The Ultimate Guide to Blu-ray: have your say!

[lee37]

i jumped onto the blu ray format with a ps3 and i have to say i was not overall impressed. only slight improvement to picture and sound.

i then jumped onto the hd dvd bandwagon and had about 120 films and thought it was excellent and wiped the floor with blu ray.the comparison with upscaled dvd didnt even match.(on a 46" lcd).

at the time i had a sony str 800 receiver and i posted lots of comments about decoding sound through player (ps3 lpcm) and through the receiver to get true hd (ep35 hd dvd). i thought the sound was better through the reciever but nobody seemed to agree even andrew who said it didnt matter about the bitrate and said they sound the same and to use the player to decode.

now nearly 1 1/2 years on and nearly everyone including what hi is saying the receiver is the best for decoding sound. told you andrew. ive been reading what hifi for 22 years now can i have a job ????

now with a sony s360 and a sony 2400es receiver and with about 250 blu ray films i can definetly say that the picture and sound quality is better than dvd and if you cant see it get to specsavers.

i now only watch dvd if i have now choice and sd tv now just looks sad

watching transformers and dark night on blu ray then compaing it to dvd there is no contest, better colours, better sound, clearer picture.

the only critism of blu ray is the lazy transfers of some of the movies, possibly as a money making scheme of the movie studios so they can releas a ultimate version (terminator 2 anyone).

also with true hd and dts hd master sounding excellent where is the 7.1 support or is that coming in the ultimate ultimate directors final cut

and as for the downloads being competition until bt can improve its download spped and stop the 6pm - 10pm botttleneck when there servers cant cope or when they cripple your account when you download over 80gb a month its not going to happen anytime soon

at the end of the day if you have the right equipment then yes its better, playing blu ray on a ps3 whats the point !!

 

[professorhat]

lee37:i jumped onto the blu ray format with a ps3 and i have to say i was not overall impressed. only slight improvement to picture and sound.

I'm surprised you only saw a slight improvement with the picture quality on the PS3 - I guess it depends which discs you used...

lee37:now with a sony s360 and a sony 2400es receiver and with about 250 blu ray films i can definetly say that the picture and sound quality is better than dvd and if you cant see it get to specsavers

... especially given this - I haven't seen the S360, but I use the S550 currently and the difference in picture quality between the S550 and the PS3 is fractional at best. I'd be amazed if the increase in quality between the S550 and the S360 was so great to have completely changed your opinion of Blu-Ray. This makes me sure you must have watched some pretty ropey discs on your PS3 initially.

On the other hand, I'll agree the sound is much better on the Sony BDP-S550 (and thus more than likely the S360), but I'm really not convinced this is primarily down to the fact you can bitstream audio from the stand-alone players and not the PS3. I've read reports here that the difference between decoding onboard and bitstreaming on the new slim PS3 doesn't really improve things massively - I think therefore it's just that the PS3 is not as good with sound quality as the stand alone players. Given its price and that it's not a stand alone player, a compromise is surely warranted somewhere!

lee37:playing blu ray on a ps3 - whats the point !!

I can't agree - because of its other uses, the PS3 is an excellent start into the format for people who are not sure, just as the PS2 provided a start into the DVD format. I used a PS2 as my main DVD player for quite some time because, at the time, I wasn't sure enough of the format to invest a lot of money in a stand alone player. I used my PS3 as my main Blu-Ray player just the same for a while (though not as long as I used the PS2 as a DVD player) - without it, I wouldn't have known just how good a format Blu-Ray was. In that sense, there's a massive point to using the PS3 as Blu-Ray player.

 

[The_Lhc]

shado: I personally do not see the point in replacing my entire DVD collection especially when most of it was not filmed in high definition to begin with,

Sorry for the late reply I've been meaning to pick up on this for a while now:

Are you talking about films or TV shows? If it's films then you're completely wrong. I believe 35mm film has something like 4 times the resolution of FullHD, aloowing for it being an analogue medium, not a digital one.

 

[Tom Moreno]

shado:
I personally do not see the point in replacing my entire DVD collection especially when most of it was not filmed in high definition to begin with, and am more than happy with the upscaling process of my player.

