Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Actually, it may be a trend to remove decoding capabilities from players when more people start to have AVR that can decode.  It may not be much, but I think we can save on licensing, as it is obvious that now we are paying licence to Dolby and DTS for decoders in Player AND AVR, which is a dupliation of cost.

 

But that's been the case even back in the days of plain DD and DTS: both DVD player and AVR could decode, and people were paying double.  It was maybe only the earlier DVD players which had DD decoding capability (required since it is specified in DVD requirements) but not DTS and could only passthrough DTS as a bitstream where there was no such duplication.

 

I think that most consumers may not realise this, and would baulk if they were told the BD player could not actually decode DD-THD and DTS-MA itself, even though it isn't literally required.  After all, to take it one step further, a manufacturer could do away with analog 7.1 audio outputs as well since bitstream over HDMI takes care of business (and leave maybe only stereo outputs as an alternative to connect direct to TV), thereby saving even more cost by eliminating unnecessary DACs as well as the outputs themselves, but somehow I don't think consumers will understand and will think the product is incomplete or incapable of performing.  Hence this can only be done as a complete HTiB package.

 

Here's an interesting thought then: since we're all fairly savvy HT types here, what if you were offered a player that was an absolute top-of-the-line transport, super-accurate clocking that reduces jitter to a minimum, and a superb video chip (upscaling included for legacy DVDs), with dual-split audio and video HDMI outputs so you connect video directly to display and audio to AVR  -- but no audio decoding capability, i.e. it's left entirely to your AVR.  And let's say it's cheaper than the Oppo and provides equal or better video capability, but obviously not audio, although as pure transport it is equal to those fancy CD transports (for example) and e.g. connecting it to standalone DAC for CD provides results equal to that DAC's matching transport.  Would you bite? 

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I reckon you are describing the new Ooops Lite...

 

 

Here's an interesting thought then: since we're all fairly savvy HT types here, what if you were offered a player that was an absolute top-of-the-line transport, super-accurate clocking that reduces jitter to a minimum, and a superb video chip (upscaling included for legacy DVDs), with dual-split audio and video HDMI outputs so you connect video directly to display and audio to AVR  -- but no audio decoding capability, i.e. it's left entirely to your AVR.  And let's say it's cheaper than the Oppo and provides equal or better video capability, but obviously not audio, although as pure transport it is equal to those fancy CD transports (for example) and e.g. connecting it to standalone DAC for CD provides results equal to that DAC's matching transport.  Would you bite? 

Posted

....Here's an interesting thought then: since we're all fairly savvy HT types here, what if you were offered a player that was an absolute top-of-the-line transport, super-accurate clocking that reduces jitter to a minimum, and a superb video chip (upscaling included for legacy DVDs), with dual-split audio and video HDMI outputs so you connect video directly to display and audio to AVR  -- but no audio decoding capability, i.e. it's left entirely to your AVR.  And let's say it's cheaper than the Oppo and provides equal or better video capability, but obviously not audio, although as pure transport it is equal to those fancy CD transports (for example) and e.g. connecting it to standalone DAC for CD provides results equal to that DAC's matching transport.  Would you bite? 

 

I would bite.

 

In days of analog video (DVD or LD with s-video or composite), I absolutely refuse to pass the video thru the AVR for switching because putting the signal through another device will certainly degrade the signal.  Nowadays with HDMI and all digital signal chain it is more acceptable, and we have no choice now due to the HDMI audio that needs to be extracted from the combined bus, but the idea not being able to pass the pure display data DIRECTLY to a display device is most unacceptable to the purists.

Posted

Something we will definitely look at is the Oops comparison:

 

Lite (BD80) vs regular (BD83) vs SE, and see how much difference the ABT chip makes.

 

With the budget Oops on the market at a price premium, we will see if it is worth the extra dough, esp since the budget budget has alternatives and may not be a big discerning videophile.

