An even better PS3 (wow)!?

[arroyopines]

As if Sony hasn't blown the doors off with the PS3 already, get this. I just got home tonight to find the latest issue of Home Theater magazine (April 2007) in the mail. On the news AV wire page (p. 24) was the following short blurb:

An A/V Centric PS3 is promised by the president of Sony Computer Entertainment - "a standard A/V-component-sized box with a more powerful power-supply unit, [an] antishake insulator, twice the main memory, and [two] HDMI [connections] to split the sound and video output." Be ready to pony up $2,500, far more that the cost of a regular PS3.

Costly no doubt, but sounds phenomenal. I bought a PS3 for my son for his birthday last month and bought just two movies to see the quality for myself as an interim step (I'm not a gamer, but a big video/audiophile) and was blown away on my 92" diagonal screen BENQ projector (720p no less).

I am looking forward to picking up a standalone Blu-Ray machine (maybe this next-gen PS3 even) and let the kids use the PS3 on the 46" LCD. I have been eagerly waiting for a winner in this format war but am now making my bet on Blu-Ray. It appears to me that Sony (and partner companies like Pioneer) are executing correctly on the quality and hardware package (the XBOX 360 with no HDMI and the add-on thingamabob is laughable) and the Blu-Ray studo support is key.

Thanks all for the informative posts.

[Blackraven]

I've heard about this as well.

They want to make a version of the PS3 that is based on the PSX media center. (and PSX = PS2 media-center version and NOT PS ONE/PS1).

But would the added cost be worth the extra goodies (over regular 20 or 60GB PS3)???

We'll know for sure if Sony releases it.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by arroyopines

As if Sony hasn't blown the doors off with the PS3 already, get this. I just got home tonight to find the latest issue of Home Theater magazine (April 2007) in the mail. On the news AV wire page (p. 24) was the following short blurb:

An A/V Centric PS3 is promised by the president of Sony Computer Entertainment - "a standard A/V-component-sized box with a more powerful power-supply unit, [an] antishake insulator, twice the main memory, and [two] HDMI [connections] to split the sound and video output." Be ready to pony up $2,500, far more that the cost of a regular PS3.

Thanks all for the informative posts.

Yes. People just simply fail to realize/admit that the Cell is about to revolutionize not just the gaming industry - but the entire a/v space as well...from the low end to the high end.

The Cell is a much much bigger vision. Breathtaking really. Think about the cost savings across their entire product line as low end Cells (1 or 2 SPU's) to high end Cells (7 or 8) replace all those custom components from outside mfgs and the *long term inventory streamlining* that also results. In a sense there are no bad Cells - just ones with fewer SPU's for use in lower end devices.

For example all the work they have been doing on software decoding etc on the PS3 is just a bit of software that will run on that A/V unit plus some extra features.

...and don't forget the Cell was designed to work together so the chances your PS3 and the A/V unit will work together for additional video/audio pre/post processing is a pretty good bet. That was the real reason of the 1GB Ethernet port. Kutagari talked about Cell storage that "ripens" your media as well. While Sony haters and fanboys are laughing about his broken english - MS understands it.

Keys to the future media kingdom. That's why MS are keeping Toshiba in their pocket. HD-DVD will also *weaken* Toshiba - MS had everything to gain from pushing HD-DVD - even more so than just creating FUD. They win all around from that perspective. Too bad consumers are losers all around - choosing blu-ray at least preserves your long term investment.

Btw, as a comparison Anthem AVM's are around $3000 using a single DSP. The higher end ones use 2 DSP's at roughly double the cost. The Cell will allow Sony to just use the Cell instead of those DSP's from other mfgs.

You made a wise investment. Enjoy it.

[JTK]

Something to keep an eye on. Hopefully Sony learned from their mistakes with the "PS-X" in Japan that they tried to launch a year or two ago?...

[juha]

This story is now 2 months old.

Interesting, nevertheless!




J

[Aaron]

After I spend $600 on a PS3, an even better one is announced. That's how is always goes...lol

[BTBuck1]

Originally Posted by juha

This story is now 2 months old.

Interesting, nevertheless!




J

Hillarious, when someone with one post, roasts someone with 1 post.
Is this Mutiny?

good times!~

[BOSS10L]

I still think they're going to have a hard time with this. A lot of people don't take the $500-$600 PS3 seriously as a BD player because they look at it as a "game console". Why would their opinion change over one that costs 6-7 times as much?

I applaud Sony for taking the initiative though.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by BOSS10L

I still think they're going to have a hard time with this. A lot of people don't take the $500-$600 PS3 seriously as a BD player because they look at it as a "game console". Why would their opinion change over one that costs 6-7 times as much?

Don't market it as a game machine. Market it as the ultimate AV home theater system that, as a bonus, also plays PS3 games.

[BOSS10L]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

Don't market it as a game machine. Market it as the ultimate AV home theater system that, as a bonus, also plays PS3 games.

Would you be willing to bet your next 2 year's salary that it would definitely appeal using that marketing ploy? I'm not.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by BOSS10L

Would you be willing to bet your next 2 year's salary that it would definitely appeal using that marketing ploy? I'm not.

It appeals to a totally different sector, i.e., high end audiophiles/videophiles. Obviously, Sony will not market a $2500 unit to appeal to the PSP crowd.

[theknub]

Originally Posted by BTBuck1

Hillarious, when someone with one post, roasts someone with 1 post.
Is this Mutiny?

good times!~

it's the new kids

the OG's forgot how to do it

[JTK]

Originally Posted by theknub

it's the new kids

the OG's forgot how to do it

Or some of the OG's have shrugged their shoulders and given up.

[ProvenFlipper]

Originally Posted by JTK

Or some of the OG's have shrugged their shoulders and given up.

I think I fall into this category. It's not that serious anymore, I spend too much time watching BDs now.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by BOSS10L

Would you be willing to bet your next 2 year's salary that it would definitely appeal using that marketing ploy? I'm not.

Only people who could afford to bet two year's salary would buy that.

The PS3 as it is is on the upper range of what I'd be willing to spend on any media player. My home theater is a 12x12 family room that opens onto the kitchen and is filled with toys for a 2-year old. Whether I have a $500 theater in a box or a $2500 state of the art system it's going to sound almost exactly the same. My only luxury in that room is a 42" Panasonic Plasma and guess what, Barney is just as annoying in HD.

[arroyopines]

As a new kid on the block, I'll know better that before I post anything I've got to go through every thread to see if it is already old. Still, it wasn't like I was asking what the difference between component cables and HDMI was. One shortfall that I did feel that the PS3 has is a single HDMI out. For me, that is being used for the video. This higher end console sounded promising.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by arroyopines

One shortfall that I did feel that the PS3 has is a single HDMI out. For me, that is being used for the video. This higher end console sounded promising.

If you're going all HDMI anyways, what's so difficult about using the one HDMI output on the PS3 right now and sending that down to a receiver and then sending another HDMI from the receiver to a TV? That's all it takes and it doesn't cost anywhere near $2500.

2 HDMIs is nice but certainly not a necessity. I guess the two HDMIs would be for people who want to use more than one display.

This will be an interesting toy but frankly, I think it's a hard sell. I'm a very pleased PS3 owner myself as is. I'd need a lot more information and incentive before I'd throw down $2500 on something like this.

There are some other meaningful electronic upgrades I could make with $2500 long before I'd buy something like this.

We'll see...

[takezo]

huh, HDMI carrys both. You connect the HDMI from your PS3 to an HDMi ready Hometheater reciever's HDMI "in" (maybe called many things referto manual) port, then connect HDMI out on Reciever to TV.

The PCM audio will be processed by HT reciever, and video will be passed to TV. The total idea of HDMI, is to bring back the simplisity of cable tv.

Just make sure that PS3 HDMI is set to PCM for audio. Also set your PS3 to support 1080i resolution for Blu-ray playback even if your projector is only 720p. Why because PS3 does not resize to 720p. Thus disabling 1080i will cause PS3 to play at 480p.

If your projector does not have HDMI ports, which I prety sure it does. You can use DVI to HDMI adapters, however DVI will not support interlaced signals. In this senario, component is the only way to veiw BD movies in HD, and not scaled to SD if you use PS3 as your BD player.

[Gremal]

The reason the high-end crowd will want separate signals for HDMI audio and video is to avoid passing the video signal through a receiver or preamp. Technically any additional connection and cable will degrade the signal, so the goal is to be as direct as possible with the signal path. There is really no reason for the video signals to be routed to a receiver or preamp, unless your TV doesn't have enough inputs and you need to use the receiver as a video switcher.

[Kenshiro]

Originally Posted by Gremal

The reason the high-end crowd will want separate signals for HDMI audio and video is to avoid passing the video signal through a receiver or preamp. Technically any additional connection and cable will degrade the signal, so the goal is to be as direct as possible with the signal path. There is really no reason for the video signals to be routed to a receiver or preamp, unless your TV doesn't have enough inputs and you need to use the receiver as a video switcher.

But HDMI is all digital 1's and 0's, its either there or it isn't. There is no signal degradadtion like with analog connections. Thats why cheap HDMI cables work just as well as the expensive Monster cables.