Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxi
This is where you lose me.
Can't you give people the benefit of the doubt, or must you assume that if somebody thinks the 2500 might be a decent BRD player, then they must be blindly buying Denon because of the name?
Obviously the 2500 and the BD30 share some components, I'm not trying to deny that. But until they share ALL components, I think they way you've laid you your comparison here is at least a little unfair.
|
Well, that is the discussion at hand. Instead of people getting offended, lets figure it out. Exactly what is $500 extra buying you in an all-digital device with no advertised special video processor of any sort? DD, DTS, TrueHD, DTS-HDMA - either work or don't work because they are packeted bitstream. HDMI PCM you
might be able to make the jitter argument though even then some consider that argument "hogwash" as modern DACs/receivers can compensate for it with anti-jitter/reclocking circuitry. So that leaves us with video quality and build quality; the Panasonic BD30 already has proved to have reference video quality with BD... And even if your BD30 craps out after warranty, you can throw it away, buy another, and still spend signficantly less than you did on a single Denon player. The only mystery left is upconversion, but again the $2k Denon is the one with the killer upconversion chip, not the cheaper model (according to Denon's specs).
So really, what makes this player worth the cash with all that in mind, knowing that it is based on the BD30 which costs half the price (and has more outputs), and that all of the most delicate/sensitive conversions are done
outside of both players? That is the point of this thread, to answer that question if there is an answer.
And the follow up would be, of course, wouldn't it be wise to wait for the final BD2.0 spec before dropping $1k+ on
any player?