What exactly differentiates Blue Ray players?

[admin_exported]

Ok, daft question time.

I was wondering. Assuming we are playing a Blue Ray disk and transmitting via HDMI. What is the difference between players?

My (probably wrong) impression was that the digital data was read from the disk, and sent down the HDMI lead. But then players have DACs both audio and video. Do these come into play for an all-digital setup?

ie, if the disk is read digitally, then sent down the HDMI lead to the TV or AV receiver then what difference would we see or hear?

Thanks for anyone who knows the definitive answer.

 

[bigboss]

Don't open a can of worms here! :wall:

Here's my opinion:

1) For blu-ray 1080p/24 pictures & bitstreaming of audio (for the AV receiver to decode), I haven't found any difference between players at different price points.

2) DVD upscaling quality differs widely between players, some being better than others.

3) Likewise for audio, if it's decoded by the player, there's a significant difference between players.

This is my own personal opinion based on my experience. I'm in no mood to answer anyone challenging my opinion. 8)

 

[chebby]

I don't know.

I can't afford expensive Blu-ray players (see my sig) but John Duncan has been playing host to a new Cambridge Audio 751BD recently and (I think) he used to have the same machine (Sony BDP-S370) that I still use.

He could certainly tell you if there is a difference in picture and sound quality between the two machines.

 

[professorhat]

A direct comparison in a dealer between my old Sony BDP-S550 and my new Marantz BD7004 (was a while back now) showed a decent upgrade in Blu-ray performance. This was most significantly noticeable around the upgrade in sound performance, but for the picture, the most notable improvement was specifically in its handling of fast motion on the screen.

And before anyone asks, no it wasn't a blind test :wall:

 

[Anonymous]

A direct comparison in a dealer between my old Sony BDP-S550 and my new Marantz BD7004 (was a while back now) showed a decent upgrade in Blu-ray performance. This was most significantly noticeable around the upgrade in sound performance, but for the picture, the most notable improvement was specifically in its handling of fast motion on the screen.

And before anyone asks, no it wasn't a blind test :wall:

I'm more wanting a definitive answer on what the process is rather than subjective opinion of players which may or may not be influenced by expectation. If there is no conversion in the player, and only digital data from the disk is being sent, then I can't understand how audio or video could be different assuming the output is working correctly.

Of course, I am aware that upscaling of DVD data can vary quite a bit. I'm more concerned with a Blue ray disk being played.

 

[CnoEvil]

IMO. Differences in sound is like the differences between CDPs, DACs and Streamers.

The differences in picture are more readily seen on bigger projector screens with decent projectors. One of my local dealers has a "state of the art" cinema room with an Anamorphic Lens, a huge screen, and an expensive Sim projector; the difference between a £300 BDP and a £2k one, is there to see.
Whether this is VFM, is another question entirely.

 

[professorhat]

One of my local dealers has a "state of the art" cinema room with an Anamorphic Lens, a huge screen, and an expensive Sim projector; the difference between a £300 BDP and a £2k one, is there to see. Whether this is VFM, is another question entirely.

Yes indeed - you need to take into account your own display when looking at a more expensive player.

 

[professorhat]

If there is no conversion in the player, and only digital data from the disk is being sent, then I can't understand how audio or video could be different assuming the output is working correctly.

If digital data was always transferred flawlessly and without error, then I'd agree with you. Of course we know this to not be true.

However, this discussion is now firmly in territory which has been discussed endlessly in the past, so I'm going Duncan Bannatyne on this now

 

[Anonymous]

If there is no conversion in the player, and only digital data from the disk is being sent, then I can't understand how audio or video could be different assuming the output is working correctly.

If digital data was always transferred flawlessly and without error, then I'd agree with you. Of course we know this to not be true.

However, this discussion is now firmly in territory which has been discussed endlessly in the past, so I'm going Duncan Bannatyne on this now

Sorry, I don't want it to go that way. I simply want a technical explanation for it...

although, my understanding was, that to test if a signal is bit perfect, simply seeing DTS, Dolby HD or whatever appear in the AV display confirms it is...

@CNOEvil. CD players differ because people tend to use the analogue out. In my case with active speakers with DAC, I have tested my squeezebox, CD player, DVD player and PS3 all via optical, and to my ears they sound identical, whereas the DVD player is awful when played via analogue out, as is the squeezebox. Using the optical out seems to make all things equal (as far as my hearing can testify).

 

[chebby]

I simply want a technical explanation for it...

I'm not sure we have any designers of Blu-ray players knocking around the forum.

We have the occasional speaker manufacturer.

There is John Dawson (founder and President of Arcam) who's company manufactures the Arcam BDP-100, but I haven't seen him on here for a while.

I am sure that if you emailed the question to companies like Cambridge Audio or Arcam or Oppo that someone should be be able to give you a technical answer.

It's a bit unfair on us 'mere' users to be able to offer satisfactory technical explanations for how everything in our systems work.

 

[Anonymous]

I simply want a technical explanation for it...

