 
|
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 |
63.16.66.59
In Reply to: RE: How old is Pearson, and how good are his eyes? posted by David Aiken on September 23, 2007 at 14:03:31
the magazine's founder must be least in his 60's.
I don't know about his eyes, and I don't about his ears, bit I do know he plays things very loud, and has a set up man to do most if not all the grunt work of hooking up and such. As to how qualified his tech man is, again, no one is quite sure as to the man's capabilities.
I had been using a 50 inch plasma with 768 resolution for three years. The difference between a 1080p source and an upsampled 480P signal is quite obvious and apparent. It may vary from machine to machine (I use a Marantz universal player, modified) and a second production run Sam Sung BDP-1000, but the differences are apparent the larger the set you use.
Stu
Follow Ups:
I wish at times there was a particular punctuation mark that could be used to signify a rhetorical question. I knew Harry Pearson was older than I am, and I'm 60; and as I said in a thread below, standard def 576p upscaled to 768p on my 32" LCD screen actually looks better to me than the same film does in a theatre. That is most definitely *MY* eyes because friends present at the same screening don't report the problems I do with the picture quality in the theatre.
I can definitely see a difference, and an improvement, swapping from the standard def transmission of a program available in high def here in Australia to the separate high def transmission from the same station. I think standard def DVDs look a little better than standard def digital TV transmissions to me, but not as good as high def picture quality, but that is making judgements based on different source programs since I haven't had a chance to compare any program with something I own on standard def DVD.
My holdout on BD has basically been the fact that I'm waiting for a machine which handles all the high def audio formats. I personally haven't been in doubt about superior picture quality based on what I've seen of a couple of films playing in shop demos.
David Aiken
it is an interesting question. I believe what I wrote basically agrees with what you said originally and agrees with the follow up. All this does not particularly agree with HP's comments, so the original question you posed is of interest: how relevant are HP's observations for many of us with real world experience?
Now that's a rhetorical question.
Stu
NT
David Aiken
Again HD via over the air broadcast as on NBC almost always has a superior picture compared to standard DVD even with upscaling. The problem in my opinion ( and I suspect Pearsons) is that the average Blueray disc is not superior to a well produced DVD with upscaling. My player is a Samsung 1200 and the TV is a Sony KDS70XBR2. Certain scenes on the Planet Earth series are up to what I suspect is the potential of Blueray but the average Blueray disc is not.
I have the Sammy 1200, and a Sony XBR1. On my system, the Average BD is better than an upscaled DVD, and a good BD *kills* DVDs, better than OTA HD too.
JackEDIT: How large is your set, and how far is your viewing distance. I've found many who cannot see a difference tend to sit too far away.
And I agree with you: HD broadcasts are better than upscaling DVD.
Blu-ray absolutely kills upscaled DVD in all visible criteria.
And while we're on the subject, what about the audio? Or is upsampling DD better than LPCM?
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
