People seem to have test CDs that they regard as mastered well and are used to test various systems, speakers and so on.

Does anyone have a test DVD? The only reason I ask is that I watched Valkyrie on Blu-ray this weekend and that disc really tested my BL9s. I heard (and felt!) bass that I would have expected through the BL5s. Really impressed. Too impressed. Got caught out - no idea what the people in the apartment below must have thought.

So, if you're seeking a test DVD to see how your B&O speakers perform, try Valkyrie on Blu-ray!

On a sidenote, I received three new Blu-rays over the weekend and all three have DTS Master HD audio. This isn't supported by the BV7-40 MKIV's 'internal' Blu-ray player. However, the audio performance is nothing short of excellent. Move to standard 5.1 and it's far inferior. So, what the hell is the TV doing with this audio, if DTS HD isn't supported? Who knows.

Hi.

I haven't tested any CD's yet.

I'm glad that you wrote about your BL9's as they are the speaker that i'm considering.  My current setup is non B&O and although very good, I also found Valkyrie too be an excellent DVD sound wise.

If you are interested in other blu rays, see this interesting article  http://www.cnet.com.au/top-20-must-have-blu-ray-discs-339295891.htm

How long have you had your BL9's?  Are they the only speaker you have? ie just two at the front? 

Thanks and regards

Michael. 

As far as Picture Quality this is a good place to start looking:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316

Russ:

As far as Picture Quality this is a good place to start looking:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316

A good scene that will really push the envelope is the bird scene on Planet Earth. Thousand of birds viewed from space, in one shot. The left lower part of the screen is black, the other part is more daylight, where the black part fades away in daylight. It is a good test if your player or tv can handle the speed and refresh rate.

You can find it in episode1 @ 90 seconds. I assume if you have a br-player, this box is in your collection.

Moxxey...what was your blu-ray Picture like on your new tv? and and whats the picture like from a ps3 same,better worse?

Bv7Mk3:

Moxxey...what was your blu-ray Picture like on your new tv? and and whats the picture like from a ps3 same,better worse?

The Blu-ray picture was outstanding - probably a bit better than the MKIII. Same with HD-sourced TV. However, SD is definitely worse. PS3 is about the same.

The best thing about the MKIV is the HD PQ, but it's only about 10% better than the MKIII. Definitely not worth paying the money for a slightly better HD PQ. Trade-offs are worse SD, an external/internal noisy Blu-ray player, two HDMI ports rather than four and linkroom judder when watching Blu-ray on a linkroom TV, due to the analogue RF system.

RE the HD performance, my experience when comparing the mkIII to the mkIV was that the difference was rather large.

The biggest difference for me was the difference in motion (as you would expect). There was no 'juddering' on the mkIV, just the occasional 'fuzzy edge' when something bright whizzes across the screen (like a football). The motion was in my eyes, better than CRT. Detail seems consistent during camera pans too. For example, you can track the detailing on grass whilst the camera is panning. Normally, grass and other visually similar elements just turn into a big green/whatever-coloured patch, and all the detail is lost. This didn't happen on the mkIV.

In terms of colour, the balance overall seemed about the same as the mkIII. Not something which 'jumps' out of the screen at you like say, the BeoVision 8-40, but very very comfortable to watch and incredibly natural. Contrast seems much better than even the plasma based BeoVisions. Light and dark scenes handled very well. The mkIV is much brighter than the mkIII and even the plasmas.

In fact the only area which I really still can't get with LCD TVs is the black levels (all the TVs in my house are LCD by the way). The black levels on the mkIV are good, but not as good as the plasmas and definitely not as good as the old CRTs. Fine, if you're watching during the day it's not a problem, but in low-light level viewing I'd find it quite irritating. Still, there isn't really anything which can be done about this on B&O's behalf other than darken the contrast screen even further, which they wouldn't want to do.

