Pioneer Elite BDP-09FD Profile 2.0 Blu-ray player leaks out
By Nilay Patel 
posted Aug 22nd 2008 7:01PM
posted Aug 22nd 2008 7:01PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Anyone paying $2200 this thing is cra-zy. Blu-Ray is not catching on 'cause no-body needs it (unless for PS3 games).
I agree with you.
Blu Ray and HDDVD had one thing in common...they were both expensive formats, which required extremely expensive hardware upgrades when DVD was (and still is) doing just fine.
The vast majority of America is just now getting their HDTV upconverters based on the $40 government rebate cards, but a huge number of American households are without HDTV and not even missing it. Most of them have Cable TV anyway which won't require the upconverter. Most Americans without HDTV's aren't even phased by the lack of HDDVD/BLU RAY capability because the simple fact is... you can't enjoy an HD format disk without an HDTV unless your only interested in special content.
fortunately, SONY moved Blu Ray into every single PS3 buyer's homes. For now, PS3 is the number one selling Blu Ray player.
I have uncles who only buy PIONEER and I know there is no way they'd plop down $2000 for this thing. They'll wait till its $500 or less in a couple years.
nononono.... the rebate is for a Digital converter box, not an upconverting box.
The reason why Blu-Ray isn't catching on, is not only because the players are expensive, but also because the HD TVs are still quite expensive.
Duh! There is a lot of crap that nobody needs. People don't need regular TV either. It's called entertainment. And Blu-Ray does it well. Although the prices do need to come down a lot before mass adoption.
It's simple... Blu-Ray players are back to their original release pricing...
GadgetMan, that's a blanket statement, the BDP-S300 launched at $399, it is now $229 or less, admittedly they are still not yet there at a mass adoption price point, but do a little research next time you make a mindless comment
Ooh, I wonder how that affects performance?
...and WHAT exactly leaks out OF IT?
This player has some hard-core conversion chips and the like. But, you don't need it. Spend $2,500 on a Denon 4308 and you have BETTER chips. All you need for the Blu-Ray player is a blue laser and an HDMI output. Denon has a "transport" player, but its not profile 2.0 and its equally as ridiculously overpriced.
"All you need for the Blu-Ray player is a blue laser and an HDMI output."
No it isn't, people seem to have this misconception that digital is digital, which simply isn't true. If it was, as a example why do some LCD or Plasma TVs look better than others, after all, they are just digital right?
For a CD, DVD or Blu-ray player, there are things like the transport, which have effect on the quality of the output. There are also decoders that decode the video and audio and handle the transfer to output. Cables, even if it is "digital" is still susceptible to interference, even toslink, it being digital doesn't magically change this.
The transport on a DVD and BluRay player does noting for the signal reproduction. The data that comes off the transport goes into RAM and back out anyway, the data doesn't know if it came from an expensive transport or cheap transport when it comes back out of RAM. On a CD player, the data can come right off the transport and into the D/A converter, and thus people start talking about jitter. But the cheap solution to this is to buffer the data in RAM (even a few bytes would take care of it) before putting in the D/A, so in a properly designed CD player, the transport also doesn't matter.
TOSlink is a rather poor example, it has some issues. But HDMI (used for audio and video) is differentially signaled and error checked. If you can't see image breakup, you aren't losing data in your HDMI cable. But to respond to your question, yes, digital does magically mean no loss of data if done correctly. I can use a slingbox and stream data across the entire planet with no data loss on the digital cables and links between the box and my laptop thousands of miles away. You really are trying to tell me we can do this and not send it 15 feet across my living room without loss?
You are wasting your money if you spend it on a fancy transport.
A TV can obviously affect the image because the TV displays the digital data in an analog form, it can do lots of things to affect the image in visible fashion.
What I am getting at is the duplication of efforts. Why have all this stuff that can handle the digital decoding if you really only need 1 item that can handle the decoding in a fine way. The TV is the display, it should do nothing except display what its given, the cable box should just take the cable data and "decode" that to what the receiver needs. The same thing with the Blu-Ray player. It should just read the disk and let the receiver do what it does best. Now this is paramount on the receiver. Obviously. But I spent good money on a good receiver - it's not McIntosh but Denon is not "bargain basement" by any stretch of the imagination even compared to McIntosh.
Some people can afford to purchase a $10k receiver and amps, etc. I opted for a much cheaper receiver which at $2500 MSRP (I paid $1900) holds its own. I also chose to get NHT speakers instead which cost $4k for all 8, instead of speakers that cost $4k a piece. It does a good job - but I see a lot of waste with a lot of these products that do too much.
Obviously if you skimp on the receiver or want to use stuff you already have that doesn't have this type of advancement - then by all means gets a Blu-Ray player that can do it all - but when you have something that can do it better that its more focused on doing 0 why have it at all.
My point is not to "waste" money on a HD transport. I have a PS3 as my Blu-Ray player. Okay, I don't get bit streamed DTS HD MA. But I'll survive. The HD transports aren't 2.0 yet and they are still way overpriced for no apparent reason other than perceived luxury.
4GB internal storage? for what? Mp3s?
