Behind times. Blu-Ray?

Hawkeye · February 2008

OK, I have to admit it. I'm not a big tweaker and don't follow the trends in HT. But I think it's time for me to upgrade my dvd player to what I think is the format of the future which is Blu Ray. I got busted on the Beta/VHS mess and have been sitting on the sidelines.

What I'm looking for is a player in the $1000-1500 range. If less, all the better.

I don't know about all this HDMI 1. whatever and not sure if I need to. What I have now is:

B&K Ref 30
B&K Ref 7250
Denon DVD2900 dvd player
LG 50" Plasma

I don't plan on upgrading any of the above and would like suggestions for a player in equal quality to the above equipment.

Thanks, Gordo

cheddar · February 2008

Blu-ray players are generally in the sub $500 range. The current Panasonic BD-30 and the soon to be released BD-50 being good examples of players with the latest options that will allow you to be somewhat "future-proof" going forwards (wait for the BD-50 if you can). There are lots of threads on this forum discussing the details if you search for them.

The more expensive players coming out from the likes of Denon will be in the $1500-$2000 range. What you get for the extra $1000-$1500 is the realta video processor. This is the big brother to the much talked about reon chip which does dvd-upconversion to a high-def pixel count. However, the realta is supposed to be able to tweak the last bit of picture greatness from even a 1080p signal if you absolutely have to have the best.

Otherwise, you should be looking much lower than your price range.

cheddar · February 2008

Here's a recent thread to get you started:

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63704

rskarvan · February 2008

Here is my equipment:

Krell Amp & Preamp
Thiel 3.6 Speakers
Denon DVD 3300 Player
Samsung 50" Plasma

I went with the Sony BDP S300 and am very happy with the results in 1080p.

I think when it comes to Blue Ray... you don't have to have the very best. The very bottom is still VERY GOOD.

Rike255 · February 2008

I'll still recommend the PS3 as the most fully featured, best bang for your buck player out there. Read into it though it really depends on what you want to do.

I find the Ps3 to be a great media server. Coupled with BD movies and games and you really can't go wrong.

fumoffu · February 2008

What features might you want?
How can you connect the video and audio?
Do you care much for commentary or "online" features?

My guess is that you will connect to your plasma with a HDMI cable and run 6 channel audio to your pre-amp? If that is the case you may be interested in one with the ability to decode DTS-MA and DD-TrueHD internally with a good DAC?

Imperitor · February 2008

PS3! One of the only blu-ray payers that they update regularly, and it can do so much more!
All for only $399.

ryanjoachim · February 2008

The PS3 is useless to people who actually want the highest sound quality they can currently get...like me!

cheddar · February 2008

ryanjoachim wrote: »

The PS3 is useless to people who actually want the highest sound quality they can currently get...like me!

The ps3 can internally decode and transmit to a receiver/pre-pro via HDMI multichannel TrueHD and uncompressed LPCM which are two of the three highest quality 'lossless' sound formats available on blu-ray. It can also decode the core DTS track of DTS HD-MA tracks and will probably be able to decode the extended lossless part via firmware update.

Over at AVS, the ps3 has a very good reputation for SACD playback and CD playback via HDMI.

I believe 'useless' is a bit strong to describe such a quality piece of AUDIO and video equipment...;)

Rike255 · February 2008

Ya you'll be hard pressed to find a Blu-Ray player which outperforms the PS3 on the market now. Basically the only shortcoming is it's inability to decode DTS HD-MA internally or bitstream HD audio. In the future we'll find support for HD-MA anyways which makes bitstreaming unnecessary in the first place.

Oh I should also mention that the majority of players out can't decode HD-MA so it isn't limited to the PS3. Even less can output it via bitstream.

fumoffu · February 2008

The B&K Ref 30 does not have HDMI for mulichannel-PCM audio so the PS3 would be a poor choice for OP. He will need a player with multi-channel analog output.

cheddar · February 2008

Which is why I recommended that waiting for the Panny BD-50 might be in his best interest...both for present and future needs...

Rike255 · February 2008

Oh ya you're right fumoffu. No HDMI... too bad really the PS3 is great!

Hawkeye · February 2008

Thanks folks,

Reading through these posts I got a little nugget of info from each.

Yes, I want to hook HDMI from player to TV and 6 analog from player to my Pre.

I'm still looking into this DTS-MA and DD-TrueHD thing. My uneducated guess is it is a form of sound reproduction like my old DTS and DD?

I am really out of the loop on this stuff. Used to be into HT but the 2 channel thing kinda took over.

Thanks again for the help.