The Blu-Ray player does seem noisy when loading up a DVD or changing scenes, but it quietens down after a few minutes. I haven't watched the mkIV in enough length to know if the sound keeps kicking back in throughout movies, but it doesn't seem to have done it whilst I've been watching it.

In terms of standard definition, the mkIII was great in that you could sit closer than you would normally want to and still get a very watchable SD image. The mkIV is definitely refined for HD performance, not SD performance and you do need to sit further back than the mkIV if you want a good SD image.  Still, the improvements in overall image brightness without losing contrast and colour depth make it a stunningly good picture even with SD when watching from a distance.

If you want to get the best out of it though, you do need to be watching HD. If B&O made the SD picture quality as good as those in that camp want, then the HD picture quality would suffer. There's only so much upscaling can do, and when we're talking about the blocky appearance of standard definition DVB-T signals (where the bandwidth is constantly being reduced in order to make way for HD broadcasts on the DVB-T system), then there's not much which can be done at all.

Alex:

If B&O made the SD picture quality as good as those in that camp want, then the HD picture quality would suffer.

 

 

Why?

Moxxey.....thank you for your answer!

Puncher:

Alex:

If B&O made the SD picture quality as good as those in that camp want, then the HD picture quality would suffer.

Why?

The DVB-T and DVD modules in the mkIII used RGB connections between the modules and the chassis - hence the image was 'softened' up before it went through all the picture processing. This 'erased' some of the blocking you get from the MPEG compression of DVDs and DVB-T SD broadcasts.

The same thing can be done with the mkIV, simply by unplugging the HDMI connections from the modules (although with a mkIV, the internal connections are composite, simply because they only feed the link room pictures, which makes an RGB connection pointless). The image is softened up quite a bit, but you lose a lot of depth, the colours aren't as good and you get that horrible composite 'frazzly edges' appearance.

If B&O were to put an RGB connection between the chassis and the modules, you would lose the capability to display HD from said modules. The SD performance would be better when viewing up-close with DVB-T SD broadcasts (and a little better with DVD images), but at the distance I would consider 'correct' for viewing (the same proportions abided by for CRT TVs), the image is stunningly good.

Bear in mind this is my experience with the mkIV.

FWIW, I feel that since LCD and Plasma have become the new standard technology, people are expecting far more from their sets. Because it's now quite easy to fit a 32", 40" or even 50" TV in a space where before, you would struggle to fit even a 32" CRT simply because of the depth of the sets, people are sitting much closer to their TVs in proportion to the size of the screen, also in a time when standard definition signals are getting worse in quality.

EDIT: It's worth noting that most of the people who have upgraded their Avant 32s have gone for the 7-40, but are still viewing at the same distance they were before.

Alex:

Puncher:

Alex:

If B&O made the SD picture quality as good as those in that camp want, then the HD picture quality would suffer.

Why?

The DVB-T and DVD modules in the mkIII used RGB connections between the modules and the chassis - hence the image was 'softened' up before it went through all the picture processing. This 'erased' some of the blocking you get from the MPEG compression of DVDs and DVB-T SD broadcasts.

The same thing can be done with the mkIV, simply by unplugging the HDMI connections from the modules (although with a mkIV, the internal connections are composite, simply because they only feed the link room pictures, which makes an RGB connection pointless). The image is softened up quite a bit, but you lose a lot of depth, the colours aren't as good and you get that horrible composite 'frazzly edges' appearance.

If B&O were to put an RGB connection between the chassis and the modules, you would lose the capability to display HD from said modules. The SD performance would be better when viewing up-close with DVB-T SD broadcasts (and a little better with DVD images), but at the distance I would consider 'correct' for viewing (the same proportions abided by for CRT TVs), the image is stunningly good.

Bear in mind this is my experience with the mkIV.

