General Forum

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

Beolab — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:01:08 GMT

355f:
Beolab:
355f:
Beolab:

No 355f !! Its all about the back-lightening on a LCD. ;)
50% of the PQ is the back-lightening, 20% is the video engine/processor and 30% is the panel if you didn't now that....

Regards
Since when has one heard of the panel being seperated from the backlight!-its one and the same thing, It is classed as a unit. So when for example an LCD panel is sold obviously it includes the backlight which is part of panel development- without which of course there would be no picture.
One tries to balance out some of the euphoria over the BV7 that is generated on some posts, which give the impression maybe that B&O have found the 'holy grail' in LCD manufacture and development. Manufacturers of course love this ethos of course- without which one cant generate new sales- so this is great for B&O lets hope many take the same view.
Its reassuring that now there seems to be agreement it is maybe 10% better than the older outdated version and that is about right I think.

Your post seem to allude that I dont know much about it, and having run an electronics busienss in China for the past nine years, with the last four in a joint venture with an LCD company- im sure your right!!
You say the panel couldent be separated from the back light????? No problem at all!! 355f you are too much a "sales man" in you writings i think... You now what you have heard about the LCD/Plasma technologi... Come up with some evidence instead and prov me wrong!
Here read and watch this...
http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/post/55848.aspx

Regards
Clearly, we are having some translation problems here! The backlight is PART of the LCD assembly. When B&O or any customer buy the panel from Samsung they don't buy it without a backlight!! we supply panels to many brands and I can assure you they all work like this! How can I prove this point!!! One thing that will surprise most I think is the FOB cost of a 40 in panel- its sub $120.
LCD is a very cheap manufacturing process and I will be more than happy to mail you off line and invite you to see it made if you so desire!

I now what you mean 355f, but it is the baklight that is the most important in a LCD. Second comes the panel or "the two plastic bricks with liquid Cristal between them" =). Look at the movie in my tread and you can clearly see the "dark plastic LCD panel" and the backlight separated from each other... But i'm aware of that B&O buy the hole panel with CCFL backlight... So the biggest issue for a LCD screen today is the backlight (The CCFL UV lamp)... But in 2008 as you mentioned Samsung and JVC are about to launch LED backlight LCD screens instead of CCFL lamps. = The Contrast will increase by 10 times against the best LCD screens today...

Regards Fredrik L

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

355f — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:31:23 GMT

Beolab:
355f:
Beolab:

No 355f !! Its all about the back-lightening on a LCD. ;)
50% of the PQ is the back-lightening, 20% is the video engine/processor and 30% is the panel if you didn't now that....

Regards
Since when has one heard of the panel being seperated from the backlight!-its one and the same thing, It is classed as a unit. So when for example an LCD panel is sold obviously it includes the backlight which is part of panel development- without which of course there would be no picture.
One tries to balance out some of the euphoria over the BV7 that is generated on some posts, which give the impression maybe that B&O have found the 'holy grail' in LCD manufacture and development. Manufacturers of course love this ethos of course- without which one cant generate new sales- so this is great for B&O lets hope many take the same view.
Its reassuring that now there seems to be agreement it is maybe 10% better than the older outdated version and that is about right I think.

Your post seem to allude that I dont know much about it, and having run an electronics busienss in China for the past nine years, with the last four in a joint venture with an LCD company- im sure your right!!
You say the panel couldent be separated from the back light????? No problem at all!! 355f you are too much a "sales man" in you writings i think... You now what you have heard about the LCD/Plasma technologi... Come up with some evidence instead and prov me wrong!
Here read and watch this...
http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/post/55848.aspx

Regards

Clearly, we are having some translation problems here! The backlight is PART of the LCD assembly. When B&O or any customer buy the panel from Samsung they dont buy it without a backlight!! we supply panels to many brands and I can assure you they all work like this! How can I prove this point!!! One thing that will surpirse most I think is the FOB cost of a 40 in panel- its sub $120.