Gordo

cheddar · February 2008

Yes, it's just like DTS and DD for DVD. There are three versions of 'lossless' audio for blu-ray. TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio, and uncompressed LPCM. They are all supposed to reproduce the original studio master without a loss in quality due to compression. TrueHD and DTS-HD MA code and compress the signal to fit in a smaller space on the disk. This was especially necessary with HD-DVD as there was a limited space available on the disk compared with blu-ray (Transformers didn't even have a lossless track on hd-dvd because they wanted to put supplementary materials on the disk). With blu-ray, the extra compression is not always necessary as there is more space (50GB vs. 30GB dual layer). So many studios just put the uncompressed LPCM track on their disks. All three should sound exactly the same and ultimately depend on the quality of the original master and the bitrate/sampling of the final encode. There is an alphabet soup of stuff underneath these big three. I wouldn't pay much attention to them as studios should increasingly use the 'lossless' tracks now that many won't have to worry about the space requirements on an hd-dvd disk anymore.

SLOCOOKN · February 2008

cheddar wrote: »

Yes, it's just like DTS and DD for DVD. There are three versions of 'lossless' audio for blu-ray. TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio, and uncompressed LPCM. They are all supposed to reproduce the original studio master without a loss in quality due to compression. TrueHD and DTS-HD MA code and compress the signal to fit in a smaller space on the disk. This was especially necessary with HD-DVD as there was a limited space available on the disk compared with blu-ray (Transformers didn't even have a lossless track on hd-dvd because they wanted to put supplementary materials on the disk). With blu-ray, the extra compression is not always necessary as there is more space (50GB vs. 30GB dual layer). So many studios just put the uncompressed LPCM track on their disks. All three should sound exactly the same and ultimately depend on the quality of the original master and the bitrate/sampling of the final encode. There is an alphabet soup of stuff underneath these big three. I wouldn't pay much attention to them as studios should increasingly use the 'lossless' tracks now that many won't have to worry about the space requirements on an hd-dvd disk anymore.

Cheddar,

I always enjoy reading your posts. You may have info contrary to what some one else know or say. You keep in civil and informative. Thanks for all the info and keeping it cool!

Thanks,

Steve

cheddar · February 2008

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

Cheddar,

I always enjoy reading your posts. You may have info contrary to what some one else know or say. You keep in civil and informative. Thanks for all the info and keeping it cool!

Thanks,

Steve

Thanks for the kind words. It's great to be able to help out fellow polkies. This high-def format change is often confusing to navigate, especially with all the inaccurate stuff that makes its way out 'cause of the format war. I'm not always right (like when I thought that all hdmi 1.3 equipment would be able to bitstream the lossless formats, who knew they'd make a chip that couldn't do it and put it in the ps3...:rolleyes:) But as much as possible, I've tried to keep things civil and accurate. I don't think I've done too bad even more than a year ago:

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=570944&postcount=8

I can only hope that I've helped people sort through all the confusing info out there at times...:)

fumoffu · February 2008

cheddar wrote: »

This was especially necessary with HD-DVD as there was a limited space available on the disk compared with blu-ray (Transformers didn't even have a lossless track on hd-dvd because they wanted to put supplementary materials on the disk). With blu-ray, the extra compression is not always necessary as there is more space (50GB vs. 30GB dual layer).

Yes! Kick the dead dog whiles all the nails are being rapidly fired into the coffin! HD-DVD sucks and every blu-ray disc contains loss-less audio because blu-ray rulez

I don't like LPCM because it doesn't have meta-data and it's a little crude and raw packaging, it can cause some problems. But this is beside the point.

To the OP: I think every player does TrueHD and PCM. So the DTS-MA is a feature to look for!

cheddar · February 2008

fumoffu wrote: »

I don't like LPCM because it doesn't have meta-data and it's a little crude and raw packaging, it can cause some problems.

Could you be more specific? Most players can't pass TrueHD (bitstream) to a receiver/pre. They must decode it internally and pass it on to the receiver/pre as PCM information anyways. What is the drawback in having the PCM signal never compressed in the first place?

fumoffu · February 2008

cheddar wrote: »

Could you be more specific? Most players can't pass TrueHD (bitstream) to a receiver/pre. They must decode it internally and pass it on to the receiver/pre as PCM information anyways. What is the drawback in having the PCM signal never compressed in the first place?

There are many ways to transmit the audio besides that PCM over HDMI. I myself have both HD-DVD, blu-ray player, and my receiver all playing nicely with streaming HBR.

PCM contains to meta-data. You lose dialog normalization, midnight mode, ES/EX flag. I also believe that PCM does not have a built in down mixing of channels unlike the DD, DTS stuff. So for example mapping a 7.1 mix to a 5.1 causes missing information. I really just like when DD-TrueHD-EX and DTS-HD MSTR ES light up on my receiver and I don't have to guess what matrixing mode to use. Very little has been talked about DD-TrueHD EX, but it's there. If you have played a title with a DD+EX track but used the TrueHD is probably had EX encoded into it. But you wouldn't know that doing PCM!

cheddar · February 2008

As I said before, most players out there can't bitstream HBR (high bit rate) audio and decode it internally before sending it to the receiver. The PCM signal that comes from the player has all the information necessary to process it on the receiver side. With the rare receivers/pre's out there that can accept a bitstream from a player, they will uncompress the signal into PCM on the receiver/pre side and apply processing to the signal after decoding.

