Video

Archer wrote: ^Blimey who rattled your cage? He seems more than capable of debating his own reasoning.

Edited by Snow Dog - June 19 2007 at 05:27

Archer wrote: Sarcasm very funny laddie. If you want to defend your own statements that's fine. But as it was someone else who made a particular claim I made the reasonable request for an explanation. How is it that you feel the need to stand up for him - are you his bodyguard or something.

Edited by Snow Dog - June 19 2007 at 05:32

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I haven't conducted any tests myself ... I don't have the money to buy various DVD players and displays and compare them. My statement is based on various reviews that I read in magazines, and my computer setup seems to be very nice, as attested by people who I invited to watch DVDs. Of course this is entirely subjective ...BTW: Maybe my statement was a little over the top - I should have used "most" rather than "any". I guess that current top of the line DVD players have the processing power to compete with current computers (with the use of DSPs), but not those from several years ago.

The first half of your message shows of "free" was your attack, one more time.

The second half shows one of your obsessions: everything that is new is good. The one year old device from X brand is automatically better than the two-years old model from the same...like that you told one time that a recent CD rom player would of course beat a 10 or 15 years old big hifi (good)digital setup. That's forgetting that's musicality and performance has not much to do with that, and that manufacturers often lie about the improvment on their products, and that even a same model can be downgraded to make it cheaper to make, so the older model may be better. That's also how you blindy defend digital, because it's new.

Heavyfreight wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Sources: -VHS decks VHS decks from JVC remain excellent, especially the high end models. The colours are more natural than numeric and the sound explodes any DVD deck, because of analog superiority. The colour signal on a VHS tape has less than 10% of the resolution of the original camera image, that is the only way that that quantity of information can be wedged onto the tape. The base audio track is a very poor linear mono recording and the "hi-fi" sound works by modulating the stereo sound onto a carrier frequency in a similar way to FM radio. Neither the video nor the sound could ever be described as superior to a DVD system. In a "blind" test (that's a funny concept, how do you blind test video?) even the best VHS machine would fall down to a reasonable DVD. Don't simply assume that analogue is superior; it very much depends on the accuracy of the analogy.

I don't need a blind test, just switch from the VHS deck to the DVD and see what happens. DVD may be more precise, but colours are pale compared to the VHS. Not to say that i don't like the DVD format, it's a good invention and numeric is not a disaster in the video field than in audio.

The sound is of course much better on the (good JVC)VHS deck, it's simply like comparing a modest to good integrated CD player to a good tapedeck. That send us back to the analog Vs digital debate.

Archer wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I haven't conducted any tests myself ...   Strewth mate, that was a bit of an admission. No conducted tests yourself? Wouldn't that have been a good idea before stating so vehemently that your setup could outperform any stand-alone?   And you don't need to buy into gear to test, you can often borrow items for home testing, at least if you go to indie dealers who know what they are talking about and who also stock the better gear. It might be a good idea to go along to your local store to see where things are at now. But don't waste your time testing the mass-produced Japanese stuff. You obviously are more discerning than that. See some decent makes.

Sorry, but I have better things to do in my spare time ... I'm a computer expert, I know the DVD format and the limitations of the various display technologies, and I know what both software and hardware DVD players to to enhance the image quality. I've made up my mind, and you're free to ignore or even challenge my opinion ... for once I'll do like Olivier and simply lean back and say: My system is better than yours - if you don't believe me then come to my place and see for yourself!

MikeEnRegalia wrote:   My system is better than yours - if you don't believe me then come to my place and see for yourself!

oliverstoned wrote: I don't need a blind test, just switch from the VHS deck to the DVD and see what happens. DVD may be more precise, but colours are pale compared to the VHS. Not to say that i don't like the DVD format, it's a good invention and numeric is not a disaster in the video field than in audio. Agreed ... the DVD format has a limited color space, as have most current mid-range LCDs. I can easily live with it - and on the computer you have mechanisms like digital vibrance (Nvidia) to get more brilliant colors, or gamma value adjustment to make up for the limited resolution for darker colors. The next generation of LCDs will be superior in those areas ... that's why I bought a very cheap LCD TV last year. If all goes as planned, I'll buy a decent 52" LCD TV with full HD resolution next year ...  The sound is of course much better on the (good JVC)VHS deck, it's simply like comparing a modest to good integrated CD player to a good tapedeck. That send us back to the analog Vs digital debate. Yet there are video purists which cannot live with DVD and claim that the compression makes it impossible for them to enjoy movies. Sound familiar?

@Archer: Snow Dog is right - I'm not entirely serious here. But if you want to test my claims then all you need is a good computer display, a reasonably powerful computer and a good software DVD player (PowerDVD and WinDVD are the best IMO, confirmed by various tests) which is usually priced at not more than $50 - and most current computers ship with one of these players anyway.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 19 2007 at 05:54

oliverstoned wrote: The sound is of course much better on the (good JVC)VHS deck, it's simply like comparing a modest to good integrated CD player to a good tapedeck. That send us back to the analog Vs digital debate.

Apology accepted

Edited by Archer - June 19 2007 at 06:09

^ about S-VHS sound:

"In terms of audio recording, S-VHS retains VHS's conventional analog (linear) and Hi-Fi (AFM) soundtracks. As neither is changed from the VHS format, the linear audio track delivers sound quality scarcely better than AM radio. The Hi-Fi soundtrack uses VHS's depth multiplexing technique to sandwich an AFM (audio frequency-modulated) signal beneath the video signal, which delivers excellent audio fidelity, approaching CD-quality. In addition, some professional S-VHS decks can record a PCM digital audio track (stereo 48 kHz), along with the normal video and Hi-Fi analog audio."

(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-VHS)