Posted

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/blu-ray-players/764-panasonic-bd-60.html

 

This review has similar findings to our shootout:

 

In Use

 

The first thing you will notice with the BD-60 compared to other players (such as a PS3 or an Oppo BDP-83) is that it is a bit slower to boot and load BD-Java than those players are. However, it's quicker and more responsive than some more expensive players that I have tested in the past, and the speed wasn't so slow that I was annoyed by it, it was just slower than my usual player.

 

 

 

My initial test disc was The Dark Knight, which I almost always come back to for it's fantastic image quality and soundtrack. During playback, the Panasonic did not disappoint. The image looked as good as it should, with deep blacks and lots of detail, and the 24p feed was perfect. The BD-60 did a fine job with the audio as well, sending a lossless PCM stream to my receiver with all the thunderous explosions and sound effects that I expect to hear in the film. The Panasonic might lack some of the detailed picture controls that a player like the Oppo will have, but with a pristine source like this, none of those extra controls were needed by me. As I mentioned, the load times were not as quick on this BD-60 as on other players, but responsiveness in the menus was fine, and once the movie started you would not have noticed a difference.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Lets put this into reality, another gathering at the end of Feb or early March?

 

I will be away until then.

Something we will definitely look at is the Oops comparison:

 

Lite (BD80) vs regular (BD83) vs SE, and see how much difference the ABT chip makes.

 

With the budget Oops on the market at a price premium, we will see if it is worth the extra dough, esp since the budget budget has alternatives and may not be a big discerning videophile.

Posted

maybe can also include DVD up-scalling for the 98x series compare to BR player dvd efforts...sure lots of bro's having doubts about selling off the 98x oops ranges and just relying on one do it all box

Posted

Sure if we can get someone with the non-Blu Oopsies... feel free to bring yours.

 

Anyway there are always people who complain about having too many boxes and those who worry about the laser wearing out in a single box solution...

maybe can also include DVD up-scalling for the 98x series compare to BR player dvd efforts...sure lots of bro's having doubts about selling off the 98x oops ranges and just relying on one do it all box

  • 3 months later...
Posted

This is a very important statement and I am just bring up this thread for those considering xxx vs yyy vs zzz players.

 

In summary the video chip makes a difference for large screens, for DVD upscaling but much less for small screens in domestic settings - think flatscreens instead of projectors.

 

For BRs on your TV, the difference is less than the different brands and ads want you to believe.

 

 

definitely no. for bluray movie performance the difference at this size is so small it's insignificant. 

instead, you should simply consider convenience, usability and price factors at this level.

  • 6 months later...
Posted

This was bound to get asked again.

So here is the summary:

For BR Hi Def playback the difference between players is not a lot.

If you are using the HDMI output from the players, again the difference is not a lot. ESP if you have a budget - read less than 5 k system.

If you use the analogue outputs from the player for music to a proper audio system the differences are obvious.

 

Buy what you need.

This is a very important statement and I am just bring up this thread for those considering xxx vs yyy vs zzz players.

 

In summary the video chip makes a difference for large screens, for DVD upscaling but much less for small screens in domestic settings - think flatscreens instead of projectors.

 

For BRs on your TV, the difference is less than the different brands and ads want you to believe.

 

 

  • 10 months later...
Posted

This was bound to get asked again.

So here is the summary:

For BR Hi Def playback the difference between players is not a lot.

If you are using the HDMI output from the players, again the difference is not a lot. ESP if you have a budget - read less than 5 k system.

If you use the analogue outputs from the player for music to a proper audio system the differences are obvious.

 

Buy what you need.

 

To answer questions on whether there are differences between BR players, this thread and another in the audio planet will help...

  • 3 months later...
Posted

This was bound to get asked again.

So here is the summary:

For BR Hi Def playback the difference between players is not a lot.

If you are using the HDMI output from the players, again the difference is not a lot. ESP if you have a budget - read less than 5 k system.

If you use the analogue outputs from the player for music to a proper audio system the differences are obvious.

 

Buy what you need.

To answer the ques: Do Bluray players make a difference ?

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...
To Top