 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.38.44.118
In Reply to: RE: silliness posted by Joe Murphy Jr on January 07, 2009 at 19:44:31
-I'm really not interested in video games, so that's one strike.
What about BD players that play CDs? If you're not interested in CDs, does this make it a strike against those players? Of course not: you don't have to play CDs on a BD player just like you don't have to play games on a PS3.
>> No, but why pay for options that don't improve the picture (gaming) if I don't need it; I'd rather spend "$x" (no idea what a PS3 is worth, sorry) on a player that's dedicated and thus >may< offer better picture/sound.
-I've heard lots about how the PS3 is noisy/has fans and that's a big strike 2. I am very picky about noises. My Pioneer DVD recorder has a very quiet fan, still bugs me during quiet parts of a movie.
There are numerous factors that affect the PS3's fan speed. For most people it is a non-issue with the 40/80/160GB versions, which run quieter than the others (20/60GB). However, since you are sensitive to noise, this may still be a problem for you so it is a valid concern.
>> But do stand alone BD players have noisy fans? If some did I'd avoid them as much as the PS3, no different.
-Grant, can you pause the movie? I think somebody's at the door/the phone is ringing/the dog is barking/let's get some popcorn, etc. Wait, no remote, serious?
That's just silly. There is a dedicated non-game remote for the PS3. The MSRP is $25, but it can be found on the internet for $16. About every other month, someone is running a special where you get a free PS3 remote if you buy something (usually a PS3 or even a movie, as Wal-Mart had a special for a free PS3 remote if you bought the Hancock Blu-ray).
>> This I did not know. X that comment out.
-What about those who don't have HDMI hookup in our current system and don't plan on changing that any time soon.
That makes every Blu-ray player without 5.1 or 7.1 analog outputs (and there are several) a non-option, not just the PS3.
>> So if I was looking for a BD player I'd have to avoid one that didn't offer this (such as the PS3 does not).
If my old X1 PJ was easier to hook up with a BD player, and a BD player offered a decent quality increase over standard DVD with the limited hook-ups (which it probably does) I'd consider one. I looked into it; scroll down to my X1 BD post from last week, I AM curious, but my system dictates that a PS3 would not be an option.
I am WAY more interested in the audio portion of my system, spending a bunch of money on a new PJ just is not in my plans. Heck, half the reason I got a PJ was to remove the TV from between the speakers.
Follow Ups:
No, but why pay for options that don't improve the picture (gaming) if I don't need it; I'd rather spend "$x" (no idea what a PS3 is worth, sorry) on a player that's dedicated and thus > may < offer better picture/sound.
That's not the right perspective with the PS3. Don't think of it as "paying" for an option: whether or not you use the gaming feature, think of getting it for free.
But do stand alone BD players have noisy fans? If some did I'd avoid them as much as the PS3, no different.
They all have fans. The SPL from the fan will vary from player to player and depend on just as many factors as the PS3. However, while I have not compared numerous players, I doubt any would be louder than the PS3's fan in "high" mode. That said, the 40/80/160GB PS3s are quieter than the 20/60GB versions: "loud" depends on the individual and the environment.
If my old X1 PJ was easier to hook up with a BD player, and a BD player offered a decent quality increase over standard DVD with the limited hook-ups (which it probably does) I'd consider one.
Blu-ray players will output 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i from the analog component outputs. The picture will be better than DVD, but "how much better" depends on the display. I have a Panasonic BD35 for the bedroom system (42" plasma, 852x480) and I can assure you that a semi-blind person could see the difference, even scaled down to 480p, between DVD and Blu-ray on this display. There's more to picture quality than resolution and seeing a comparison of DVD to Blu-ray on a 480p display will drive this point over the center field wall at 435 ft.
I am WAY more interested in the audio portion of my system, spending a bunch of money on a new PJ just is not in my plans.
If you need multi-channel analog, I would suggest the current Panasonic BD55 or the upcoming Panasonic BD80 or, for more $, oppo BDP-83 (both around Q2 09).
Part of the reason I'm now curious about better formats is that I'm increasing my drop-down screen size from 84" (4:3) to 110" (16:9). I was more than happy with the picture quality at 84", but do fear I may not be so at 110". My screen should be arriving this coming week, so I'll see soon. I am not a videophile by any means, and am fairly easily satisfied with image quality.
ALL blue players have fans? Dang. :)
As for the PS3, my philosophy is that if you pay $200 for a PS3 that's built to play games, or $200 for a dedicated blue-ray player, there's a likely chance the dedicated player will perform better for the audio and video portion.