Hmmmnn... I would bet good money that the vast majority of your film collection was filmed on 35mm, which has a higher inherent resolution than Blu-ray (I believe the max res you can get out of a 35mm scan is 4k x 2k). This is one of the main reasons that 40 year old films like the early Bond movies can be re-released on Blu-ray to such stunning effect. The resolution is already in the original film, all it needs is careful touch of remastering to make the colours come out like they did 40 years ago and reduction of other effects that time has on prints.

 

[lee37]

1) i was initially not impressed with the ps3 blu ray quality because i was comparing it to an hd dvd player.

the hd dvd player at the time was better picture than the ps3, look at what hifi reviews for that time and i had about 60 films on both whcich at the time was all the new films when it first came out

i must admit though the ps3 was on par with the xbox360 and hd dvd addon drive. yes i had them all.

2) i originally had the s350 player when it was first released which was an improvement over the ps3 and was on par with the hd dvd player. i now have the s360 which as per what hifi review is a slight improvement over the s350. the sound is the same though.

my opinion of blu ray changed when i got the s350 as it was on spec with the hd dvd player up until then i was routing for the hd dvd camp.

the sound is better due to the sony 2400es receiver . i did have the strg820 and wasnt really impressed with the sound improvement. on the 2400es i did upgrad my speaker and hdmi cables

watch transformers on a hd dvd player then watch it through the ps3 and you will see what i mean regarding picture quality.

if you cant tell the difference between the s550 and the ps3 something is wrong. hdmi cable upgrade maybe

3) solely on a blu ray stance the ps3 is redundant espcially now you can get the s360 for £150 which is cheaper than the slim ps3 (which by the way did not get a good review in what hifi). and an xbox 360 for £150 which is better for games, live etc.

two seperate systems for £50 more with better results on both

i have all of them so yes i can be critical

 

[Anonymous]

Of all the previous formats that have come before, Blueray looks set to be the best investment. The single most important factor with all other formats being replaced so easily is the size of data they represent.

Try downloading a 100gb film over the internet now or in 5 years and see if the experience is quick, and where would you store it?

 

[professorhat]

lee37:the sound is better due to the sony 2400es receiver . i did have the strg820 and wasnt really impressed with the sound improvement. on the 2400es i did upgrad my speaker and hdmi cables

Okay, but your initial post seemed to insinuate that the better sound was down to the receiver decoding the HD soundtracks on the HD-DVD player, whereas the PS3 had to decode them on the Blu-Ray. Naturally buying a better receiver is going to increase the sound quality, but you didn't make this clear in your original post.

lee37:if you cant tell the difference between the s550 and the ps3 something is wrong. hdmi cable upgrade maybe

I didn't say I couldn't tell the difference (I use Chord HDMI 1.3 Silver Plus HDMI cables on both the PS3 and the S550). What I said was the difference was fractional and I stand by that - you also seem to agree with this in your post "i originally had the s350 player when it was first released which was
an improvement over the ps3 and was on par with the hd dvd player. i
now have the s360 which as per what hifi review is a slight improvement
over the s350." This hardly sounds like there was such a vast improvement it caused you to switch formats and this just confuses me more to be honest!

lee37:3) solely on a blu ray stance the ps3 is redundant espcially now you can get the s360 for £150

Okay, solely on a Blu-Ray front, yes, buying a PS3 makes no sense - no one said any different. However, I, like many people, bought the PS3 as a games machine. So using it also as a Blu-Ray player as well makes a lot of sense, especially given it's a very capable Blu-Ray player. Not the best for the money no, but try playing Gran Turismo 5 Prologue on a Sony BDP-S360! It's certainly not redundant at all.

lee37:the slim ps3 (which by the way did not get a good review in what hifi).

The PS3 Slim received a 5 star review from WHF just a few weeks ago (see here), so I'm not entirely sure how you can argue that?!

