New JVC DVD recorders

[Jester700]

The second photo has more shadow detail, I don't see what point that makes.

It means there's much more information being processed, much more subtlety of tones and colors to the image with a greater dynamic range.

And you, as a viewer, have noticed that difference even though it was demonstrated with these miniature pictures !

There will always be somebody who will argue that 10 bit resolution offers enough vibrant and rich colors that probably riches or exceeds the limits of the human perception, but the fact is that this level of resolution often looks plasticy when the eyes seek out more tonal variation. Did you notice how the owners of the Sony DVD recorders always state that the picture from their machines looks more NATURAL compared to the others?

The video DAC’s convert the analog signal into digital data before it’s recorded. If you think of the digital data as a set of stairs then the 10 or 12 bit refers to the sampling size that is used to convert the data.

If you draw a line across the edges of the stairs, and consider that line to be the analog data, you would get a smoother and more accurate line with the shorter/more exact length steps. The smoother line should result in fewer color and shadow errors on the picture that will be recorded on the disc. The extra bits improve the ability of the recorder hardware to reproduce exactly what the original analog signal looks like. This increase in precision allows the picture to look better.

Nice explanation.

Problem is, if you REALLY want to prove the difference, you need some tests wherein the only difference in the trials IS the DAC. THEN, you need enough resolution to resolve this (those tiny ones aren't enough, and AFAIK the DAC wasn't the only difference). This isn't to say that some 12 bit recorder can't handily beat a 10 bit one, it's just that you need to get pretty exacting with testing to verify that it's really the extra 2 bits making the difference.

Audio is the same way. CD players used to trump up their superior DAC technology, when a slight difference in frequency response of the ANALOG section of the electronics (or even just a fraction of a dB higher output) can make as much or more of a difference. Also, where is the dividing line between measurably better and perceptibly better? A 4 bit increase from 12 to 16 bit audio files is audible to almost anyone. From 16 to 20 it's hard to tell, and you need some nice gear and a good environment to hear it. And if someone says they can hear the difference between 20 and 24 I'd bet a week's pay he couldn't do it in a double blind test.

[BogieV]

By no means I claim for any expertise but from the tiny samples my impression is that the second one has slightly more blown of highlits. Actually I can see more detail on the first one although there is slight bluriness compared to second. Look at the window cover - on the second sample you can't destinguish the horizontal bars clearly.
Any way samples are too small to judge.
Victor seems strong player and the specs zoran wrote on the top are in the models I mentioned in my other post (MH35 may be equal to MH300 in Europe?) which came out autumn 2004 in Japan.
I would like to have the 12bit but don't want to pay 200$ extra for the idea at a moment when soon we'll be able to record HD. (example Pioneer DVR-720H-S can record on HDD in HiDef and has 14/12 bit converters)

[zorankarapancev]

to verify that it's really the extra 2 bits making the difference.

The best performance (and most expensive) DVD payers use 12bit/108Mhz processors for some time (e.g. Teac DV-50, Lexicon RT-10, Pioneer DV-47Ai) and now they are moving to 14bit/216Mhz (e.g. Pioneer DV59-AVi), which means that the higher bit technology has been already proven to be better. The first Sony 12 bit DVD recorders naturally follow that path and will soon be joined by Panasonic new family of DVD recorders. My guess is that the Pioneer (with all that experience in 12 and 14 bit converters) will be the next one.

[lordsmurf]

which means that the higher bit technology has been already proven to be better.

That doesn't "prove" anything.

Example:
CD recorders have all moved to 52x speed.
Does that "prove" that new CD burning hardware is better than 16x?
Absolutely not.

All technology operates off of a curve. It's fairly safe to say we've already hit high on the curve, as it relates to "bit" and quality relationship for DVD video. Updates tend to be minimal improvement more as time goes by. At some point, only diehard nerds are the ones pressing the "it is better" button. Self-proclaimed "videophiles" and "audiophiles". The same group that largely is afflicted by self imagination.

[proxyx99]

Bit/sampling freq. improvements are indisputable so far. That holds true for both audio and video. Perceptible or not it is still better (it will be perceptible to some, for sure). That has been proven so clearly that challenging it seems odd.

LS, as to the "curve"... There is no end to it. Things will be improved and reinvented regardless whether we think "significantly" or not. Remember, we were not supposed to fly (planes of course).

[Jester700]

Bit/sampling freq. improvements are indisputable so far. That holds true for both audio and video. Perceptible or not it is still better (it will be perceptible to some, for sure). That has been proven so clearly that challenging it seems odd.