BD 2.0 requires internal storage, I think the minimum is 1GB. This has 4GB. I think its for BD-live content cache as well as maybe a faster buffer for the Blu-Ray data to provide skipless playback.
Ah, thanks.
A/V isn't really my tech area lol
For that price you should be getting more than 4GB.
I think 4GB is overkill. Sure at the price, if it did more like the ability to download entire 1080p HD movies and the like, more memory would be great. But, for what it does, 4GB is more than enough.
As for the price - its overpriced. Period. Blu-Ray is expensive. Expensive to own, because of the HDCP where you need to upgrade "everything" and its expensive to implement with the elevated price of the players.
Does it actually cost that much money to build - I don't know. Honestly, I think we are all getting ripped off.
16 bit color? Pretty sure that Blu-ray only supports either 8 bit or 10 bit per the spec, so the purpose of 16 bit color output would be . . . . . (other than marketing) . . . . . crickets . . . . crickets
Typical US consumer: "Ok, so it can output 16 bit color, right? That's more than player xyz, which can only output 10 bit color? Well, 16 is more than 10, so that must be better, right?"
Dude, it says ELITE on the front. What more do they need to know ;-)
"This one goes to 11.."
HDMI 1.3 optionally allows up to 48 bits in the 3 supported color models.
It may support 10-bit or 12-bit color output however, all BD software uses 8-bit codecs (MPEG-2, VC-1, and H.264) and chroma is encoded in 4:2:2
Essentially 16-bit color is marketing nonsense for HD discs ... unless you're talking up the player upscaling the chroma to 4:4:4. Which you probably want your display to do rather than the player anyway, as it's going to re-process incoming HDMI signals for gamma and any other display settings -- simple rule for best picture quality is least number of processing steps the better, therefore player outputting pure signal path is the optimal.
However, upscaling DVD which is 8-bit MPEG-2 4:2:2 into 1080p 16-bit 4:2:2 would see some benefit -- but picture quality generally depends more on the quality of the deinterlacer (which is something even 'expensive' kit can struggle with in 50Hz countries) than chroma bit-depth and encoding.
16 bit color is used to further refine the technology which removes money from your wallet.
While the h.264/AVC spec allows for 16 bit color the reality of production only allows 10 bit color in theory but in practicality we will be looking at 8 bit for quite some time. As of today, there are no 10 bit encoders (h.264 engines) for blu-ray mastering so all releases are 8 bit. Would a studio release a 10 bit version any time soon? Not likely since it may break many players out there, and nobody has anything to test the files with.
Just because the hdmi spec allows it doesn't make it a better solution. (or even worthwhile).
Can someone tell me why on earth there are composite and s-video outputs on this thing? I bet it even comes with a set of generic Left, Right, Composite RCA cables too.
This is what frightens me about hopping on the Blu-ray train. Unlike HDDVD bluray isn't entirely finalized. I'm held back from buying a blu-ray player since I'm worried about whether of not it will be future proof.
Wont the PS3, as a Blu-Ray player, be future proofed via firmware upgrades?
Are you talking about hardware, HDMI 1.3a,b,c....ect?
I am trying to decide if i want to buy a BRD player
High-end, high-cost video players, whether BD, DVD, or laserdisc, has always been what Pioneer Elite was about: If you wanted the best, you bought it. Obsolescence be damned. And Pioneer has waited for Profile 2.0 before releasing this, so this gadget should keep you at the top of the curve for some considerable time.
Why is it so big????
It is a Pioneer Elite thing, my Pioneer Elite DVD player was about the same size.
The width for sure has to do with matching a high end standard of size to fit or even be racked in a rack. The height may also due to this or it may just be a high end thing of bigger is better, my Pioneer Elite DVD player was pretty much empty space inside.
Because it's got a PS3 inside.
Why is it so big?????
That's what she said.
(I'm sorry I couldn't resist)
...maybe helps make it look like it's worth two grand.... maybe.
And why does it leak out?
I realy not in a hurry for buying a Blu-ray player.. download 1080p movies is ok for me. For most of the movies I'll just download it. I'll only buy Blu-ray movies for special ones (Back t the Fure, Color Purple, A.I., Goonies, griffin & phoenix, maverick.. and for the extras).. but I'll wait till 2012 when I'll be able to buy a U$ 100 Blu-ray player.
Blu-Ray??? Is this some type of super secret NSA domestic spying device that will read our dirty HD Porn watching minds?
When I got my Pioneer Elite DV-37 DVD Player in 2001, it was about $800.
Seven years later and I've had ZERO problems with it. Picture Quality blew-away other DVD players I tested at that time, and somes new DVD players out on the market today.
Pioneer makes top-quality products.
Now if my 2001 Panasonic CT-36HX41 HDTV had a 1080p HDMI input and not 1080i Component, then I might get this new Pioneer Elite Blu-ray player.
Buying or building an HTPC (which will give you more bang for buck) is much better than spending it on this. Heck, you could even stick a pioneer blu-ray drive into your build.
I guess its all about convenience, which in our society is expensive.
Great player from Pioneer.
Will it support SACD and DVD-A?
