New Blu Ray player test ommission

[admin_exported]

Can you please quote disc loading times in your Blu-Ray reviews in future, I think it's a major factor in purchasing.

I don't want to hang around waiting for a film to load and coming from a PS3 background there is no wait and I expect the same from a new standalone.

thanks

 

[Alec]

It is indeed a major consideration.

 

[daveh75]

Now ya see i dont think it is, couldn't care less how long the disc takes to load. Sq & pq are far more important as far as i'm concerned.I stick the disc in then use the time to stock up on snacks/beers/go an have a smoke or whatever,before settling in for the movie.

Why are people so bloody impatient!

 

[margetti]

daveh75:
Now ya see i dont think it is, couldn't care less how long the disc takes to load. Sq & pq are far more important as far as i'm concerned.I stick the disc in then use the time to stock up on snacks/beers/go an have a smoke or whatever,before settling in for the movie.

Why are people so bloody impatient!

+ 1

 

[professorhat]

Agreed, would you rather the disc loaded in 30 seconds and have average picture and sound for the next 1.5 - 3 hours, or wait another 30 seconds and get fantastic picture and sound for the next 1.5 - 3 hours?

 

[John Duncan]

I'd like both please.

 

[professorhat]

As soon as I clicked post, I knew I'd left myself open to that...

 

[Anonymous]

Why can't they do both? If the PS3 can then they all can, it can't be that hard to design a fast loading, quality player.

 

[Andy Clough]

The new players are getting better, but sometimes it's to do with the amount of BD-Live data the film studios put on the discs. But still, yes, load times clearly need to be faster.

 

[Alec]

JohnDuncan:I'd like both please.

Will BD Live content still make a difference if you have it disabled?

 

[professorhat]

hifi_nut:Why can't they do both? If the PS3 can then they all can, it can't be that hard to design a fast loading, quality player.

My personal belief is that the PS3's quick loading times are down to the cell processor - it's effectively got 8 cores (your average PC / Mac has two at most) and is designed to render some of the best graphics currently available in a games console on the fly - dealing with a few lines of Java code is like asking Superman to fold the laundry.

Unsurprisingly, standalone Blu-Ray players have nowhere near that processor capability and thus loading times are slower. What they are designed to do though is play Blu-Rays and thus, the best ones excel when it comes to actually delivering picture and sound quality.

My main point is therefore, of course it's possible to put in more processing power to speed up the loading times but this will obviously cost money. So would you rather more money was spent on components which improved the picture and sound quality of the main movie, or this money was spent instead on components to make the disc load 30 seconds quicker...

I know which I'd choose.

 

[Alec]

It would cost money but a PS3 isnt that pricey so i wouldnt expect the price of something like my bd30 to rise too far (notwithstanding its a v old model so thats academic lol).

EDIT Oops, BD35...

 

[Anonymous]

The thing that annoyed my about this months review was the fact that the new Pioneer BDP-320 was included in the group test; this is their new mid range blu-ray player and was included in a test consisting of budget players. I therefore wasnt suprised to see it be the best player on test; in fact, i'd have been dissapointed if it wasnt as it costs considerably more than the others.

I think Pioneer's forthcoming BDP-120 would have made it a fair test as it is their budget player and I will be interested to see how it fairs against the cheaper Sony in the near future.

 

[Anonymous]

... You can buy the new Sony BDP-S360 for only £167.00 delivered on the net - A bargain in my opinion!

http://www.1staudiovisual.co.uk/catalog/sony-bdps360-disc-player-p-7820.html?affiliate=33eaff6a8f2e498e990b85306b64c9c4&lcd-plasma-tv-shop=276

 

[Andrew Everard]

andyb1984:The thing that annoyed my about this months review
[SNIP]

I think Pioneer's forthcoming BDP-120 would have made it a fair test as it is their budget player and I will be interested to see how it fairs against the cheaper Sony in the near future.

I think your answer is in the word 'forthcoming'...

 

[Anonymous]

Well that's true; you can't include a player on test if it hasnt been released yet; but I just think its worth mentioning the fact that although the Pioneer is the best player on test it is their mid-range player and costs alot more than the others.

 

[Andrew Everard]

As indeed we did in the test...

 

[Anonymous]

Cheapest I found the Pioneer for so far is £344.00; you can get the Sony for £167.00 ... if my maths serves me right thats more than double the cost and they're both 5 star products ... I know which i'd have thats all i'm saying

 

[Andrew Everard]

Law of diminishing returns, innit...?

 

[Alec]

andyb1984: I know which i'd have thats all i'm saying

Quite. If you could afford it, you would get the more expensive as it still managed 5 stars at that price. Come on, you know how it works!

Unless, of course, you compared the 2 yourself for whatever things are most important to you, and you may decide the more expensive is in fact not sufficiently better for your needs...