Best Blu-ray player up to £400. Only film sound and picture quality important.

[aliEnRIK]

With regards to HDMI information, the only known difference between components will be the jitter value.

 

[strapped for cash]

With regards to HDMI information, the only known difference between components will be the jitter value.

Maybe, but a HDMI cable isn't the only link in the chain between source and reproduction.

Did this same debate occur with regard to DVD players? Cables aside, I don't see what's so different about Blu-ray. Both devices are designed to deliver digital information. Perhaps the greater resolution of Blu-ray means differences in performance are less marked, but there will inevitably be differences between players.

 

[Anonymous]

Simply because those parts sit between the disc and television in the image processing chain, not to mention the fact that the TV uses its own picture processing technology. It can never be the case that "what you see on the TV is what's on the disc." Even you would accept that the Pana V20 you owned introduced image processing anomalies (as does any other TV).

All audio visual technologies are comprised of chains that transport stored information (whether analogue or digital). No two chains are completely identical, even if they are made up of exactly the same products. There are simply too may variables at work, including the environment of reproduction, for this to be possible.

I've read widely on the myth of perfect fidelity from both a cultural and technological standpoint, so hopefully these claims are better informed than simple conjecture.

Anyway, I'm not having a go, Max, which I hope you appreciate...

the thought never crossed my mind

 

[Anonymous]

Generally speaking in hifi there are 2 main camps. Believers and sceptics. Now im not saying your either one or the other, simply that generally speaking most people gravitate towards one or the other

For example

I see genuine differences with BLU RAY playback between my oppo 95, S370 and PS3 on my not very high end Sony 46W5500

Ive seen reports like posted above where people (A group of people) couldnt tell differences on much bigger screens

Why is this? I could say everyone in the test/s have bad eyesight - but as that seems to upset many (Because we all know everyone has perfect vision

). So lets talk about believers and sceptics

A believer (like me) will have -

A mains conditioner (I actually have 2 mains conditioners and a balanced mains transformer). A decent rack (Atacama and rubber feet inbetween the rack and the equipment). A decent HDMI cable (Van Den Hul). Decent mains cables (Like Russ Andrews, mine are copies). Fully calibrated equipment (Both camps should have this regardless)

A sceptic will have -

Dirty mains. Cheapest cables you can buy (or came free with the equipment). Equipment on anything (On each other in a lot of cases).

Lets just assume for a moment that the believers are correct. That to see genuine differences and have the eyes capable of seeing genuine differences that you NEED a clean mains supply, a well made HDMI cable and something half decent to sit the equipment on.

Perhaps, just perhaps, THAT is why people cant tell a difference (Including the online tests, and especially online tests done by sceptics)

Someone also mentioned that 1080P 24Hz pics should be the same off of any bluray player. But ive read that the sony S5000 goes through picture filters regardless of settings. Im no believer in filters, the signal should be as clean as possible to my mind, as any change might make some pics look better, but it will 'always' be at detriment to some others (And not as the director intended either way).

My Oppo 95, PS3 and S370 dont use any filters that im aware of, and I can see genuine differences watching blurays. Nothing major - not that old chestnut 'night and day', but subtle differences ive noticed over time.

yes there are believers and non believers and that's fine.

what i don't get is how some of the differences that believers claim to see/hear can be there? believing is one thing, but explaining is another.

i've been waiting for years for somewone to explain to me why hdmi cable a may be better than b, why speaker cable a may be better than b, blu-ray players etc, how? why? what causes these differences that some claim to easily see/hear?

answers on a postcard to ........

 

[BenLaw]

With regards to HDMI information, the only known difference between components will be the jitter value.

Maybe, but a HDMI cable isn't the only link in the chain between source and reproduction.

Did this same debate occur with regard to DVD players? Cables aside, I don't see what's so different about Blu-ray. Both devices are designed to deliver digital information. Perhaps the greater resolution of Blu-ray means differences in performance are less marked, but there will inevitably be differences between players.

Also not having a go but the difference is obvious. With blu ray there is digital information for 1920 x 1080 pixels. At any one time that info is read and transmitted to the display showing 1920 x 1080 pixels. With DVD data needs to be 'guessed' or generally added.

Rik - can you explain any more about the Sony having processing hard wired in? And are you saying that if there were 2 players with no processing they would give different images?

 

[Cookie Monster]

There was a great review for the new Denon1600 series BD player in HCC. For those out there using a PS3 i changed the mains cable for a £35 one and the BD playback difference was 'night and day'. Personally i wouldn't change my Sony BDP-S370 but would love to 'play' comparisons with other players.

Nice to see the digital argument has started. Surely that means that all BD players sound the same when attached through the same amp - only digital afterall! Yet we all know they don't!

Can really tell a difference between kit and cannot understand why others cannot. Really wish i knew why.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Rik - can you explain any more about the Sony having processing hard wired in? And are you saying that if there were 2 players with no processing they would give different images?

The sony was tested elsewhere and they caim the the conclusion that extra processing must be goin on within the unit

and yes, im saying that even without filters there are visual differences (probably down to varying degrees of jitter)

 

[bigboss]

It's easy to blame everything on jitter. I'm yet to find any evidence that jitters cause audiovisual differences. Yes, it may show up on meters when testing, but that's about it.

