video system just as some audio software punishes the ears through hi-end audio systems!
John
Follow Ups:
People often quote the resolution and noise specs of DVD players and use that as some kind of proof that DVD is superior to LD. What a crock.Those specs mean nothing, because it's the COMPRESSION of DVDs that ruins the picture. Yes, the DVD player's circuitry can deliver 500 lines of resolution, but the data rate of DVD will never support that resolution in an image with any movement. And we are talking about motion pictures here, aren't we?
Another strange claim is that the sound of DVD is better than LD. Huh? Dolby Digital first hit the consumer market on LD, people.
DVD is recorded in a progressive format and is available as a component signal. These two features alone make it in therory
a much better format. Using a line doubler or other such toys does help when using a LD. The poor old LD is recorded as a composite signal. This can smooth out some of the errors and noise though. The audio on a good DVD kills the LD. But as always, Garbage in Garbage out. I just got the SuperBit "Fifth Element". If you think a LD could look and sound this good Ive got a bridge I'd like to sell ya..:-) I master DVDs for my production
company and there are some artifacts with DVD I hate. But you can't compare it to Satalite compresion and certainly not to VHS.
That the audio on a DVD "kills" that on LD? They're both Dolby Digital!Your comments about the signal components are true enough. You can't even benefit from S-video with LD. However, LD has the potential to deliver the better picture. It's uncompressed. Only the vagaries of analog noise due to pressing variations really hamper it.
The more you watch DVD, the more obvious the compression is. It's actually pretty pathetic that we're suffering worse and worse quality all the time, thanks to compression. Digital cell phones have reduced wireless conversations to primitive attempts to signal each other. Satellite TV looks almost as bad as the cable service that drove so many to it in the first place.
And what drives this? Public ignorance and corporate greed.
Both formats have their problems, LD with chroma noise, and DVD with digital artifacts. Almost no one has seen the picture quality capable with the HLD-X9, a Japanese import player with performance noticeably better than anything that Pioneer released in the US. I plan on getting one myself hopefully in the near future, as they will not be available forever.The post listing the superiority of DVD's specs is not particularly persuasive to this individual. Vinyl has poor specifications compared to CD, but many audiophiles prefer listening to their LPs. In reality, CD measures well but has some annoying sonic attributes that many audiophiles pick up on.
I think it's at least a vaguely similar story with LD vs DVD. I have four of the best of the US released Pioneer LD players (CLD-95, CLD-97, LD-S2, and CLD-79) versus a little Pioneer DV-414 player I got at Best Buy a couple years ago for $275 (This player does have the same chassis as the highly regarded DV-05 Elite machine from the same time period). Honestly, I see picture details with the DVD player that I don't believe any of the LD players are capable of revealing.
OTOH, the digital artifacts the DVD player produces are fairly annoying (It's not just my machine; I've seen them with every DVD player I've ever seen a movie on). These are not the result of a poorly adjusted picture; it's a result of the problems the MPEG-2 encoding has with such things as surfaces that are not uniformly lit, producing a contouring effect (mentioned in the last issue of The Perfect Vision). I see this very, very often on background surfaces and personally find it more annoying than LD chroma noise. I believe I'm in a distinct minority on that point, however.
As far as audio quality, it's really unfortunate that DVD was stuck with the lossy Dolby Digital system as its standard audio format. While this may be fine for whiz bang surround effects, it's not as good as the old LD standard of 16 bit PCM, or probably even as good as a good LD analog soundtrack. I know that PCM can be used on DVDs, but it seems like they don't do it very often.
In short, both are imperfect consumer formats. DVD is far more consumer friendly than LD ever was, while having at least very good performance. Ultimately, which one is higher quality comes down to the eyes and ears of the beholder and the particular equipment they have, especially with LD.
Todd
I did some research after posting this and found the following on http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FAQ/Introduction.html -" Here are some reasons why DVD is superior to LD:
* Horizontal resolution. NTSC DVD has a resolution of 500 lines against NTSC LDs 420 lines. This is a 19% improvement.
* Vertical resolution. While the vertical resolution of a 4:3 transfer is the same for both of the systems, an anamorphic transfer of a widescreen film on DVD has a 33% higher vertical resolution than its LD counterpart.
