Blue-Ray player vs PS3 (advice?)

Bobble

Parents got me a blue-ray player for Christmas (woo!), but in the past when I'd considered picking up a blue-ray myself, I'd noticed several people saying that the PS3 was actually a good blue-ray player already (even before considering the other things it can do). Limited research on the PS3 Slim suggests that it's still a high quality player and a good value, the biggest quibble seems to be lack of backward compatibility for PS2 games. I've lived without it as a game system (360 and PC get me by pretty well), but I would be curious about some of the PS3 exclusive titles if I had the system. So what it boils down to is the system as a blue-ray player.

So my questions to y'all, if I were to 'trade-up' so to speak: What limitations, if any, do you run into when treating the PS3 (Slim) as a blue-ray player? Are there certain features you might expect that it doesn't have? Stuff that annoys you? Anyone else made the same move and regretted or been happy with it? Any other considerations (extra cables I would need other than an HDMI?)

Thanks, and I hope y'all are having a wonderful holiday season.

PS- no, parents would not be offended if I 'returned' the gift like this. They were just excited to find something I'd need.

Ziggymon

The only features the PS3 may not have as a blu ray player over a stand alone device is some of the sound output options (but even then only the higher priced standalone models have these). Even then the PS3 I think is a fantastic player, loads blu ray movies fast, has regular updates to make sure all features are compatible and can be used as a media streaming hub to the PC, and a bonus plays some awesome games.

wonderpug

Since you have some interest in playing games you might as well just go for the upgrade and get a PS3 for your blu-ray player.

Bobble wrote: »

Any other considerations (extra cables I would need other than an HDMI?

If you haven't already opened your HDMI cable, please make sure it's not some $50+ one from Best Buy or any other big box store. You can get one at monprice.com for like $5.

If you're just plugging the player/PS3 directly into your TV then an HDMI cable should be all you need for video and sound. Things would get more complicated if you had a sound system.

psychotix

PS3 vs standalone is a funny debate. When the PS3 first came out it was as good as most high end players and cheaper. Now it's simply as good as most consumer players and slightly more expensive, but it does not stack up to a lot of the higher end players.

This is worst offender of BR over kill for most people http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/HomeEntertainment/Blu-rayDisc+DVD/EliteBlu-rayDiscPlayers/BDP-09FD

Scrublet

@Ziggymon - The old PS3 supports every single sound option except putting Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA over HDMI as bitstream. However, since the PS3 can decode these into true sound and put THAT over HDMI, that feature is unnecessary anyways unless you want the little light on your receiver to light up. And the PS3 Slim CAN output those codecs. Standalone players do not produce any extra sound output options.

This whole PS3 versus standalone confuses me. It's a blu-ray player. The only possible difference between them is upconversion quuality, and the PS3 does pretty good at that. This debate used to rage over videophiles on DVD players as well. Thing was, to actually SEE a difference in DVD picture quality, you had to get a player close to $1,000. And even THEN the picture quality was only easily apparent in stress tests, like checking out the quality of reds in the movie Cars or Toy Story.

I have yet to see a so-called "high-end" blu-ray player justify itself over the $300 PS3 pricetag for any reason other than aesthetics. And bear in mind, if any videophiles want to come in here and start talking about fine differences you better be testing on a Kuro Elite or TV of comparable quality because otherwise that shit's in your head.

psychotix

Scrublet wrote: »

@Ziggymon - The old PS3 supports every single sound option except putting Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA over HDMI as bitstream. However, since the PS3 can decode these into true sound and put THAT over HDMI, that feature is unnecessary anyways unless you want the little light on your receiver to light up. And the PS3 Slim CAN output those codecs. Standalone players do not produce any extra sound output options.

This whole PS3 versus standalone confuses me. It's a blu-ray player. The only possible difference between them is upconversion quuality, and the PS3 does pretty good at that. This debate used to rage over videophiles on DVD players as well. Thing was, to actually SEE a difference in DVD picture quality, you had to get a player close to $1,000. And even THEN the picture quality was only easily apparent in stress tests, like checking out the quality of reds in the movie Cars or Toy Story.

