[Ian_S]

This thread carries on from here:

Arcam AVR600 Owners Thread | AVForums.com - UK Online

which is now closed for new posts due to size.

Carry on....

[Sandy B Ridge]

My word we are a vocal lot!

I'll just add that:
2.61 has fixed the EDID problem that I used to have. It intermittently forgot to broadcast 24Hz capability to my HTPC which needed a custom .inf EDID override file. Now not needed. I'm guessing this is what the firmware fix was for, and nothing to do with 23.976, when Arcam state the new firmware fixes the 24Hz 'bug'.

2.61 hasn't fixed the 23.976 judder every 32 seconds.
2.61 hasn't fixed the pops and squauks when changing audio format although it has made it better. Subjectively, (I can't objectively proove it) there is a longer 'mute' when changing audio format.

SBR

[Milesey74]

Mr Rock. I am not sure if you are a troll or not. Allow me to elaborate. I spent the money on the Oppo because I wanted a new Oppo. I did not return the AVR600 for one reason only and that was because I was told that the issue would be addressed in the new firmware coming out (this was 2 years ago). I patiently waited, only to be told that it will happen in the next iteration of firmware and that the engineers at Arcam had it as their top priority. Then Arcam informed me a year ago that the new hardware update would fix the judder issue. They were right, what they did not realise at the time was that the hardware would be delayed 12 months; apparently the Tsunami in Japan added to this delay. Then the 93 and 95 series Oppos arrived with dual outs. Therefore, I sold my 83 and bought the excellent 95 mainly because of the incredible video processing chip and of course Oppo's superb reputation. I have an excellent relationship with my local Arcam dealer and after speaking with him at length, as well as Arcam, I decided to keep the Arcam and wait for the hardware upgrade.

Now your comments on video processing have me bewildered. I guess if you are viewing on 65 inches or less, it is most probably not noticeable. I don't know, I have never used my Arcam in a small screen application. So I will take your word for it. Therefore as I said before, on a projected image, video processing of Bluray can be just as crucial as processing of DVD. A quick read of a few bluray review sites will confirm that not all blurays are mastered equally and that some post processing can improve the original source but I am sure you are already aware of this.

Trust me if I was not a fan of Arcam then I would not have kept this unit as long as I have and nor would I bother adding my positive experiences to forums. In conclusion, the judder is an issue, even Arcam themselves note that it is an issue. Is it an issue that you can live with? Well, that is up to you and you only. However, if you are projecting the image then it is an issue and one that I believe should not exist at this price level.

[Sandy B Ridge]

Originally Posted by Milesey74

Trust me if I was not a fan of Arcam then I would not have kept this unit as long as I have and nor would I bother adding my positive experiences to forums. In conclusion, the judder is an issue, even Arcam themselves note that it is an issue. Is it an issue that you can live with? Well, that is up to you and you only. However, if you are projecting the image then it is an issue and one that I believe should not exist at this price level.

+1

My sentiments exactly. It was advertised as having great HDMI processing on board. I wouldn't expect a judder at this pricepoint.

I feel quite inferior to you guys. I *only* have a 50" screen! Judder still very noticeable though.

A quick note on bluray processing. The luma information is true 1920x1080. The chroma information still needs upscaling (IIRC from 960x540 ie. half resolution). So a good processor in the player is still important. I think this is before it hits the HDMI part of the video path though, so very much player and not amp dependent.

SBR

[jowi]

My question is, is the 23.976Hz 'bug' now fixed with the 3D board?

[Rock Danger]

Originally Posted by Milesey74

Mr Rock. I am not sure if you are a troll or not. Allow me to elaborate. I spent the money on the Oppo because I wanted a new Oppo. I did not return the AVR600 for one reason only and that was because I was told that the issue would be addressed in the new firmware coming out (this was 2 years ago). I patiently waited, only to be told that it will happen in the next iteration of firmware and that the engineers at Arcam had it as their top priority. Then Arcam informed me a year ago that the new hardware update would fix the judder issue. They were right, what they did not realise at the time was that the hardware would be delayed 12 months; apparently the Tsunami in Japan added to this delay. Then the 93 and 95 series Oppos arrived with dual outs. Therefore, I sold my 83 and bought the excellent 95 mainly because of the incredible video processing chip and of course Oppo's superb reputation. I have an excellent relationship with my local Arcam dealer and after speaking with him at length, as well as Arcam, I decided to keep the Arcam and wait for the hardware upgrade.

