1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

crunch time!! Should it be a panny pw6 or pioneer 434?

Discussion in 'Plasma TVs' started by cj1, Sep 23, 2004.

  1. cj1

    cj1
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Need to make a decision in the next couple of days. Torn between the above screens. Influencing factors in decision:

    1. PQ - have demo'd both. I really could not tell the difference with sky (my main viewing source) or component dvd. When HDMI was hooked up I thought the pioneer had a slight advantage, but not £1800 difference.

    2. Future proofing with HDTV? Should I be concerned about the Panny's capabilities here?

    3. Price. Panny - excellent, if I buy it I also get the Denon 3805 and Kef 5005s. If I get the Pioneer, the girlfriend will make me wait a few months before purchasing other toys. As an aside, the Panny seems too good to be true at current prices!

    Thanks for your help
     
  2. Rasczak

    Rasczak
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    21,151
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Argyll
    Ratings:
    +2,217
    Isn't the PW7 due 'anytime soon' (equipped with HDMI)? AV Sales have it listed for £2000 with a free terminal board here which seems a good price to me.
     
  3. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    Not a 'like for like' comparison, check the PHD6 out. I'm amazed you can't see a difference between a PW6 and a 434, where did you demo?
     
  4. mikeham

    mikeham
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    MAW: What difference did you expect to be seen. I saw the two together and thought the Pio was juddery on normal sky but better on DVD. Panny was better on coulur definition.

    Am I right in thinking that HDMI can only be of benefit on your plasma when playing DVD and that it makes no difference when viewing Sky (assume no gaming or PC's)

    Also when can you benefit from having a High def picture. Sky is 852x480 and do PAL DVD's utilise the higher resolution or is there scaling to the higher def. so the higher def is not from original source so not really worth it????

    Can it then be summarised that if only watching Sky or DVD, HD plasma is not really advantageous??
     
  5. cj1

    cj1
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Have to be honest, I did not view side by side so my view could be somewhat coloured by the price differential. Girlfriend thought the Pioneer was 'miles better' and looked 'nicer' so have purchased the pioneer today!

    No worries about future proofing, and HDMI input to boot! Given how I was leaning strongly towards the 6, I'm now going to stick my head in the sand and not look at any comments telling me I've made an expensive mistake!

    :laugh:
     
  6. Ekko Star

    Ekko Star
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +374
    Neither one is a mistake. However there is one inexpensive bargain. :)
     
  7. reckless

    reckless
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    983
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +30
    I had a panny 6 for a while and my mate currently has a pio 434 so I've seen them running in a home environment for a while. In the shops I've found it hard to make reasoned comparisons between units but these are the things I've noticed on these particular screens. Please bear in mind that I am not technically minded in the slightest, these comments are based on my eyesight so make of that what you will:

    There is a lot less colour banding on the pio, particularly on sky pictures. Backgrounds for example seem to appear very dotty on the panny whereas the pio tends to smooth the colours out. Green dots may be visible on the panny in black areas but don't seem to appear on the Pio.

    Movement is better on the panny, particularly football. The pio is ok providing the camera isn't doing a pan of the pitch as a whole (e.g. when the goalie kicks the ball upfield or a long ball is played). Sky otherwise I feel is better on the pio simply due to the fact that the colour banding isn't so noticeable.

    As regards dvd, I have to say that Region 1 NTSC discs look better on the panny (I assume because NTSC outputs at the same vertical res of the panny whereas the pio has to upscale which I feel makes the picture seem softer although there may be another reason for that). That can be compensated for by raising the sharpness up but that can risk exagerating any edge enhancement.

    However, the panny does flicker on large areas of single, bright colour (but not everyone notices this or feels it's a problem). The pio does not suffer from this (I assume because of the screen refresh rate but that introduces the motion judder in football). The pio does not have as deep a black as the panny however, in a living room environment this is far less of an issue than you would imagine. I personally can see the pixels far more readily on a panny. The pio has the worlds slowest channel selector: going from analogue to av is tedious.

    I found the panny to be better in respect of av channel settings not needing much change per sky channel. With my panny I just set the contrast/brightness/sharpness etc and it gave a good picture no matter what sky channel I was watching. The pio however seems to need constant tinkering with the settings as, for example, lower bandwidth channels such as uk gold look far better (imho) with the advanced settings quite high. The better quality channels look overprocessed if you leave the same settings on there.

    The pio seems to display the first line of widescreen (2.35:1) shots brighter than the remainder of the lines when the colour of the rest of the screen is bright). This can be cured by turning the sharpness down but doing so means the rest of the screen is then downright blurry.

    Finally, on a purely aesthetic note, the pio has a nicer surround (provided you don't attach those silver speakers!).

    I've long come to the conclusion that of all the plasmas I've now seen, they all have problems, the knack is to find the one with the problem that irritates you the least. Please note: I haven't said that one is any better than the other overall: that's a personal choice that everyone has to make.

    Now, I shall just retire and let someone with more technical savvy than me give you a better answer.
     
  8. MAW

    MAW
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    14,082
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Nr Dorking
    Ratings:
    +412
    Mike, sky is pal just like DVD, but has not got an HDMI output, so no it makes no difference. One day set top boxes, particularly hi def, will have dvi or hdmi, no real difference there for usual TV watching. The biggie is that HDMI ports, and HDCP enabled DVI, handshake when carrying copy protected material. Also, HDMI being designed for video, does not necessarily enable the correct resolution of the plasma to be accepted, just like the 434, which is an xga panel, but does not accept xga resolution digitally.
    HD versus SD, all panels scale, it's generallyreckoned to be better to upscale than downscale, as downscaling always involves some loss of information. The lack of native res support is my big issue with the HDE, but this is due to the kind of installs I do. Most folks take in the shiny black surround, and the bright colours, and go 'wow'.
     

Share This Page

Loading...