And finally, I also own the Xbox 360 which is indeed a fine games machine, as is the PS3. I can also be critical of both if I choose to be, but I actually rarely use the Xbox now, whereas the PS3 is fired up at least once a day. Your reasons for being so overly critical of the PS3 as to label it redundant are thus, in this case (and in my opinion naturally!), either not correct or not valid.

 

[Anonymous]

The ps3 still is not on par with the 360. If you listen to the ever expanding gaming communities that are involved in lan and online gaming tournys the xbox 360 out does the ps3. 3rd party games are always better on the xbox 360 and xbox 360 exclusives are untouchable by the ps3 (gears of war 1&2, halo 3, mass effect etc etc).

Did i mention Halo ODST is out in a few days time? Firefight mode will be awesome!

Call of Duty MW2 will undoubtedly be the years biggest game, and i believe the 360 version will be better and out sell the ps3 version.

The so called system sellers LBP, Killzone 2, Uncharted and MGS4 are now almost forgotten. Whereas Gears of War and Halo 3 are still running as strong as ever.

If someone is using their ps3 more than their 360 for gaming i would love to know what games they have on their 360??

 

[professorhat]

Ginder:If someone is using their ps3 more than their 360 for gaming i would love to know what games they have on their 360??

Completely off topic, but okay:

Civilisation Revolution, Crackdown, FIFA 08, Forza Motorsport 2, Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Grand Theft Auto IV, GRID, Halo 3, Just Cause, Lego Star Wars II, The Orange Box, Pro Evo 6, Project Gotham Racing 3 and 4, Quake 4, Rainbow Six Vegas, Stuntman Ignition, Test Drive Unlimited and Tiger Woods 09.

On PS3:

Burnout Paradise, FEAR 2, Formula One Championship Edition, Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, InFamous, LittleBigPlanet, Mirror's Edge, Resistance Fall of Man, Singstar and SOCOM (only got this as it was very cheap when bought with the Bluetooth headset!).

Of all the games above, the only ones I really play now are GT5 Prologue, LittleBigPlanet and InFamous.

 

[Alec]

Yes, 'tis true. A 5 star review is a shoddy performance by any standards.

 

[Cliff1]

the_lhc:Cliff1: I had changed my amp to a Yam 863se & bought a Pana. BD35 blu ray player ,the amp was getting on a bit so i was thinking of changing anyway & my player was a £50 Sony,so if i was changing it, thought i might just well buy blu ray,haven't changed my tv because it's a brilliant pic & 36".

I'd read & been told how great HD sound was on blu ray so i bought a couple of discs that had dropped to £10 each, to check out the sound & have to say the extra clarity in dialogue i was expecting,was not there for me.

I was expecting it to be crystal clear & a massive step up from DVD.I can't see a noticable difference in dialogue in DTS or DD on a DVD & HD master audio on the 2 blu rays that i have & from that point of view i'm disappointed.

I certainly will not buy loads of blu rays even if i were to change the tv,not at £18 - £30 a go.

No disrespect Cliff but are you sure you're actually listening to the HD soundtracks? Sounds very much like you're still listening to the original DD or DTS soundtrack. You're not using an optical or coaxial connection from the BDP to the amp or anything like that are you?

No,the bd player is connected via HDMI & HD master audio is in the amps display,if i press the audio button on the player it also shows output is HD master audio.

 

[bullitt]

hmtb:
No, I am not blind or deaf. In terms of sound, I watch tv/ films through my tv speakers, so I can't comment on the sound aspect of blu ray.

I never said that blu ray wasn't better, it is. I just don't think the increase in quality is so great as to justify the price difference. There may only be £3-5 difference upon release, but the price of dvds falls far quicker than that of blu rays - when a dvd costs £5 and the blu ray costs £20-30, then, in my opinion, it is not worth the difference. I saw Quantum of Solace on blu ray in my local Sony Centre at the bargain price of £34.99 - come on! In my opinion, anybody that would happily pay that is a fool.

I agree with Ginder. The content is the most important thing. I don't watch a scene and think, "WOW - I can see the pores of that person's skin." I certainly would not base my decision regarding which film/ programme to watch on whether it was on dvd or blu ray. That, to me, is ludicrous. Sure, given both versions of the film, I would choose the blu ray (who wouldn't) but I don't think it is the massive step up that it is claimed to be.