No Milesey74 this has nothing to do with trolling, if you'd like to read other posts by me in other and this Arcam thread then you'll see I've been giving sound advice.

The only point I made was if it was so bad then why hang on to it for so long? Since you have elaborated on why, then that's fair enough. I did not know you were already replacing a high end blu ray player or any of the other points you've now made. Personally if it was that bad I'd have moved on and I will move on if mine isn't fixed - great sound, awful bugs this we all know.

Originally Posted by Milesey74

Now your comments on video processing have me bewildered. I guess if you are viewing on 65 inches or less, it is most probably not noticeable. I don't know, I have never used my Arcam in a small screen application. So I will take your word for it. Therefore as I said before, on a projected image, video processing of Bluray can be just as crucial as processing of DVD. A quick read of a few bluray review sites will confirm that not all blurays are mastered equally and that some post processing can improve the original source but I am sure you are already aware of this.

No, 50inch but it's also a 720p set. i've already said that I wasn't viewing natively often. Now I have seen it on other sets natively and I did mention that lots of people don't see it just like plasma flicker - no, it doesn't make it ok or acceptable, but these are findings in real life and discussed on forums all over the place.

Originally Posted by Milesey74

Trust me if I was not a fan of Arcam then I would not have kept this unit as long as I have and nor would I bother adding my positive experiences to forums. In conclusion, the judder is an issue, even Arcam themselves note that it is an issue. Is it an issue that you can live with? Well, that is up to you and you only. However, if you are projecting the image then it is an issue and one that I believe should not exist at this price level.

I agree it must be a nightmare on a projector especially a good projector, which not a lot of people have, again it's not an excuse for the lack of 23.967hz.

My only reason for keeping mine is because the only upgrade as far as I can tell that is significant enough would be something like the Anthem pre / power. However since changing subs and FW upgrading the pops tears and bangs have all but gone, not 100% but mostly, which is another thing that should never have dragged on so long either and is mostly not found on other AVR's.

Hope that clears things up, me saying that why did intel do the same thing and various other video vendors is not to excuse the fact but to find out why it happens. I seriously doubt it's been because whoever designed it was stupid, so I can only conclude it's a money / greed issue.

[Rock Danger]

Originally Posted by jowi

My question is, is the 23.976Hz 'bug' now fixed with the 3D board?

Well you have passthru, so yes.

[mjpav]

Hi All

I feel (whether rightly or wrongly) that if you push hard enough you should be able to negotiate either a free or reduced price 3D/Passthrough board to fix the 23.976 problem since it can be argued that this functionality would be reasonably expected in a product of this price and nature which is designed to play Blu-ray movies.

...and in actual fact just before I decided enough was enough and got a full refund I was offered one free of charge in advance - when the release happened

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Sandy B Ridge

A quick note on bluray processing. The luma information is true 1920x1080. The chroma information still needs upscaling (IIRC from 960x540 ie. half resolution). So a good processor in the player is still important. I think this is before it hits the HDMI part of the video path though, so very much player and not amp dependent. SBR

I agree it's an important consideration for some that the player gets it right before considering where best to fully upsample chroma. However other elements in the video chain can also affect chroma performance even if it's "good" from the player.

There's no single answer to the colour space question and where best to fully upsample chroma. This is because the answer may vary depending on the combination of products i.e. some convert input to a native format for internal processing irrespective of the input format. Even some video processing chips may require conversion to a specific format that may be different to other chips within the same product. This conversion process isn't necessarily lossless and can lead to a reduction in chroma resolution.