I have yet to see a so-called "high-end" blu-ray player justify itself over the $300 PS3 pricetag for any reason other than aesthetics. And bear in mind, if any videophiles want to come in here and start talking about fine differences you better be testing on a Kuro Elite or TV of comparable quality because otherwise that shit's in your head.

Oddly enough pioneer makes both the Kuro Elite and the Elite BD player. There is a difference in image quality provided the right set up. Another big difference comes into play with the audio from the Elite BD player, but again you'd have to be talking about a very high end set-up for it to matter.

Bobble

So in conclusion, it's a no-brainer if you're someone like me, who would get some decent use out of the PS3 beyond just movies (and isn't a bleeding-edge home theater fanatic). Neato. Thank you, internet, for confirming my direction, and Happy Holidays

NailbunnyPD

The PS3 might require some additional purchases to get a proper remote working. Logitech makes a contraption that will make it compatible with their Harmony line of remotes.

If you are cool with the PS3 controller, then its not a big deal. Just something to keep in mind.

Triko

Anyone worried about using your PS3 for extensive Blu-ray viewing could wear out the drive on the PS3 quicker? I've thought about buying a PS3 and hook it up to my computer monitor for games and movies too (my computer is too old to play Blu-ray movies), just worried about wearing it out too quickly and have the PS3 crap out on me in just a few years.

Zell

Standalone advantages:

• price
• lower noise levels
• faster blu-ray loading times (some are faster than the PS3, most are slower)
• controls and display on player itself
• comes with remote (and doesn't require an adapter for harmony remotes)
• shape, if you want to stack some other hardware on top of the PS3 you can't
• region modifications possible
• remote IR (connect your blu-ray player to for example your TV and it will use the IR sensor of the tv)
• analog audio outputs (if you have an old AVR without HDMI in and want to listen to lossless sound, hard to configure properly)

Stuff that's completely unrelated to it being a blu-ray player, but might still be reasons to get a standalone:

• better dvd upscaling (the PS3 is good, but far from the best)
• support for other formats (HD-DVD, SACD, DVD Audio. you probably won't ever need them)
• support for web streaming services that the PS3 don't support (don't live in the US so no clue what that'd be)
• DLNA/UPnP support (the PS3 supports it, but it has limited support for file types and almost no support for subtitles)
• media center extender support (never used this, no clue how useful it is, nor if any blu-ray players support it at the moment)

There are plenty of reasons to consider a standalone, but most of them probably doesn't matter to you, especially if you want a PS3 for playing games anyway.

Edit: Internal decoding of DTS-ES/DD EX if your AVR doesn't support it? I don't know if the PS3 does this.
Edit 2: Sort of unrelated (since he'll probably be getting a slim anyway) but do old PS3s support HDMI-CEC or only slim ones?

Scrublet

I forgot about DLNA. If that's important definitely go standalone because the PS3 doesn't support that at all. Which really pisses me off because I could use that for some things.

psychotix I bet you would be hard pressed to find video differences between a Elite BD and a PS3 in a blind test. I wish I had the means to prove that. I'm also not convinced that the audio coming out of those 7.1 analog outputs is superior to plugging HDMI into a high quality pre/pro separate combo and then powering stuff out of there. In any case, I put it back to my original point that for the standalone to have relevance it costs over a grand more than the ps3.