I am one of those people who would say, "I have 23 blu rays but I could have had 75." I would rather watch 75 films (if I had the time) than 23.

Basically what I am saying is that blu ray is good, but too expensive in comparison with dvd. I still buy them, but I am more than happy with the performance of dvd and these make up the majority of my purchases. I am sure people will point out that blu ray is several times the quality of dvd and therefore worth this difference. That's fine. It's a personal choice. Whenever I can, I will watch the blu ray version.

You seem to have contradicted yourself by saying you listen to blu-ray through your tv speakers then go onto say you think the quality difference doesnt justify the price !! how would you know the quality difference through your tv speakers ? both sound and vision with blu-ray go hand in hand.And i dont know where you shop for blu-ray but £20-£30 ? brand new blu-ray releases at morrisons £18 tops and if you had a a surround system you would buy especially if its a film you know you would play again alternatively you can always rent from say lovefilm, thats all i do.

For me personaly, i couldnt be without my panasonic tv and surround setup the movie experience for me is without doubt better than dvd even certain blu-ray movies differ in quality, even the difference between dolby true HD and HD MASTER AUDIO is worlds apart.

And i dont understand your point on basing your decision on blu-ray or dvd is ludicrous then saying you would choose blu-ray who wouldnt ? pardon !! Why would you choose blu-ray then ?

 

[Anonymous]

1. See:

"In terms of sound, I watch tv/ films through my tv speakers, so I can't comment on the sound aspect of blu ray."

By stating that I listen to films through my tv's speakers, I was trying to point out that my comments were based only on the picture aspect of blu ray, as I am not in a position to comment on the improvement in sound quality. I think this is clearly stated in my opening line, above. I understand that sound is an important part of blu ray, but I cannot comment on it if I haven't heard the difference. Therefore, given that I addressed this head on, I don't see how you reached the conclusion that I have contradicted myself.

I do intend to rectify this situation within the next few months, by buying a receiver and surround sound system. I'm looking into it.

2. I buy my blu rays online at play & amzon for around £10-12, but lots of blu rays cost in excess of £20 (and some even hit £30) in HMV. However, I was exagerating, given that I never buy my blu rays from HMV.

3. Regarding your third point: "And i dont understand your point on basing your decision on blu-ray or dvd is ludicrous then saying you would choose blu-ray who wouldnt ? pardon !! Why would you choose blu-ray then ?"

Let me clarify (if I can):

My statement was in response to the following:

"i think im not the only one even if poor blu rays are simliar to dvd they are still better good blu rays are far better, the sound is not miles apart. But the another day i watched a dvd and i could not relax sitting there thinking why am i watching a format that there is something better. Why people will say i have 23 blu rays i could of had 75 dvds i know in 5 years they will still be around and players/tvs will show them off even more.And i like the look of them on show ,better size cases it feels good when watching a film on blu ray knowing you are getting the best of your equipment."

AND

"DVDs to me are the same as VHS , Basicly you wont get me watching a DVD ever again unless i really really have to."

All I was trying to say was that, to me, content is more important than the format. Given the choice between buying 1 blu ray or 3 dvds, I would usually (if the films were good) get the 3 dvds. However, given an unlimited supply of money, then I would go for the blu ray version (if it was available on the format).

4. Why would I choose blu ray? (I generally buy, not rent)

I'm not disputing that it is better (though the improvement in picture is not that incredible). For me, it's a price issue. I buy blu rays where all the following factors are satisfied:

a) a film I really like (or think I will really like)

b) a good transfer (where it brings out the best in the format - picturewise)

c) if the price is right (usually not in excess of £15)

 

[shado]

the_lhc:

shado: I personally do not see the point in replacing my entire DVD collection especially when most of it was not filmed in high definition to begin with,

Sorry for the late reply I've been meaning to pick up on this for a while now:

Are you talking about films or TV shows? If it's films then you're completely wrong. I believe 35mm film has something like 4 times the resolution of FullHD, aloowing for it being an analogue medium, not a digital one.