Hence the choice to fully upsample chroma in the player (as opposed to minimum standard) may result in worse or better chroma resolution depending on the combination of products. The Spears & Munsil assessment Blu-ray can help identify if there is an optimum setting for a given combination of products.

Avi

[mjpav]

Originally Posted by Rock Danger

saying that why did intel do the same thing and various other video vendors is not to excuse the fact but to find out why it happens. I seriously doubt it's been because whoever designed it was stupid, so I can only conclude it's a money / greed issue.

Human error may be more of a factor than you imagine...just look at the Iphone 4 reception problem. Although if taking the sceptical view you could say no publicity is bad publicity...I doubt Arcam can afford such a view though?

[Nuri58]

I am a bit confused at this stage. It's said the problem is HW related in which case all systems adopting the video processor would suffer from the 24p issue (I do not expect Arcam is the architect and manufacture of the chip). In short if it’s only Arcam it’s a SW issue they haven’t addressed, if not many more suffers from it.

In any case the 24p issue has not bothered me at all. What does bother me much more is the motion artefact. As long this is at the level as it is due to the compression I’d say the 24p is by far the lesser issue. Too bad it’s there yes, but it’s perhaps the 1% of the problem so I can live it.

Why not complain about the reason for the 23.97 problem only introduced due to the NTSC standard
(inferior yet the one taking precedence and causing the 23.97 issue)

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Nuri58

What does bother me much more is the motion artefact.

Can you clarify what you mean ?

Avi

[Nuri58]

Originally Posted by Avi

Can you clarify what you mean ?

Avi

The general “stroboscopic” effects resulting from the mpg4 compression (subject to the actual movie).

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Nuri58

The general “stroboscopic” effects resulting from the mpg4 compression (subject to the actual movie).

Example movies ?

Avi

[Sandy B Ridge]

Originally Posted by Nuri58

The general “stroboscopic” effects resulting from the mpg4 compression (subject to the actual movie).

Nuri, I'm puzzled by this. Are you saying this is Arcam's fault, or just blurays in general? What does the AVR600 do to cause mpg4 compression?

Cheers

SBR

[jrayboul]

Originally Posted by mjpav

Hi All

I feel (whether rightly or wrongly) that if you push hard enough you should be able to negotiate either a free or reduced price 3D/Passthrough board to fix the 23.976 problem since it can be argued that this functionality would be reasonably expected in a product of this price and nature which is designed to play Blu-ray movies.

...and in actual fact just before I decided enough was enough and got a full refund I was offered one free of charge in advance - when the release happened

You were Given the option of a free upgrade, I wish I would have known that before getting mine as I thought there was no option but to go for the upgrade, if any does get a free upgrade I will certainly be approaching Arcam on the subject.

Guys atm as far as I can see no one at this point has a working 3d upgrade correct? as mine is back with Arcam for two faults that could only be the new board, one being that the video bypass only worked if I kept the setup menu on, as soon as I turned off the menu the picture went... still waiting for a conformation as to when I will get my unit back.

[Rock Danger]

Originally Posted by mjpav

Human error may be more of a factor than you imagine...just look at the Iphone 4 reception problem. Although if taking the sceptical view you could say no publicity is bad publicity...I doubt Arcam can afford such a view though?

No they can't, for sure. But someone like intel who have been kinda leading the multimedia market since the pentium ii - it just seems odd that with all their R&D that they'd mess up the core i3 - so it has to be a money thing.

[Nuri58]

Originally Posted by Avi

Example movies ?

Avi

from Avertar to Private Ryan - all movies do suffer to various extents, that also goes for the cinema.

Originally Posted by Sandy B Ridge

Nuri, I'm puzzled by this. Are you saying this is Arcam's fault, or just blurays in general? What does the AVR600 do to cause mpg4 compression?

Cheers

SBR

Not at all the Arcam - that's only the 24p and is the lesser issue imo. Again such a HW design flaw is not good (if there is one and it's not "just" a SW issue).

By contrast the compression is causing plenty of these artefacts and un-natural movements or I trust it's called rapid picture movements at times. Once you start noticing it you'll see it even you did not before.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Nuri58

from Avertar to Private Ryan - all movies do suffer to various extents, that also goes for the cinema.