Triko, I think the jury's still out on how long these PS3 drives are gonna last. Though I think they've already lasted longer than some of those defective PS2 DVD drives in the first gen.

theSquid

The only reason not to buy the PS3 is if you want recording capabilities.

psychotix

Scrublet wrote: »

I forgot about DLNA. If that's important definitely go standalone because the PS3 doesn't support that at all. Which really pisses me off because I could use that for some things.

psychotix I bet you would be hard pressed to find video differences between a Elite BD and a PS3 in a blind test. I wish I had the means to prove that. I'm also not convinced that the audio coming out of those 7.1 analog outputs is superior to plugging HDMI into a high quality pre/pro separate combo and then powering stuff out of there. In any case, I put it back to my original point that for the standalone to have relevance it costs over a grand more than the ps3.

Triko, I think the jury's still out on how long these PS3 drives are gonna last. Though I think they've already lasted longer than some of those defective PS2 DVD drives in the first gen.

As for the Elite vs the PS3, yeah you could. Provided both were tested on top end displays with top end audio, and it would be rather noticeable.

The problem always remains that in order to take advantage of top end players like that, you need the extreme top of the line displays and speakers. High end speakers easily end up for 20grand for the systems.

There are stand alones that aren't as extreme and run in the 500-700 range that will still beat a PS3 without going to the extreme all around. I just pushed pioneers because it's the most glaring example that the PS3 is far from a high end blu-ray device.

Ziggymon

Scrublet wrote: »

@Ziggymon - The old PS3 supports every single sound option except putting Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA over HDMI as bitstream. However, since the PS3 can decode these into true sound and put THAT over HDMI, that feature is unnecessary anyways unless you want the little light on your receiver to light up. And the PS3 Slim CAN output those codecs. Standalone players do not produce any extra sound output options.

This whole PS3 versus standalone confuses me. It's a blu-ray player. The only possible difference between them is upconversion quuality, and the PS3 does pretty good at that. This debate used to rage over videophiles on DVD players as well. Thing was, to actually SEE a difference in DVD picture quality, you had to get a player close to $1,000. And even THEN the picture quality was only easily apparent in stress tests, like checking out the quality of reds in the movie Cars or Toy Story.

I have yet to see a so-called "high-end" blu-ray player justify itself over the $300 PS3 pricetag for any reason other than aesthetics. And bear in mind, if any videophiles want to come in here and start talking about fine differences you better be testing on a Kuro Elite or TV of comparable quality because otherwise that shit's in your head.

I do agree with you, but what I was trying to get across was that the standalone high end players do have some odd additional sound output options over that of the PS3, such as dedicated independent outputs but like you say unless you have a £10,000+ setup it wont make any difference.

Improvolone

Basically, what we're saying if it were our money, we would buy a PS3 because the gaming advantage far outweigh the silly inconveniences like not syncing a Harmony remote easily.

Zell

Ziggymon wrote: »

Scrublet wrote: »

@Ziggymon - The old PS3 supports every single sound option except putting Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA over HDMI as bitstream. However, since the PS3 can decode these into true sound and put THAT over HDMI, that feature is unnecessary anyways unless you want the little light on your receiver to light up. And the PS3 Slim CAN output those codecs. Standalone players do not produce any extra sound output options.

This whole PS3 versus standalone confuses me. It's a blu-ray player. The only possible difference between them is upconversion quuality, and the PS3 does pretty good at that. This debate used to rage over videophiles on DVD players as well. Thing was, to actually SEE a difference in DVD picture quality, you had to get a player close to $1,000. And even THEN the picture quality was only easily apparent in stress tests, like checking out the quality of reds in the movie Cars or Toy Story.

I have yet to see a so-called "high-end" blu-ray player justify itself over the $300 PS3 pricetag for any reason other than aesthetics. And bear in mind, if any videophiles want to come in here and start talking about fine differences you better be testing on a Kuro Elite or TV of comparable quality because otherwise that shit's in your head.

I do agree with you, but what I was trying to get across was that the standalone high end players do have some odd additional sound output options over that of the PS3, such as dedicated independent outputs but like you say unless you have a £10,000+ setup it wont make any difference.

On the other side if your setup isn't that expensive and is sort of old (no hdmi) it should also make a large difference.