Having read up about 35mm versus Digital media in the cinema world I have to concur with your comment and I am surprised they still utilise this expensive format where High Definition digital media is now beginning to be accepted and is used by Panavision. With the TV show like Cosmos and older cartoons like Battle of the Planets and Starfleet that I presume were not shot in the 35mm format, but possibly 8mm or 16mm video, these do look terrible on my HD screen.

Having borrowed a copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone on Blu Ray and my DVD copy in 4:3 format on the picture front I have ran scenes Chapters 11 Welcome to Hogwarts, Chapter 12 Sorting Hat & Chapter 13 Nick and other residents. The TV has now been fully calibrated with the addition of THX glasses. This morning I have watched these scenes six times (3 times in the relevant zoom mode and the remainder without). The Bluray did have the edge in zoom mode with the fires looking sharper and more natural, plus less flickering grain in the out of focus background during the sorting hat scene compared to the DVD. However when the dvd was viewed in its correct ratio aspect with no zoom, the differences was not that noticeable. Upscaled DVD will obviously be good enough for certain individuals considering their price advantage.

My point is that even on this forum some of the older films like Rambo and Harry Potter boxsets have slightly benefitted from a BluRay transfer but it is the newer films (e.g. The Order of the Phoenix) portrays an immediate leap in quality and is this due to it being shot with higher definition lenses? More interaction with high definition processing before final capture?

Having a collection of over 60 Blurays I am definately not against this format as a really good transfer like Superman Returns and Knowing is a treat to behold. The ones I am not totally convinced include Close Encounters and Bram Stokers Dracula and this is why I will not be rushing out to replace my older collection.

 

[Anonymous]

"My point is that even on this forum some of the older films like Rambo and Harry Potter boxsets have slightly benefitted from a BluRay transfer but it is the newer films (e.g. The Order of the Phoenix) portrays an immediate leap in quality and is this due to it being shot with higher definition lenses? More interaction with high definition processing before final capture?"

I'm not sure about this, but I don't think new films are generally shot in high definition. I thought they were still filmed in 35mm and its variations. The only thing I'm aware of is High Definition Digital cameras like the ones used to film 'the curious case of benjamin button' and 'public enemies.'

I didn't actually like the latter, in part, because of the style in which it was filmed. I felt that something was a little "off" with it, whereas with the former, I didn't even realise until several weeks after, that it had been shot on digital.

 

[The_Lhc]

hmtb:I'm not sure about this, but I don't think new films are generally shot in high definition.

Errm, cut'n'paste from Wikipedia (yes, I know, but it looks pretty good!)

"As of 2007 the most common acquisition medium for digitally projected features is 35 mm film scanned and processed at 2K (2048ž1080) or 4K (4096ž2160) resolution via digital intermediate. Most digital features to date have been shot at 1920x1080 HD resolution using cameras such as the Sony CineAlta, Panavision Genesis or Thomson Viper. New cameras such as the Arriflex D-20 can capture 2K resolution images, and the Red Digital Cinema Camera Company's Red One
can record 4K redcode *RAW. The marketshare of 2K projection in digital
cinemas is over 98%. Currently in development are other cameras capable
of recording 4K RAW, such as Dalsa Corporation's Origin, and cameras capable of recording 5K *RAW, such as the RED EPIC, and cameras capable of recording 3K *RAW (for budget filmmakers) such as the RED SCARLET.
(Raw redcode is a proprietary wavelet compression scheme offered on the
redone camera. It can be defined further on user sites such at reduser,
but is not by definition RAW, and does potentially contain compression artifacts.)"

So, at worst digital film's are 1920x1080 (which is FullHD screen resolution), at best they're up to 4 times better than FullHD.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I know film has an inherently higher resolution than Full HD. It's one of the reasons why old films like blade runner, 2001, zulu and the old bonds look so good, when properly re-mastered, on blu ray.

I just thought 35mm and digital were different. I was referring to High Definition Digital (HDD), particularly the Sony camera used to shoot the two films I mentioned above. I'm actually a little confused as to the difference then. So a 35mm film is non-digital, but its prints are scanned and processed at higher than full hd resolution, whereas HDD is a digital form of shooting with a resolution of 1920x1080 (Full HD)?