LCD is a very cheap manufacturing process and I will be more than happy to mail you off line and invite you to see it made if you so desire!

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

Beolab — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:50:39 GMT

355f:
Beolab:

No 355f !! Its all about the back-lightening on a LCD. ;)
50% of the PQ is the back-lightening, 20% is the video engine/processor and 30% is the panel if you didn't now that....

Regards
Since when has one heard of the panel being seperated from the backlight!-its one and the same thing, It is classed as a unit. So when for example an LCD panel is sold obviously it includes the backlight which is part of panel development- without which of course there would be no picture.
One tries to balance out some of the euphoria over the BV7 that is generated on some posts, which give the impression maybe that B&O have found the 'holy grail' in LCD manufacture and development. Manufacturers of course love this ethos of course- without which one cant generate new sales- so this is great for B&O lets hope many take the same view.
Its reassuring that now there seems to be agreement it is maybe 10% better than the older outdated version and that is about right I think.

Your post seem to allude that I dont know much about it, and having run an electronics busienss in China for the past nine years, with the last four in a joint venture with an LCD company- im sure your right!!

You say the panel couldent be separated from the back light????? No problem at all!! 355f you are too much a "sales man" in you writings i think... You now what you have heard about the LCD/Plasma technologi... Come up with some evidence instead and prov me wrong!

Here read and watch this...

http://forum.beoworld.org/forums/post/55848.aspx

Regards

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

soundproof — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:45:21 GMT

355f:

Your post seem to allude that I dont know much about it, and having run an electronics busienss in China for the past nine years, with the last four in a joint venture with an LCD company- im sure your right!!

Pesky language difficulties there in China, 355f? Takes a while to really get into the deep tech stuff, I guess.

Yes, would be a little hard to separate the quality of the backlight from the panel itself ... Actually shown quite nicely in the "difference between LCD and Plasma" video someone posted here. It showed how all the rear filters and light source (looked like neon tubes to me) are integrated with the panel.
That also being the problem with LCD, as I understand it, as they're never really OFF, those backlights? Leading to LCDs having a hard time achieving BLACK.

At any rate, your insights into the industry are appreciated, 355f.

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

355f — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:08:52 GMT

Beolab:

No 355f !! Its all about the back-lightening on a LCD. ;)
50% of the PQ is the back-lightening, 20% is the video engine/processor and 30% is the panel if you didn't now that....

Regards

Since when has one heard of the panel being seperated from the backlight!-its one and the same thing, It is classed as a unit. So when for example an LCD panel is sold obviously it includes the backlight which is part of panel development- without which of course there would be no picture.

One tries to balance out some of the euphoria over the BV7 that is generated on some posts, which give the impression maybe that B&O have found the 'holy grail' in LCD manufacture and development. Manufacturers of course love this ethos of course- without which one cant generate new sales- so this is great for B&O lets hope many take the same view.

Its reassuring that now there seems to be agreement it is maybe 10% better than the older outdated version and that is about right I think.

Your post seem to allude that I dont know much about it, and having run an electronics busienss in China for the past nine years, with the last four in a joint venture with an LCD company- im sure your right!!

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

The Beonic Man — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:21:52 GMT

Thanks Beolab, that sounds about right to me, a 10%-15% difference or so.

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

Beolab — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:04:29 GMT

The Beonic Man:

Beolab... can you really notice a SIGNIFICANT difference between the Mark II and the Mark III? If you can, where - standard broadcast, digital broadcast, high definition or DVD upscaling? I really couldn't see any difference with a Planet Earth DVD, which was normal digital footage (non-HD) playing on DVD.
Simon.

I have them both so i can tell the difference ;) Hm i don´t now were to start, but i can´t relay see any big difference viewing standard broadcast because the signal are way to bad for 40".. ( I can see that it is a little bit more contrast and slightly brighter i think on standard analogue broadcastings but no big difference)

On HD you can see big difference! Less artefact's and true realism in the pictures because of BS3, High Glare and more and more..

