As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Bluray Player
emp123
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So Im going to get myself a bluray player for christmas, but Im not sure if I should just grab a PS3 or if I should just pick up a dedicated bluray player. Im leaning towards the PS3, but Im not sure if I should go for the Slim or a used 60/80gig. I prefer the way the non-slim PS3 looks, but Im iffy on getting a used PS3.
If anybody has any suggestions well, thats why I came here, hahaha.
If anybody has any suggestions well, thats why I came here, hahaha.
emp123 on
0
Posts
Buy a PS3 Slim.
There is actually one thing that the PS3 Slim does that is missing in the "classic" PS3, which is: Bitstream HD Audio over HDMI. Probably not relevant for anyone who is not an AV freak, but there you go. I might actually switch out my PS3 for a slim some day because of this.
Just to be absolutely clear...this added feature is worthless. HDMI can already send uncompressed sound (which is high def). All seven channels plus a subwoofer. Sending it over bitstream means the actual HD codec is sent, so it still needs to be decoded by a receiver.
Why you would do this is a mystery to me...HD audio is lossless. It will sound the same whether the receiver decodes it or the PS3.
PSN: TheScrublet
But seriously I once read a longer thread on avsforums or hydrogenaudio or some such place where somebody explained that the PS3 might lose something in decoding because of some sort of sampling rate conversion, but it really went over my head.
I just threw out that post because I personally know two AV gearheads who bought a standalone player in addition to their PS3 for only this reason.
What reason? To light up that little logo on the receiver? I am 99% sure that thread you saw was wrong, because there is only one acceptable way to decode an HD codec, and if the PS3 isn't doing that then it's not allowed to advertise support for that codec (and it DOES advertise support).
What I don't understand here is that whenever this feature is mentioned in news or something, it's always phrased in a "most people won't care, but AUDIOPHILES will be happy that...". What are they happy about? This isn't one of those things that only audiophiles will appreciate...the sound is the same whether it's outputted in bitstream or linear PCM. This isn't like debating whether expensive speaker wire or $15,000 speakers are worth it...I literally can't think of a reason to output HDaudio as bitstream unless the output source itself isn't able to decode it (and the PS3 is).
I only bring up this rant to clarify that if deciding between a slim and non-slim, THIS "feature" should have zero bearing on the decision. If you use an HDMI cable with your PS3, output linear PCM and be done with it.
Also, the PS3 upscaling is actually pretty good since a patch way back. You'd have to spend a significant amount on a standalone player to beat it.
Edit: also, don't be iffy on getting a used PS3. The failure rate for the PS3 and the Wii is very very low, and PSN doesn't really ban people like live does. Used 360s, on the other hand...
PSN: TheScrublet
I agree about the upscaling capabilities of the PS3, by the way. In my opinion, they're top notch.
True, and I have already received my free PS3 Netflix disc...
I think I was just getting cold feet. Its kinda hard for me to justify buying a PS3 when I know Im not going to play that many games on it. I can really only think of like 4 (GoW3 and I guess I'll replay the other two with improved graphics, GT5 (might pass on this just because I already have Forza and do I really need more racing games? Probably not), MGS4, and I guess the Uncharted games....I guess thats like 7 games...). Most of my video game playing is done either on my 360 (like 95% of my gaming at this time) or my PC.
Well whatever, I guess its PS3 slim time....even though the normal PS3 looks a lot nicer. They did stop using the shiny plastic right? And the old PS3 didnt have physical clicky buttons right? Or are pictures Ive seen lying to me?
Feel better about the receiver though...a $350 receiver can decode these high def codecs. We can bullshit about feature sets all day but in the end the chief difference between a $350 and a $1000 receiver is how well it amplifies sound, and how loud it can do it. I personally prefer the $1000 but I'm broke right now
PSN: TheScrublet
Edit: I still don't understand what the fuck is going on with this free ps3 netflix disc thing.
PSN: TheScrublet
If you have a Netflix account, you just go to their website, log in and request your free PS3 Netflix streaming disc. Then, when you get it, you pop it in your PS3, login to Netflix on your pc, enter the code displayed by the PS3 to associate your Netflix account to the PS3, then you can stream stuff from your Netflix "watch instantly" queue to your PS3. You have to use the disc everytime you watch Netflix stuff on your PS3 (only have to enter the code once), but it works pretty nicely.
Yeah I know that's why I specifically wrote 'digital cable', if it is HDMI or S/PDIF or whatever, your sentence applies to all of them: The signal either gets through or it doesn't. In everything that is part of the analog signal path, material quality can theoretically make a difference, although I personally think that beyond having a sufficiently large cross-section, hearing differences between even speaker wires is horseshit.
