Blu ray player advice

psalliss

psalliss

psalliss

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
2,243
Location
lancaster
Currently using a ps3 for blu rays but am looking at getting a stand alone player. Would a decent player provide better picture and sound quality over the ps3 or 4 for that matter.

Also can anyone recommend any players that would offer improvement, was looking at the oppo 103
 
While on this topic!

I don't own a PS3

But i have taken back a Panasonic due to it having a silly off timer fuction that couldn't be turned off (playing iplayer,netflix etc)

And today ended up getting a Sony BDP-S2100 and its worse than the Panasonic :( can't even get it to connect to the internet properly to use the smart features! So taking that back and getting a refund!

So up for a decent spec one £100 that works!!!
 
Lol the ps3 is in no way a reference quality player. When it got released, it was great. And for updates probably nothing will beat it. But an oppo will destroy it for sound and picture.

Must add, I use my ps3 as my blu ray source. Purely down to the fact I'm out of space.

If you have an audio-t branch near you, take your ps3 in with you and ask for a demo of some £400-£500 players, and then try your ps3.
 
Last edited:
I have owned a few bd players over time and I can't speak for the oppo but having viewed bluray on plenty of sony bd players and now own a panasonic bdt500 which Is considered top of the range in its class range.

I can honestly see no big difference In pq or sq, maybe side by side I would but it would be hard.

I like a dedicated player for ease and just prefer gaming and movies on separate devices
 
I kind of didn't think the ps3 was a reference player but I'm no expert. In next 3 months I'll be getting a ps4 and from what I've read it's not as good a player hence looking for a stand alone player as going to re use the ps3 in the bedroom as not really worth selling.

I am quite fussy when it comes to quality hence looking at a good player like the oppo but if it's not significantly better than a decent £200 player will likely just spend that if I'm not happy with ps4
 
Spook187 said:
lolololol

PS3 is not a reference quality player.
Click to expand...

Might want to tell CNET that then?

http://www.cnet.com/uk/how-we-test-blu-ray-players/

Or maybe the guys doing the Criterion collection, but what would they know about films, right?

http://www.gizmag.com/criterion-collections-new-reference-blu-ray-player-a-playstation-3/9823/

The PS3 outputs the picture and sound exactly as it's encoded on the disc, what else would you consider reference when it comes to Blu-ray?

Even a cheap Panasonic low end player is reference

http://forums.hdtvtest.co.uk/index.php?topic=7206.0
 
You do understand what the term reference means I take it ?

I'll break down your first link as a typical example . the cnet site uses the Oppo BDP-83 and the ps3 as "reference players" . I just googled the oppo .....that's a 5 year old blu ray player ..... it was priced at $499 at release . so probably going by uk prices it was £499 . The ps3 5 years ago was probably £300 ( guessing ) .

That's 5 YEARS and those are not even expensive players . A £200 player now will easily be on par or better than both of those . And Anything over £500 will muller them .

that cnet link is way old ...not looking at the other ones
 
Agreed. I'm perfectly happy with the PS3, in fact it's better than the newer Xbox One. I was offered a free Toshiba due to a mate replacing it and couldn't see any difference other than it being slower to read. PQ was not noticeably different to the PS3.

The slim PS3 is good enough for me.
 
ps3 is about as good as anything else out there. with players like the oppo, you arent paying for better video quality over hdmi or better audio bitstreaming (lol). You are paying for the analogue 7.1 outputs, dual hdmi outpus for seperate audio and video, better deinterlacing performance (not an issue for mainstream bluray movie releases but could affect tv series' on bluray), sd (dvd) up-scaling performance and other features.

Can somebody please show us a benchtest showing the ps3 getting its arse handed to it by an oppo, or any player, when playing 1080p over hdmi whilst bitstreaming audio. Anyone?

TALON1973 said:
You do understand what the term reference means I take it ?
Click to expand...

Interesting.

This is what Chris Heinonen of Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity has to say about 'reference'. By the way, I love those guys because they put everything on the bench and really test the gear. No BS:

Why Should You Believe Me?

Since 2010 I have been handling almost all the Blu-ray reviews for Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity and have had nearly three-dozen players come through my hands in that time. I’ve subjected them to countless objective and subjective tests. I’ve even thrown them on a $15,000 HDMI Analyzer to verify that the picture from a cheap player is often 100% identical to an $8,000 player. At this point I can tell you that price and video playback quality are often unrelated. Cheap players often outperform more expensive ones for picture and streaming quality. Often, you’re paying for better CD playback quality or niche features on an expensive player.

Blu-ray players, once high-end playback devices, are now commodity goods and much of the reviewing and testing of them has dropped off. Streaming devices are being tested more often, even though most Blu-ray players include much of that functionality. Since many people still have large DVD or Blu-ray libraries they want to play back, I went out and bought the most popular players to make sure I could provide full reviews to those that are interested.
Click to expand...

Higher-end Alternatives

The videophile reference Blu-ray players have always come from Oppo, and their new BDP-103 is still the popular choice. I mentioned earlier that many high-end players can be worse at video, but the Oppo is reference quality. It costs $500 but adds support for high resolution audio formats (SACD, DVD-Audio, DSD), multichannel and stereo analog audio outputs, and support for many more boutique features like anamorphic lenses, subtitle shift, and multiple HDMI outputs. It even works as an HDMI video processor with a pair of HDMI inputs to scale lower-resolution content to 1080p. The MHL input on the back of the player can be used to add a Roku stick if you desire more streaming content but want to keep it all in a single box.