I'm not sure we have any designers of Blu-ray players knocking around the forum.

We have the occasional speaker manufacturer.

There is John Dawson (founder and President of Arcam) who's company manufactures the Arcam BDP-100, but I haven't seen him on here for a while.

I am sure that if you emailed the question to companies like Cambridge Audio or Arcam or Oppo that someone should be be able to give you a technical answer.

It's a bit unfair on us 'mere' users to offer technical explanations for how everything in our systems work.

Heh, don't undersell yourself. Many "mere" users have a great deal of technical knowledge.

I guess the other point would be also...If I buy a top of the range Blue Ray player, with state of the art decoding built in, is it best to send the data via component rather than HDMI?

But yes, I think an email to a manufacturer would be a great idea...thanks !

 

[laserman16]

Sorry, I don't want it to go that way. I simply want a technical explanation for it...

Well as we all know the Laser beam hits the disc and is reflected back, so the information from the disc at this point is reflected light but broken up from the original beam due to the pits etc on the disc. This then has to be converted into a "language" that your display and Amp via HDMI can understand so in the player somewhere must be a board of electronics that achieves this task.

I would assume that different makes of player have different boards in them to achieve this task and the more upmarket players would have a more sophisticated board.

Perhaps as well not all Lasers are created equal.

Thats about as technical as I can get.

 

[CnoEvil]

@CNOEvil. CD players differ because people tend to use the analogue out. In my case with active speakers with DAC, I have tested my squeezebox, CD player, DVD player and PS3 all via optical, and to my ears they sound identical, whereas the DVD player is awful when played via analogue out, as is the squeezebox. Using the optical out seems to make all things equal (as far as my hearing can testify).

Fair point, but I believe that there is more effecting the sound than the analogue out. The quality of the transport (which I think makes a difference), the quality of the power supply and the isolation of the internal componants.
The BDP LX91 sounded leagues ahead of the cheaper BDP (can't remember what it was) that was also used, and which sounded a bit "glarey" when the sound was turned up. This was all played through an Anthem Processor (DV2), Linn power amps and Kef Ref speakers.

 

[Anonymous]

@CNOEvil. CD players differ because people tend to use the analogue out. In my case with active speakers with DAC, I have tested my squeezebox, CD player, DVD player and PS3 all via optical, and to my ears they sound identical, whereas the DVD player is awful when played via analogue out, as is the squeezebox. Using the optical out seems to make all things equal (as far as my hearing can testify).

Fair point, but I believe that there is more effecting the sound than the analogue out. The quality of the transport (which I think makes a difference), the quality of the power supply and the isolation of the internal componants. The BDP LX91 sounded leagues ahead of the cheaper BDP (can't remember what it was) that was also used, and which sounded a bit "glarey" when the sound was turned up. This was all played through an Anthem Processor (DV2), Linn power amps and Kef Ref speakers.

Maybe. But the expensive players use the same drives dont they?

Having done some investigatuon (no emailing unfortunately, no contact details), the main difference is within the player itself. The top of the range players are great CD players, but obviously need to be connected via analogue.

From the same investigation it seems that my(PS3) player has among the best upscaling there is due to the processing power available...which is nice.

My current (to be swayed) understanding is, there is little if any difference at all (if you use HDMI). I must admit, I don't sense any real difference in anything between my Panasonic BD50 and my PS3, except my PS3 is way faster AND I get to play FIFA 12! Yay

 

[bigboss]

Your finding is similar to mine. I found no difference in blu-ray video playback between PS3, Pana BD60 & Denon 2500BT on my setup.

 

[CnoEvil]

[

Maybe. But the expensive players use the same drives dont they?

Having done some investigatuon (no emailing unfortunately, no contact details), the main difference is within the player itself. The top of the range players are great CD players, but obviously need to be connected via analogue.

From the same investigation it seems that my(PS3) player has among the best upscaling there is due to the processing power available...which is nice.

My current (to be swayed) understanding is, there is little if any difference at all (if you use HDMI). I must admit, I don't sense any real difference in anything between my Panasonic BD50 and my PS3, except my PS3 is way faster AND I get to play FIFA 12! Yay

All I can say is compare a top of the range Marantz or Pioneer BDP (for AV), to a more budget one, on a revealing system, and the difference is there to be heard/seen.

 

[John Duncan]

I'm the wrong person to ask about comparative Blu Ray performance, tbh, since I don't have the 'revealing' TV that might allow me to spot any differences. Subjectively, I think that motion is smoother on the Cambridge than it is on the Sony, but it takes me five minutes to flip between the two so a valid comparison isn't really possible.

In some other areas, the Cambridge trounces the Sony - upscaled DVDs, for example, look stunning and it's a fantastic CD player in its own right. It's easy to explain those two away with higher quality upscaling chips and better analogue output stages though. I can't compare HD sound between the two, sadly, because I have a non-HDMI receiver and the Sony doesn't have 5.1 outputs.