FWIW, I feel that since LCD and Plasma have become the new standard technology, people are expecting far more from their sets. Because it's now quite easy to fit a 32", 40" or even 50" TV in a space where before, you would struggle to fit even a 32" CRT simply because of the depth of the sets, people are sitting much closer to their TVs in proportion to the size of the screen, also in a time when standard definition signals are getting worse in quality.

EDIT: It's worth noting that most of the people who have upgraded their Avant 32s have gone for the 7-40, but are still viewing at the same distance they were before.

I'm suprised that having an inferior SD signal chain (in the case of the MKIII) can be attributed to giving a better SD picture that the all digital MKIV. Any filtering inherent in the RGB conversion could, I assume, also be done in the DSP of the MKIV.

Have you gotten this information from B&O's engineers or elsewhere?

Alex:

RE the HD performance, my experience when comparing the mkIII to the mkIV was that the difference was rather large.

Alex, I've owned and used a MKIII with HD and Blu-ray since December 2007. I think I can categorically state that the MKIV is only slightly better. It's not the great leap you're suggesting.

Movement is better, particularly with sport in HD. I noticed that straight away. However, whether it's £3000 on top of your MKIII 'better', is debatable.

The Blu-ray player isn't noisy once the film is up-and-running. I bet you though, it's more noisy in my sitting room than on demo at the dealer!

Puncher:

I'm suprised that having an inferior SD signal chain (in the case of the MKIII) can be attributed to giving a better SD picture that the all digital MKIV. Any filtering inherent in the RGB conversion could, I assume, also be done in the DSP of the MKIV.

Have you gotten this information from B&O's engineers or elsewhere?

No, simply from what I've discovered having had a rather extensive play with the routing of the mkIV. Disconnect the HDMI lead for the Blu-Ray player or DVB-T module, and the TV will switch over to the internal composite connection used to feed the link-room TVs.

The reason I discovered this was I wondered how distribution to link room TVs works with HD sources like the DVBT-HD module and the Blu-Ray player works as not having to connect SD connections from devices in order to get a link room picture would make a lot of things MUCH easier. I was hoping the mkIV would down-scale any HD/digital signals from the chassis and spew them out as an RF modulated signal, but alas, the mkIV still seems to work in the same way as the mkIII in this respect.

To cut a long story short, I've already tried the different connection possibilities with the mkIV, and it is down to the HD connections that the mkIV shows up all digital blocking with the DVB-T module.

Alex:

The mkIV is IMO an all-round better picture than the plasmas!

I would say this - when I got back from a (long!) football match tonight, there was something on BBC HD about following the victorian tourist guides and a programme on York. I could have sworn that was the best picture I've ever seen. Looked like we were on the street, it was that clear and precise.

On a sidenote, and back to the original topic, if anyone is seeking a sensational recent Blu-ray, try that Valkyrie. PQ is very decent, but it's the audio experience that excels. I heard bass from my BL9s I'd never heard before. I didn't realise they went so low and could shake the floor so violently. Surprised me quite a bit and, if you knew me, I'm rarely easily surprised.

@Alex - I wasn't questioning the internal routing differences between the MKIII & MKIV, I was questioning your assumption that the analogue connection in the MKIII was an acceptable reason it's SD picture was better than the digitally connected MKIV. Assuming the MKIV tuner correctly decodes the SD signal I still see no reason why the SD picture of the MKIV can't match the MKIII if it is processed well. If the SD picture quality is worse it should be raised as an issue requiring attention rather than making excuses, as SD broadcasts are still with us for a good few years yet.

Anyhoo - I shall leave that there as the thread is meant to be about test DVD's - sorry Moxxey

I personally believe SD broadcasts are going to be phased out relatively quickly for the mainstream channels. The bandwidth is rapidly becoming available as SD broadcasts are bottlenecked.

That's the thing, the mkIV does correctly decode the signal. SD broadcasts are of such low quality at present through the DVB-T system that I can even see the digital blocking on my 17" Samsung 4:3 LCD which is being fed the signal from the digital tuner through RF.