Challenging is NEVER "odd". It is scientific method, and it is how we avoid being sold snake oil. Some people don't understand the need for the scientific method or stringent controls on tests, and sometimes buy snake oil, $300 interconnect cords, and $500 speaker cables. Because THEIR benefits were also "proven clearly" - just by questionable means.

Not that I take issue with constant improvement - I don't. I have no problem buying a 14 bit DVD recorder or 24 bit audio player. Where I have the problem is when I'm told of the "obvious benefits". *If* that claim is made, I want to see good tests, I don't want to hear "-philes" waxing eloquently.

Tests have been done on audio cables and amplifiers wherein preliminary listening showed "obvious differences". After the double blind tests started the differences vanished. The same idea is applicable to video. Much as we like to think we're infallible, we ARE fallible - our senses, our mental perception of them, and or auditory/visual memory.

Now, I may get some personal experience that makes me swear by 12 bit (or whatever) improvements. That's fine, and I can tell others about it anecdotally. But I don't expect anyone to take my word for it; I might be half blind, or worse yet, a videophile.

[BSR]

Even 16bits doesn't mean squat if it doesn't have the supporting circuitry around it with a good board layout.

All in all, yes higher bits does open the door for higher potential to better sampling.

I for one welcome more bits. Just don't be under the assumption that because it has higher bits that you will definately get better quality, (i.e. Walmart special Durabrand 12bit DVDrecorder for $169, if it exists)

[kabanero]

(i.e. Walmart special Durabrand 12bit DVDrecorder for $169, if it exists)

LOL.

zorankarapancev,

I strongly suggest you to read carefully this thread:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=27807a97082be0a3833823ca90c253a6...5&page=1&pp=10

[zorankarapancev]

If we always have what we have today, without embracing what we could and should have tomorrow, then we will always have what we had yesterday.

In other words if we had fallowed the negative thoughts of those who “wisely” preached that 16 bit processors are only a gimmick compared to the “good, old and proven” 8 bit processors, then today we would never have had the 64 bit computers.

We will never stop the advance in science and technology just because WE do not see the point of that advance or because WE think that it is nothing but a big scam or conspiracy, and that for the time being WE don’t want to pay the price for that progress.

The 12 bit DVD recorders will become the main stream on the market next year, and not as a gimmick, but as an only option for crossing over the limits of the finally exhausted 10 bit technology. Sooner or a later we will have to admit and accept that fact.

My objective is to raise the awareness for the new 12 bit converters, already successfully used by Sony and to inform our members about the benefits of this new technology and not to debate the need or the likelihood of its realization.

Singling out one odd and unsuccessful 12 bit model from an obscure “garage style” manufacturer, from some corner of the world, does not prove anything else but the well known fact that not everybody can successfully transform theoretical knowledge to a practical and useful product. I don’t want to fruitlessly dwell on that theme, but to focus on creative and successful designers and manufacturers who are able to bring to us this better technology.



While we still debate about 12 bit converters, the world has moved to 14 bit technology. The pictures show 14 bit Toshiba DVD recorder RD-Z1. You know the old truth...there are people who make things happened, people who watch things happened and there are people who ask: What happened?

[lordsmurf]

then today we would never have had the 64 bit computers.

That's a perfect example.
I suggest you pick up the current issue of INFOWORLD (industry mag).

Basically, 64-bit architecture is vaporware, and will stay that way for probably another year or more. And even then, what purpose does it serve? After lots of discussion ... none, really.

An excellent author wrote it.

"64" was deemed to be nothing more than fancy marketing words.
And rightly so.

This is the case we have here. Different tech, same principle.

[oldfart13]

This reminds me of something from a forum I just visited:

"Isn't it fun to watch techie nerds argue with each other?"

[gshelley61]

"The Toshiba RD-Z1 is a DVD/PVR (Personal Video Recorder) combo that uses the HDMI digital connection. It has 600GB of hard drive storage and can record shows with a Variable Bit Rate (VBR) of 24Mbps. It is possible to record two shows simultaneously while watching a DVD. Toshiba took care of isolating the hard drive vibrations from the DVD drive (8x recording), nice touch."

I wonder how much this one costs?

[ahhaa]

seems to me... the more bits, the closer to analog?

and, I'm looking at all this on an LCD screen. Doesn't the display unit factor in & have 'the last word'?

[ahhaa]

(i.e. Walmart special Durabrand 12bit DVDrecorder for $169, if it exists)

LOL.

There's an ILO (not LOL) DVD recorder at the local MalWartz for $143 right now (but nobody understands the manual)... it'll be in 12 bits pretty soon I think

[Anonymous65]

The two images above doesn't make much sense. The vertical axis should be the sampling resolution in 10 or 12 bits, and the horizontal axis should be the sampling rate, in Mhz, which should be the same for both sampling resolutions. If you increase the samplig frequency, you also get better sampling precision. If you want to compare 10 or 12 bits sampling resolutions, the samplig frequency should stay the same, otherwise it's like comparing apples and oranges...