Basically, what we're saying if it were our money, we would buy a PS3 because the gaming advantage far outweigh the silly inconveniences like not syncing a Harmony remote easily.

Getting it to sync easily with a Harmony remote isn't the only reason to get a standalone, to us of course the gaming advantage outweighs just about everything. For someone not so interested in the PS3's library, not so much.

Bolthorn

Zell wrote: »

Standalone advantages:

• price
• lower noise levels
• faster blu-ray loading times (some are faster than the PS3, most are slower)
• controls and display on player itself
• comes with remote (and doesn't require an adapter for harmony remotes)
  
• shape, if you want to stack some other hardware on top of the PS3 you can't
• region modifications possible
• remote IR (connect your blu-ray player to for example your TV and it will use the IR sensor of the tv)
• analog audio outputs (if you have an old AVR without HDMI in and want to listen to lossless sound, hard to configure properly)

Stuff that's completely unrelated to it being a blu-ray player, but might still be reasons to get a standalone:

• better dvd upscaling (the PS3 is good, but far from the best)
• support for other formats (HD-DVD, SACD, DVD Audio. you probably won't ever need them)
• support for web streaming services that the PS3 don't support (don't live in the US so no clue what that'd be)
• DLNA/UPnP support (the PS3 supports it, but it has limited support for file types and almost no support for subtitles)
• media center extender support (never used this, no clue how useful it is, nor if any blu-ray players support it at the moment)

There are plenty of reasons to consider a standalone, but most of them probably doesn't matter to you, especially if you want a PS3 for playing games anyway.

Edit: Internal decoding of DTS-ES/DD EX if your AVR doesn't support it? I don't know if the PS3 does this.
Edit 2: Sort of unrelated (since he'll probably be getting a slim anyway) but do old PS3s support HDMI-CEC or only slim ones?

The bolded isn't really an advantage is it? I thought stacking components was generally a bad idea due to the heat these things can generate. My cable box for instance could be used to make tea.

Bobble

First, kudos on you guys for the awesome responses. I hope anyone else who has the same question I did is fortunate enough to see this thread.

Second, this is over a year old, but for some reason it was on the front page of CNET today:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10022389-1.html?tag=smallCarouselArea.3

I'm pretty sure the TV mentioned is almost exactly what I have (I have the 80U, not the 800, sadly). Obviously the internet is telling me to just get the PS3 already.

The post also references a few things that might be useful for anyone else looking at a situation like mine, so I thought I'd share (but still, freaky coincidence).

GrimReaper

I'm now mulling whether to use my PS3 as my exclusive dvd/bluray player.

I've had my 360 hooked up to a smallish monitor via vga for so long that i'd forgotten that it was a model that had hdmi output, so when I was unboxing everything after moving into my new house this week I noticed it. So I promptly plugged it in. Only today have I realised that a. i've used up all four HDMI ports on my tv and b. my dvd player (upscaling dvd player with hdmi output) can't be used unless I use either something other than hdmi or buy a hdmi port switcher.

What do you lot reckon?

Buy hdmi port switcher or use my PS3 as my exclusive dvd/bluray player? (which would mean i'd want to buy the harmony adapter, which isn't so bad since it's currently going for £32 online)

EDIT: The four HDMI ports used are 1. Media Center PC 2. PS3 3. 360 4. Freesat PVR.
EDIT2: My tv does have a free VGA port, I suppose I could reconnect the 360 up via VGA instead of HDMI.

Shens

Bolthorn wrote: »

The bolded isn't really an advantage is it? I thought stacking components was generally a bad idea due to the heat these things can generate. My cable box for instance could be used to make tea.

I agree. I almost ruined my receiver by putting my cable box on top of it. It blocked the vents enough that it would heat up and cause the audio to pop. A lot of hardware is using the top for ventilation.

Dehumanized

psychotix wrote: »

PS3 vs standalone is a funny debate. When the PS3 first came out it was as good as most high end players and cheaper. Now it's simply as good as most consumer players and slightly more expensive, but it does not stack up to a lot of the higher end players.