Consider this though: I can perfectly imagine the mechanical difficulties of getting data off a bluray disc; it's spinning at about 5000rpm, and the pit a laser has to read is about 0.3μm. So pure mechanical tolerances of the disc mechanism and isolation would, I expect, have a great deal to do with whether a player can get a good digital signal to the rest of the machine. Whether, once a signal has been read from a disc, it is subsequently immune from transformation, I refuse to speculate at this time...:-D

EDIT - googling something like 'blu ray benchmark performance' came up with some interesting sites for you to investigate.

 

[strapped for cash]

Forumites are divided into two camps on this issue:

1) those who claim there is no difference between BDPs because binary data will be transported identically by all players.

2) those who, largely anecdoctally rather than based on detailed technical knowledge, state that differences in performance between players are clear.

For the record, I fall squarely into the latter camp, but it's a subject that's been debated endlessly here.

Like others, I can't offer a detailed technical explanation of differences between individual players and their workings. I would only suggest you get some auditions under your belt if you're thinking of changing your BDP. If you feel there's an appreciable difference between players then go for the one you're happiest with. If, on the other hand, your question is purely hypothetical, you may be waiting for some time to receive anything approaching a satisfactory answer.

 

[Anonymous]

Forumites are divided into two camps on this issue:

1) those who claim there is no difference between BDPs because binary data will be transported identically by all players.

2) those who, largely anecdoctally rather than based on detailed technical knowledge, state that differences in performance between players are clear.

For the record, I fall squarely into the latter camp, but it's a subject that's been debated endlessly here.

Like others, I can't offer a detailed technical explanation of differences between individual players and their workings. I would only suggest you get some auditions under your belt if you're thinking of changing your BDP. If you feel there's an appreciable difference between players then go for the one you're happiest with. If, on the other hand, your question is purely hypothetical, you may be waiting for some time to receive anything approaching a satisfactory answer.

To be honest, and for now, it's hyperthetically. My PS3 is every bit as good as my BD50 which now sits gathering dust (because it can't play Fifa 12).

Sound...identical

Picture...identical...on Blu Rays...On DVDs the PS3 is better IMO.

It isn't so important as I have a squeezebox for the music. I can imagine the higher end players being pretty good CD players, but I use the aforementioned squeezebox through my Yamaha 667 for downstairs music. And it sounds just great.

I am more trying to get a grasp on what actually happens inside the machine itself. If it's digital only, then any differences will be insignificant as far as I care; if it does other stuff, then who knows?

 

[DandyCobalt]

I was lucky enough to be involved in the Big Question for WHFSV a couple of months ago, when we got to compare three different blu-ray players "head-to-head", playing through some higher-end kit (big Samsung screen, KEF surround system etc).

The differences between the players in both sound and picture were extremely significant, though a smaller screen and humbler surround would have brought them all close together.

My conclusion, just like with any type of technical kit, is that the greater the magnification/size required, the better the resolution and source equipment need to be. Small screen and small sound - don't bother spending much money. Big screen and big sound - money well spent.

 

[Anonymous]

I was lucky enough to be involved in the Big Question for WHFSV a couple of months ago, when we got to compare three different blu-ray players "head-to-head", playing through some higher-end kit (big Samsung screen, KEF surround system etc).

The differences between the players in both sound and picture were extremely significant, though a smaller screen and humbler surround would have brought them all close together.

My conclusion, just like with any type of technical kit, is that the greater the magnification/size required, the better the resolution and source equipment need to be. Small screen and small sound - don't bother spending much money. Big screen and big sound - money well spent.

So what is a small screen?

How was everything connected whereby you noticed the "extremely signifcant" differences?

What was the comparitive kit?

Again, I'm not after subjective conjecture, but simple, technical facts.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok. After more digging, it seems that the colour data on a blu ray disk is held in a lossy format, and that there can be a difference in reforming that.

Some info here.

http://www.spearsandmunsil.com/articles/choosingacolorspace.html

 

[strapped for cash]

Also, the argument that all Blu-ray players perform equally when data is sent via HDMI is predicated on the assumption that any data loss will result in no picture -- either all the information on a disc is transported, or no information is transported at all.

 

[John Duncan]

Though i think snivilisationism was clear in wanting to leave that variable out of the equation (T*FT). I think his link (and, presumably, the post in the forum where he found it, same as me) is informative, and at least gives a very good indication that what is on a disc categorically does not go 'straight to screen', but involves player-dependent processing and interpretation on the way.

Do you read it that way too, snivilisationism?

 

[Anonymous]

Though i think snivilisationism was clear in wanting to leave that variable out of the equation (T*FT). I think his link (and, presumably, the post in the forum where he found it, same as me) is informative, and at least gives a very good indication that what is on a disc categorically does not go 'straight to screen', but involves player-dependent processing and interpretation on the way. Do you read it that way too, snivilisationism?

It's rather a lot to take in though.

But yes, it does seem to suggest that there may be differences (in picture). Kind of like there are differences when creating a compressed (lossy) audio file with different codecs.

Although it seems the consensus is that the differences only show up appreciably on larger (projector?) screens.