[zorankarapancev]

"The Toshiba RD-Z1 is a DVD/PVR (Personal Video Recorder) combo that uses the HDMI digital connection. It has 600GB of hard drive storage and can record shows with a Variable Bit Rate (VBR) of 24Mbps. It is possible to record two shows simultaneously while watching a DVD. Toshiba took care of isolating the hard drive vibrations from the DVD drive (8x recording), nice touch."

This monster is a direct competitor against Blu-ray recorders and is backward compatible with DVD (Blu-ray are not backward compatible).

[steve2713]

and it will cost more than a new Kia... LOL

[Jester700]

If we always have what we have today, without embracing what we could and should have tomorrow, then we will always have what we had yesterday.

In other words if we had fallowed the negative thoughts of those who “wisely” preached that 16 bit processors are only a gimmick compared to the “good, old and proven” 8 bit processors, then today we would never have had the 64 bit computers.

We will never stop the advance in science and technology just because WE do not see the point of that advance or because WE think that it is nothing but a big scam or conspiracy, and that for the time being WE don’t want to pay the price for that progress.

You're right. But I'd never try to halt progress or say that 12 bit DACs shouldn't be used - only that on a machine-by machine basis, IF they cost more, they should give some tangible benefit, not just marketing hooha. I am a BIG fan of digital over analog audio, for example, so you know what camp I'm in. And the advances in audio and PCs DID have obvious benefits as seen in tests and benchmarks; anyone "preaching against them" in a general sense wasn't doing so wisely, and that's not what I'm doing now with video.

A better example might be the first iteration of the Pentium 4 processor, which was (as always) heralded as a leap forward in technology. But it was actually slightly SLOWER than the fastest PIIIs of the time. So in THAT case, I'd have argued that if you were a PC buyer, there was no benefit for the time being of going to P4; save some money and get a P3. And I'd have been right. I wouldn't say NEVER go to a P4, because I there's likely to be improvement in the new tech, which would be reflected in some good testing. So it also is with audio and video.

The 12 bit DVD recorders will become the main stream on the market next year, and not as a gimmick, but as an only option for crossing over the limits of the finally exhausted 10 bit technology. Sooner or a later we will have to admit and accept that fact.

Sure they will. And I'll buy one. That doesn't necessarily mean the current 12 bit is better than the current 10 bit, though - that argument has to be taken separately. An interesting parallel - when CD players first started using 18 bit DACs (before the onslaught of single bit pulse wave modulation schemes) there were players that actually performed LESS accurately than the better 16 bit players of the time. This is because a substantial cost was in tweaking the DACs for low level linearity, and some makers really tweaked a good 16 bit DAC while others used a less optimised 18 bit part that, though 18 bit, wasn't of the same quality.

I'm not saying that's what's happening here; different eras, different tech. I'm just saying that marketing and reality don't always jive. Of course, sometimes they do...

[zorankarapancev]

Posted: Feb 14, 2005 21:01*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
and it will cost more than a new Kia...

I have good news for you steve 2713. Toshiba plans to bring an HD DVD recorder to the U.S. in the fourth quarter of 2005 that will cost around $1000,00.

Start saving money!

[steve2713]

$100k, eh? nice........

[zorankarapancev]

$100k, eh? nice........

No! Only $1k! Not bad for a High Def DVD recorder.

[steve2713]

$100k, eh? nice........

No! Only $1k! Not bad for a High Def DVD recorder.

LOL, I was just messing with ya :P

Yeah, a high def recorder would be nice, I hope they utilize MPEG4 instead of MPEG2, otherwise the capacity per DVD will suck. And yeah, I know that MPEG4 will be unplayable by nearly every standalone DVD player in current existance.

[zorankarapancev]

This HD DVD recorders use special 20GB DVD discs .

[BogieV]

Guys you have to read better the information from Toshiba!
This monster is HD recorder on the HDDs! The DVD is normal DVD-recorder. There is special HDMI connector with upsampling function so you can watch your SD resolution DVDs on your new HD flat display.

Same thing is made by Pioneer - the DVR-720 and 920 (only the later has the HDMI out).
Front: http://www.pioneer.co.jp/dvdld/dvr/high/lineup/popup/920h.html
Rear: http://www.pioneer.co.jp/dvdld/dvr/high/lineup/popup/920_rea.html
I guess it's worth of mentioning also that the recorded on the HDD HighVision programs can't be transfered to the DVD.