Did anyone see the Derren Brown show which came a couple of weeks ago, about faith healers? It just shows how influential the power of suggestion can be. Here's the link for those who haven't seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOnc-5Ci6vY&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fresults%3Fsearch_query%3Dderren%2Bbrown%2Bmiracles%2Bfor%2Bsale%26aq%3Df&has_verified=1

So there are 3 types here; those who can't see any difference (this includes all those blind testers I mentioned before), those who can see a difference, & those who think they can see a difference (until they're disproved by blind testing).

 

[Anonymous]

So there are 3 types here; those who can't see any difference (this includes all those blind testers I mentioned before), those who can see a difference, & those who think they can see a difference (until they're disproved by blind testing).

I think this perfectly sumarises all of these somewhat tiring debates on here... This matter will be discussed to death and there will always be people claiming to know better than others. Not that this thread is uncivil in any way but with the way that these threads tend to go, ending up in the thread being locked with the final words of a believer (AE), it makes it all very repetative and boring.

My opinion... I think these debates should have their own thread so that people wanting an answer to their original question actually have a chance of getting some useful information rather than page after page of what can be sumed up in the above quoted statement.

For someone currently in the market for a new BDP, I find that I have to sift through a lot of the same old information that quite franky doesn't help me in making my decision, to find the posts that are actually answering the original question.

 

[Andrew Everard]

ending up in the thread being locked with the final words of a believer (AE)

I'm not quite sure what the blanket term 'believer' means in the above, but threads only get locked when they veer off topic and descend into ever decreasing circles.

I think these debates should have their own thread

That would be a riveting read, wouldn't it?

 

[Anonymous]

Believer being someone who believes that they see or hear a difference. This includes the two sub-catagories of "those who can see a difference, & those who think they can see a difference (until they're disproved by blind testing)". I am not commenting either way as to who is right or wrong, but going on my definition as above, you are a "believer" Andrew, as you claim to hear and see differnces in kit that some would say do not exist. Perhaps a different choice of terminology would be more suitable but I hope I have clarified with my explination.

I recognise that most people who contribute to these debates do so in a somewhat tentative way as it is a touchy subject and people want to avoid the locking of the thread. I think it's a shame when a thread gets derailed and as a result locked without the original poster's question being suitably answered though. I am not for a second criticising the locking of threads, more the predictable debate that all to often overtakes what could otherwise be a very interesting and informative thread.

I personally wouldn't bother reading a specific believer versus non believer thread, but it would serve the purpose of leaving those who want to debate the topic to do so without imposing on threads that in my opinion would be better without these debates.

 

[sheehanjuk]

Personally I hope WHF includes some of old reference high-end bluray players vs the new models in the upcoming issue eg Denon 2500T or Cambridge.

It seems alot of people here mostly only really care for picture quality and sound quality with their bluray players rather than skype and all the other current add-ons bar.. eerr bar wireless internet.

Finally reference to sound quality via analogue interconnects would be nice. I 'assume' sound quality is normally tested via hdmi into a av amp but this isnt usually very clear.

Fingers crossed..

 

[Anonymous]

Personally I hope WHF includes some of old reference high-end bluray players vs the new models in the upcoming issue eg Denon 2500T or Cambridge.

Would be good, but I can't see it happening... Sales for older players such as the 2500BT can't be very high compared to modern, feature packed players. I would as a result expect the What Hi-Fi reviews to reflect this.

 

[strapped for cash]

It seems reasonable to state that the WHF review team are of the opinion that there are differences between Blu-ray players, or high end models would receive poor reviews judged against cheaper rivals.

It's unfair to expect the magazine to review models that are no longer commercially available. That said, it would be interesting to know whether the team think an older player, like the 2500BT, is now outclassed by newer and cheaper alternatives?

According to Ronald, this three year old Denon is still the best performer in terms of Blu-ray sound and picture; and if it can be picked up cheaply it might be a real bargain.

 

[BenLaw]

Might be a good idea for a Big Question, rather than a group / super test, which will obviously feature contemporary products.

 

[Anonymous]

What are peoples thoughts of the Marantz UD5005? I can get one for £300 and it looks like a cracking player. How does it compare with other simmilarly priced players for picture & sound quality?

 

[strapped for cash]

Well anyway, I've bought a Denon DVD-2500BT from ebay for £178. If I'm not suitably impressed, I'm blaming Ronald...

 

[Ronald Archiebald]

Well anyway, I've bought a Denon DVD-2500BT from ebay for £178. If I'm not suitably impressed, I'm blaming Ronald...

Ah, yes. I saw that auction and thought to myself....'that's a pretty good price for the buyer'!!

You will not be dissapointed, I assure you.

 

[strapped for cash]

You weren't the seller then! I wondered if you'd been touting your wares on this website?

I came to the conclusion that it's far from catastrophic if I'm underwhelmed. I didn't pay a fortune and I can always sell it on if I decide I'm no better off. It was an online review that described the 2500 as "a jaw dropping upgrade over the PS3" that finally swayed my decision.

Here's hoping I'm happy when it's delivered. I hope it will last, as well, though bulletproof build is clearly one of its selling points. You can never be too sure with second hand goods...

 

[aliEnRIK]

Well anyway, I've bought a Denon DVD-2500BT from ebay for £178. If I'm not suitably impressed, I'm blaming Ronald...

If it works as it should, that is a bargain