can not get tv sound from home cinema system

trets77

almillar wrote: »

trets - agreed. Add to that list CD Players, and even record decks and stereo amps. Speakers can be hit hard too especially if they're big, Gumtree or eBay local can be good.
AV amps are notorious for bells and whistles being added, but the technology of amplification hasn't really changed much. I've jumped on board the HDMI bandwagon though, and got a Pioneer VSX-LX52 (I think?!) for £400 whereas it was £1,200 I think at launch.
But I do think we're in a different territory with Blu-Ray vs DVD. We've got a spinning disc and a laser, some chips and then similar circuitry I'd imagine for A/V output.
I find it difficult to believe, for example, that ANY DVD player can give as good a look/sound as my PS3 playing a Blu-Ray. I know what you mean about specs, but surely uncompressed sound (forget about 7.1 vs 5.1!) and 1920x1080 pixels of information instead of 720x576 must look and sound better no matter how much of a mess a PS3 makes of it and no matter how good a DVD player can output it?![/QUOT

No argument regarding the picture side of things, watch for example thetal recall film or similar and you want Blu ray if you have it . But say for example the movie beasts of the southern wilds the hd is not ad important . I actually prefer a more,cinematic feel to the picture my DVD players spins. Sound wise the DVD does edge the blu ray when music and speech are about , guns and bangs. about even

Idiophreak

almillar wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe, for example, that ANY DVD player can give as good a look/sound as my PS3 playing a Blu-Ray.

I was going to mention this...I've got a new blu-ray player and TV recently and have been quite surprised by the relative performance of DVDs and blu-ray. To be honest, DVDs quite often look better, certainly at a glance, than blu-rays...Basically, I get the feeling that the upscaled picture from a DVD results in a better finish than an unaltered blu-ray image.

That said, I'm yet to thoroughly tinker with the settings, but as a relative noob to all things high def, I found it quite interesting...

[Deleted User]

Idiophreak wrote: »

I get the feeling that the upscaled picture from a DVD results in a better finish than an unaltered blu-ray image.

Really?
I can tell at a glance that a standard definition source is used whether from a satellite decoder or DVD.
I feel very short changed by anything in standard definition regardless of whether it's upscaled and I'll only watch DVD titles which haven't yet been released on Blu-Ray.

Idiophreak

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Really?
I can tell at a glance that a standard definition source is used whether from a satellite decoder or DVD.
I feel very short changed by anything in standard definition regardless of whether it's upscaled and I'll only watch DVD titles which haven't yet been released on Blu-Ray.

Yeah, I'm really impressed with the upscaling...if you look closely at people's mouths, particularly in the background, you can get a bit of weird aliasing and/or motion blur at times, but generally they look *really good*...I've certainly seen worse pictures from blu-ray in stores etc.

Watched Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on DVD the other week...fantastically clear picture, really good to look at...watched transporter 3 DVD - *really* clean and crisp, no slow down in the action sequences, incredibly impressive...you'd really have to look closely to tell it wasn't a HD source...conversely 300 on blu ray looked decidedly grainy and a little washed out....

I'm a bit of a stickler for both sound and picture quality, so was ready to pretty much write off my dvd collection (all 800 odd members thereof...oops) when I got my bigger TV - but all but the oldest titles (blackadder still looks pretty tired!) stand up really well.

I can still tell the difference between SD and HD on the foxsat, so I guess it must be the blu-ray player doing the magic, not the telly

[Deleted User]

Idiophreak wrote: »

conversely 300 on blu ray looked decidedly grainy and a little washed out....

I think that's rather deliberate because of the manner in which that particular movie was filmed.

I have a large DVD collection too, can't say it gets much airplay these days though...

almillar

So much of this comes down to your amp or TV's processing for sound/vision. Certainly for the TV, turn off most of the so called enhancements, and set Sharpness to 0 (careful - that might mean in the middle rather that way over to the left). Watching stuff in SD gives a softer image, which can look nicer if it's hiding something that the HD image would show. Even if the HD pic is showing up some problem in the production of the programme, I'd rather see it.
I think my point is that trets77 is an exception to the rule. Pound for pound, a Blu Ray player will give you a better picture and sound than a DVD player, and this is different from a 'basic' £1,000 stereo amp vs a £1,000 AV amp.

demystified

Idiophreak wrote: »

To be honest, DVDs quite often look better, certainly at a glance, than blu-rays...Basically, I get the feeling that the upscaled picture from a DVD results in a better finish than an unaltered blu-ray image.

That is plainly nonsense, if you really do believe that you've yet to see a proper blu-ray setup.

Sound is more subjective IMO, but video is obvious. Even 720p looks better than 576i even if it is upscaled.

Idiophreak

demystified wrote: »

That is plainly nonsense, if you really do believe that you've yet to see a proper blu-ray setup.

Sound is more subjective IMO, but video is obvious. Even 720p looks better than 576i even if it is upscaled.

Lol, !!!!!!.

trets77

almillar wrote: »

So much of this comes down to your amp or TV's processing for sound/vision. Certainly for the TV, turn off most of the so called enhancements, and set Sharpness to 0 (careful - that might mean in the middle rather that way over to the left). Watching stuff in SD gives a softer image, which can look nicer if it's hiding something that the HD image would show. Even if the HD pic is showing up some problem in the production of the programme, I'd rather see it.
I think my point is that trets77 is an exception to the rule. Pound for pound, a Blu Ray player will give you a better picture and sound than a DVD player, and this is different from a 'basic' £1,000 stereo amp vs a £1,000 AV amp.

Picture wise ..yes. Although i still will say somethings look better in prog scan high dvd playing, but concede this is personal taste.

Sound wise i think you can match and better (pound for pound) modern mid range amps with older monster amps that are now quite the bargain 2nd hand. You can still feed in Blu Ray HD sound if the Blu Ray player has multichannel outputs.

However throwing a huge collection of DVD's is really silly and expensive to replace with Blu ray. Spend some cash on older high end DVD player and enjoy them for years to come i say.

almillar

trets - oh, I never said you should throw DVDs away, this is a moneysaving site after all!
I'd rather listen to some music through an old Cyrus amp than a new £150 Yamaha AV amp - that's the point you're making and I agree.
The confusion, as demonstrated by Idiophreak, is that we're mixing up technology type, with actual devices.
This

To be honest, DVDs quite often look better, certainly at a glance, than blu-rays...Basically, I get the feeling that the upscaled picture from a DVD results in a better finish than an unaltered blu-ray image.

Is, as demystified says, rubbish.
Technically, how can a 576P image, upscaled and transmitted over 1080p POSSIBLY be a better* picture than a 1080P one?
*maybe you like the softer image, maybe the film studio did a better job mastering the DVD than the Blu Ray, but ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, Blu Ray IS BETTER than DVD. End of story!