You're also right about the receivers, after listening to some for comparison even in plain old stereo, it didn't really seem that insane anymore to spend some serious money.
They can't have an App for it on PSN quite yet because Microsoft has an exclusive on that. There will be one next year. Right now you need to insert the disc to use the Netflix every time(or use a solution like PlayOn that works great but does cost $30 or so), but that should change sometime next year once the exclusivity deal wears off.
And when you get the PS3 then get the slim one because is uses a lot less power and does everything like the original model except:
- Run Linux
- Play PS2 games
- Take up more space and look cooler
Also there may be something with the number of USB ports and also memory modules but that is details.
Oh - you say that there are only 4 games or 7 or so you might get. As opposed to the 360 I think you will learn there are more different games on the PS3. Like you I mostly play on my PC and also have a 360 but I also have a PS3 and there are some very special stuff for it.
- Flower. It sounds silly but it is pretty great (and cheap)
- LittleBigPlanet. This is amazing.
- WipeoutHD
- GT5 - I am playing the competition thing right now and it is just racing but better than Forza. The competition is Europe only but the full game is almost here and also Prologue is worth getting.
- Ratchet & Clank. I was like "3D platform" - naaah. But damn it is like playing the lead in a Pixar movie.
The PS3 has all sorts of weird and wonderful "small" games which is so different from what you get on the PC and 360.
I was in a similar situation as you describe. I played 95% of my games on the 360 and swore for over a year that I'd never need or want a Ps3, except possibly for Blu-ray. My girlfriend bought me one for Christmas last year after I mentioned that Little Big Planet looked cool, and I haven't looked back since. Since then I have cancelled my Live subscription and can't remember the last time I plugged the 360 in. You'll see once you get your Ps3... it just feels like a sexy piece of technology. You will play games on it, and I'd be willing to bet you will start picking up multi-platform releases for it.
One thing though: Ps3 is NOT backwards compatible for ANY Ps2 games and only for a limited selection of Ps1 games. The backwards compatible first generation Ps3s are long gone, and SUPER expensive used.
In any case, the PS3 does offer some awesome features. Like My roommate just got a new camera so he took some photos of my dog, and we just slipped the memory card into the ps3 and they popped right up. It was great.
Sony says I should get the PS3 on the 24th at the latest which would be nice.
Thanks guys!
As for a standalone player vs. a PS3, back then, there was no reason not to go with a PS3 unless you planned on spending ludacris amounts of money on quality that you could hardly discern. Mind you, some people like knowing their blu ray player is bleeding edge in terms of quality, but many audio/videophiles have PS3s at the heart of their setups. The bonuses of a PS3 are, of course, being able to play LittleBigPlanet amongst some other games, operating speed (early adopters know what I'm talking about), and being up to date on codecs, profile 2.0 and all that. I'm sure a lot of blu ray players have caught up in terms of speed, but if you go with the PS3, you know you're getting a speedy player that's profile 2.0 compliant and supports your various audio codecs.
The only noticeable downside is that the PS3 upscaling of regular DVDs isn't the best out there (cnet has a review on the latest Oppo player that they call the best of the best right now). However, if you think about it, DVDs arent even sending a 1080p signal anyways, so if you were looking for a stunning picture on that shiny new HDTV, you'd start with a Blu Ray Disc anyways.
As for getting a slim PS3 vs an older model, its a question of if you want backwards compatibility. You could also just buy a used (or even new) PS2 and circumvent that entire problem, and just bring it out of the closet whenever you need to play an old Final Fantasy or whatever. It's also true that the older PS3s don't send out bitstream audio and only do LPCM but like Scrublet said, there's no difference aside from seeing "DolbyTruHD" light up on your reciever. And if someone is so convinced that there is a difference, you would need one hell of a discerning ear and an uberexpensive set of speakers to even begin an argument.
I personally have the PS3 from the MGS bundle and the only real (if you can call it that) downside for me (I've got a 7.1 setup pumping Dolby TruHD or DTS MA whenever its on the disc) is that my DolbyTruHD light doesn't light up. It's a tiny annoyance that would only upset the pickiest of people. You're still getting the same exact lossless sound.
Could you give us an idea of what kinda setup you have or plan on building in the future or a budget? It'd help us to give you more specific advice.
