*** 4K Player Thread ***

I was all ready to take the plunge with the Panasonic when I read this review
https://www.avforums.com/review/samsung-ubd-k8500-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player-review.12516

and the extra £170 difference plus the fact I picked up Mad Max for a tenner made me go with the Samsung UHD Player. Not regretting it I`m blown away with the UHD HDR picture and it plays X265 files fine. So far got UHD Blurays of Deadpool, The Martian, Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness, Mad Max, and ID4. Coupled with my new Denon Dolby Atmos Amp just need a day or so with no kids and then ramp up that sound. Only watched Star Trek (and tested The Martian) and picture quality is amazing.

Also nice that UHD discs are region free.

At present there is only one alternative to the K8500 and that's the Panasonic DMP-UB900. However the two players are very different and are largely aimed at entirely different segments of the market. The K8500 is a plug and play option with limited choices in terms of connections and setup. That makes it ideal for those who just want to enjoy Ultra HD Blu-ray with the minimum of fuss. Whilst the UB900, with its THX certification and audiophile components, is aimed more at the enthusiast who wants plenty of controls to tweak. The UB900 reflects it higher-end status in its price, costing more than the K8500 at £599, and also it's overall build quality. We should point out that neither player supports Dolby Vision, so if you feel that might be important to you then you'll have to wait until later this year for suitably capable players.

However when playing back Ultra HD Blu-rays both are great players and both are capable of delivering HDR content to the display's native capabilities. The UB900 may just have the edge with its chroma up sampling and ability to down-convert HDR to non-HDR devices slightly more accurately. However many consumers will actually prefer the slightly more contrasty down-conversion of the K8500 and will probably be more than happy to save themselves the £170 price difference to spend on UHD blu-ray discs. Although in the freebie stakes you get the Ultra HD Blu-ray of The Martian included with the K8500, whilst the UB900 comes with Mad Max: Fury Road and San Andreas. However you certainly won't be disappointed if you decide to buy the Samsung UBD-K8500 and the player's user-friendly nature means you can just sit back and enjoy all that Ultra HD Blu-ray has to offer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ov_sjo said:
The few reviews i've read i've read say it's not massively different. I'll be getting the Panasonic though (or whatever its replacement will be) as i'm just an elitist snob.
Click to expand...

"However, this Panasonic Ultra HD Blu-ray player has emerged as the clear winner, proving to be far more than just proficient. It has delivered a devastating first blow and issued a challenge to all who dare."

"Sadly for Samsung, it lags behind the Panasonic at every turn"

http://www.whathifi.com/panasonic/dmp-ub900/vs-samsung-ubd-k8500/review
 
deuse said:
"However, this Panasonic Ultra HD Blu-ray player has emerged as the clear winner, proving to be far more than just proficient. It has delivered a devastating first blow and issued a challenge to all who dare."

"Sadly for Samsung, it lags behind the Panasonic at every turn"

http://www.whathifi.com/panasonic/dmp-ub900/vs-samsung-ubd-k8500/review
Click to expand...

When it comes to the core business of actually playing a UHD Bluray, they're pretty much on a par. The Panasonic has more bells and whistles and connectivity but, if you just want the basics, the Samsung offers pretty equivalent image quality for half the price.
 
Vertigo1 said:
When it comes to the core business of actually playing a UHD Bluray, they're pretty much on a par. The Panasonic has more bells and whistles and connectivity but, if you just want the basics, the Samsung offers pretty equivalent image quality for half the price.
Click to expand...


We will agree to disagree.
I prefer the bells and whistles and a better picture and I don't mind paying for it. What's the point of having second best?
 
deuse said:
We will agree to disagree.
I prefer the bells and whistles and a better picture and I don't mind paying for it. What's the point of having second best?
Click to expand...

The cost, lol.

Some people dont want to compromise. Some people are happy to do so when you're saving a significant amount of money.

What sort of difference is there, anyway? is there a decent review i can have a read of? I'm not including whathifi of course, who seem to think that two two players sound significantly different even when bitstreaming the same content....:o
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
The cost, lol.

Some people dont want to compromise. Some people are happy to do so when you're saving a significant amount of money.

What sort of difference is there, anyway? is there a decent review i can have a read of? I'm not including whathifi of course, who seem to think that two two players sound significantly different even when bitstreaming the same content....:o
Click to expand...

Lots of reviews out there on Google.

Most people have had that feeling "god I wish I went with the better player now :("
If your paying a premium for your TV to watch 4K and HDR then why not get the best player at this time?

There is a reason the Samsung is cheap.
 
It's a preference, deuse. Most people are happy to compromise a little to save a lot. and compared to the move from 1080p to 4k, the difference between the players themselves are minute.

