[khaos974]

In the DVD era, there was a difference between the players since they did the digital to analog conversion, more expensive players often had a better image quality.

But now I wonder if there is a difference between blu-ray players except for the supported standards. That is to say, if the standards supported (HDMI 1.4, BD Live, 1080p/24 etc...) are the same, is there a difference between a 200$ and and 2000$ player?

As far as I understand, and assuming that you have recent hardware, the digital video signal goes to the A/V receiver and is passed through to the display device without change. The digital audio signal goes to the A/V receiver to be decoded and converted to analog.

Given that, does the A/V receiver simply become an audio component?

Summed up, is a blu-ray player stricly equivalent to a transport assuming that the A/V chain downwards can accept the latest HDMI format?

 

[ozz]

Its like any other video component the ability to deliver the picture in its best form will
vary do to the chips and quality control take a look on AVS Forums under Blu-Ray players
to get an idea of the plus and minus of each brand I feel OPPO delivers the best bang for
the buck currently.

 

[Wsh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 /img/forum/go_quote.gif But now I wonder if there is a difference between blu-ray players except for the supported standards. That is to say, if the standards supported (HDMI 1.4, BD Live, 1080p/24 etc...) are the same, is there a difference between a 200$ and and 2000$ player?

In terms of video quality, no, a blu-ray player is made to output 1080P. Your only bottleneck here is your television.. anything under 48-50" will not benefit from 1080 vs 720.

In terms of features, yes. A sub $200 dollar player usually does not include wi-fi or a large enough internal memory to support the updates needed. Blu-rays unlike DVD's have special features called BD-Live as well as other internal features that thrive on better players that have good internal memory, or such as the PS3 where it has a typical 80GB-120GB hd (mainly for games but well more than enough for the updates required).

Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as I understand, and assuming that you have recent hardware, the digital video signal goes to the A/V receiver and is passed through to the display device without change. The digital audio signal goes to the A/V receiver to be decoded and converted to analog. Given that, does the A/V receiver simply become an audio component?

For the most part. The convenience of the HDMI capability is so that you only need to feed it through one cord, rather than having like Component cables or separate RCA cords spewing from the blu-ray player and into the receiver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khaos974 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Summed up, is a blu-ray player stricly equivalent to a transport assuming that the A/V chain downwards can accept the latest HDMI format?

Most good players that have WI-FI and say, Netflix streaming are more than just 'players'. The streaming factor allows much more capabilities for various other medias. The PS3 for instance can hook into your local network to access music, videos and whatever else, whereas a standard DVD player would not have this feature.

That being said, there's a whole slew of new features you have to consider when buying a bluray player.


At the end of the day, I usually tell people that if you can afford a PS3, just get one. It's at a price point now that's affordable for most HT enthusiasts and its got more bells and whistles than a regular $250-$300 blu-ray player.

 

[plaidplatypus]

I believe the OP is saying: What differences are there beween players that have the same feature set, if the digital to analog conversion is done off player? How important is the BluRay player as a transport?

 

[Pincher]

Having a player with 7.1 analogue out is a nice feature if your A/V receiver does not have an HDMI input.

 

[Wsh]

could always use a toslink /shrug

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

BD player is not as crucial as the receiver IMO. Almost all BD players will send full video and audio signal over HDMI nowadays. Your receiver has to support he HD audio options and your TV should be capable of displaying 1080p.

Video switching and Audio capabilities are very important and play a big part on the end result. I wouldnt spend too much on a BD player unless you really want the extra features. I'd invest more time and effort, and ofcourse money in getting a very good AV receiver with high quality video switching that doesnt affect PQ and support for DTS MA and Dolby HD decoding and 7.1 sound.

 

[Wsh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jilgiljongiljing /img/forum/go_quote.gif BD player is not as crucial as the receiver IMO. Almost all BD players will send full video and audio signal over HDMI nowadays. Your receiver has to support he HD audio options and your TV should be capable of displaying 1080p. Video switching and Audio capabilities are very important and play a big part on the end result. I wouldnt spend too much on a BD player unless you really want the extra features. I'd invest more time and effort, and ofcourse money in getting a very good AV receiver with high quality video switching that doesnt affect PQ and support for DTS MA and Dolby HD decoding and 7.1 sound.

I'm assuming that the OP already has most of the other stuff and was contemplating on the BD hardware itself.

As you said most will have the 'standard' things that come for bluray which is digital outs, 1080p outputs and all that.

But you're right, the receiver should be highly looked at for the decoding. However depending on the player, it can be updated to support all that (ie, the PS3 again has firmware upgrades, out of the box in 2007 it didn't but was updated to support it). This is why I mentioned the importance of having a player that has the internal capabilities to update.

 

[Wsh]

Sorry I know that goes into a totally different conversation between player decoding and the receiver decoding and a WHOLE new thread that could be started with LPCM and all this other crap, lol.

 

[khaos974]

If I understood everything, quality-wise every BR player is the same since decoding will be handled by the receiver. BR players only differ on a basis of functionality. Am I right?

(There is also build quality, user interface, upgradability... but I only wanted to know about image/sound quality).

 

[leftnose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wsh /img/forum/go_quote.gif For the most part. The convenience of the HDMI capability is so that you only need to feed it through one cord, rather than having like Component cables or separate RCA cords spewing from the blu-ray player and into the receiver.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understood to get anything other than 480P output from a Blu-Ray player, you have to use an HDMI cable because of HDCP. I know when I first connected my PS3 over a year ago that it would not output 1080P through the component cable set. As I recall, there was even a little note in the manual about this (no HD w/o HDMI because of HDCP).

 

[Wsh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leftnose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Correct me if I'm wrong but I understood to get anything other than 480P output from a Blu-Ray player, you have to use an HDMI cable because of HDCP. I know when I first connected my PS3 over a year ago that it would not output 1080P through the component cable set. As I recall, there was even a little note in the manual about this (no HD w/o HDMI because of HDCP).

Yes you are correct. However it's more of an issue with your input (tv)/output (ps3) rather than the cord itself. HDCP requires that you use an HDCP compliant input/output, however you can also use a DVI cord.

You could test out the PS3-Component Cables and see if it will up to a 1080i resolution (for bluray, not dvd).. technically it shoud work but I haven't tested this scenario for myself.

 

[Pincher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wsh /img/forum/go_quote.gif You could test out the PS3-Component Cables and see if it will up to a 1080i resolution (for bluray, not dvd)..

I was under the impression component can only do 480. Anything higher would have to be HDMI, correct?

 

[leftnose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pincher /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was under the impression component can only do 480. Anything higher would have to be HDMI, correct?

Technically, component video cables can carry 1080P video but, as above, it's up to the output/input devices whether they will transmit 1080P over component cables.

 

[leftnose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wsh /img/forum/go_quote.gif You could test out the PS3-Component Cables and see if it will up to a 1080i resolution (for bluray, not dvd).. technically it shoud work but I haven't tested this scenario for myself.

I only used the component cables on the PS3 for about a week (left over cable from my PS2) until I got my HDMI cable from Monoprice but, as I recall, it would display 480P/1080i.