This is worst offender of BR over kill for most people http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/HomeEntertainment/Blu-rayDisc+DVD/EliteBlu-rayDiscPlayers/BDP-09FD

Haha, I like how they highlight that it weighs over thirty pounds as a positive feature.

When it comes to exceptional build quality, the mass of any component is crucial to its ability to deliver sound. That’s why the BDP-09FD exceeds 30 pounds, three times the weight of the typical Blu-ray Disc player available today.

wonderpug

GrimReaper wrote: »

I'm now mulling whether to use my PS3 as my exclusive dvd/bluray player.

I've had my 360 hooked up to a smallish monitor via vga for so long that i'd forgotten that it was a model that had hdmi output, so when I was unboxing everything after moving into my new house this week I noticed it. So I promptly plugged it in. Only today have I realised that a. i've used up all four HDMI ports on my tv and b. my dvd player (upscaling dvd player with hdmi output) can't be used unless I use either something other than hdmi or buy a hdmi port switcher.

What do you lot reckon?

Buy hdmi port switcher or use my PS3 as my exclusive dvd/bluray player? (which would mean i'd want to buy the harmony adapter, which isn't so bad since it's currently going for £32 online)

EDIT: The four HDMI ports used are 1. Media Center PC 2. PS3 3. 360 4. Freesat PVR.
EDIT2: My tv does have a free VGA port, I suppose I could reconnect the 360 up via VGA instead of HDMI.

Do you have free component inputs on your TV? If you just play games on your 360, everything will look just as good through component as it did through HDMI.

As far as the PS3 vs. DVD player, why would you keep your DVD player around? Just so you can use your old remote? The PS3 does a great job of upscaling DVDs.

Zell

The bolded isn't really an advantage is it? I thought stacking components was generally a bad idea due to the heat these things can generate. My cable box for instance could be used to make tea.

If you leave plenty of space around them (and remember the feet makes sure it gets some ventilation above/below) most good components should be fine. Not sure if game consoles would be, but that's why I recommend a standalone for people who needs to conserve space like that.

I'm now mulling whether to use my PS3 as my exclusive dvd/bluray player.

I've had my 360 hooked up to a smallish monitor via vga for so long that i'd forgotten that it was a model that had hdmi output, so when I was unboxing everything after moving into my new house this week I noticed it. So I promptly plugged it in. Only today have I realised that a. i've used up all four HDMI ports on my tv and b. my dvd player (upscaling dvd player with hdmi output) can't be used unless I use either something other than hdmi or buy a hdmi port switcher.

What do you lot reckon?

I don't really like the upscaling on the PS3 (or the XBox 360) so I would say that depends on the DVD player... Connect them both and see which looks better when playing DVDs. If the PS3 looks better the only reason you really have for keeping the DVD player around is the lower noise level.

Well and personally I like having a separate DVD player so I don't have to remove whatever game I'm playing whenever I want to play a movie.

psychotix

Dehumanized wrote: »

psychotix wrote: »

PS3 vs standalone is a funny debate. When the PS3 first came out it was as good as most high end players and cheaper. Now it's simply as good as most consumer players and slightly more expensive, but it does not stack up to a lot of the higher end players.

This is worst offender of BR over kill for most people http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/HomeEntertainment/Blu-rayDisc+DVD/EliteBlu-rayDiscPlayers/BDP-09FD

Haha, I like how they highlight that it weighs over thirty pounds as a positive feature.

When it comes to exceptional build quality, the mass of any component is crucial to its ability to deliver sound. That’s why the BDP-09FD exceeds 30 pounds, three times the weight of the typical Blu-ray Disc player available today.

They make slim Elite players, but they just aren't in the same balpark quality wise. That equipment is for crazies though.

Like this shit

http://www.higherfi.com/audio_speakers/1