HDMI Toshiba SD-5960 news?

[alancolledge]

Does anyone have any information on this player?

Searching for this shows that it is due for release in the states in March.

Features include SACD, DVD-Audio, NTSC & PAL PS, HDMI....$199.00

Very interested in knowing when it will come over here.

 

[Dutch]

Alan,

As this is a US model, I doubt it would do PAL progressive scan. I'm sure a European equivalent model with PAL and NTSC PS will appear later this year.

Steve

 

[buns]

well you could argue that the bravo was a US machine...

anyhow..... do we know if this guy outputs 720p?

ad

 

[alancolledge]

I took this from the following....

http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/news/newsarticle.asp?newsid=138

"Also new to the line-up, the SD-5960 (March 2004, $199.99) features HDMI and video upconversion to 720p/1080i. HDMI can support uncompressed digital video up to HDTV level resolution. The player makes the use of this medium by up-converting the standard DVD picture resolution to nearly HDTV-quality with output resolutions of 720p or 1080i. The unit also offers Digital Cinema Progressive Scan (3/2 Pulldown), ColorStream Pro component video outputs, multi-disc compatibility, MP3 and WMA playback and a JPEG viewer. "

Might have been overexcited by PAL ps but the player upconverts to answer your question buns.

Any uk release dates would be good!

 

[Blu-rayx]

Toshiba SD-5960



http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20040109/ces4_24.jpg



DVD

 

[buns]

one thing that will particularly interest me is quality...... this and other so far named decks are really budget affairs. Where will they be in performance i wonder...... will they knock the £800 pioneer of its perch or will it be a class above...... cant wait to find out

ad

 

[alancolledge]

My thanks dvd!

At least I know what it looks like.

Buns,

Apologies if I might be sounding ignorant here but with a digital signal how can there be any differences in quality?

If the 868 plays the same signal resolution straight off the disk where can the player influence pq?

Surely it would be then left up to the display to do it's stuff.

 

[buns]

alancolledge,

In theory, you would be right. However in practice there are all sorts of things that could be a problem. Not all transports will be of the same quality, one may be more prone to errors than another. The stuff that comes off the disc doesnt go straight into a signal, it comes off the disc in an optical format and must be converted to electrical (well it IS converted to electrical, now days there is no necessity i believe), there could be errors in this process. I presume there will be various decoders and processing steps the signal will go through, again these will not all be of similar quality...... by this point hopefully you see what im getting at

If you look at cd players, the same is true. It is a digital medium yet we know that they can be of enormously differing qualities

also, while it comes back to my head, there is more than just a reading the disc going on, some of these machines are deinterlacing and scaling the signal as well...... if you are familiar with this kind of thing, even at multi thousands of pounds, there are still obvious differences between competitors

ad

 

[JohnWH]

Its very unlikely that there is sufficiant difference in digital error rate, if any, in any player irrespective of price such that it would cause a visual difference.

In the world of DVI/HDMI output the only real justification for a higher price is the presence of additional digital processing such as deblocking filter or scalers. Having seen a few DVI driven display now I think its safe to say the former is in urgent need of beeing added.

This said a price of say $800 vs sub $200 for better digital is a bit of a rip.

John.

 

[buns]

ok well consider this...... using sdi (which in theory should stick to what you say even better) how come all players are NOT equal? One of the best is the panasonic rp/ra82, this is significantly better than some lower machines. Also, you can go a step up to an arcam dv27 with an sdi mod, this is a step up again..... by the arguement given, these players should all be equal.

ad

 

[Timmy B]

Buns you talked about transports - the quality of the dvd loader and effect on digital error rate. What John is saying is that the quality of transport and build quality mean very little when using dvi. Open up a Momitsu and you will find a dvd drive with a IDE cable plugged into the sigma mpeg decoder which outputs dvi. Jitter does not apply to dvi so the differences between dvi will be small IF the mpeg decoder is of similar good quality.

The most important thing when using dvi and sdi is the quality of the mpeg decoder - this is why the Panasonic RP 82, Bravo and Momitsu is so highly regarded. Not because it has a special protein dvd tray or build quality that could withstand a nuclear shockwave.

The quality of the deinterlacer is also very important for dvi as this can't send an interlaced signal.

The pioneer really falls down in this area as it does little more than flag read.

 

[alancolledge]

My thanks for your interest on this guys

Some of the terminology is lost on me but I saw a 504 at the weekend connected to a 868 with HDMI and it looked very crisp natural image.

Currently my aging DVD is only connected through RGB scart and a cheap lead at that!

I know that this might have been already answered on another thread but would you agree that HDMI would be worth waiting for compared to a Prog Scan. enabled player?

 

[buns]

I am very unhappy at the idea that transport quality doesnt matter, i really dont believe that. Quite simply the transport takes the data off the disc, not all transports are equal quality. Hell I will spend time specifying exactly what laser i would use, even there there can be significant variations.

I realise the mpeg decoder is important and is the reason my panny is so hot, however, the arcam is better.

Under current beliefs, yes things should be alot closer. However, there will always be some machines better than others.

ad

 

[Parmenion]

buns, you've missed the point again (second time !) Timmy said "mean very little when using dvi", not "dosen't matter".........

Don't be unhappy. Good transport quality is important too.

regards

Parmenion

 

[buns]

sorry, well my opinion is that is does matter a very great deal! Possibly even the most important item

ad

 

[JohnWH]

buns, the data coming of the disk is digital, not analogue, so its quite difficult for the transport to have an impact on the quality.

A blind test with everything else equal would prove this to you.

John.