Wouldn't the label 'high definition' be better suited to 35mm film then?

 

[digigriffin]

IMHO...

Film is optical exposed (continuous tone emulsion) and has such has no defined resolution as it has no dots.

This is what enables each frame to be scanned (digitised) to a HD resolution.
This is how some older films can now look so good in HD (once they are cleaned up).

If a film has been originally shot digitally then this has its own limitations, as it is not as flexible as shooting to film, and the resolution is established when the images are recorded.
This can be why 35mm original can often look better in HD than a digital original.

 

[The_Lhc]

digigriffin: Film is optical exposed (continuous tone emulsion) and has such has no defined resolution as it has no dots.

This is what enables each frame to be scanned (digitised) to a HD resolution.
This is how some older films can now look so good in HD (once they are cleaned up).

Granted but there are limits as to how high a resolution it can be scanned at (which it will need to be for digital projection, coming to a cinema near you...), which are reckoned to be at about the 4k mark, due to the grain of the image.

 

[bullitt]

HMTB....Your basing your opinion about blu-ray by watching and listening to blu-ray through your tv speakers, so if i were you i would invest in a surrround setup and then see what you think, i think you will have a totally different opinion afterwards.

The point i didnt get is, you made an opinion on blu-ray through your tv speakers, its a bit like buying a ferrari never driving it and saying its no better than a mini, drive it baby !!

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, shall we say then (as indeed I have several times), that my opinion on the difference between blu ray and dvd is based only on picture quality, whilst recognising the important contribution which sound makes to the experience? Given that I have no surround sound system in place at the moment, I am not able to comment on this at this time. I leave open the possibility for further assessment at such a time when I shall have a more suitable means through which to judge and to formulate a complete opinion, and that for now I reserve the right to comment on that aspect of blu ray which I have been able to observe, namely, picture.

No doubt, a few months down the line, I'll write a post stating how amazing I think the sound is. Having said that, I don't know what dvds sound like through a proper system, so I'm sure I'll be amazed by that too.

And yes I do want to drive that ferrari!

(I have included this last comment to soften the tone of this post, which could otherwise be construed as an intention on my behalf to continue in a dialectic form of tennis in which we go back and forth. I also think it ends this post in a more conciliatory manner when taken together with the point above, in which I leave open the possibility that I may form a "totally different opinion afterwards").

 

[lee37]

the better sound was down to the receiver decoding the HD soundtracks on the HD-DVD player.the hd dvd player outputting bitstream did sound a bit better than the ps3 and upgrading my receiver made a fraction of an improvement.

please note i am being very picky.and i have a good ear.i also use expensive cables.

i have not switched formats as i still have them both and have no choice but to buy blu ray now.

the point i was making that initially the hd dvd was better picture quality than the ps3.i noticed a definate improvement when i got the s350 and a minor improvement when i got the s360.

it was basically gradual small steps from the ps3 to the s360 which now made the picture quality on par with the ep35 hd dvd which was a very good player.

all the points i made were on the assumption that money is no object and quality comes first..

the ps3 got 5 stars but read the review and on another site that took the ps3 slim to pieces there review said the blu ray drive was a lower standard than the previous model and picture quality suffered. people will be dissappointed with the quality as it is hyped up so much they will expect better, i did.

there are some good games out there for the ps3 but the gaming community as a whole rates the xbox as a better machine at the moment.i personally use my pc more as its has better graphics but the xbox live is better than ps3 live.i do like gran turismo though.

i do use the ps3 for my avi files that i get of the internet its good for that stick them on wd my passport and play nice and easy.

so my advice get everything

and i dont give a rubbish about all this download rubbish. when i buy something i want it on a physical media. when the internet goes to 20mb download and its true 20mb i will be interested. 8mb now is ineffect about 750kb yeah really fast.

 

[Anonymous]

As I have previously posted I love Blue ray but one thing is really begining to annoy ,me and that is the majority of discs I am renting automatically go straight to the start of the film instead of the setup top menu.