The transport can affect the over all quality of the output of the unit, maybe not much, but it can. If it has trouble reading the disc, you obviously are going to have issues. The data has to come off the transport for it to be outputted.
The point that you failed to grasp from the cables comment is that all cables are susceptible to interference. People just assume that since it is digital, this isn't the case. It doesn't matter if it is digital or analog, it can be effected by interference. Yes, I am telling you that a 15' cable or even a .5' cable could be effected. While length limits it just due to volume, it does not make it impenetrable. People have a false sense of security "because it is digital", sure modern devices use error checking, but that solution isn't perfect and the quality of it can depend on the quality of your gear.
While a TV can "do a lot of things to affect the image in a visible faction" for analog pictures, that is not what we are talking about, but it is the same case for digital. If you look at digital TVs being sourced digital sources, they are not all equal. Sony Bravia and Sharp Aquos look better than brands like Vizio or Westinghouse. My point is digital is just not digital, it does not magically make it perfect or better. That there are many aspects to these devices that can change the output. People think that digital is just digital, that nothing can go wrong with 1's and 0's. They have a false sense of security due to this thinking, there is more going on behind the scenes with all that is involved into taking a Blu-ray disc and having it displayed as 1080p on a TV.
Zargon,
While I essentially agree with your comment I thought I'd reply to it.
I have a Sony Bravia HDTV and agree that the video processing is very important, so in this case "digital is digital" is not true as you've said.
However, in terms of a sending unit such as a BluRay/DVD player I'm only interested in:
a) power consumption
b) reliability
c) full BluRay compatibility
d) other added functionality
I don't require my BluRay or DVD player to have any video processing. I just want the raw digital signal to be sent to my HDTV and have it processed there.
I agree too, that not all cables are the same but generally a $15 HDMI cable will meet the minimum specs and be 100% identical to a $200 cable. In fact, I was disappointed that my expensive Component Cables that I bought for $200 a while back weren't significantly better than the ones that came in the box with an $80 DVD player.
It is confusing, and anyone building a nice Home Theater system needs to be a lot more informed than they have in the past. For example, how many people understand that if you use your PC with your HDTV you really want an HDMI-PC input and not just the HDMI input. On top of this, most computers if they even have an HDMI output only have one that passes through digital sound from movies and NONE of the sound that passes through the sound card.
Yep, confusing.
If it was 4000GB of internal storage instead of 4, I might consider it for that price.
With 4GB, it uses solid state chips, which would be alot faster than the 400GB hard drive.
I think it leaks out blue ooze not unlike flubber...but more expensive
Who should buy this?
Arguably... not many (see end for who). First we need to understand that not every BluRay player has all the functionality that BluRay can/will offers; in fact many don't even have Internet.
The reason that the Sony PS3 is so highly recommended is because it's essentially a computer and with the right software can do anything within its processing power. There's nothing in the BluRay specs that can't be upgraded by updating the box over the Internet. Also, the PS3 is Sony's prominent BluRay player so expect it to get the updates other boxes might not (even if they had the hardware).
back to the Pioneer model:
The main reason that this box is expensive is the audio. There are a lot of people willing to pay for extra audio quality and I'm one of them. However, I believe in getting a standalone receiver. Not only can a standalone receiver work with multiple devices but it also avoids the "all your eggs in one basket" problem. You might be surprised at just how much receivers cost; they're expensive, however I think you'd be best with a separate BluRay player and receiver.
If this box was $800 and got glowing reviews I'd say "Audiophiles go for it." Personally, I'm holding off for another year at least. The PS4, a Home Theater PC or a standalone BluRay device (with a hardrive and/or streaming support) are options I'm considering.
What would I buy right now?
The PS3, or possibly the PS3.
So, who do I think should get this?
Basically, I'd only recommend this unit to someone with limited space, who has checked out the BluRay specs thoroughly and knows this suits his present and future needs.
A/v is not my department
But it seems Blu-Ray is on the right track
there was a recent article that stated that at this point in its lifetime Blu-Ray Sales are higher than DVDs at the same point in their lifetime.
Also don't forget that Mitsibishi is starting to manufacture Blu-Ray Laser Diodes for Mass Marker which should bring down the prices sometime in the near future.
Blu-Ray seems promising with all the features
Unfortunately I only own a PS3 but connected to a SDTV with S-Video Connection.
If I didn't own a PS3 who knows when I would have gotten a PS3 come to think about it my old DVD player was my PS2 or Xbox 360.
So props to Sony for the move of including this into their systems.
As for a HDTV I can find a 40 incher for $6-700 but I want 1080P and that means I have to wait so yeah I agree not very mass market
but prices should come down heavily in the next 2-3 years at least I hope
I really hope they put a solid, non-plastic drive into this thing. I've seen way to many expensive players where this has been omitted.
Also, with the thorough (and *very* welcome) effort that has been put into the analog stage, I would really hope it isn't too late for them to seriously consider adding SACD & DVD-Audio. It would be such a waste not to have it.
It also isn't stated whether it supports DivX/XviD, but that is obviously extremely useful as well. (And a feature which all recent Pioneer's have had.)