I'm not sure what you're referring to re multi-channel analog; I use my 2 front channels and a dedicated CDP only for music listening. Do I need multi-channel analog for blue-ray...?
The PS3, when you use it via HDMI, is the best player for Blu-ray at this time. It does absolutely zero additional processing of the video for Blu-ray and converts all of the audio codecs to PCM without any of the problems that some players have. It even decodes and converts the lossy DTS codecs (DTS ES 5.1 Matrix, DTS ES 6.1 Discrete and DTS 24/96 5.1) in their intended output configuration to PCM: no other Blu-ray player does that via HDMI.
Its only video limitation for Blu-ray is that is does not deinterlace 1080i video to 1080p, but it has been hinted that this will come in a firmware update. In other words, 1080i discs are output as 1080i, so if your High Definition display can't deinterlace a 1080i signal properly, you will not get all of the motion detail with action sequences. And speaking of firmware updates, the PS3 firmware support is above and beyond that of any Blu-ray player.
As to price, it's $399, but as David says below, the cost incurred to SCE is well beyond that. The gaming industry sells consoles at a loss and makes their profit on games. In other words, you're getting a deal vs what a player that could do what the PS3 does would cost.
You don't need multi-channel for Blu-ray. All players can output down-mixed to stereo if that's what you need or prefer. The PS3 can only output stereo if you want an analog output -- it doesn't have multi-channel analog outputs, which is what some people with older non-HDMI receivers need for a multi-channel system. Video output from the PS3, via analog, gets you composite, S-video or component (there's a break-out type cable for each format).
Grant, I am not saying the PS3 is what you need. I'm just trying to clear up some misunderstandings and incorrect info re: the PS3. I would, however, suggest that you check out the PS3 and see what it can do beyond just Blu-ray and DVD playback (and I'm not talking about the gaming aspect, either). You may find that there's a lot more about the PS3 that makes it a better choice than other players out there. Then again, your opinion of it may not change at all.
"As for the PS3, my philosophy is that if you pay $200 for a PS3 that's built to play games, or $200 for a dedicated blue-ray player, there's a likely chance the dedicated player will perform better for the audio and video portion"
Not necessarily true with the PS3 which is actually selling for less than the manufacturing cost because Sony are trying to capture gamers and hoping to make their profits on the games. Competing players at the same price aren't being sold at a loss but at a profit. There's more than a fair chance that the PS3 will perform equally well as a dedicated player at the same price, perhaps even better on some things. It's certainly still the fastest loading BD player which may not sound like much but some BD players are very slow loaders.
You don't need multi-channel analog for BD, you don't even need anything more than 2 channels, but the PS3 has some very individual limitations on it's output. If you want the full benefit of the new lossless formats you have no choice. You have to use PCM output via HDMI. The full lossless format signal isn't available any other way. You can get it in 2 channel, 5.1, 7.1 as you wish but you have to use HDMI and PCM output if you want to get that. Also, if you want analog output, you can only get 2 channel, not 5.1 or 7.1 so if you want surround sound you have to use digital output of some kind.
The PS3 does BD very well, does a quite good job with upscaling DVD but isn't top of the pack, and does audio well within the limitations of it's output. It has specific ventilation needs and it can be quite noisy if those needs aren't met. As far as BD features go it's basically got the full feature set and Sony have been keeping it up to date with firmware updates. Many of the standalone players don't have the full set of BD features but I seriously question whether many people really want the full set. I'm not really interested in BD Live, for instance.
If the PS3 does what you want a player to do and you can meet its ventilation needs, you should give it consideration and I think you'll find it stacks up well against the competition, being a little better in some areas and worse in others. It's currently good value. There are good reasons for choosing one, and good reasons for choosing a different player.
Coming down the track are a number of new players and player prices are dropping. While it's competitive and good value now, it probably won't be as competitive when those new players hit but it will still probably provide good value.
If you're considering a BD player, take your time. Decide what you want and look carefully at the specs because sometimes it's hard to work out whether or not a particular player provides a certain feature or not. Keep an eye on announcements of new players because the situation is fluid.
But as far as BD itself goes, it's certainly gives you a better experience with both picture and sound than DVD, and I can see and appreciate the differences on a 32" screen so you should have no problems at all seeing them on an 84" screen, much less a 110" one. That's the one thing you don't need to have any doubts about.
David Aiken
Here's a link to some discussion of Blu-ray on a 480p display. Please excuse a few of the douchebags in the thread, as not everyone at AVS Forum is able to claim birth from non-blood related parents:
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
