cwolf78
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 456
What is the best deal going for a stand-alone BluRay player ? Thanks ! 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
BluRay stand-alone player ?
- Thread starter cwolf78
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,593
umm.. what? Can't you use google, or are you just lazy?
It appears to be in the $300+ range for anything decent.
Your best option is still a PS3 or PC drive since you don't have to worry about the profile garbage.
It appears to be in the $300+ range for anything decent.
Your best option is still a PS3 or PC drive since you don't have to worry about the profile garbage.
cwolf78
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 456
lol ... yeah I am lazy, so what ? Anyhow, I have my own HTPC with the LG HD-DVD/BluRay player in it... I had not given any thought to a stand alone player until a friend was talking about getting the PS3 instead of buying a stand alone unit. He doesn't really want a PS3, but he cited the high cost of a stand alone player and figured he might as well get a PS3. Thanks for the input !
Anyhow, I have my own HTPC with the LG HD-DVD/BluRay player in it... I had not given any thought to a stand alone player until a friend was talking about getting the PS3 instead of buying a stand alone unit. He doesn't really want a PS3, but he cited the high cost of a stand alone player and figured he might as well get a PS3. Thanks for the input !wtburnette
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,580
Yep, PS3 is the way to go. Internet access, blu-ray playback and upconverted DVD playback, plus games for around the same price as a good standalone player. What's not to like? I bought one, even though I'm not a console gamer and I'm happy I did.
The cheapest? Try your hand at dumpster diving. I'm sure somebody has dropped one at some point or another, and it's totally FREE.
If you are talking about buying one, factor in the cost of a real remote control, and an IR adapter for that PS3, unless you prefer using a game controller to scan movies.
If you are talking about buying one, factor in the cost of a real remote control, and an IR adapter for that PS3, unless you prefer using a game controller to scan movies.
wtburnette
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,580
$25 for the PS3 blu-ray remote. If you watch closely, sometimes stores will bundle it with the unit (CC did that last month at one point). I think this remote functions just fine, at least it does for me.
Too lazy to google for you.
But the PS3 solution is a good one "unless" you want high definition sound. And you will want this if you have a decent audio system.
If you're using fairly low end speakers, such as most computer speakers, then it makes no difference and the PS3 is fine.
But the PS3 solution is a good one "unless" you want high definition sound. And you will want this if you have a decent audio system.
If you're using fairly low end speakers, such as most computer speakers, then it makes no difference and the PS3 is fine.
This is essentially incorrect as the PS3 decodes everything (including Dolby True HD) but DTS Master Audio and can output it over HDMI via Linear PCM or LPCM 5.1 or 7.1 to my understanding. What it cannot do is send the sound info via bitstream over HDMI to your receiver to have it decoded there instead.
The DTS Master Audio onboard decoding may be coming to the PS3 in a future firmware upgrade and it too will be sent via LPCM 7.1 to your receiver if it is capable of accepting it.
Not sure how that is incorrect, except that I didn't bother with techno-speak.
Without going into jargon, if you want to play high definition sound, a stand alone player coupled with a good audio system (decent receiver) will give you better sound than a PS3.
Give better sound? That is incorrect. The PS3 will be sending LPCM to your reciever for audio. There is going to be an update to the PS3 to decode internally the DTS-MA and send via LPCM. It should be out before the Panny BDP-50 is out which is among one of the first stand alone players that can do all the audio codecs. But the PS3 will have no difference in sound or video quility in any way.
i think PS3 don't have analog output. i was on the same boat like you before i went with Samsung 1400. reason why i went with the stand alone player versus the PS3 is one, the cost. i paid 300 bux for the 1400 compare to the ps3 400 bux 40gb. second was is ps3 didn't have the analog which i hook up to my amp analog and digital and last is i didn't want to buy extra games for it which is an extra cost for me again if i went with the ps3 and that's why i have my computer for play games with it. i heard one good thing about the ps3 it loads the disc faster than any stand alone player..
Actually, no it won't and I'm a big fan of analog audio and individual devices. I've had several different receivers (Onkyo, Panasonic, Harman Kardon, Yamaha, etc.), 3 different high end sound cards and several different sets of speakers. Much of what you will get depends on whether you are sending analog or digital, what the capabilities of your source and amp/receiver are and what type of speakers you're using.
