Blu-Ray Players

Printable View

  • 04-05-2011, 08:38 AM
    BobB
    Blu-Ray Players
    What Blu-Ray player in the 250.00 to 300.00 range is a good bang for the buck so fas as picture and sound quality and of course ease of use?

    Bob
  • 04-05-2011, 01:55 PM
    pixelthis
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BobB
    What Blu-Ray player in the 250.00 to 300.00 range is a good bang for the buck so fas as picture and sound quality and of course ease of use?

    Bob

    i have a thread going on a Funai player I have purchased from WALMART for 68 $.
    IF you want to pay out the nose and get a bunch if "features" of questionable value
    get something like an OPPO.
    Or go to Walmart and get a magnavox (Funai) for 68 bucks. Or splurge and get a
    LG for 80$ , or a Sony for a 119, etc.
    My first player was 400$, a Sony that was slow as CHRISTMAS and out of date in
    six months. My second was a SHARP, died in less than a year. My fault, shoulda known better.
    I love my new 68$ player, looks and sounds great, dies, and I trashcan it and get one
    up to date. I HAVE SPENT ENOUGH ON BLU PLAYERS.
    The day of the "250 to 300" BLU player is over.
    Been over.:1:
  • 04-05-2011, 04:45 PM
    Mr Peabody
    I haven't really looked deeply into BDP's for a while. I'd start by deciding what features you need/want opposed to those you'd never use. Like, interested in 3D, want Wyfi capability, want streaming features to receive Netflix or other internet movie services, do you need it to play music formats CD/SACD, etc. If you even think you'd want to play any games the PS3 is still a main contender. Oppo is always mentioned as a good value. I'm not sure if either is in your price. I still have two 2nd gen Samsung that are going strong as far as reliability. I'm not sure what price Marantz starts at but I am happy with mine and easy to use, it even automatically loads the best audio track. I feel Panasonic or Denon would also be good choices. Since I have a decent size DVD collection upscaling video is an important feature for me as I don't care to replace all titles with BD. Wyfi is also a nice feature for receiving firmware updates.

    Although prices have dropped I still believe quality parts and chips cost and generally you get what you pay for. I really need to read some current reviews to see how these cheap players fare in video performance. I know my daughter's Samsung 1500 didn't have the picture quality of my older 1200. It's like with DVD you could buy one for $40.00 but the PQ was not up to par with a $250.00 player. Of course, with BDP level performance maybe even poor is still very good.
  • 04-05-2011, 05:45 PM
    02audionoob
    The LG BD570 is nice, easy to use and is about as fast as average. I haven't seen any that are notably faster. It plays the music formats and streams YouTube, NetFlix, etc. They look pretty and have a good remote. I think i like the remote on my Sony better, but it's a close race.
  • 04-05-2011, 07:19 PM
    bfalls
    The Sony BDP-S570 is a very good general purpose BD player and within in your price range. It has wireless wifi with a number of movie and music sites available. It's 3D capable with the firmware upgrade. It has very good picture and sound. I've read several articles praising it. There's a newer model, but I don't know much about it (BDP-S580). Being the S570 is an older model it should be discounted nicely. I've had one for about 6 months and really enjoy it.
  • 04-06-2011, 06:54 AM
    recoveryone
    This list could become endless with suggestions, but you need to know some facts about how to get the most out of a BDP regardless of the make or model.

    1. Do you have HDMI ( for max res and PQ)

    2. Does your AVR support or passthrough the newer audio formats DD True, DTS HD (7.1)

    3.Does you T.V. support 24fps (Flim standard)

    All the rest is bells and whistle as to Wifi, netflick, voodoo, Youtube support, If you do not have the basic support gear to get the most out of it you will also wonder what if.
  • 04-15-2011, 11:14 AM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by recoveryone
    This list could become endless with suggestions, but you need to know some facts about how to get the most out of a BDP regardless of the make or model.

    1. Do you have HDMI ( for max res and PQ)

    2. Does your AVR support or passthrough the newer audio formats DD True, DTS HD (7.1)

    3.Does you T.V. support 24fps (Flim standard)

    All the rest is bells and whistle as to Wifi, netflick, voodoo, Youtube support, If you do not have the basic support gear to get the most out of it you will also wonder what if.

    Very very true!

    For anyone without a HDMI connection on their HDTV, they'd better decide which Blu-ray player they want ... and fast! The first step of the analog video phaseout went into motion at the start of this year. Any Blu-ray players introduced this year will have NO analog component video outputs, so anyone looking for something with component video outputs will have to look for an older model.

    http://forums.audioreview.com/news-rumors/goodbye-hd-component-video-analog-sunset-has-begun-36227.html

    As for the other stuff, Netflix is rapidly becoming standard issue on Blu-ray players and those functions might finally gain some traction for internet TV services in the living room (up to this point, they've had relatively limited usage because they were largely confined to PCs).
  • 04-15-2011, 11:53 AM
    pixelthis
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Very very true!

    For anyone without a HDMI connection on their HDTV, they'd better decide which Blu-ray player they want ... and fast! The first step of the analog video phaseout went into motion at the start of this year. Any Blu-ray players introduced this year will have NO analog component video outputs, so anyone looking for something with component video outputs will have to look for an older model.

    http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=36227

    As for the other stuff, Netflix is rapidly becoming standard issue on Blu-ray players and those functions might finally gain some traction for internet TV services in the living room (up to this point, they've had relatively limited usage because they were largely confined to PCs).

    cart before the horse.
    I HAD a receiver that was obsolete about six months or so after I bought it(maybe a little
    longer), because it had component video switching.
    I COULDN'T use that connection after seeing just how silly good HDMI is.
    You need a monitor with an HDMI connection, not only for that best connection, but
    any monitor that has all the new up to date stuff, will have HDMI.
    If your set only has component, it is missing stuff like 1080p, 120hz, etc.
    BUY AN OLDER BLU and you wind up with an obsolete(well, not up to date) BLU
    player. This gives you two devices that need updating.
    WHEN YOU get the BLU, get a new monitor with HDMI with it. COMPONENT is so
    inferiour to HDMI I wouldn't even bother hooking a BLU up with it.
    Solve the real problem, update your monitor.:1:
  • 04-15-2011, 05:40 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    cart before the horse.
    I HAD a receiver that was obsolete about six months or so after I bought it(maybe a little
    longer), because it had component video switching.
    I COULDN'T use that connection after seeing just how silly good HDMI is.
    You need a monitor with an HDMI connection, not only for that best connection, but
    any monitor that has all the new up to date stuff, will have HDMI.
    If your set only has component, it is missing stuff like 1080p, 120hz, etc.
    BUY AN OLDER BLU and you wind up with an obsolete(well, not up to date) BLU
    player. This gives you two devices that need updating.
    WHEN YOU get the BLU, get a new monitor with HDMI with it. COMPONENT is so
    inferiour to HDMI I wouldn't even bother hooking a BLU up with it.
    Solve the real problem, update your monitor.:1:

    If someone already owns a HDTV, and all they want is to add a Blu-ray player, why wouldn't they just buy a Blu-ray player? Buying a new TV doesn't address the original inquiry of which Blu-ray player they should buy, especially if their budget is under $300.

    And even with HDMI connections, many of the older HDMI-enabled HDTVs have noticeably worse picture quality using the digital connection than with the component video connector.
  • 04-17-2011, 11:27 AM
    pixelthis
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    If someone already owns a HDTV, and all they want is to add a Blu-ray player, why wouldn't they just buy a Blu-ray player? Buying a new TV doesn't address the original inquiry of which Blu-ray player they should buy, especially if their budget is under $300.

    And even with HDMI connections, many of the older HDMI-enabled HDTVs have noticeably worse picture quality using the digital connection than with the component video connector.

    I have never seen a HDMI connection thats worse than component.
    If someone already owns a HDTV set, why would they want a new one just to "add" a
    BLU player? Maybe because a BLU player is just not effective with an inferiour set.
    WHY buy PORSCH for a dirt road?
    Back when they had live video clerks instead of a Red box, I would rent a BLU and
    get the same comment, mainly that they had heard that BLU doesn't look any better than a DVD. And true, even tho there is an improvement with a 720p set and other inferiour devices, its not that much different than a decent DVD image.
    Its only with a 1080p set that BLU really shines, and since they have, to the last one,
    HDMI it stands to reason that you only need that on a BLU player.
    If your monitor only has component, then you need a new set anyway.
    BUYING an older, and probably inferiour BLU player to match your older, inferiour
    monitor is throwing good money after bad.
    I have an older set at the house, about five years old. And it has HDMI.
    Using component is like the singer who has a great voice but "tears it up getting it out".
    Get a new BLU player, and use the composite until you can afford a decent set
    that doesn't belong in a MONGOLIAN VILLAGE. You will find that theres not much diff,
    and you won't be compromising by getting a BLU player thats older and you will be stuck
    with for awhile. COMPONENT is dead, involves two digital to analog conversions,
    and you buy stuff to upgrade your system, not to accommodate obsolete tech, IMHO.
    swallow hard and join the 21st century.:1:
  • 04-17-2011, 11:45 AM
    pixelthis
    Or perhaps your monitor does have HDMI, and you just want to use the older component
    switching on an older reciever.
    This would be a horrible decision. I had an excellent 1200 dollar receiver that had component
    video switching. I USED a direct connection to my monitor, and a very good universal
    remote with macros that made up for my receivers shortcomings. All of this was better
    than compromising my system with an inferiour connection. I tossed a 1200 dollar receiver
    after only four years(cry cry) so that I could get the new codecs and video
    switching. WELL WORTH IT.
    BLU is the best video delivery system on the planet , and deserves some accomodation.
    A BLU image thru even a cheap 1080p set is more addictive than crack mixed with
    crystal meth,..silly good. PAY THE MAN.:1:
  • 04-17-2011, 12:12 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Come on Pix, you are being a bit dramatic. Component is capable of 1080i and with decent cables the connection is not far off from HDMI. It could be, with standard video as most modern sets don't upscale via analog connections due to copy protection. Component is not as bad as you want to make it out to be though.
  • 04-17-2011, 12:36 PM
    pixelthis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Come on Pix, you are being a bit dramatic. Component is capable of 1080i and with decent cables the connection is not far off from HDMI. It could be, with standard video as most modern sets don't upscale via analog connections due to copy protection. Component is not as bad as you want to make it out to be though.

    CAPABLE of 1080i? Thats like saying a girl has a great personality.
    I know that you have a dlp 1080i, and didn.t mean to insult you, Mr P.
    But the time has come for you to upgrade to 1080p, and not just for BLU.
    I watched 2001 on ONDEMAND this morning in 1080i, which my set deinterlaced to
    1080p. Deinterlacing gives a real improvement as opposed to upconversion,
    progressive being so much better than interlace. This doesn't mean 2001 was an good
    as BLU, but darn, it was close. WATCH it on your set and you start out with half the
    rez of a 1080p;, and its downhill from there, as you lose a great deal whenever theres movement, and thats after two D/A conversions. SORRY, but the industry has passed
    interlaced by. TIME to start shopping.:1:
  • 04-17-2011, 01:03 PM
    Mr Peabody
    I also have a 1080p Toshiba 40" and have seen 1080p, I still don't feel it's as large a difference as you make it. I do use HDMI for my 62".
  • 04-18-2011, 10:03 AM
    pixelthis
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I also have a 1080p Toshiba 40" and have seen 1080p, I still don't feel it's as large a difference as you make it. I do use HDMI for my 62".

    Well, most people do, which is why 1080i is dead. Try finding one Technology as
    passed interlaced formats by, and good riddance. They were always a con anyway.:1:
  • 04-18-2011, 01:28 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    I have never seen a HDMI connection thats worse than component.

    This was the case with plenty of the early HDMI-enabled HDTVs. HDTV reviews used to run the tests using both connections and advise readers on which one provided the best picture quality, which was not always the HDMI connection.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    If someone already owns a HDTV set, why would they want a new one just to "add" a
    BLU player? Maybe because a BLU player is just not effective with an inferiour set.
    WHY buy PORSCH for a dirt road?

    But, it's still more effective than sticking with DVD, right?

    Again, if somebody has a set budget of $300, why would they want to upgrade the monitor before adding a Blu-ray player, if all they want to add is the Blu-ray capability?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    If your monitor only has component, then you need a new set anyway.
    BUYING an older, and probably inferiour BLU player to match your older, inferiour
    monitor is throwing good money after bad.

    These so-called "older, and probably inferiour [sp]" Blu-ray players you're referring to are less than a year old and still being manufactured. Basically, anything introduced before the end of last year will still include component video. Are you saying that people should avoid the Oppo BDP-93 because it came out last year and includes component video outputs?

    The difference in playback quality and disc compatibility between last year's models and this year's models is minimal. And that's been the case for at least the last two years. The primary changes are with the network connectivity features.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    Get a new BLU player, and use the composite until you can afford a decent set
    that doesn't belong in a MONGOLIAN VILLAGE. You will find that theres not much diff,
    and you won't be compromising by getting a BLU player thats older and you will be stuck
    with for awhile.

    So, you're now claiming that there's "not much diff" between 480i (composite) and 1080p (component)? Nice advice :rolleyes:
  • 04-18-2011, 01:42 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Come on Pix, you are being a bit dramatic.

    You noticed that too, huh? :cool:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Component is capable of 1080i and with decent cables the connection is not far off from HDMI. It could be, with standard video as most modern sets don't upscale via analog connections due to copy protection. Component is not as bad as you want to make it out to be though.

    Actually, component video is fully capable of carrying a 1080p signal, and in the early days of HDMI (before signal equalization and boosting switches became available), was preferred over HDMI for long cable runs.

    Component video is well within the capabilities of existing HD video standards. It's getting phased out with Blu-ray players starting this year because of copy protection agreements with the studios.
  • 04-18-2011, 04:49 PM
    Mr Peabody
    I have always heard component maxed out at 1080i as in http://www.buzzle.com/articles/hdmi-vs-component.html but apparently there is now a digital version of component that can support 1080p http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_video

    I just did a quick search if you have anything to show analog component does 1080p I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks for the clarification. At this point it looks like what component is capable of depends on whether it's digital or analog.
  • 04-18-2011, 05:23 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I have always heard component maxed out at 1080i as in http://www.buzzle.com/articles/hdmi-vs-component.html but apparently there is now a digital version of component that can support 1080p http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_video

    I just did a quick search if you have anything to show analog component does 1080p I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks for the clarification. At this point it looks like what component is capable of depends on whether it's digital or analog.

    1080p over analog component video is supported by several manufacturers, including Samsung.

    Blue Jeans Cable also has a good explanation outlining some of the reasons why you can't automatically presume that HDMI is always preferable. Keep in mind that BJC is generally very critical of HDMI because of its unreliable signal integrity over long distances and the poor basic design of the connector (that last point, I'm very much in agreement with).

    The most important point is that with most sources, you're not looking at a pure unadulterated signal. At some point, the video signal is going to get rescaled, deinterlaced, or otherwise altered. And that will vary considerably between different HDTVs and HD devices. Even Blu-ray is a native 1080p24 format that needs either a 5:5 frame repeat or 2:3 pulldown applied just to display properly on a native 1080p60 display. In the early days of HDTV, more emphasis was given to the analog video path. That's why reviews of early HDMI-enabled HDTVs would point out instances where the component connection rated better than the HDMI connections.

    Quote:

    Consequently, there are always conversions going on, and these conversions aren't always easy going. "Digital to digital" conversion is no more a guarantee of signal quality than "digital to analog," and in practice may be substantially worse. Whether it's better or worse will depend upon the circuitry involved--and that is something which isn't usually practical to figure out on paper. As a general rule, with consumer equipment, one simply doesn't know how signals are processed, and one doesn't know how that processing varies by input. Analog and digital inputs must either be scaled through separate circuits, or one must be converted to the other to use the same scaler. How is that done? In general, you won't find an answer to that anywhere in your instruction manual, and even if you did, it'd be hard to judge which is the better scaler without viewing the actual video output. It's fair to say, in general, that even in very high-end consumer gear, the quality of circuits for signal processing and scaling is quite variable.
    Quote:

    So, which is better, HDMI or component? The answer--unsatisfying, perhaps, but true--is that it depends. It depends upon your source and display devices, and there's no good way, in principle, to say in advance whether the digital or the analog connection will render a better picture. You may even find, say, that your DVD player looks better through its HDMI output, while your satellite or cable box looks better through its component output, on the same display. In this case, there's no real substitute for simply plugging it in and giving it a try both ways.
  • 04-19-2011, 01:07 PM
    pixelthis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    This was the case with plenty of the early HDMI-enabled HDTVs. HDTV reviews used to run the tests using both connections and advise readers on which one provided the best picture quality, which was not always the HDMI connection.

    ANCIENT HISTORY

    Quote:

    But, it's still more effective than sticking with DVD, right?
    Not by much.
    YOU MIGHT AS WELL buy BLU, but thats just because BLU is down to 68 bucks.
    But my point is that an older BLU player, one with component, is not going to be as up to date as a newer one. So when you do get around to upgrading your monitor, you will
    need a new BLU player, also.
    BUT the most important thing is that a monitor without HDMI will be old as the sticks.
    I have a five year old set that has HDMI, you would have to get one a lot older to have a monitor without one. I doubt BLU would be worth the trouble, really.


    Quote:

    Again, if somebody has a set budget of $300, why would they want to upgrade the monitor before adding a Blu-ray player, if all they want to add is the Blu-ray capability?
    BECAUSE why bother putting a CORVETTE ENGINE in a 59 STUDEBAKER?
    What possible good would BLU capability be with a set so old that it doesnt have HDMI?
    With a budget of three hundred bucks, you are three hundred bucks away from a 42"
    1080p and a BLU player. EVER hear of penny wise and pound foolish?


    Quote:

    These so-called "older, and probably inferiour [sp]" Blu-ray players you're referring to are less than a year old and still being manufactured. Basically, anything introduced before the end of last year will still include component video. Are you saying that people should avoid the Oppo BDP-93 because it came out last year and includes component video outputs?
    No, but read the instructions, and they will tell you that component is an inferiour
    way to connect your BLU player. Thats because it involves two D/A conversions.
    AND AGAIN, if the reason to go component is that your TV doesnt have HDMI, that is an old honkin TV. But you lose the argument over quality.
    Doesnt matter if component can carry 1080p(it can), nobody is going to say its as good as HDMI, because it isn't.
    And a set that old is going to be 720p or 1080i, so its a moot point that component can carry 1080p, because it wont be 1080p at the end of the day.
    I got burned with a 1200 dollar receiver with component switching, because I A/B the
    HDMI/COMPONENT out from a cable box...a cable box.
    The increase in PQ was so blatant that I COULD NOT STAND to use the component switching on my new receiver, and that was a flippin cable box.
    WHY BOTHER buying a compromised device to accommodate a device that needs
    replacing anyway? MAKES NO SENSE.

    Quote:

    The difference in playback quality and disc compatibility between last year's models and this year's models is minimal. And that's been the case for at least the last two years. The primary changes are with the network connectivity features.
    and you still wind up using an inferiour connection.

    Quote:

    So, you're now claiming that there's "not much diff" between 480i (composite) and 1080p (component)? Nice advice :rolleyes:
    Quite a difference, but I COULD LIVE WITH COMPOSITE for awhile until I got a new
    monitor, better than I could live with an out of date BLU player for years.
    A monitor is one of the more important pieces of your HT, and you need to replace it
    before you bother with a BLU player. BUYING a BLU player for a monitor so old
    that it doesn't even have HDMI is like buying 2,000$ worth of wheels for a fifteen year old MERCURY. Cart before the horse.:1:
  • 04-19-2011, 04:57 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    ANCIENT HISTORY

    But, relevant if someone owns one of those sets, and is perfectly content with the HD picture quality they already get.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    Not by much.
    YOU MIGHT AS WELL buy BLU, but thats just because BLU is down to 68 bucks.
    But my point is that an older BLU player, one with component, is not going to be as up to date as a newer one. So when you do get around to upgrading your monitor, you will
    need a new BLU player, also.

    But, that's ALWAYS going to be the case with consumer electronics. People don't all upgrade everything at the same time. And if someone wants to ONLY upgrade the video player, then the availability of component video outputs is relevant.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    BUT the most important thing is that a monitor without HDMI will be old as the sticks.
    I have a five year old set that has HDMI, you would have to get one a lot older to have a monitor without one. I doubt BLU would be worth the trouble, really.

    My parents have a five-year old LG. They're perfectly happy with it. Their set is one of those models where the picture quality is simply better with the component connections than the HDMI connections. They're not going to buy a new TV if all they want to add is a Blu-ray player.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    BECAUSE why bother putting a CORVETTE ENGINE in a 59 STUDEBAKER?

    Still much for hyperbole, I see. :rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    What possible good would BLU capability be with a set so old that it doesnt have HDMI?
    With a budget of three hundred bucks, you are three hundred bucks away from a 42"
    1080p and a BLU player. EVER hear of penny wise and pound foolish?

    Again, why spend more when all you're looking to add is the Blu-ray player? Even a five-year old HDTV is still going to look much better with a Blu-ray player than a DVD player.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    Thats because it involves two D/A conversions.
    AND AGAIN, if the reason to go component is that your TV doesnt have HDMI, that is an old honkin TV. But you lose the argument over quality.

    But, if the TV uses a different scaler/deinterlacer on the analog path than on the digital path, then it's entirely possible to have a better picture using the component video connections. That's how a lot of HDTVs were designed, and in the early days of HDMI, you had a lot of really bad video processing and unreliable connections.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    Doesnt matter if component can carry 1080p(it can), nobody is going to say its as good as HDMI, because it isn't.

    Again, not "nobody" and not always.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    And a set that old is going to be 720p or 1080i, so its a moot point that component can carry 1080p, because it wont be 1080p at the end of the day.

    Not all of them. By 2006, there were 1080p HDTVs and not all of them handled the HDMI inputs very well.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    I got burned with a 1200 dollar receiver with component switching, because I A/B the
    HDMI/COMPONENT out from a cable box...a cable box.
    The increase in PQ was so blatant that I COULD NOT STAND to use the component switching on my new receiver, and that was a flippin cable box.
    WHY BOTHER buying a compromised device to accommodate a device that needs
    replacing anyway? MAKES NO SENSE.

    That's what happened in YOUR case. With my parents' TV, it would be a downgrade in picture quality to use the HDMI input. I know because I've actually tried it.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    Quite a difference, but I COULD LIVE WITH COMPOSITE for awhile until I got a new
    monitor, better than I could live with an out of date BLU player for years.
    A monitor is one of the more important pieces of your HT, and you need to replace it
    before you bother with a BLU player. BUYING a BLU player for a monitor so old
    that it doesn't even have HDMI is like buying 2,000$ worth of wheels for a fifteen year old MERCURY. Cart before the horse.:1:

    In other words, you'd rather watch 480i on a HD-capable TV than simply add a Blu-ray player and enjoy full HD. Knock yourself out!

    Good gawd, it's not like these choices are mutually exclusive. If someone buys a Blu-ray player right now, it will work perfectly fine if they upgrade their HDTV later on. And aside from networked video features, it's not like the Blu-ray players from this year are going to perform any differently than last year's models.
  • 04-20-2011, 12:05 PM
    pixelthis
    Quote:

    =Woochifer]But, relevant if someone owns one of those sets, and is perfectly content with the HD picture quality they already get.
    yes, and according to you they can buy a dumbed down BLU player to match, locking them into inferiour tech for YEARS

    Quote:

    But, that's ALWAYS going to be the case with consumer electronics. People don't all upgrade everything at the same time. And if someone wants to ONLY upgrade the video player, then the availability of component video outputs is relevant.
    no reason to upgrade the "video player" if they are not going to get maximum use out of it.
    If their set has no HDMI then it is an antique. NEED TO CONCENTRATE on that
    first.


    Quote:

    My parents have a five-year old LG. They're perfectly happy with it. Their set is one of those models where the picture quality is simply better with the component connections than the HDMI connections. They're not going to buy a new TV if all they want to add is a Blu-ray player.
    SO NOW you are reduced to quoting your parents. My parents are constantly watching SD when a HD channel is available, and wouldn't know component from HDMI, as your parents probably don't.
    And component is never going to be as good as HDMI, too many technical challenges.




    Quote:

    Again, why spend more when all you're looking to add is the Blu-ray player? Even a five-year old HDTV is still going to look much better with a Blu-ray player than a DVD player.
    THE IMPROVENMENT is going to be slight, and for the thousandth time, if you set is so old that it has no HDMI inputs you have no business buying a BLU player,
    YOU NEED A NEW MONITOR.. You are saying to buy a BLU player with compromised tech to accommodate an obsolete TV when you should be concentrating on a
    decent TV.