This means that you are forced to listen in the lowest quality audio usually DD instead of having the option to select DHD or DTS MA , you then have to stop the film and hunt for the settings.

Which brings me to another stupid option , why is the HD Audio usually hidden under the languages section?

i.e.Batman Begins and Master and Commander among others , but there is no consistency

I would also like to ask the forum on there opinion of the Batman Begins DolbyHD sound track, watched it last night and thought it was awful

No dynamics at all , seemed to be nothing from the rears and made me start to wonder if there is something wrong with my setup which of course there might be

Would appreciate some feedback

 

[professorhat]

lesmor:As I have previously posted I love Blue ray but one thing is really begining to annoy ,me and that is the majority of discs I am renting automatically go straight to the start of the film instead of the setup top menu.

This means that you are forced to listen in the lowest quality audio usually DD instead of having the option to select DHD or DTS MA , you then have to stop the film and hunt for the settings.

Which brings me to another stupid option , why is the HD Audio usually hidden under the languages section?

It's worth looking on your Blu-Ray player remote for an "Audio" button or something similar - this will cycle through the available soundtracks and is a much easier way of getting to the TrueHD soundtrack (which is normally the second one in these circumstances) than having to go through the menus to find which obscure place they've hidden them!

Agreed though, why they do this I don't know - clearly it's something one of the top guys at that studio thinks is a "good idea".

lesmor:I would also like to ask the forum on there opinion of the Batman Begins DolbyHD sound track, watched it last night and thought it was awful

No dynamics at all , seemed to be nothing from the rears and made me start to wonder if there is something wrong with my setup which of course there might be

Would appreciate some feedback

I think something must be wrong - I found this soundtrack to be quite spectacular, and there was plenty of constant subtle details coming from the rears. Time to check all the usuals i.e. HDMI and speaker connections, ensure correct audio is being bitstreamed to the amp, possibly re-run the setup on the amp etc.

 

[Anonymous]

professorhat:

lesmor:As I have previously posted I love Blue ray but one thing is really beginning to annoy ,me and that is the majority of disc's I am renting automatically go straight to the start of the film instead of the setup top menu.

This means that you are forced to listen in the lowest quality audio usually DD instead of having the option to select DHD or DTS MA , you then have to stop the film and hunt for the settings.

Which brings me to another stupid option , why is the HD Audio usually hidden under the languages section?

It's worth looking on your Blu-Ray player remote for an "Audio" button or something similar - this will cycle through the available soundtracks and is a much easier way of getting to the TrueHD soundtrack (which is normally the second one in these circumstances) than having to go through the menus to find which obscure place they've hidden them!

Agreed though, why they do this I don't know - clearly it's something one of the top guys at that studio thinks is a "good idea".

lesmor:I would also like to ask the forum on there opinion of the Batman Begins DolbyHD sound track, watched it last night and thought it was awful

No dynamics at all , seemed to be nothing from the rears and made me start to wonder if there is something wrong with my setup which of course there might be

Would appreciate some feedback

I think something must be wrong - I found this soundtrack to be quite spectacular, and there was plenty of constant subtle details coming from the rears. Time to check all the usuals i.e. HDMI and speaker connections, ensure correct audio is being bitstreamed to the amp, possibly re-run the setup on the amp etc.

T

Thanks for the reply prof , good suggestion I have the Sony bluetooth remote for my PS3 so will have to check it out unfortunately it is not backlit and as I have a projector I view in the dark.

I did check the soundtrack and I was listening in DHD

Must admit I have recently changed my floorstanders to small @ 80HZ and set my sub to 120HZ as recommended somewhere so that might be the culprit and have only viewed "I am Legend" since then

Mind you the bass wasn't impressive on "Batman Begins" either ,all of my system has been calibrated to 75db inc sub and speaker positions measured with a tape haven't set up with the Yamaha YAPQ at all though

I might have been lacking in volume and find that volume varies enormously from disc to disc , had to really cut back when listening to "Hellboy2" a while back, my system has never made metal to metal crashes sound metallic if that makes sense?

What do you think?