Here’s the honest truth: 98% of Blu-ray content will look exactly the same as on the Sony BDP-S5100. Most Blu-ray discs are 1080p24 film content or 1080i60 concert videos and TV, and they will look the same on both players.
So why does the Oppo cost more? The Oppo excels with scaling DVD content, audio playback, and those other 2% of titles that cause some players problems. Those problem titles are typically foreign films that aren’t region locked but have odd cadences, poorly encoded titles that have almost vanished from the marketplace, and some content like anime that can have different frame rates. Really, if you need something that the Oppo offers, you probably know that you need it.

Another option is the Sony BDP-S790 for $248. Carried over from 2012, it is Sony’s reference player with dual HDMI outputs and 4K upscaling. It also offers a larger selection of streaming content than the Oppo does, but not the HDMI inputs. It offers some of the best DVD scaling I’ve seen to date and if you have a large DVD collection you may want to take a look. In most cases it will still look and perform identical to the BDP-S5100, but it is your best option if you need a feature like dual HDMI outputs or 4K scaling.

PlayStation?

The PlayStation 3 has always been a popular choice for a Blu-ray player, and continues to have very good performance. The value proposition for it has decreased over time, as Blu-ray players were $500 and up when it was released, but now our pick is only $90. If you also want a video game system, the PlayStation 3 will play back Blu-ray and DVD discs as well as our pick does, but it costs significantly more.
Click to expand...

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-blu-ray-player/

So, Chris says the ps3 is as good as the bdp-s5100, which itself, backed up by Chris's own benchmarks, is as good as the oppo 103. Alright, so it's not a 104, but its close enough.


What have you got to counter that, talon?
 
Last edited:
TALON1973 said:
You do understand what the term reference means I take it ?

I'll break down your first link as a typical example . the cnet site uses the Oppo BDP-83 and the ps3 as "reference players" . I just googled the oppo .....that's a 5 year old blu ray player ..... it was priced at $499 at release . so probably going by uk prices it was £499 . The ps3 5 years ago was probably £300 ( guessing ) .

That's 5 YEARS and those are not even expensive players . A £200 player now will easily be on par or better than both of those . And Anything over £500 will muller them .

that cnet link is way old ...not looking at the other ones
Click to expand...

What on earth does age and price have to do with anything? Reference to me means it outputs the picture/sound as intended as perfectly as possible, both the PS3 and Oppo 83 do this, hence them both being reference quality players.
 
TALON1973 said:
You do understand what the term reference means I take it ?

I'll break down your first link as a typical example . the cnet site uses the Oppo BDP-83 and the ps3 as "reference players" . I just googled the oppo .....that's a 5 year old blu ray player ..... it was priced at $499 at release . so probably going by uk prices it was £499 . The ps3 5 years ago was probably £300 ( guessing ) .

That's 5 YEARS and those are not even expensive players . A £200 player now will easily be on par or better than both of those . And Anything over £500 will muller them .

that cnet link is way old ...not looking at the other ones
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're a sucker for marketing... paying more money doesn't necessarily equal better. If you're going to propose that some other player beats the PS3 when it comes to playing back blue ray then do so objectively - is there a technical reason? Can it be demonstrated and repeated in double blind tests? Or is it just the usual audiophile nonsense...
 
I've calibrated lots of video systems with Blu-ray as a source. In theory they should all look the same since all they're doing is delivering a digital signal that's decoded at the display.....right?

That might be the theory. But in practise things appear to be quite different.

We already know the answer to big question, that there's not a night and day difference. So as far as most viewers are concerned, a Blu-ray player is a Blu-ray player is a Blu-ray player. The pictures look alike enough that the casual viewer won't notice much, if any, difference. So the natural question is where exactly are the differences and how do they show up.

When I'm calibrating I can detect differences using test patterns. These then translate to the picture. They are noticeable in five areas: motion handling; below black; above white; colour contrast; and finally shadow detail (Gamma).

Before going any further, we know that a number of players have adjustable picture controls. I also know from experience that certain players (e.g. Arcams) have a picture profile that means they show significantly more shadow detail than other Blu-ray players. So the idea that the picture comes straight off the disc and is decoded only when it hits the display isn't entirely true. There has to be some processing going on before the signal leaves the player or else it wouldn't be possible to have picture adjustments.

So what are the things I can measure or assess....

Motion handling: This how smooth the panning shots look. Some of this is down to the display of course. But there are players that do handle motion better than others. In general the better the player then the less "jumpy" the frame appear to be when a panning shot occurs.

Below black: Video black is 0 IRE and it's the equivalent of 16 on the PC 0~255 RGB shade scale. Some players can display data in the 0~15 range, some can't, and some can be adjusted to do so, others can but not at the same time as allowing above video white. In theory, below black shouldn't be needed with correctly mastered BD content. But that is only theory; plus it's also useful to know how the player responds.

Above white: This is similar to below black. Video white is set at 235 on the 0~255 scale.

Colour contrast: This is about how well the player maintains the brightness levels between successively brighter shades of each primary colour. Basic players tend to struggle with this. They clip both the dark and the light ends of the spectrum. The result is a loss of detail.

Shadow detail (Gamma): This is what I referred to in the Arcam players.


Some of the adjustments interact, so optimising one thing throws something else out of whack. But getting thing as close as possible means greater detail and better colour range.
 
lucid said:
Before going any further, we know that a number of players have adjustable picture controls. I also know from experience that certain players (e.g. Arcams) have a picture profile that means they show significantly more shadow detail than other Blu-ray players.
Click to expand...

The question is, should that shadow detail be shown, or have they fudged the gamma to give a subjectively 'better' picture, but not actually showing things how it was intended?

I'm sure there are players that have profiles, even ones that set them as default that boost sharpness, contrast, colour etc. Doesn't mean that's how it's supposed to be shown.

The correct setting for most players and in fact most displays is disabling all the extra processing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom