Blu-ray.com Exclusive: Blu-ray Player Benchmarks

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by MoPe

Or IS it? Any fact's to back this up, or are you basing this upon an assumption?




Hmm.. what model DAC's are in your Denon? And how many?




Like...?

Burr Brown 1796 DAC's for all channels.

The analog flexibility I'm referring to is bass management. No other player, not even the vaunted Sony 5000ES and upcoming Pioneer Elite 09FD has the bass management flexibility for analog users. 95% of BD players have a fixed crossover for analog users. Currently only the Marantz 8002 matches this flexibility because it is a Denon clone.

Check it out here:

http://usa.denon.com/DVD-3800BDCILit_0324.pdf

Concerning 1080p/24, output is virtually identical from every BD player (virtually no processing is involved compared to 1080p/60 and other rez if the display accepts it). People who know what they're talking about have accepted this as fact.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by EWL5

Burr Brown 1796 DAC's for all channels.

The analog flexibility I'm referring to is bass management. No other player, not even the vaunted Sony 5000ES and upcoming Pioneer Elite 09FD has the bass management flexibility for analog users. 95% of BD players have a fixed crossover for analog users. Currently only the Marantz 8002 matches this flexibility because it is a Denon clone.

Check it out here:

http://usa.denon.com/DVD-3800BDCILit_0324.pdf

Concerning 1080p/24, output is virtually identical from every BD player (virtually no processing is involved compared to 1080p/60 and other rez if the display accepts it). People who know what they're talking about have accepted this as fact.

All the points you are making above as to why you bought your player have nothing to do with this thread. And you also may want to read some indepth reviews on players, as some do not pickup 2:2 and 3:2 cadence better than other players. My point, and you may want to reread some of the earlier posts, is that some newer bluray buyers are seeing this thread and using it as a factor in their decision, and that is a mistake.

[aiman04]

Guys, let's be clear here. I did not do the test. Please read the first post carefully. The test was done by the Blu-ray.com team and was originally posted here:

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2138

I'm just posting the results here. You can also find the results in the player specifications page in this site.

This should not be the ultimate guide guide in buying a blu-ray players, it's just one of the factors you can take into consideration. Let's say you've narrowed down to 2 players with the same features and picture/audio quality that you really satisfied with, now, don't this test will be of great help for you? Would you take the slow loading player or the faster one?

Now let's be thankful to Blu-ray.com for making this test.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by aiman04

The LG BD300 even beats PS3 for basic movie loading time.

PS3: 30 seconds
LG: 17 seconds

Yes it does load extremely fast!!! I have the 200 with the latest firmware updates and it loads almost as fast as my HTPC (which loads faster than a PS3)! Plus the ability to bitstream and several other refinements make the LG300 one nice BD player !!!

PS The 200 can also bitstream and it has a built in decoder for TrueHD - I'm glad I kept this standalone around.

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by jcs913

All the points you are making above as to why you bought your player have nothing to do with this thread. And you also may want to read some indepth reviews on players, as some do not pickup 2:2 and 3:2 cadence better than other players. My point, and you may want to reread some of the earlier posts, is that some newer bluray buyers are seeing this thread and using it as a factor in their decision, and that is a mistake.

My last post was answering a direct question from another member. If it wasn't in context, then please read my original post below, which is totally relevant to the discussion-namely, that in the digital realm where PQ and AQ are nearly identical in quality, the only other differentiating factors would be load times and player responsiveness.

I own one of the best values in BD (PS3) and one of the worst values (Denon 3800). I have nothing but perspective. If I say a digital 1080p/24 output (remember, there is no cadence adjustment needed if the display accepts 1080p/24) is nearly identical between a $600 player and a $2000 player and you don't believe me, then I suggest you hit the AVS forums.

Originally Posted by EWL5

I disagree that load times and responsiveness should only count for 10 percent. PQ is already nearly identical with 1080p/24 output and AQ only takes a substantial leap when you spend close to $2000. Since this qualifies 95 percent of standalones, the only thing left are loading and response times.

I tolerate the slowness of my Denon 3800 because it offers analog flexibility that sub $2000 players can't provide. My PS3 is pretty ideal except for the lack of IR and occasional fan noise.

[Maui5150]

I have to laugh at the data as EXTREMELY suspect.

My bias, as I just got the Panny 55

I find it funny they marked the performance of the player, but don't know if it supports DivX (it does), VCD, JPEG (it does)

They number of HDMI, Composite, component, S-cideo, Analog, optical, ethernet, etc. As well as they do not list the video or audio DAC. In fact, the majority of the details listed are "Unknown - Please report" As well, I have had significantly better loading times.

In the end, performance does not necessarily equal preference. Just go to your favorite store and compare TVs. They may have the same "performance", same specs on contrast, etc, but in the end, people will generally have a preference to which one has a better picture.

Some interesting load times etc, but in the end didn't give me much

[Entertainment72]

My PS3 does NOT take 30 seconds to load a "basic" movie, not even close. That right there makes me question that entire chart...hmmmm.

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

My PS3 does NOT take 30 seconds to load a "basic" movie, not even close. That right there makes me question that entire chart...hmmmm.

Not only that. They never bothered to report the discs used to test basic loading and dics with Java. I want to confirm their numbers at home!

[owa]

aiman04, the graphs are a nice addition. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

My PS3 does NOT take 30 seconds to load a "basic" movie, not even close. That right there makes me question that entire chart...hmmmm.

It shouldn't matter as long as they're consistent (i.e. measured things the same way with each one, using the same disc, etc.). The actual time would probably matter more if you were using the chart to compare to DVD but as it is, the delta is what matters.

[sunaami]

Do I have to have a credit card to access the Xbox Live Marketplace? I am planning on purchasing an Xbox 360 soon and want to be able to access the Xbox Live Marketplace. I bought Bullet Witch and want to download the free special features only available through Xbox Live. I don't even know if the content is still available for downloading, but I want to know if I have to use my credit card in order the access the marketplace at all. I don't plan on purchasing anything through it.