For the
longest time, the answer to the inevitable "What's the best Blu-ray player?" question was simple: "Sony's PlayStation 3,
of course." Now, however, prices of less extravagant decks have plummeted, making the PS3 one of the pricier BD players on the market. True though that may be, Sony's BD-infused console still managed to top
CNNMoney's list of "Best of the Blu-ray players." Critics pointed out that its Profile 2.0 support, quick load times and obvious extra benefits (gaming) made it a surefire winner, with the
BDP-S350 and
Pioneer Elite BDP-05FD notching silver and bronze, respectively. Panasonic's Profile 2.0
DMP-BD50 and Samsung's tried and true
BD-P1500 finished out the top five, though it's fairly evident that reviewers didn't bother taking cash into account. We'll keep an eye out for the "Best Of" list for bargain hunters, but you're probably better off just grabbing the cheapest deck you can find
this Friday and pondering the decision at a later date.
[Thanks, Anthony]
posted Nov 25th 2008 11:43AM
I'd probably sound like a hater. But, here it goes. Would Blu-ray have a leg to stand on if it wasn't for the PS3? Probably not. Although I do own a 60gig PS3 for which I paid $500, I still think it's a great deal and a bargain for all the things that it's capable of. But, I'm talking about Blu-ray as video content disc. I have always been with the argument that it's a disturbing thing that a video disc format was won in great part by a gaming console. That the best HD player is a gaming console. And, that the best HD player costs you $400. Low Rank me all you want, I'm just uncomfortable with those results. The HD format should've been won by a stand alone unit, not a gaming console. I don't care if it was HD-DVD or Blu-ray. A gaming console should've never been the major contributor. Yes, I did keep track of all the stats during the so called "format war." But, anyone knows that stats can be manipulated in any way one wants them to go.
this is like saying that because Bo Jackson (who?) was a good baseball player, it was somehow unfair that he also be a good football player. In fact, there are a billion analogies for proving how ridiculous this argument is (why I chose this one, I have no idea.)
Shirley, you can't be serious?
I rarely post on this site, because I am really only interested in Chris' thoughts, but man, how can I resist?
P.S. I almost pulled out the Bill Clinton Sax Player vs. President analogy, but despite the humor, it would have weakened my point.
I'm not going to talk about Bo Jackson because I don't follow sports. But his "Bo Knows ..." was very popular back in the 80's. I'm also going to avoid your introduction of politics and Bubba's sax playing talents. Although I think Zoot was a better player
My point is that a video disc format should've been decided by a stand alone unit and not a gaming console. After all, the average consumer will never fall for a gaming console to watch their movies. And we're seeing that by the low demand for Blu-ray from the average Joe Six Pack.
Again, the PS3 is great, and I'd buy a second one if I could afford it. But, it's not the best strategy for replacing the DVD format.
Rob:
Thanks to PS3 being a contributing factor, the war ended sooner than a standalone only war.
We live in a new era where gaming consoles are more than what they use to be.
@ Dominic:
I understand that consoles are playing a bigger role on our entertainment choices. However, they're not the best choice for non-gamers or any age group. Most of us here have no problem using them for that. But, try explaining it to parents or your grandparents. It just won't work. A gaming console is the worst route to take.
You seem to be too hung up about the PS3 being a gaming console. Why should it matter? Overall it's a format were talkning about, not the device that delivers that format. It's $400 for all that it does, so the price is justifiable as a media device, not a BD player.
Anyhow, until very recently, the PS3 was the cheapest BD player and did way more than the standalones going for $600. How quickly things have changed in a couple of months. YOu can now get a standalone for
Rob:
Hands down, PS3 'is' the best choice currently for any age and even those who are non-gamers. I'm not saying it's a 100% sale right now, but quite frankly you get the best bang for the buck. You get a game console, a media center, and a blu-ray player. And grandparents and parents may not need that, but those conservative buyers adopting to new tech. still say "once you buy it it becomes a dinosaur" as annoying as that sounds, I still hear it from my elders... this gives them headroom adding more value to their blu-ray player expanding it with firmware updates to keep it up to date.
A year or two from now, it won't matter as prices will drop and blu-ray will take more of the marketshare (even tho DVD is not ever going away as it seems).
Right now, I'd have to disagree with you... PS3 FTW
"But, try explaining it to parents or your grandparents. It just won't work. A gaming console is the worst route to take."
Don't have to, my parents have a PS3 and use it all the time for movies.. and I don't think they've ever turned on a game, even for the grandkids. They love the thing as a movie player and love the quality of blu-ray movies. They use the remote vs a controller and it's just like any player for them.
They saw mine and wanted one.. the fact that I was also buying a lot of new releases on blu ray (and the whole family borrows from me) was a big part of the reason, and they asked me if it made sense and I said yes due to it's ability to update via firmware over time.
...Funny how just a year or so ago, many like-minded individuals including myself were being trolled to death for suggesting the same.
I don't see how it matters or not if a "console" won the war for blu ray. If it helped seed the market with players then it was obviously a smart thing to do for Sony. Its also pretty derogatory to call it just a console when even now, in this very news article it is still considered one of the best players out there. That's pretty impressive if you ask me and testament to the quality of the system.
It's going to be hard to beat for quite sometime. The fact that it can be updated on the fly (which other network capable players can do as well you pay a premium for the ability), has those fast load times that were alluded to, can be a pretty decent media center with streaming from the network and oh yeah it plays games too.
Ya, it tops another Blu Ray best player list, unfortunatly it's in last place as a gaming console.
The big question should be, is the PS3 the best Blu-Ray player for non-gamers? For some people, the game console aspect is irrelevant. It's added value is $0. Therefore, is one of the pricier Blu-Ray players still better than the competition?
For me at least, the answer is still yes. I may be wrong, but I don't know of a single BD standalone that can seek out DLNA media servers on your network and stream content. I am the furthest thing from a gamer, but I love the fact that I can stream 1080p/5.1 content to my TV via the PS3.
A standalone obviously looks more at home underneath a TV but I wouldn't dismiss a PS3 even if you never want to play games on it. It is also a pretty decent multimedia system too.
Who is the jerk-off that wrote up the reviews for these? The BD-P1500 is stereo only? Seriously?! Then how the hell did I get mine to put out 7.1 TrueHD last night? I must be some kind of a sorcerer.
IMHO its the BDP-S350.... Stable as hell, cheap as hell, around $250, got mine for $120 through vendor..quick load times, its only profile 1.1 out of box, but has ethernet for updating to 2.0 when released.
I was debating getting a PS3, but the 360 is killing it with netflix, media center, and gaming. I don't need to drop an extra $300 to have something that suits me fine.
the samsung 1500 is a great player.....just has to be tweaked a lil...anynet is a stupid idea, get a harmony remote, and the load times are retarded. the 2500 isn't much better... 2cents
HA! That Peter Lewis is an idiot that shouldn't be misleading consumers and reviewing product if he doesn't know how to operate it. I wrote into the magazine and let them know they have a dip$hit writing for them!
Let me know how you got 7.1 TrueHD on your PS3. Your telling me that it Displayed TrueHD on the receiver. I have a Denon 3809 and it decodes my Panasonic BDP 30 without a problem, but my PS3 the only thing I get is PCM or DTS. Don't tell me it doesn't when its not even in the PS3 audio when you do the audio setup via HDMI. I know your going to say it does it, but if you have a receiver that does decoding then it would show up on your receiver.
Now the BDP-S350 is the same as the BDP-S550 without the analog outputs no?
Pretty much!
Side note -- I just picked up a BDP-S550 and a Sony KDL-52W4100 (52" HDTV) at Best Buy for $2398, out the door. BB price-matched Crutchfield, who were also offering a free 19" Sony HDTV with the purchase of an HDTV over $1999.99... since BB didn't have the 19" in stock, they substituted a comparable ($399.99) Blu-Ray player instead.
I don't work for Crutch or BB, FWIW
For those that say that PS3 is not the best bluray player, just look at all the options when it comes to sound and picture adjustments. Also, PS3 is not $400.00 but $359.00 at Blockbuster. You can't beat that price. I had a PS3 since day 1 and it never froze on me. Can't say the same about my second xbox 360 (the first one had the ring of death after 2 years).
PS3 rocks as BR Media player. BD Live in disk applications are growing, and the only player that 'll have the power to get this right is the PS3.
Well, if that's true, and the PS3 is the only capable player moving forward, blu ray is stone cold motherless dead!
There are lots of good players Gus with and without BD-Live. The format will have no problem going forward.
If I'm not mistaken the original Playstation played a hand in helping dvd's becoming popular as well. It may not have been THE dvd player of choice but you can't argue that being able to use a kid's system to play movies in an optical format was great (i.e. no extra purchase) and was a revolutionary step forward just like going from cassette tapes to compact discs were. Sony is hoping for similar results with the PS3.
Arguing that a game console "decided" the war is nonsense. #1 it didn't decide the war, the majority of studios backing Blu-Ray did that. I also don't think we have any numbers that show how much PS3 owners contributed to sales. Regardless, thats MS' fault for not doing the same with XBox 360. #2 Honestly, what is the big deal ? We're still in the infancy of this. I'm quite happy with what we have now and if people are turned off by how much BR costs now and how the next thing is "around the corner", thats a long way off and won't be cheap either. Times are changing. I know PS3s may not be as simple as powering on and putting in a disc but hey, if you want the newest, you've got to learn. There are stand-alone units for those who don't want to, they're just not getting as good a value. No one is forcing anyone to buy a PS3 but those who are informed know better.
Going slightly off-topic.... The adoption of blu-ray will be slower than that of dvd simply because its an evolutionary step. Theres another article on here that talks about people owning HDTVs and still don't have or know about HD programming. Your average consumers are slow and ignorant when it comes to technology and not very rationale. Prices need to come down and HDTV ownership needs to become more prevalent. Then the education can start. All this predicting that its already over and digital distribution will win out yadda yadda is ridiculous. Has iTunes become the de facto standard ? When the time comes, we'll know. Speculating now is as bad as ESPN choosing who'll be in the Super Bowl before the pre-season even starts. DVD took years to become mainstream and only did so once players and media came down.
Plus, the young consumers who've grown up surrounded by technology will become older, have more expendable income and will push the adoption rate higher and faster. Its only a matter of time BUT time will tell. For the time being, enjoy whatever it is that you want.
The original Playstation was not able to play DVD's... you're thinking of the PS2.
Sorry, but I can't take anyone seriously when they say the PS3 is the BEST Blu-Ray player, maybe if it had a built in IR port, but since it doesn't, it can't be the BEST. Then again, maybe it is, and everything else just really SUCKS. It's really sad that after all this timer, the so called BEST Blu-Ray player is a Game console that lacks a IR port!
I don't give a cr*p that you can buy a USB adapter for cheap which still doesn't fully console all the features, or power on/off the PS3, or the $50+ IR to Blue Tooth solutions either. To me, it's Laughable for Sony to advertise the PS3 right from the beginning at how it's such a great Blu-Ray movie player and yet to cheap to have a fully working, built-in IR port. I'd be POed with MS also with all it's Media capabilities if it also didn't have a built in IR port. They just aren't Game Consoles now but a Media Entertainment System. Really, if Blue Tooth was just so great at controlling things, How come not 1 single Audio/Video hardware being released support it? Not even by Sony themselves. I don't see a single Sony Stand alone Blu-Ray player supporting Blue tooth, let alone any other Sony Hardware.
I'm hoping Sony wises up and that when at some point they release the PS3 SLIM, it'll have built in IR support also. I would then buy one! That's the second biggest deal breaker for me on getting a PS3 at this time. The first being no Games that I REALLY have to play.
With all the great Retail games on the 360, all the great Arcade Games,and NOW all the Interesting NEW Community Games, WOW. There just isn't enough time in the world to play but a fraction of them. In between Netflex, and with PlayON, Hulu, Youtube, CBS, ESPN, etc. Media Center, It's getting to be to much. At some point Blu-Ray, but wither it's a improved PS3 or a Stand Alone Unit, That's still up in the air. I'm in no rush at all.
Sony will probably release a new PS3 with a built in IR port, they did the same thing with the PS2.
Also I think you are a little too worked up over a IR port, calm down a little bit. Using the controller isn't that hard.
I wish IR would die. Universal remotes cost $100 up. They should support bluetooth and whatever other radio controlled mechanisms that appear in the coming years rather than hobbling new kit with an outdated technology.
*shakes head* seriously? IR? that's your argument? While I agree that _not_ having a port makes it difficult to run it up with a Harmony @ 100% of its capability, its _not_ difficult to get it done aftermarket. Also, to not have implemented bluetooth meant the PS3 != open. Kind of like M$ for charging me 50 bucks for their dirty little wireless headset. I got a stereo bluetooth headset for 19.99, that will also work with my phone, iPod, PC, and any other (open) format device.
Wat Xbox? Also, I own both an Xbox and a PS3, I use the PS3 as a BD player and media center 90% and games 10%.
Wat M$ fan?
The Sony BDP-S550 is selling for $305 on Amazon. Wow!
Bah. I'm sick of all this console rivalry BS. There are many points you can make about all the consoles. Like the Wii is meant for casual gamers and little kids, and costs less, so it sells well. sure, great. The 360 used to have tons of RROD issues and now it seems pretty stable, but is primarily successful in the US, especially the japanese market isn't catching on that well, that and microsoft charges a lot for game and accessory licensing. The PS3 didn't have that many games at first, but eventually got some amazing first party titles and most of the features people complained about not having were finally added(in game XMB, rumble, I hardly care for either).
Everybody is going to buy the console they are going to buy, simple as that. I personally chose the PS3, for various reasons. I like how Sony kept it open to install any OS I wanted, I put Linux on anything I can(including my DS), the best part of that is I can run console emulators on it, great first and 3rd party games, tons of included feature(blu-ray, bluetooth, hard drive, wifi, gigabit ethernet, hdmi), looks great with my glossy black TV.
I didn't get a Wii because there is maybe one or two games I'd really sit down and play for more than a couple hours, graphics are sub-par, and the motion sensing doesn't seem quite perfect yet. Maybe the next version of it I'll pick up if they get better games.
I also didn't get a 360 because there just are games for it that I can't get on the PS3, or eventually the PC. The netflix doesn't mean anything to me, I can plug my laptop into HDTV and stream netflix to it. And I don't see how people say the 360 is so much cheaper when to get a model thats(almost) comparable to the features of the PS3 you need to spend the same amount($400 for the elite, then another $100 for wifi), but still no HD disc or gigabit ethernet.
Ok, so that was longer than expected and I'm sure I'll be called a Sony fanboy. But I do have a DS instead of a PSP, so :P.
Really awesome blog. I enjoyed reading review of cool gadget , techno tips etc. I found that you really update
your site regularly that made me more interesting. I've bookmarked your site for my future use.
Thank you
sagar rai
http://www.todaysgadget.blogspot.com
http://www.reviewtechz.site40.net
http://www.freetemplates4u.co.cc