Most new normal HDD-DVD recorders can copy SD quality recorded programs (usually taken from HiVision digital channels) to DVD-RW. Even more - Copy Once programs you can record on HDD and then actualy copy second time on DVD-RW but we are still talking about SD resolution here.

[ckwok1]

LOL.

zorankarapancev,

I strongly suggest you to read carefully this thread:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=27807a97082be0a3833823ca90c253a6...5&page=1&pp=10

I think everyone reading this thread should read the link too. Especially those wondering why 10/12/14 bit DAC are required while only 8-bit per color component is stored on the DVD.

Followings are the summary plus some of my ideas:
1. A ideal DVD player can be manufactured using 8-bit DAC and a ideal 7MHz?? analog low-pass filter. Ideal low-pass filter has a vertical cut-off at the cut-off frequency AND has linear phase shift. Unfortunately, ideal low-pass filter does not exists.

2. To get somthing close to ideal low-pass filter, the state of the art method is to use (2X, 4X, ...) oversampling and digital low-pass filter before converting to analog signal. Digital low-pass filter (FIR type) can easily be designed to have a rather sharp cut-off and have a linear phase shift but not easily be implemented at such high frequency (with large number of taps). An analog low-pass filter is still required after the DAC. However, a sharp cut-off is no longer required because sampling rate has been doubled or 4X or ... but the frequency components that we need are still those under 7MHz. Furthermore, many filters have relatively linear phase shift at regions not close to the cut-off frequency.

3. After oversampling and digitally low-pass filtered, the data may have values fall between the 8-bit samples. That's why we need DAC with more than 8-bit resolution. One important point is that using higher resolution DAC will not give you more details than the ideal DVD player (using 8-bit DAC) mentioned above.

Back to the discussion here.

Is a DVD player with a 12-bit DAC better than a DVD player with 10-bit DAC?

Given a similar design, the answer is probably yes. However, a lot of other factors such as the oversampling rate, the design of the digital low-pass filter and design of the analog low-pass filter can affect the result too. So don't blindly believe that 12-bit is better than 10-bit.

Can human eyes see the differences?

There are billions of people on Earth. I am sure some can and some cannot.

[proxyx99]

On a 20 inch TV probably not... We need to remember that bit/sampling freq. benefits depend heavily on applicaton environment. More demanding environment, more need for high precision and fidelity. I'm sure that future will sooner then later reveal new ways to employ this technology so much so that 24 bit may not be enough... Better displays, larger sizes, higher resol. need better color and detail rendition. How about 200 inch display with the punch and detail of 20 inch HQ LCD. Impossible? Do you need that? Probably not (not yet...), but I can easily think of several possible applications in the world of science or military use for starter...

[ckwok1]

On a 20 inch TV probably not... We need to remember that bit/sampling freq. benefits depend heavily on applicaton environment. More demanding environment, more need for high precision and fidelity. I'm sure that future will sooner then later reveal new ways to employ this technology so much so that 24 bit may not be enough... Better displays, larger sizes, higher resol. need better color and detail rendition. How about 200 inch display with the punch and detail of 20 inch HQ LCD. Impossible? Do you need that? Probably not (not yet...), but I can easily think of several possible applications in the world of science or military use for starter...

We are talking about DVD here which uses 8-bit for each color component PERIOD. We are not talking about how many bits of DAC should be used for future products (standards).

[proxyx99]

Yes we are as they are emerging daily (see above). Just illustrating how flawed "home use only" criteria may influence final judgment. "Home use" may have several flavours from most basic to very refined...

[zorankarapancev]

After oversampling and digitally low-pass filtered, the data may have values fall between the 8-bit samples. That's why we need DAC with more than 8-bit resolution. One important point is that using higher resolution DAC will not give you more details than the ideal DVD player (using 8-bit DAC) mentioned above.

I agree with this statement, but the BIG NEWS is that the new Panasonic DVD recorders will have a completely new 12-BIT ANALOG TO DIGITAL converter. We are not talking about 8-bit recording with 12 bit DAC (digital to analog converter). This is the first time ever that somebody is using the high end 12-bit AD converter for DVD recording (for the price that enybody can aford).

[ckwok1]

... but the BIG NEWS is that the new Panasonic DVD recorders will have a completely new 12-BIT ANALOG TO DIGITAL converter. We are not talking about 8-bit recording with 12 bit DAC (digital to analog converter). This is the first time ever that somebody is using the high end 12-bit AD converter for DVD recording (for the price that enybody can aford).

But how are they going to store the video files? If they use 36-bit color depth, the video file will not be DVD compliant. That means it is not a "DVD Recorder"