The tone in the picture are not "blueish" like the MK II and you can watch a football game without motion artefact's at all.. Higher detail overall in the picture. "The picture have a better flow"..

Then on upscaled DVD playback the picture are little brighter and have more detail and less artefact's...

So the MK III are about 10-15% better i think....

Regards

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

The Beonic Man — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:15:17 GMT

Beolab... can you really notice a SIGNIFICANT difference between the Mark II and the Mark III? If you can, where - standard broadcast, digital broadcast, high definition or DVD upscaling? I really couldn't see any difference with a Planet Earth DVD, which was normal digital footage (non-HD) playing on DVD.

Simon.

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

Beolab — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:55:40 GMT

No 355f !! Its all about the back-lightening on a LCD. ;)

50% of the PQ is the back-lightening, 20% is the video engine/processor and 30% is the panel if you didn't now that....

Regards

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

The Beonic Man — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:45:13 GMT

moxxey:
The Beonic Man:

than viewing non-HD on the same tv. But, the Mark II and Mark III BeoVisions look so good anyway when playing the right digital footage, you begin to question if HD on these sets is honestly worth it..
Perhaps Simon, but HD at £120/year is almost not worth worrying about, when we're discussing £8800 BV7-40's. I could say the same thing about Blu-ray DVDs. Yes there's an improvement, but they are also generally twice the price. So, depends if you're seeking the best possible experience, which you've suggest that's your primary goal. If it wasn't....you'd have bought the BV5 HD as you prefer the design.

You are right Chris but its the principle of the matter for me.

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

moxxey — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:23:17 GMT

The Beonic Man:
than viewing non-HD on the same tv. But, the Mark II and Mark III BeoVisions look so good anyway when playing the right digital footage, you begin to question if HD on these sets is honestly worth it..

Perhaps Simon, but HD at £120/year is almost not worth worrying about, when we're discussing £8800 BV7-40's. I could say the same thing about Blu-ray DVDs. Yes there's an improvement, but they are also generally twice the price. So, depends if you're seeking the best possible experience, which you've suggest that's your primary goal. If it wasn't....you'd have bought the BV5 HD as you prefer the design.

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

saf — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:11:34 GMT

Apologies for entering the discussion being owner of neither set compared, but I think The Beonic Man is - rightly - pointing at some generally interesting things …

Though there is no doubt about HD superiority, I have no doubt either that I would easily 'convince' many, where I live, that my 2004 non-HD BV5 is a HD-set: all I need and occasionally get from one of my digital (SD) STBs - the one not from where I live, is a really good quality material from the broadcaster, but 355f and soundproof explained this etc. very well. Actually, as I see it on my good old set, you can easily tell the difference between the qualities of cameras used during making a particular program...

Bottom line: happy are the people living where the only choice of the day is between HD broadcasting and … well, HD broadcasting. They don’t need to bother about all these comparisons and can actually fully enjoy what’s being broadcast … I really mean it!

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

TerryM — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:31:39 GMT

I understood the perceived wisdom to be that the benefit of full HD(1080p) on a panel under 50" would be difficult to notice especially as one moved away from the screen to a "normal" viewing distance.

Perhaps B & O has given in to the apparent market demand for full HD TVs with the BV7 MK111,rather than release an updated,Beosystem 3 equipped, model with a lower resolution panel.

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

The Beonic Man — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:56:45 GMT

Some really interesting replies since my own last post and I'd like to pick up on several.

Moxxey, you mentioned that you are confused by some of my posts. Well you are right, and this is what I have been saying. I am finding myself getting more confused by televison technology the more I look into it and carry out research. I had always assumed that HD broadcasts were superior because we are told this, be it by retailers, Sky or other sources. But I am a person who is never satisfied with what I am told. I forumlate my own opinons and want to feel entirely convinced that they are correct. I think that 355f's comment, "Firstly, when it comes to HD it depends on the rate at which its transmitted and some HD quality is rather poor. In tests conducted by the BBC the conclusion was good quality SD is better than bad HD! I would not pay for SKY HD for sure! One can always pick examples of where HD looked good for one particular film but its just not worth the money..." sums up exactly what I was trying to say.

Many times when I have looked at an HD broadcast I have felt it is crystal clear and very realistic compared to other non-HD footage I have watched. However, I have also spent a considerable amount of time looking at the 11 HD channels currently offered by Sky which include Sky 1, Sky Sports and Sky Discovery. When looking at these channels, I haven't seen that same clarity and realism all of the time - only occasionally and, as previously mentioned, it looks no different to the normal broadcast of the same footage on the digital channels i.e. Sky Discovery footage looks identical to Sky Discovery HD footage! This, I believe, is because both pieces of footage are recorded on high quality recording equipment so you get an excellent picture either way. What I would say for certain is that a digital broadcast is often better than an SD broadcast. So, with all this in mind, I believe that the industry is trying to make money out of HD by fooling people into believing its the next 'generational step' in tv broadcasting when in fact it isn't at all!

355f and soundproof go on to make some excellent points that pick up on all this further.

An HD broadcast on a Mark I BeoVison 7-32/40 is almost certainly going to look superior than viewing non-HD on the same tv. But, the Mark II and Mark III BeoVisions look so good anyway when playing the right digital footage, you begin to question if HD on these sets is honestly worth it, and in my mind it isn't, not at the moment anyway. I don't know what the future holds. I hope I have better explained my thoughts about this.

Simon.

Re: BV7-40 Mark II v BV7-40 Mark III

soundproof — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:58:50 GMT

The Beonic Man:
So I can only conclude that as much as we talk about panels and picture processing on this forum, clearly it is down to the quality of signal being broadcast.

Absolutely - the signal quality and strength is crucial. I recently had an installer from my cable company come by as I wasn't satisfied with the image I got in my media room. He measured output, changed the configuration of the distributor where the signal enters the house -- checked all the wall connectors (and found that one along the relay leading to my media room had been reversed, seriously degrading signal strength).

He also replaced a stretch of coax which he suspected might have been damaged. And he installed a signal booster at the entry point.

Result - a serious increase in quality not just in the image but in the sound resolution. Previously I hadn't enjoyed listening to the music/radio transmitted by the operator, it was grainy sounding. Now I have a much more pleasant resolution of the sound.

The significant improvement was in the image - there's simply more of it, no jitters, crawling in dark portions or burnt out whites. It wasn't a major problem, but with a 50" screen anything will be magnified, particularly with SD. Now I'm a happy camper - and looking forward to the new HD service the operator is launching in November. (For the projector).

The installer measured signal strength in the media room pre and post work. According to his meter, I got a ten-fold boost in signal strength both for sound and image, ensuring much greater stability and much less work for the image correction algorithms in my setup.

Having one of the world's best image processors or full HDMI arrays doesn't really do much if the signal is sub-par, and my experience definitely demonstrates that. I'd recommend having the cable installer come by to anyone before plunking down a lot of money on hardware!

In my installer's own words: "I don't know, I think that the signal you had before was RGB-level at best, and unstable at that. Now you have a proper digital feed."

===

355f is absolutely right when it comes to signal strength and marginal differences. Low signal strength, and you won't see your flatscreen come alive. HD transmission will have serious bandwidth challenges (there isn't enough bandwidth) which means that they'll degrade the signal as much as they can get away with -- leaving you poorer for the result. If you have an in-house source (game console, HD player, computer) then you control the signal.

Transmitting high resolution audio takes less bandwidth than the video - and I don't think they'll compromise there. Which means you'll get a lot more out of investing in proper sound processing and excellent speakers, rather than hunting for marginal improvement with the display. Our eyes simply can't distinguish the difference. I bought the Kuro 720p display, and must confess that I can't see the "significant" improvement between that and the 1080p which is quite a bit more expensive. But I'm very pleased with the 720p Kuro, particularly after the signal upgrade!