Peter2 wrote:

A trip to John Lewis will illustrate this for you!

However I continue to be surprised how a small company like B & O can maintain such an obviously better picture...

P

Have John Lewis started selling B&O???

I keep hearing this but do we know this to be a fact (especially since the BV3 is getting on now). Why would anyone elses DSP be necessarily worse than B&O's. In the olden days of needing extra analogue electronics to do the picture processing it was easy to understand why the Avant etc. had the best picture - nowadays when it is just processing 1's & 0's in an off the shelf DSP chip it isn't a given that it should be better.

Which Samsung TV got the 371 point score?  = The Samsung 9 series

And in the service menu you will se only on BV/-40 MKIII and IV  in the picture menu a menu called P W= Pixel Works

Its true.

Regards

Puncher wrote:

I keep hearing this but do we know this to be a fact (especially since the BV3 is getting on now). Why would anyone elses DSP be necessarily worse than B&O's. In the olden days of needing extra analogue electronics to do the picture processing it was easy to understand why the Avant etc. had the best picture - nowadays when it is just processing 1's & 0's in an off the shelf DSP chip it isn't a given that it should be better.

The BeoSystem 3 chassis features Pixelworks' ImageProcessor & Video Coprocessor. A few of the benefits can be seen

Puncher wrote:

Which Samsung TV got the 371 point score?

Hi Puncher,

The also 12/2009 issue tested Samsung 200Hz LCD LED panel UE 40 B 8090. (In Germany 2200 Euro)

Is this promising for BV10?

Regards, Robert

In order to quantify the merits of the BS3 processor,it would be interesting in comparing the PQ,particularly SD,of the BV7 against the Samsung TV combined with an external processor such as a Lumagen,or DVDO.

TerryM wrote:

In order to quantify the merits of the BS3 processor,it would be interesting in comparing the PQ,particularly SD,of the BV7 against the Samsung TV combined with an external processor such as a Lumagen,or DVDO.

I'm guessing it would fall somewhere in the middle. I'm not even sure it would trend toward the PQ of the B&O. The reason I say it is that the B&O video engineers have developed a closed ecosystem of ICs & other hardware where internal factors are all known quantities. The PW chipsets are not the only part of the picture competencies. There are also the light sensors and, in the case of the plasmas, a camera that are feeding data back into the system to affect changes to the display on a frame by frame basis. An outboard processor like the Lumagen would yield a better result than the raw hardware, but can't interact with the display hardware as B&O does. 

In more in-depth sales presentations I've explained it by comparing Mac to Windows in that Mac offers a better experience because they control more of the ecosystem than Windows & PC hardware mfgrs. It's not necessarily that they possess some supernatural ability to make superb hardware (though I might argue they do), it's that they're willing to take on more responsibility for the total experience.

If Sony or Toshiba was interested in licensing all sorts of chips and circuits, investing in higher quality case materials, and producing products in small batches by skilled and well paid labor, we'd have some competition. But basically we've slowly evolved into the only TV maker doing things like this. To see innovation like this in video you need to look at projectors and not at TVs. 

TripEnglish wrote:

The reason I say it is that the B&O video engineers have developed a closed ecosystem of ICs & other hardware where internal factors are all known quantities. The PW chipsets are not the only part of the picture competencies.

Could you explain further.

(btw - I thought the camera on the BV9 only appeared periodically to recalibrate the panel to compensate for the effects of ageing? Also some(most)? of the other manufacturers include ambient light compensation in at least some of their sets).

TripEnglish wrote:

TerryM wrote:

In order to quantify the merits of the BS3 processor,it would be interesting in comparing the PQ,particularly SD,of the BV7 against the Samsung TV combined with an external processor such as a Lumagen,or DVDO.

I'm guessing it would fall somewhere in the middle. I'm not even sure it would trend toward the PQ of the B&O. The reason I say it is that the B&O video engineers have developed a closed ecosystem of ICs & other hardware where internal factors are all known quantities. The PW chipsets are not the only part of the picture competencies. There are also the light sensors and, in the case of the plasmas, a camera that are feeding data back into the system to affect changes to the display on a frame by frame basis. An outboard processor like the Lumagen would yield a better result than the raw hardware, but can't interact with the display hardware as B&O does. 

 

My observation was prompted by the fact that,at face value,the German Magazine test rated the PQ of the Samsung TVs higher than that of the BV7.

I find this surprising given the fact that Samsung TVs are not particularly noted for the quality of their processor's performance with SD,particularly Freeview,sources

I seem to remember someone posting that they felt the SD performance of the BV7Mk4 was inferior to that of the Mk3.

One wonders if the B & O 'closed ecosystem' solution,by it's very nature,leads to compromise.

With an external processor one is able to adjust,and store,settings on an individual input basis,and thus the PQ of the source can be optimised in relation to the connected TV/Monitor.

Does a BS3 permit such a facility either within the User,or Service,menu?