PT-AX100 vs AE3000/VPL-HW10 vs HD350

[stuartbrown21]

Hi all

Just a quicky really, for anyone familiar with modern pj's.

I own an AX100 and am trying desperately NOT to get drawn into the upgrade cycle, mainly due to limited finances at the moment. My AX is housed in a black velvet lined, light controlled cinema room which is great, and I am generally happy with most aspects of it's performance. Outright resolution, sharpness, noise levels I know would be better than my AX on all the pj's listed in the title thread, but I don't find the performance of my AX distractingly lacking in any of these respects.

The only area of performance which tends to be offputtingly bad and occasionally spoil my viewing pleasure is the contrast, and more specifically the base black level. In any low APL scene, the brightness of the grey is just plain annoying and I would sell my grandmother if I was able to do something about this!!

I'm rainbow sensitive so if I was to upgrade, it would be to either an LCD or a LCOS based design. In this regard I've been studying the Panny AE3000 & the Sony VPL-HW10 as they would be 'just' affordable. BUT, as is always the case, I then have to look at what's just a little bit more, and could I stretch to this? The obvious choice here would be the HD350.

I'm after honest opinions as to the performance leap from my AX100 to the Panny or the Sony, and the leap from them to the HD350. In my head I imagine that it will be a big leap to from my AX to the mid-level options, but only a small leap from there to the JVC? But I may be totally wrong?

It may be easier to think of it as say, if the AX100 blacks & contrast score 50, and the HD350 scores 100, what would the AE3000 / VPL-HW10 score?

Obviously it is a little subjective still, and I will need to get demos, just looking for a bit of a heads up as to where to expect to see a huge / generational improvement, and where I'll most likely only see a small incremental improvement.

Thanks

[KelvinS1965]

You're very lucky in that you have a black room to maximise image contrast; in my living room there was only a small difference between a HD350 and a HD750. I had an AE3000 at the time and can confirm that the HD350 does indeed have a better base black level and brighter whites, ie the contrast range is superior. It was enough of a difference for me to sell my AE3000 after only 4 months and lose serious money (though maybe I did let it go a bit too cheap given the forthcoming price increase ).

However, your AX100 probably has a similar CR (maybe slightly lower) than my original AE1000. I upgraded to an AE2000 then the AE3000 and each step was a worthwhile increase and you would effectively be jumping up two generations and up the Panasonic range too. You may find this is sufficient to satisfy your black level requirements. So going on this benchmark I'd say the AE3000 is about 80 on your scale if the HD350 is 100 and the AX100 is 50. I can't speak for the VWL10 however as I've never seen one in action.

You might want to take your AX100 to a dealer for a demo. Even if their room isn't as good as yours (not many are very batcave like, except PJ Hifi, in my area anyway), at least it is a comparison. I went one better than this as Audio-T actually came to my house for the demo, so I could really see whether the upgrade would be worth it.

EDIT: Just to say that there was another forum member who chose the AE3000 over a HD350 in a demo, but I still stand by my comments above.

[stuartbrown21]

Originally Posted by KelvinS1965

You're very lucky in that you have a black room to maximise image contrast; in my living room there was only a small difference between a HD350 and a HD750. I had an AE3000 at the time and can confirm that the HD350 does indeed have a better base black level and brighter whites, ie the contrast range is superior. It was enough of a difference for me to sell my AE3000 after only 4 months and lose serious money (though maybe I did let it go a bit too cheap given the forthcoming price increase ).

However, your AX100 probably has a similar CR (maybe slightly lower) than my original AE1000. I upgraded to an AE2000 then the AE3000 and each step was a worthwhile increase and you would effectively be jumping up two generations and up the Panasonic range too. You may find this is sufficient to satisfy your black level requirements. So going on this benchmark I'd say the AE3000 is about 80 on your scale if the HD350 is 100 and the AX100 is 50. I can't speak for the VWL10 however as I've never seen one in action.

You might want to take your AX100 to a dealer for a demo. Even if their room isn't as good as yours (not many are very batcave like, except PJ Hifi, in my area anyway), at least it is a comparison. I went one better than this as Audio-T actually came to my house for the demo, so I could really see whether the upgrade would be worth it.

EDIT: Just to say that there was another forum member who chose the AE3000 over a HD350 in a demo, but I still stand by my comments above.

Cheers for the great response.

I'd kind of been working on the logic that the AE1000, despite coming out at th same time as my AX100 and being noted for 'poor blacks', must have been the equivalent of one generation better in terms of blacks and contrast if only due to the new inorganic C2 panels it was using. I'd noted that the AE2000 was seen as a big improvement from the AE1000, but still didn't seem quite there in terms of blacks. It would seem that the AE3000 is another big leap in the right direction, and whilst not as good as the JVC's, at least is in the same general ballpark as the HD1.

So, 3 generations of improvements, what to do, decisions decisions!!