 
|
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 |
In Reply to: have you ever seen a LOEWE set up like this............. posted by rob base on May 22, 2001 at 15:31:42:
I beg to differ! DVD should outperform a broadcast signal. If its analogue broadcast signal, quality will be lower anyhow, and digital sat and cable signals don't stand up either. The fact you are on NTSC, the signal is visibly inferior to Pal standard even direct from the Digibeta master.A good DVD transfer is almost "broadcast" in terms of quality and usually quite difficult to distinguish from the source master, (obviously depending on nature of footage and the data rate that the authoring was done at).
The Loewe sets are good, but I've never seen any of their equipement making it into tv studios, if it was as good as the competition I would at expect to see some people in the broadcast field using it, I don't know one. Most of the people I work with in the television field use sony sets at home, would guess that they know what they are doing.
Roland
Follow Ups:
Go look at the Bang & Olufsen Avant, I like Loewe, but they have been trying to copy B&O for years. Trust me NOTHING looks like the avant, the images look real, like live video, it's hard to get used to!
I cannot argue with your professional experience in this area, but I can tell you from mine that HDTV (1080i broadcasts) via OTA or via satellite (all digital channels) FAR surpassed the appearance of DVD transfers.
1080i content has six times the available resolution of a 480 source DVD.
Near field detail is almost comparable (though HD lets you see peoples pores it is so sharp), but scenery, etc. are mUCH sharper in the distance with the higher resoution of HD.
I only have an XGA projection system so I can only use a fraction of the HD potential, but it is still superior to DVD playback, regardless of external processing used.dg
Agreed. But I was discussing the output on a 480 line set, and although HDTV will undoubtably be much better in the long run, its not likely to hit the mainstream channels much for a while due to the way it eats up bandwidth, and the increased cost of production. Most of the time we watch tv because its something that we want to see, not because the quality is necessarily higher. My point was that DVD against standard broadcast, or even HDTV broadcast on a 480 line set should yeild better results from the DVD, (providing that it was decently authored). This all in the context of the fact I still reckon that the Sony I have is a better picture than the Loewe Anaconda..........but who cares anyhow.........Roland
hahaha! What's so great about a studio using a Sony? They probably buy units that allow an acceptable image at the lowest cost.
I would have to agree. I have seen Loewe (in 480p, mind you) running side by side with a Sony WEGA in it's highest digital format (720i? or 1080i, not sure which) and the Loewe absolutely blew it away in picture quality. The simple fact is, most broadcasting folks, and well, majority of the people in the US will not spend $3000+ on a 30" digital set, regardless of the quality. And as far as the 480P vs 1080i goes in that scenario, the simple fact is on a 30" 16x9 (I have the Planus 16x9 model) that 1080i is simply too high of a resolution for the size of the screen to look "correct".
Why do people on this forum have to talk crap! In broadcast circles they drop 10's of thousands on peripherals and monitors. Proffesional broadcast video machines cost around £40,000, cameras well over £30,000. Video editing suites in a serious post production house can easily exceed £500,000, get real!!! When amateurs talk about the cost of their hi-fi and their television set ups the costs are quite small. A 14" broadcast monitor can easily cost over £1,500 + vat. In broadcasting signals, very often the quality loss in transmission is significant when compared to the original signal. As I said before the Loewe is a good domestic set, I'm not disputing that, and compared to the Sony Wega (which is nearly half the price) it probably looks very good. I suggested to the original poster that he check out the top end Sony 36" set, which is a very different beast. Manufacturers like Loewe because they are significantly smaller than the big boys ie Sony, Thompson, Panasonic ect, usually have to buy their tubes from other sources, I'm only guessing, but I would suspect Thompson. Sony always had an advantage over the past 20 years or so because of their Trinitron tube patented technology. Since the patent expired one or two other manufacturers have produced designs along simular principles. This is catch up. This is the same reason that Phillips (or Marantz) have continued to be one of the market leaders in CD technology, same principle, in that they have a head start. Look at products in any market, very often the market leaders are the companies that started the products. One of the posters above supplied a link to a review of the set I mentioned. They said in that review that it represented the ultimate in domestic television pictures at the present time. heck buy the Loewe or whatever you want its your choice, I still stand by my comment that as good as the Loewe is its overpriced, and you are paying for the "designer look".Roland
Sorry for not making myself clear, but you were saying broadcasters use Sony in their home. Here in the United States, the WEGA series is about the highest line that Sony offers, and I am referring to residential viewing, not professional editing monitors. There is a signifigant difference (I do use a Sony Trinitron monitor, but for extremely high resolution graphics. I would never want to watch DVDs or Television broadcasts on it). There is obviously a signifigant difference between home viewing of NTSC images and high resolution graphics. It being two different worlds. I know a lot of people who own the high end Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc televisions which are sold in the United States market, and though quite satisfied with the image quality, they are usually blown away by the picture quality of my Loewe. I guess it's a matter of taste though.
You're probably right about professional equipment. I myself have never been in a TV studio. I have compared the picture difference between a Sony wega xbr and the Loewe planus using my Canon GL-1 (Perhaps aka XM-1 in UK), using the same S-video cable, and was actually surprised by the image quality difference. As far as the Aconda goes, I haven't done comparisons between that and the xbr, but I would bet that there's a similar difference. Anyway, I'm sure not going to put your professional experiences into question. Nor the quality of the equipment you guys use. Also, a pro can use his experience to point certain aspects of a picture and deem them correct or more true when doing comparisons, but I know that the planus looks more natural than the xbr. I would love to see your TV so I could expand my horizons, that's what makes being a home theater buff fun. EG: I saw a Seleco projector hooked to a Faroujda line doubler and was amazed by the image quality on a 100" screen. Of course, it cost $26k altogether.
I'm suprised that this set isn't available in the US as its a multistandard. Would strongly advise using RGB input or component if available, this makes a huge difference to picture quality, gets rid of the "shimmering" that is so much of problem with analogue systems. In reply to the previous poster to you, just to clarify, when I was talking about the price of a monitor, it was a broadcast monitor, not a computer based one.Roland
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 ]