But its PCM that the receiver/pre works with even if the coded bitstream (lights up) the proper lights on bitstream capable ones initially. My pre applies all sorts of processing to even non HBR (high-def) audio signals to matrix in surround channels. And it doesn't depend on getting it in TrueHD and DTS-HD MA first. I think you are confusing the compression/decompression process with adding some significant sound information to the studio master. TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are primarily compression/decompression processes of an original signal. They don't make digital processing on the signal possible in the first place.

Hawkeye · February 2008

Yep, been gone way too long. Sounds like a different language you guys are speaking!! Keep at it. I like to stretch my brain trying to figure out what's going on.

I must say, the tone on this board has gotten better than when I stopped coming here about 2-3 years ago. It got kinda brutal at times and I appreciate the patience and simple explanations as I make the move back into my HT.

Gordo

cheddar · February 2008

Gordo,

Good to hear you're excited to be back in the game. You're in for a real treat in audio and video goodness with hi-def.

We're just talking about audio processing by the receiver or pre/pro to use different surround formats. You will find that most blu-rays out there are encoded with 5.1 discreet channels of sound, meaning that each speaker in a Left, Center, Right, Surround Left, Surround Right, Subwoofer, set-up will have surround information specifically recorded for it. New set-ups use one or two surround back channels with the potential for 6.1 or 7.1. However, most current hi-def titles are only encoded at 5.1. So the receiver/pre/pro must 'matrix' in the extra two speakers using the 5.1 data if it wants to use all its speakers. Newer tracks are coming out all the time (see titles from the New Line studio, for example) that have actual 7.1 information, so the extra processing is unnecessary.

fumoffu · February 2008

cheddar wrote: »

As I said before, most players out there can't bitstream HBR (high bit rate) audio and decode it internally before sending it to the receiver. The PCM signal that comes from the player has all the information necessary to process it on the receiver side. With the rare receivers/pre's out there that can accept a bitstream from a player, they will uncompress the signal into PCM on the receiver/pre side and apply processing to the signal after decoding.

But its PCM that the receiver/pre works with even if the coded bitstream (lights up) the proper lights on bitstream capable ones initially. My pre applies all sorts of processing to even non HBR (high-def) audio signals to matrix in surround channels. And it doesn't depend on getting it in TrueHD and DTS-HD MA first. I think you are confusing the compression/decompression process with adding some significant sound information to the studio master. TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are primarily compression/decompression processes of an original signal. They don't make digital processing on the signal possible in the first place.

The PCM signal ONLY contains the PCM data and to meta-data! No EX flag, and no dialog normalization level! You appear to be confused on this!

I have never said the PCM data is different. The level of play back my be, but it's the same data.

Dolby Midnight mode requires the dialog normalization meta-data! This is why on most receivers you can't apply it to non DD signals! It needs this information to compress the dynamics of the sound.

My receiver has all kinds of processing too. But if a stream is encoded with EX technology I want to use DD EX to decode it to 6.1 channels! I don't want to use Prologic IIx or Neo:6. The HBR includes the meta data which tell my receiver that it's EX or ES encoded. Then my receiver automatically applies it! Yea I could apply it manually, but I'm lazy. I never new that DD-TrueHD have EX encoding on it before HBR.

ryanjoachim · February 2008

Calmness is key, young one!

cheddar · February 2008

fumoffu wrote: »

My receiver has all kinds of processing too. But if a stream is encoded with EX technology I want to use DD EX to decode it to 6.1 channels! I don't want to use Prologic IIx or Neo:6. The HBR includes the meta data which tell my receiver that it's EX or ES encoded. Then my receiver automatically applies it! Yea I could apply it manually, but I'm lazy. I never new that DD-TrueHD have EX encoding on it.

I think I understand what you're saying. If you use one of the few receiver/pre/pros out there that can accept a bitstream, it automatically engages the EX/ES/etc. mode for you so you don't have to enter it manually. It also has some advantages to some extra DD processing that your processor is capable of. Understood.

This will vary by receiver/pre/pro model. My pre, for example, allows the user to pre-program surround formats by input and signal received. But I do understand where you are coming from...;)

SKsolutions · February 2008

I believe this thread must be treated in some way. . . .

It is most definitely flame retardant.

Is it a spray. . . or a roll on?

Behind times. Blu-Ray?

Comments