Lots of reviews out there on Google.
Click to expand...

Yes i'm perfectly capable of looking myself. I was asking if you knew of any decent reviews.


Nevermind.
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
It's a preference, deuse. Most people are happy to compromise a little to save a lot. and compared to the move from 1080p to 4k, the difference between the players themselves are minute.



Yes i'm perfectly capable of looking myself. I was asking if you knew of any decent reviews.


Nevermind.
Click to expand...

I did post one but you never wanted to read it. It could be claimed I'm being biased.
"the difference between the players themselves are minute" so you've had a play with both then?

http://www.trustedreviews.com/panasonic-dmp-ub900-review
http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-ubd-k8500-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player-review

All I can say that the Panasonic is doing HDR great on my TV. And those reviews from the same site back me up.
I do hope no one has bought a sidelite TV as HDR will be crap.
 
Last edited:
deuse said:
I did post one but you never wanted to read it. It could be claimed I'm being biased.
"the difference between the players themselves are minute" so you've had a play with both then?

http://www.trustedreviews.com/panasonic-dmp-ub900-review
http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-ubd-k8500-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player-review

All I can say that the Panasonic is doing HDR great on my TV. And those reviews from the same site back me up.
I do hope no one has bought a sidelite TV as HDR will be crap.
Click to expand...

The Panasonic is just superb with great picture quality and HDR on our TV. Plus it gets very good support with firmware upgrades.

A couple more reviews for the two:

https://www.avforums.com/review/panasonic-dmp-ub900-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player-review.12538

https://www.avforums.com/review/samsung-ubd-k8500-4k-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player-review.12516

We both made the right choice.
 
I'm sorry but WhatHIFI shouldnt be referenced in any serious A/V discussion. explain to me how two different players can sound different when all they are doing is bitstreaming content straight off the disc to the amp then you might have a point. Otherwise...nope. They could have been using the analogue outputs of course, in which case a difference may well be expected but of course they neglect to mention this rather important detail so you can only assume they are using HDMI for everything.

It could be claimed I'm being biased.
Click to expand...
I haven't claimed you are anything, don't take it there. I asked you if you knew of a decent review, that's all.

All I can say that the Panasonic is doing HDR great on my TV.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you are happy with it :)

And those reviews from the same site back me up.
Click to expand...

Really? Trustedreviews doesnt mention the audio being different at all ? But then, the samsung doesnt have analogue outputs. What does that show you? That its important to mention what outputs you are using when making claims like :
"Sadly for Samsung, it lags behind the Panasonic at every turn. Voices often have a hard edge to them, as do sound effects, which dynamically are a little flat. Meanwhile, the Panasonic’s sound is richer and fuller-bodied, with more subtlety and detail, making for a more substantial sound.
Click to expand...

so what's the deal? did WhatHIFI compare the panasonics analogue output to hdmi on the samsung? Is that fair? and if that's the case, why did they consider the panasonics analogue output to be superior?

There's a reason for those omissions, which is why nobody should take WhatHIFI seriously.
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
I'm sorry but WhatHIFI shouldnt be referenced in any serious A/V discussion. explain to me how two different players can sound different when all they are doing is bitstreaming content straight off the disc to the amp then you might have a point. Otherwise...nope. They could have been using the analogue outputs of course, in which case a difference may well be expected but of course they neglect to mention this rather important detail so you can only assume they are using HDMI for everything.


I haven't claimed you are anything, don't take it there. I asked you if you knew of a decent review, that's all.



I'm glad you are happy with it :)



Really? Trustedreviews doesnt mention the audio being different at all ? But then, the samsung doesnt have analogue outputs. What does that show you? That its important to mention what outputs you are using when making claims like :
Click to expand...

Please read my post. I said it COULD be claimed not you claimed.
Oh you missed a bit off the Samsung review "Panasonic rival offers superior pictures" ;)
 
dues back down a bit. This isnt an argument, its a discussion.


deuse said:
Please read my post. I said it COULD be claimed not you claimed.
Click to expand...

I know what you said. Why the hostility? The point is nobody said that before you mentioned it. Nobody's pointing fingers at you so there's no need to take it there.

Oh you missed a bit off the Samsung review "Panasonic rival offers superior pictures" ;)
Click to expand...

And you missed the bit of the AV Forums samsung review that said "Perfect Playback".

Again, this isnt about which one is the better player. I think you're still missing the point somewhere. I'm not going to continue, pointless. You just need to accept that the differences between to the two to some people is outweighed by the cost difference between to the two, and for those people that's enough to sway the choice one way or the other.

(perhaps) surprisingly few are as uncompromising and willing to spend as much on those gains as you are.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom