General Forum

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

Flappo The Grate — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:32:02 GMT

i'm quite happy to admit when i might be wrong :)

imo 1080 is pretty pointless on a tv unless it's REALLY massive , my own experience tells a lot

i have a mac pro linked up to my bravia via dvi to hdmi , to save space in my bedroom ( think i might bite the bullet and get a mac display after the problems i get )

unfortunately due to the resolution of this panel its impossible to view anything on it at greater than 1344 x 756 - which rather defeats the purpose of 1080

at 1920 x 1080 everything is so small i have to sit a foot away from the screen or my eyes start hurting from strain

ie ; don't believe the hype - new does not necessarily mean better

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

Russ — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:09:41 GMT

I think it interesting that this thread has been raised from the dead by the quote above regarding 720vs1080 on 'smaller' screens. And Flappo remarking that 'maybe bno were right all along'? Well, that just floored me.

In this thread and one or two others, I and others were defending B&O's televisions (esp. the MKIII) based on the perceived image quality, as opposed to the spec. I've been with BeoWorld long enough to remember wailing that B&O were using DVI for its monitors, not DVI, that they were late going to 720, then 1080, and of course 1080p. We have argued that using the 'latest' does not always result in the 'best'.

I am happy to see someone citing a source which actually looked, and compared, irrespective of the numbers. I, for one, am not at all surprised at the resulting opinion.

Russ

PS. Perhaps Trip's talking kittens will allow him to rest now.

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

dp — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:02:27 GMT

2 things:

1. MKII vs. MKIII The integrated dvd playback is far more 'stable' in terms of fast moving images, and the skin tones on close ups in particular are improved also. I've also compared sd DVD playback on a PS3 connected via the HDMI to a MKIII BV7-40 and the internal dvd is better IMHO. The test used casino royale SD.

2. The SD does look more pixelated, but so does broadcasted HD from SKY for example, than on the 720p MKII. However from a correct viewing distance the HD does look much more realistic, richer and again more stable. With 17" computer monitors now doing 1080p (or actually more 1900x1200) and larger 30" monitors doing double Full HD (!) things are still likely to get even more silly.

Numbers are one thing - performance is something entirely more important. I've seen a full HD Loewe TV, and various Sonys on HD and they had far more 'noise' especially on the darker colours than either BV7-40 MKII or MKIII.

Another way of looking at this - a 500bhp Corvette is not the same as a 500bhp Aston Martin!

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

soundproof — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:15:25 GMT

Full-HD is for projectors and VERY large flat panels, it's unnecessary and actually obstructive on screens under 60-50" - upscaling of SD and DVD gets messed up, and those formats are going to be around for a long, long time. HD-Ready is the perfect format for flatscreens in this size range.

(Adding: I see that Mr Katzmaier and I are in agreement. I actually did similar comparisons before settling on HD-Ready.)

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

Flappo The Grate — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:09:23 GMT

interesting article

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6810011-1.html

"On a regular basis in our HDTV reviews, we put 720p (or 768p) sets next to 1080p sets, then feed them both the same source material, whether it's 1080i or 1080p, from the highest-quality Blu-ray and HD DVD players. We typically watch both sets for a while, with eyes darting back and forth between the two, looking for differences in the most-detailed sections, such as hair, textures of fabric, and grassy plains. Bottom line: It's almost always very difficult to see any difference--especially from farther than 8 feet away on a 50-inch TV."

"Our resident video guru, Senior Editor David Katzmaier, stands by what he said two years ago: The extra sharpness afforded by the 1080p televisions he's seen is noticeable only when watching 1080i or 1080p sources on a larger screens, say 55 inches and bigger, or with projectors that display a wall-size picture. "

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

Flappo The Grate — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:00:49 GMT

yes , it would have been better if they'd all standardised on 720p , imo that's more than good enough unless you go over 45 inches or so - and who has screens that big in their front rooms ?

the main problem as has been mentioned is that sd looks awful on 1080 but ok on 720

maybe bno were right all along ?

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

soundproof — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:43:12 GMT

moxxey:
Yes, you're right. Indeed, SD-based DVDs are not great upscaled on the 1080p screen.

Full-HD is a miss, a shot in the dark. Only relevant if you have access to Full-HD sources, which from now on is Blu-ray discs. Downloading a fully enabled BD production, with full transparency audio channels, would require a lot of time, meaning the format is impractical for download.

Therefore, the only way of getting your Full-HD's worth of image is to buy BD or HD-DVD discs. And as the HD-DVD format is being discontinued, you're left with BD.

All broadcasts have set the limit at 1080i/720p, due to bandwidth constraints. This may change, thought it's very unlikely, given those constraints. For this reason, buying a Full-HD set really doesn't make sense, but since customers were clamouring for them, manufacturers were forced to build them.

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

moxxey — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:18:38 GMT

Yes, you're right. Indeed, SD-based DVDs are not great upscaled on the 1080p screen.

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:09:52 GMT

moxxey:
britops:
Avant DVD is better than the BV7 DVD.
Not on a true HD source.

I was only talking about the built in DVD player. Stating the case that an obsolete product can still outperform the latest BV7 when watching the same DVD in both machines, thus making it crazy to buy a BV7 until the player is updated to match the screen.

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

GuyHui — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:06:06 GMT

Graham1982:
Reporter for MTV cribs: So David why did you buy a B&O Avant for your house
David Beckham: Erm because the people in the box open the curtains and face you when they speak. With my old TV I had to move my chair.

BTW, I am keeping my Avant before I can grap something that is worth in the B&O range.

Guy

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

moxxey — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:56:35 GMT

britops:
Avant DVD is better than the BV7 DVD.

Not on a true HD source. That results in an outstanding image on the BV7-40. Even upscaled SD content through a HD channel is superb. General SD content - particularly football - will be better on the Avant. In fact, the Avant will be streets ahead on SD-based football.

However, whether there is a big upgrade from the Avant to the BV7-40 is debatable. Irresepective of the Blu-ray situation, I'd still hold on to your Avant for another year or so and see what happens with HD, 100Hz and so on. In a year from now, I'm sure the BV7-40 MKIV will be another step ahead of the current model, with HD.

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:37:35 GMT

moxxey:
britops:
Me too. I think its crazy buying one without.
No way. I don't agree at all. Blu-ray discs are very expensive and still not mass market. No other manufacturer is building Blu-ray drives in to their TVs (you'd have to be fairly sure you're doing the right thing to build it in - for instance, you need to have access to the Internet for sw updates etc) and you could quite easily pick up a PS3 or similar device and play your Blu-rays through that.
I think you'd be waiting a long time before the BV7 receives an internal Blu-ray drive. My guess would be a 100Hz panel update first, later this year.

And that is why I am in no rush to get rid of my Avant. It may be obsolete but it has a built in DVD player, no different to the the newest generation BV7 and I'm pretty sure the picture quality of the Avant DVD is better than the BV7 DVD.

Its like fitting a cassette tape in the new BeoSound 5.

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

soundproof — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:55:23 GMT

Blu-ray will be a niche format. Downloads to harddisk are taking over, and fast -- in maximum two year's time this will be ubiquitous. (And Apple-TV users are enjoying the convenience today -- though there are many other providers offering their own downloads.)

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

moxxey — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:24:58 GMT

britops:
Me too. I think its crazy buying one without.

No way. I don't agree at all. Blu-ray discs are very expensive and still not mass market. No other manufacturer is building Blu-ray drives in to their TVs (you'd have to be fairly sure you're doing the right thing to build it in - for instance, you need to have access to the Internet for sw updates etc) and you could quite easily pick up a PS3 or similar device and play your Blu-rays through that.

I think you'd be waiting a long time before the BV7 receives an internal Blu-ray drive. My guess would be a 100Hz panel update first, later this year.

Re: Is it worth buying a B&O TV anymore? A thought for the day.

moxxey — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:21:31 GMT

Buying B&O technology isn't as crazy as people make out, as long as you seek out the right technology. Buy a BV7-40 now and it should have a reasonable trade-in value in a couple of years, even with the launch of a MKIV in early 2009.

If someone had told me that, in 2004, I could buy a BV7-32 and then trade it in for 60% of the original value, in early 2008, I'd have thought they were mad. Effectively, I was 'hiring' a BV7-32 for three years at a cost of around £2300. That's a hire cost of £766 a year. If you placed these economics in front of people, buying B&O seems far more reasonable than people would imagine. However, the biggest issue is the initial purchase price.

I couldn't have justified buying a BV7-40 outright, if I didn't have my original BV7-32 to trade-in. That made the new TV far more affordable with the thought that it should still retain a value for the next couple of years.

Doesn't work with every piece of B&O kit though, but I think most people are safe with the BV7, BL2, BL3, BL9 and BL5's.