All I was talking about was the HD audio. You CAN listen to multichannel HD audio from a PS3 via LPCM. Better or not was not the issue. As stated, better or not is also very subjective and equipment/connection dependent...
As far as a good deal on a standalone player, Dell is selling the Sharp BD-HP20 right now for about $330.00 and it has HDMI and analog output:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...=dhs&sku=A1335052&dgc=CJ&cid=24471&lid=566643
Just remember that, with analog output to your amp or receiver, you are depending on the Sharp player's DACs to do a good job of translating the HD sound to analog for you instead of sending the decoded signal to your receiver via LPCM or sending the raw, digital bitstream data to your receiver for it to decode (if you have such a receiver in that can decode the new HD codecs).
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...=dhs&sku=A1335052&dgc=CJ&cid=24471&lid=566643
Just remember that, with analog output to your amp or receiver, you are depending on the Sharp player's DACs to do a good job of translating the HD sound to analog for you instead of sending the decoded signal to your receiver via LPCM or sending the raw, digital bitstream data to your receiver for it to decode (if you have such a receiver in that can decode the new HD codecs).
I see. Therefore the final point is where we had a misunderstanding: I did not mean that you cannot listen to HD audio via the PS3. What I meant was that you will get better HD sound from a player hooked into a decent receiver which will handle the decoding. Therefore, for people with good systems, they may prefer a standalone player, and let their receiver handle things.
While I do prefer my substantially more expensive reciever to handle this rather than the PS3, I also understand the argument where this may be subjective.
More techo speak? Can't you guys avoid all these terms? Anyway, I stand by my view that HD audio being handled by a quality reciever will give better overall sound than HD audio being handled by the PS3 itself.
The update to the PS3 will improve the situation, assuming you have a quality receiver. But, from a logical perspective, and without knowing anything about the fancy terms you've used, by even talking about this "update", you're admiting that there is a difference at the moment.
(Disclaimer: The final results are are subjective however and dependant on equipment etc. etc. etc. etc.)
Update: Just re-read what you wrote including the techo-babble part I hate: you're saying that PS3 handling internal decoding to LPCM gives "no difference in sound". What planet are you on? Ok, you keep letting your PS3 handle internal decoding of HD audio. I'll let my receiver handle it rather than the player. The one part I may admit to is, because sound and music is a bit subjective, I'll give you that your PS3 LPCM internal decoding might sound similar to my receiver, if you don't listen carefully. So you could argue that the differences are too small to make a difference. You could then argue that the differences between HD and standard are small. That high end speakers aren't that much different to cheap speakers (etc. etc.) But you cannot say that there is "no difference in sound".
In all seriousness, I'll raise you one more and say that even a receiver ("quality" or not) decoding the HD audio signal is going to be subjective. The decoding of the sound does not effect the sound quality as much (the decoding is all of the same standardized codecs). The "sound quality" of your receiver will be based on its DACs (Digital to Analog Converters) and its capabilities to deliver clean and consistent power through the analog outputs to your speakers. The PS3 doesn't do any analog conversion when it sends the decoded HD audio stream digitally to the receiver. The receiver is still responsible for turning that digital stream into analog sound that you can recognize.
There haven't been enough tests really to say which is a better way of decoding, onboard or bitstream to receiver and letting the receiver do it because the receivers that can do this haven't been on the market for very long. I will say that there is a good reason that all newer Blu Ray profiles and the players that meet the specs seem to be requiring the ability of the player to decode the HD audio and be capable of sending it via LPCM to the receiver or out their own analog ports. They are not depending anymore on the ability of the recievers out there to properly be able to decode the HD audio.
All that being said, I'd love to see some definitive reviews comparing decoded, LPCM HD audio to bitstream decdoded by a receiver. It would also be interesting to hear if there are any differences between the PS3s decoded information. software decoded information on an HTPC (using the currently available programs), other standalone players' decoded LPCM or analog sound, and bitstream audio decoded by the different receivers available instead. If anyone can point such reviews out, please do so. I'm sure that we'd all be interested in the results.