* Component picture. While laserdiscs are recorded in the composite domain, DVDs are not. Thus using a DVD player with Y/C or component connections avoid the need to use comb filters, greatly improving picture quality both in pureness and resolution.
* Chroma resolution. On NTSC LD, chroma resolution is 10% of the luma resolution horizontally, and 100% vertically (actually less because of comb filtering). In DVD chroma resolution is 50% of luma in both directions. Also, chroma noise is a non-issue with DVD. It simply doesn't exist.
* Luma dynamic range. DVD has a slightly higher dynamic range than LD. This makes blacks richer. This is however a small point compared to the previous ones.
The result of this is that the difference between LD and DVD is quite clear with good equipment. It is not quite as big as the difference between VHS and LD, but there is a definite distinction: I've not found one person yet who wasn't able to tell the difference between DVD and LD versions of the same title in just a few seconds. This includes several non-technical people."
So, in line with those who replied, another DVD player seems to be the answer. When does this merry go round stop?
John
All of those specs are merely the electronic capability of the DVD player's circuitry. Not the material being played.COMPRESSION kills the benefits right away. Take a DVD of a major movie, and find a scene where the camera is stationary. Now watch the images in the background refresh only three or four times a second, amidst coarse color and luminance gradation. That's pathetic.
So, with DVD we get pixelated crap delivered to our TVs with perfect clarity. What a step forward.
> > The result of this is that the difference between LD and DVD is quite clear with good equipment. It is not quite as big as the difference between VHS and LD, but there is a definite distinction: I've not found one person yet who wasn't able to tell the difference between DVD and LD versions of the same title in just a few seconds. This includes several non-technical people." < <As you very well know now, there are big differences between the output video quality among LD players. Most people have never viewed a LD using a player of the caliber of the LD-S9 or HLD-X9. I have people over all the time that comment that the LD has a more film like quality vs. the more video like quality of the DVD.
Your comment re "film like" sums up my feelings nicely. Most DVDs with the present player look more grainy than the LDs. However that was how the LDs looked before the HLD-X9 so maybe there are much better pictures to be extracted from DVDs with a better player. I'm trying to resist but guess I will not :-)John
dvd wins hands down; this from a laserdisc diehard with a collection that seldom sees the light of day anymore. technology marches on ...
Funny thing is, since getting a HLD-X9 LD player I have been watching more LDs then DVDs. It is now very rare that I even watch a DVD anymore. Putting up with all the forced commerical advertisement, which seems to have increased, on DVDs is rediculous. And let's not forget about the DVD software/hardware incompatibilities.
yeah, i hear what you say. but i have to resort to noise reduction on pioneer elite dvl-91 to make even recently released laserdiscs look good. color saturation, resolution, dot crawl, you name it and i find it more lacking. ld software is limited and sure the format is - oops - was, aimed at video(film)philes but i don't quite have the romaticism with the format. yes, some dvds are over the tip with their ads, enhanced edges and shrill (almost always DD, not DTS) audio tracks but on a well mastered disc there is really no contest which looks better on a xbr direct view big screen. and since i like engaging sound presentations i practically drool over a remastered film like north by northwest that finally! gets the sound right (lfe) on latest dvd :-)
DVDI keep tell you to upgrade the DVD player :P
The Tosh 310K was Ok but now it's well past it's Use By Date.
My one is sitting on top of my bedroom TV.Did someone whisper Merdian 800 series ?
Or maybe the new 596 ?Or the cheapo Philips Q50 is supposed to have stellar picture quality from it's Faroudja chipset.
cheerio
Hi: Does your DVD player have progressive scan? No? Then may I suggest the Integra Research DVD player? Sure it is expensive, but it has beat out the Krell DVD hands down. I saw both playing Star Wars at an audio show a few weeks ago. The Integra did not use a line doubler, and was clearly superior.
Bet it isn't affordable.With DVD players changing so quickly I would be hesitant in committing a large amount of $$$ unless the player was fully upgradable , at reasonable cost.
Hence my suggestion of the cheapo Philips Q50.
cheers
Yes expensive and not very good!
expensive maybe,but who say not so good?
I saw a demo with both the Krell and the Integra Research. The Integra won by a large margin.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