The mkIII did soften the image up a considerable amount. The mkIV cannot 'remove' information from the signal as the mkIII did, as the HD performance would then suffer.

The only thing B&O could really do about this is compromise the HD performance from the built in tuner...

This is what all televisions need. HDMI and Ethernet-connection for download to on-board harddrives.

Broadcasting is generally in trouble, not whether it's in SD or HD.

Alex:

I personally believe SD broadcasts are going to be phased out relatively quickly for the mainstream channels. The bandwidth is rapidly becoming available as SD broadcasts are bottlenecked.

That's the thing, the mkIV does correctly decode the signal. SD broadcasts are of such low quality at present through the DVB-T system that I can even see the digital blocking on my 17" Samsung 4:3 LCD which is being fed the signal from the digital tuner through RF.

The mkIII did soften the image up a considerable amount. The mkIV cannot 'remove' information from the signal as the mkIII did, as the HD performance would then suffer.

The only thing B&O could really do about this is compromise the HD performance from the built in tuner...

Not before the next generation of BV7 is likely to hit the streets - I believe the MKIV could "remove" information from the signal, via DSP if that is what is required, and that it could distinguish between an SD and HD signal being received and therefore treat each stream differently - the SD processing need not be the same as HD and therefore needn't compromise the HD performance.

I guess my real issue is you are making claims that read as facts whereas in fact you don't know really know.

How do you know "the mkIV cannot 'remove' information from the signal ........"?

Also, what are the chances of all terrestrials channels in the UK being broascast in HD before the MKIV is superceded.

I maintain that, at this time, there is no acceptable excuse for the SD picture quality of the MKIV being worse than the MKIII.

Alex:

I personally believe SD broadcasts are going to be phased out relatively quickly for the mainstream channels. The bandwidth is rapidly becoming available as SD broadcasts are bottlenecked.

Unfortunately I disagree. It's going to be a long time before we see a HD BBC1, BBC2 and so on. I quite like the Channel 4 approach. Although most of their 'HD' content is standard definition, there is more bandwidth allocated to this HD channel, thus SD looks better through the HD channel than the regular Channel 4. Problem with the BBC is that they now have four key channels and BBC HD is the best HD content from these four channels. There's often little programme synchronisation too.

I can't see regular HD channels for years :(

Puncher:

If the SD picture quality is worse it should be raised as an issue requiring attention rather than making excuses, as SD broadcasts are still with us for a good few years yet.

I agree Puncher. It's a shame the balance couldn't be controlled via the sw. To make things worse, the 'Sharpen' control seems to cause the opposite effect than on the MKIII. With the MKIII, the sharpen default was '14' and B&O recommended turning this down to either 10 or 8 to match SD under the MKII (although it didn't make that much difference).

With the MKIV, the default Sharpen setting is again '14'. However, if you up this to 18, HD becomes even better and more clear, but it also seems to improve SD, too.

That can't be right? Sharpening should show more flaws, not tighten the picture.

For BD PQ, "I Robot",and "The Dark Knight" can be recommended.

As for SD PQ,it is unfortunate that the majority of manufacturers use the provision of a full HD(1080p) panel as an excuse to skimp on the upscaling,and deinterlacing necessary for the provision of high quality SD(from SDDVD,or Freeview).

It is generally a cost cutting measure,but there is no excuse for B &O,given the price of the BV7,not to provide high quality SD.

Pioneer could do it with my LX608,so why not B & O on a panel 20" smaller.

Given the general failing of BD players to replay SDDVDs to a high quality,it may be that the integrated BD player is also lacking in this respect.

Back to the test disk question...I think the opening sequence of I Am Legend on BluRay is one of my favorites in terms of the incredible detail in the HD images coupled with the incredible dynamic range in the sound design.  There are plenty of better BluRay movies overall but this one scene just knocks your socks off if using the correct HD audio settings on a full HD screen.