 

[buns]

i have done tests on cd transports and there is significant difference between them. Digital isnt the almighty, i dont understand why people are under this impression. With the use of the fancy digital interfaces, the transport means all the more. With analogue converters and all that gubbins in a signal path, the quality of the transport is to some extent masked...... with the new interfaces, there is less of this present so the player will be even more critical of the quality of the transport.

Ad

edit. I appreciate that my cd transport is going to be stated as being prone to jitter. However, follow my logic here. The design of transports for dvi and for standard players is the same, it still uses a laser to read an optical digital signal from a disc. It still has to convert this into electrical digital (which i know for certain since optical processing hasnt got this far since i do research related to it). So it must be from this point that things diverge, but from my perspective, the transport section has now finished. So if you have a crap signal at this point, your dvi is still going to be crap. If you had a good signal, well then your dvi can now be good. But the quality of the signal at this point is 100% a function of the transport (by my above definition). I can accept that a crap signal with dvi is going to be better than one handled with a standard interface, so in that much, the difference between good and bad is smaller for dvi. But this quality will still be heavily dependent on what your transport can extract from the disc. I'm trying to understand your view, you even have me wondering if im going totally barmy! But i yet dont think i am....

 

[JohnWH]

One of the issues that can be generated by the transport is that any variation in motor speed (just as an example) changes the rate of the data coming of the disc. The clock for the data is derived from the data itself, so the clock can drift, or "jitter", generally this jitter is insufficient to introduce significant data errors. If you tested the error rates from a high end and "commodity" transport you would most likely find that the high end may have a lower error rate, however both would be low enough to probably be insignificant.

In the case where the decompressed video stream is converted back to analogue, if the clock for the converters is derived from the source data clock the jitter can become significant. This is something that may be seen when comparing high vs low end players.

However where the data is output digitally or the clock is regenerated from the decompressed data stream, the jitter will make no difference.

Of course having never tested the error rate at the transport backend, and not having looked at the error correction method provided by DVD, I could be talking tosh.

Not entirely sure of the jist of your CD vs DVD question, although I think the answer is that the transport has the exact same effect. So my view is that someone trying to sell you a massively expensive CD transport that outputs digitally to say an external dac, could well be ripping you off.

Edit: in response to your edit, I think the only point of contention here is the "quality" of the data at the backend of the transport. My view is that the difference in error rate at this point is unlikely to be significant. But as I said, I could be wrong!

Later,
John

 

[buns]

John,

I think perhaps im taking a pessimistic view whist you are being more optimistic. Like you, I havent seen actual data so it is hard to be conclusive.

High end cd transports....... there are actually alot of these about and there are plenty of people who use them...... hence it is a fraction confusing that they wouldnt actually be any much better!

To further my point..... i mentioned the sdi pannasonic which i own which has a top notch mpeg decoder (one of the best i am told). Compared to the arcam sdi, which i imagine cant have a much if superior at all, mpeg decoder, the experts conclude the arcam to be truly excellent, a step up from the panny. Assuming (again) that the arcam decoder isnt much better, the only difference should be due to the transport, surely?

In any case, i do follow your dvi arguement and it does make pretty good sense to me. I think we are just differing on the quality of data that a given transport can extract. this is an issue that has actually been done before. There are people who will use low end transports with much higher end dacs (for instance a pioneer dv717 with a tag dac20) who clearly believe as you do. Then there are the others (like me ) who see this as digital suicide and will have a much more balanced system. I actually dont recall reading any definitive blind testing.

Dont get me wrong, id love nothing more than having to pay only £200 for a dvd player almost as good as it gets and just feed it to an external processor, i just dont honestly think this is going to be the case! Even amongst the current crop of dvi type players, some are better than others..... it will be interesting to see if the meridian players will outclass the current machines...

ad

ps. oh and i didnt mean to come off as rude earlier (which i believe i was), so my apologies

 

[JohnWH]

I think one of the problems with basing purchase descision on the opinions of "experts" is that these opinions are often subjective. I think this is true in the case of both audio and video equipment. For example I know a couple of people with high end audio setups, the both say they think theirs is better than the other. I think the both sound incredible, but also sound slightly different, the reality being that each messes with the audio in a slightly different manner and each person basically prefers just prefers a different type of messing, naturally i can't get them to agree with this opinion!

Same is true of video, but it takes form of preferences for soft vs sharp, bright vs dim etc and unfortunatly there is also a tendency for the eye to be drawn to one problem and for that to dominate opinion.

So what we need is a non subjective approach to review that demotes subjective opinion to a side comment. Fortunatly it should be possible generate DVD material that tests things like transport induced errors, mpeg decoder quality, deinterlacing and scaling quality etc with a digital signal. Unfortunatley there's none currently available. If only I had the time!

Cheers,
John.
Edit: remove junk!
Further edit: On the sdi panny vs arcam, do they both contain the same scaler and/or deinterlacing logic? Does the arcam have some kind of deblocking logic that the panny doesn't. My point here being the digital side of things can easily be very different. Of course another obvious question is, did the "experts" test both through DVI/HDMI outputs, and use a non subjective test set, or validated blind testing?

 

[buns]

of course none of this helps us know when we will see the tosh!

ad

 

[alancolledge]

buns.............

I thank you!!!!!

 

[buns]

well to prove that i am willing to experiment, my idea is to literally ditch alot of the supposed higher quality sdi and deinterlacing/scaling etc in favour of something like the tosh..... but i need the player...... well i guess its just a case of keeping glued to avs!

ad

 

[buns]

according to another thread on here, the panasonic rival to this tosh is due in april....... now if i were in charge of tosh, i wouldnt want to let panasonic get a big headstart in such virgin territory

ad