"Cinema" as in from film print rather than digital ?

I'm not sure if I understand correctly but are you referring to the limitation of typical film capture rate i.e. 24fps that can result in certain visual phenomenon with motion at higher speeds ?

Avi

[Nuri58]

Originally Posted by Avi

"Cinema" as in from film print rather than digital ?

I'm not sure if I understand correctly but are you referring to the limitation of typical film capture rate i.e. 24fps that can result in certain visual phenomenon with motion at higher speeds ?

Avi

[FONT=Calibri]In well made films the panning speeds are quite synchronised to the 24p limitations (unlike the ads for TV with high scanning rates where this effect is nicely enhanced). Of course there are scenes where the 24p limitations is obvious, but that’s what I’d call “cinema effect” which is sort of adding to the ambience in a good movie. In digital cinemas this effect is also present, but unfortunately there are a number of times you’ll see artefacts, rapid picture movements (like on a computer with too little RAM), etc. Look at finger movements and e.g. in Avatar around the shift from scene 1 to 2 where the soldiers are disembarking the craft. I guess that the better the TV/PJ the more such “flaws” are visible whilst on older equipment “just” results in the picture being a bit blurred so it’s not as noticeable. It seems independent of the source I have tried (BDP100 an DBP-L55) and
whether PJ or TV as output.
[/FONT]

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Nuri58

[In digital cinemas this effect is also present, but unfortunately there are a number of times you’ll see artefacts, rapid picture movements (like on a computer with too little RAM), etc. Look at finger movements and e.g. in Avatar around the shift from scene 1 to 2 where the soldiers are disembarking the craft. I guess that the better the TV/PJ the more such “flaws” are visible whilst on older equipment “just” results in the picture being a bit blurred so it’s not as noticeable. It seems independent of the source I have tried (BDP100 an DBP-L55) and
whether PJ or TV as output.
[/FONT]

I'm still not sure I fully understand where you're going with this as are there appear to be a number of possible causes for the perception of motion related artefacts with digital movies. Some of these may be physiological and some may be related to specific products and how they manipulate the image or the display chain setup/calibration.

Personally I'm sensitive to motion affects caused by the sample and hold drive technique used in LCD/LCOS/DILA display products. I also find some Blu-ray players/displays introduce or exaggerate image artefacts when attempting to "enhance" the image. I've found this type of enhancement can affect the perception during image motion or introduce other nasties.

Whilst there's plenty of interesting areas to debate in the above the AVR600 23.976hz simply compounds this further by introducing more artefacts.

Avi

[Nuri58]

Originally Posted by Avi

I'm still not sure I fully understand where you're going

Whilst there's plenty of interesting areas to debate in the above the AVR600 23.976hz simply compounds this further by introducing more artefacts.

Avi

I am only aiming at the 23.97 issue contributes marginally to the overall issues, hence I do not see it a reason for 1) spending a minor fortune for upgrading the main board (introducing yet some new and by far more anoying issues) or 2) being a decieding factor to prevent anyone from buying the AVR600 or have to be limited to a BDP with dual HDMI out. It follows that imo the discussion is of little interest after the issue was identified at least until there is a solution.

For me the worst issue with the AVR600 and FW2.61 is it's often loosing the reference sound level after pausing or FF my HTPC (MCE). This is of concern as it increases the sound level by 10 - 15dB, which never happen with previous FW2.5. At the same time it seems that it mutes the sound anywhere fro 0 s to 5 s when resuming playback. Quite inconsistent I'd say.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Nuri58

I am only aiming at the 23.97 issue contributes marginally to the overall issues, hence I do not see it a reason for 1) spending a minor fortune for upgrading the main board (introducing yet some new and by far more anoying issues) or 2) being a decieding factor to prevent anyone from buying the AVR600 or have to be limited to a BDP with dual HDMI out. It follows that imo the discussion is of little interest after the issue was identified at least until there is a solution.