    Quote:

    But, if the TV uses a different scaler/deinterlacer on the analog path than on the digital path, then it's entirely possible to have a better picture using the component video connections. That's how a lot of HDTVs were designed, and in the early days of HDMI, you had a lot of really bad video processing and unreliable connections.
    even more reason to get a new set.
    I CAN'T BELIEVE IT, this is the first time I HAVE EVER SEEN ANYBODY argue that
    component is better than HDMI!!! Next thing you will be arguing about the reality of unicorns.
    A BLU player operates in the digital domain, you need a D/A conversion to use component,which is analog, then you need another conversion when you get to the set.
    THE ABILITY TO carry 1080p is moot, since there is no set so old that is 1080p,
    so you automatically lose a lot of the advantage of BLU.
    Basically, you hook a BLU player up with component to accommodate an older set ,
    it will be operating in 720p or 1080i, or worse. And you will need an older player,
    which you will be stuck with when you do upgrade your monitor.
    UPGRADE YOUR MONITOR FIRST. Only thing that makes sense





    Quote:

    Not all of them. By 2006, there were 1080p HDTVs and not all of them handled the HDMI inputs very well.
    My five year old set looks fine for what it is, mainly 720p

    Quote:

    That's what happened in YOUR case. With my parents' TV, it would be a downgrade in picture quality to use the HDMI input. I know because I've actually tried it.
    THEN YOU NEED TO SHOP FOR NEW GEAR


    Quote:

    In other words, you'd rather watch 480i on a HD-capable TV than simply add a Blu-ray player and enjoy full HD. Knock yourself out!
    that is you. I WOULD RATHER HAVE a decent modern set that can take full advantage
    of BLU before I STARTED INVESTING IN IT.
    BLU didn't excite me much when it first came out, because the diff between DVD and
    a 720p BLU was not that much different, not enough to justify the high price.
    Now a 1080p BLU disc is simply spectacular on a 1080p set, enough to make
    someone watching a BLU fan for life. Not so with inferiour equipment

    Quote:

    Good gawd, it's not like these choices are mutually exclusive. If someone buys a Blu-ray player right now, it will work perfectly fine if they upgrade their HDTV later on. And aside from networked video features, it's not like the Blu-ray players from this year are going to perform any differently than last year's models.
    NO THEY ARE NOT, and if your DVD player conks out, get a BLU of course.
    But there is a right and wrong way to do things, is all.
    And just makes more sense to upgrade your monitor either with or before your
    BLU upgrade.
    MAYBE not a few years ago, but a really nice monitor can be had for not too bad a price.
    WHEN a nice 42" set can be had for less than 600, and a 47" for a grand or less, why
    live with an inferiour set?:1:
  • 04-20-2011, 07:28 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Pix, you aren't being rational here. I'd rather buy a BDP for $100.00 give or take opposed to dropping $600.00 give or take for a new HDTV when I have a HDTV with just not the latest technology. Component inputs on a TV are valuable even if a Progressive Scan DVD player not to mention a BDP. People were impressed with High Definition at 720p or 1080i, which by the way is all you can get from broadcast networks, the big step is not 1080i to 1080p, that may not even be that important at all with a smaller screen.

    I think your big step was going from Vizio to Sharp and you think it was the 1080p. You really need to read the link posted to the Bluejeans article and pay attention.
  • 04-21-2011, 04:49 AM
    Worf101
    Man...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    i have a thread going on a Funai player I have purchased from WALMART for 68 $.
    IF you want to pay out the nose and get a bunch if "features" of questionable value
    get something like an OPPO.
    Or go to Walmart and get a magnavox (Funai) for 68 bucks. Or splurge and get a
    LG for 80$ , or a Sony for a 119, etc.
    My first player was 400$, a Sony that was slow as CHRISTMAS and out of date in
    six months. My second was a SHARP, died in less than a year. My fault, shoulda known better.
    I love my new 68$ player, looks and sounds great, dies, and I trashcan it and get one
    up to date. I HAVE SPENT ENOUGH ON BLU PLAYERS.
    The day of the "250 to 300" BLU player is over.
    Been over.:1:

    Do you HAVE to trash everything you don't own or use? The OPPO players are great pieces of gear, even the basic ones are marvelous. True I don't use SACD or some of the other audio formats BUT when that machine UPDATES itself its and amazing thing to watch. Also if I do run across a Blu-Ray it won't play you go on-line to their forums and you'll find probably find a solution. I don't own a $68.00 Funai, but I'm not going to disparrage gear I don't own or use, that's just stupidity.

    Worf
  • 04-21-2011, 06:53 AM
    recoveryone
    well said Worf