Btw, just so you know, you're gonna have two camps throughout any home theatre component purchasing process, those who swear by $200 cables, and those who swear by $10 dollar cables. It's how it was when I worked at CCity, and it's how it is in most online forums. I'm a proud member of the $10 cable club. I personally have CCity experiences with switching around HDMI cable brands on high end displays if you have questions on that or other things outside of purchasing a blu ray player in the realm of home theatre advice. That's my rant.
Well, this is somewhat moot since OP already opted for a PS3, but this is pretty false. My mom wanted to get a Blu-ray player for my dad for Christmas, and I pushed her on getting one with Netflix support since she just retired 2 weeks ago and Netflix streaming will be a great thing to fill some of her newfound free time and let her catch up on shows she missed while working too much.
Anyway, she went with an LG BD 370 for $170, no tax, free shipping. $130 less than a PS3 is a pretty big difference. Panasonic has a model that's even less expensive, though reviews on Amazon seem to indicate a number of issues related to firmware updates and hardware reliability.
Newbie question: When reviews mention poor performance with DVDs, does that mean "I expected my DVDs to look a lot better with upscaling than they did on my DVD player, but they look the same" or does it mean "my DVDs look worse than they looked on my DVD player"? Assuming a 1080p TV.
We got a really nice Samsung one for $150 because Best Buy always has the BD players on sale for $50-$100 off. We have a 47" HD TV and the upscale on DVDs(like The Incredibles & Wall-E for example) has been amazing. I can't imagine what the blu-ray versions of those will look like because it's going to be hard to make them look any better.
The PS3 is backwards compatible with all PSOne games, not a handful.
That's not true. I spent $100 on a player that has Netflix support as a Christmas present for my parents .
Well remember that DVD resolutions match up with old 480i/480p tvs. So when a blu ray player upscales, it uses algorithms to match the pixel resolution on a 1080p HDTV. So basically its trying to make something of nothing, but this is still better than not upscaling at all. A DVD would look fine on a regular DVD player on an old 480i tv. A DVD on a regular DVD player would look pixelated on an HDTV and this pixelation is reduced by upscaling (and tv size and viewing distance are factors as well). So if a review says it performs poorly, I would imagine they meant against other upscaling players, but the player is still better than using an ordinary DVD player on an HDTV.
Pixar movies, especially Wall-E, are pretty much the peak of Blu-ray glory. They really look incredible.
The only ones we have on Blu-Ray and not regular DVD are Up & Monsters Inc. With Incredibles on regular DVD but upscaled the detail is unbelievable especially in things like the water and hair.
Christmas was terrible when you thought you were gettings something you wanted and had to wait till Christmas morning to see if you got it. Christmas is way worse when you buy yourself something and then just refuse to open it until Christmas morning....
I dunno about you, but the intro to Pixar blu rays (the whole Disney Blu Ray sequence) is some sharp looking stuff. That's when I hear the ooo's and ahhh's from people watching (of course its at the beginning, but whatever it looks awesome). But yeah I hope the OP is buying a pixar blu ray with his player 8-)
For speaker cables, this is 100% true. For HDMI cables, there are three groups: the $10 cable people, the people who have to run long runs of HDMI and need expensive cables, and the group of idiots who have no idea what they are talking about.
There is no benefit of any kind to buying a hugely expensive 6' HDMI cable. There is no debate to be had here. The digital signal either gets to your TV or it doesn't. Now, the HDMI specification does not specify a maximum length, so if you need to run longer distances (15' or more, as a LOOSE guide), then more expensive cables may be necessary. But IF the signal is getting to your TV without problems, then you know for sure you are getting the best possible picture that can be transmitted over HDMI. This is all in contrast to speaker cables, which are transmitting an analog signal, at which point those aforementioned two groups can debate till they're blue in the face on just how much money is required to minimize loss.
PSN: TheScrublet
Yeah good point. Long runs of HDMI cable (i've personally heard this starts around 25 feet, pretty much if you are running a front projector in the back of your room) require the expensive stuff. Even then, smaller companies who make custom length cables usually have a fatter cable solution for long runs that are still significantly cheaper than what you will find on retail shelves.
As for HDMI specifications, the OP should be looking for certified 1.3 cables if they plan on sending lossless audio with their 1080p signal (basically means its guaranteed to have the necessary bandwidth for BOTH lossless audio and 1080p video, all HDMI spec 1.0 to 1.3 are fine for 1080p video). The funny thing is, I've only ever seen non-1.3 cables from Monster cable, who market their cables as 'good', 'better', 'best', and 'zomg!' with the last being called 1.3 spec by them if "you want the best possible quality." But you'll see that Monster's zomg cables are smaller companies only cables hahaha.