I struggle to comprehended what you must be seeing if the 23.976hz issue only contributes marginally to the overall issues you perceive with Blu-ray film in your setup.

I guess your first point really comes to back to design and manufacturing competence which also appears to be the cause of 23.976hz issue.

Avi

[mjpav]

Originally Posted by Nuri58

I am only aiming at the 23.97 issue contributes marginally to the overall issues.

Are you running in native 1080p 24 for Blu-ray films? Or are you downscaling to 720p? Also are you using HDMI or component?

The reason I ask is:-

The judder present because of the 23.976 problem is very noticable

When down scaling to 720p or even 1080i there is no frame judder

When using component input there is an occassional horrizontal line that draws down the screen which sounds similar to what you described in an earlier post - I quote below:-

Originally Posted by Nuri58

but unfortunately there are a number of times you’ll see artefacts, rapid picture movements (like on a computer with too little RAM), etc

[mjpav]

Originally Posted by Rock Danger

No they can't, for sure. But someone like intel who have been kinda leading the multimedia market since the pentium ii - it just seems odd that with all their R&D that they'd mess up the core i3 - so it has to be a money thing.

Is the bug present on the i5 & i7? If not then I guess it will be a cost saving exercise and a reason to spend more and buy the i5/i7.

If the i5 & i7 are fine then this can hardly be compared to Arcams 23.976 problem as the AV888 uses the same video board...meaning that before the passthrough board was available there was no upgrade route present to make Arcam some more money?...I think it was just an honest mistake on Arcam's part?

[Avi]

Originally Posted by mjpav

When down scaling to 720p or even 1080i there is no frame judder

Is that because of the change in frame rate for NTSC timed film to 59.94hz output ? If so the FRC artefact is replaced with 3:2 pullown motion artefect.

An earlier comment suggested there was an issues in trying to IVTC NTSC timed film that should be output at 59.94hz which may indicate another timing issue. Can anyone clarify ?

Avi

[mjpav]

Originally Posted by jrayboul

You were Given the option of a free upgrade, I wish I would have known that before getting mine as I thought there was no option but to go for the upgrade, if any does get a free upgrade I will certainly be approaching Arcam on the subject.

At the time I'd had 4 replacements, 2 visits from Arcam, 1 visit from my dealer, several phone calls to my local trading standards office and had been very patient even though I was very annoyed...it was kind of a good will gesture on my dealers part - hense why I say if you push hard enough you never know?

[jowi]

I consider myself as a critical, technical viewer, but i'm almost ashamed to confess that i'm not bothered by this bug, i DO see it once in a while, but absolutely not every x seconds. Maybe once or twice every other movie, there is a slight 'judder' in the image at which i think 'mmm, that must be that horrible 23.769 bug' And i do play the material at the right framerates, i even let the Dune output 1920x1080@23.976 for bluray's, the Arcam is set to framerate: auto and resolution: prefferred. Maybe the Pioneer Kuro panel (KRP-600M, 60") is doing some excellent work in masking this?

Maybe there is some nice testpattern which will make this bug very obvious? (With the risk that once knowing what to look for, i might get as irritated as you people )

[mjpav]

Originally Posted by Avi

Is that because of the change in frame rate for NTSC timed film to 59.94hz output ? If so the FRC artefact is replaced with 3:2 pullown motion artefect.
Avi

Yes I believe it was and yes it was a compromise - a lesser of 2 evils so to speak

[Nuri58]

Originally Posted by mjpav

Are you running in native 1080p 24 for Blu-ray films? Or are you downscaling to 720p? Also are you using HDMI or component?

The reason I ask is:-

The judder present because of the 23.976 problem is very noticable

When down scaling to 720p or even 1080i there is no frame judder

When using component input there is an occassional horrizontal line that draws down the screen which sounds similar to what you described in an earlier post - I quote below:-

Native 1080 format, no down scaling - both TV and PJ. Maybe I suffer from the same lack of ability to see it as jowi, but I surely do see a lot of other artefacts and rewinding the movie I get excatly the same problem at the same frame (so i dare rule out jutter 24p issue).