Bitstreaming is nice, but it's still not enough to make me believe that the PS3 Slim is the best low-end Blu-ray player. Check out my review for a more home theater-centric point of view:

http://alwaysgoright.com/2009/08/why-the-ps3-slim-still-kinda-stinks-as-a-blu-ray-player/#more-714

I love it when the wife makes me "what it" with her. Consider yourself lucky Ben...

The hacks for the BH200 are software based and have not been affected by firmware updates (yet). There have been firmware updates and the hack still works. All you need to do is enter some codes via the BH200 remote. For more information, see this AVS post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1009104

The region codes for both Blu-ray and DVD can be switched on the LG BH200.

Apparently, though I haven't tested it, the Oppo BPD-83 can switch Blu-ray regions as well.

Good points, squiggle.

In my previous post, I was suggesting that Steve ask the Dolby reps why the consumer should demand TrueHD over DTS HD MA.Personally, I don't think consumers should demand one over the other, but I'd like to hear why Dolby thinks that there codec is superior. Perhaps they'll mention its greater efficiency, as you did. Perhaps they'll say that it's more widely supported than DTS HD MA (more players can both decode and bitstream it, while there are still some Blu-ray players that can only bitstream DTS HD MA). I'm not sure, but I'd like to hear their spin since they're both lossless codecs.

Personally, I'd welcome a standardization on DTS HD MA because I prefer it over TrueHD. Don't ask me why. To my ears, it just sounds better. Perhaps it's because it's typically louder than a TrueHD track. Whatever the case, we have one next generation DVD format, why not have a single next generation audio format as well?

Further, why should consumers demand studios include Dolby TrueHD tracks? Essentially, why is TrueHD better than DTS HD MA? If they're both lossless, bit-for-bit codecs, why shouldn't all studios simply adopt the DTS since it appears to be winning the codec war?

Steve:

Perhaps you can ask Dolby how they feel about studio support for Dolby TrueHD. It seems to me that DTS HD MA is taking over (see the new Watchmen movie from Warner, as Warner, as far as I know, is using DTS HD MA instead of TrueHD for the first time). Are they confident that their high resolution format will continue to be used? I'm pretty sure I know how they'll respond, but I'm interested to hear what they have to say regardless.

I just want a high quality picture, support for all the audio codecs and fast load times. With a budget of around $300, where should I turn for the Blu-ray player that fits me, or should I just grab a PS3?

Both a PS3 and a standalone will give you a high quality picture, so that one is a wash.

In terms of audio codec support, all of the new players support all of the high definition audio codecs, both decoding and bitstreaming. Are you a guy that likes to tinker with sound via your receiver? If so, I'd say go standalone.

Load times. I think the PS3 still holds a slight edge over most other players at this point, but the gap has nearly closed. A slight edge to the PS3 here.

A few things you didn't mention: are you concerned about heat and power consumption? If so, the standalones are a much better choice. Are you planning on using a universal remote such as a Harmony? If so, go standalone unless you want to shell out more money for an IR adapter.

The only real advantage the PS3 has now is gaming. If you're going to game, then spend a bit more and get the PS3. If you have no interest in gaming, I'd recommend getting a standalone from Panasonic, LG, or Samsung.

Yeah, it's hard not to come off as holier-than-thou when you correct someone's grammar online. Still, I'm gonna fight the good fight. I'm sure Ben appreciates my efforts...

Solid work, Glenn.

Got to think of an easy way of explaining an end of sentence preposition to Ben...ah forget it.