Panasonic DMP-BD50 Blu-ray Player (June 2008 review link)

[HDTV1080P]

Here is a review link on the Panasonic DMP-BD50 that was just published over at UltimateAVmage.com. The PS3 videogame system was the first and only BLU-RAY player on the market that supported profile 2.0 until Panasonic released the DMP-BD50.The Panasonic DMP-BD50 is the first profile 2.0 standalone player on the market.
The DMP-BD50 is the best Panasonic BLU-RAY player made so far. What is disappointing is that the DMP-BD50 lacks 1GB of internal memory. If one is interested in using BD-LIVE they need to purchase a 1GB SD memory card to use BLU-RAY live. Hopefully future BD-LIVE BLU-RAY players will have 1GB of internal memory built in like the PS3 does. It is great to have the SD card slot but to not include 1GB of internal memory in the Panasonic player and require consumers to purchase a 1GB SD card to play BD-LIVE bonus features is a bad feature for consumers.
Another disappointment is that the player only offers 5.1 analog outputs instead of 7.1 analog outputs. Of course if one owns a modern receiver that is HDMI 7.1 PCM channel compatible this is not an issue. Only consumers that own old surround receivers or pre-pro without HDMI would be interested in 7.1 analog outputs.

The PS3 ethernet jack allows for 1GB networking. The new Panasonic DMP-BD50 only allows for 100MB networking. More and more consumers have CAT5E or CAT6 wired homes and are getting 1GB routers. As far as I am aware the PS3 is the only BLU-RAY player that supports 1GB networking.


Quote
“To comply with Profile 2.0, a player must have 1GB of persistent storage. The BD50 accomplishes this with an SD card slot hidden behind the flip-down front panel. Not only does this supply the required storage, it allows the player to display photos from a digital camera and AVCHD video from HD camcorders. Unfortunately, the BD50 does not ship with a 1GB SD card; with a retail price of $699, it should.”

Quote
“Complying with Profile 2.0 isn't the only thing the BD50 has in common with the PS3. It can also decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio to PCM for output to an AVR or pre-pro. The PS3 can only perform this task over HDMI, whereas the Panasonic offers the option of 5.1 analog outputs, so an HDMI-equipped receiver is not necessary to enjoy HD lossless audio. Unlike the first-gen BD10, the BD50 does not provide 7.1 analog outputs, a feature that's likely to become increasingly important as more titles are released with 7.1-channel soundtracks.”

The PS3 BLU-RAY player is still the fastest loading player on the market.


Quote
“I have no complaints with the Blu-ray performance from the BD50. Reference discs such as Cars and The Chronicles of Narnia looked every bit as good as I have seen from the Panasonic BD30 and PS3.
One of the biggest complaints with standalone players is their user interaction, which can be a very frustrating. Certain Blu-ray discs are notorious for slow loading times, including Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Ratatouille, and Cars. Firmware upgrades have improved the loading times on older players, but the BD50 offers slightly more improvement. Ratatouille took about 40 seconds to load on a BD30 and 31seconds on the BD50. A 25% improvement is a plus, but by contrast, the PS3 takes about 10 seconds!”


The Panasonic BD-50 appears to have a better decoding of the advanced audio formats compared to the PS3.


Qoute
“Comparing the BD50's bitstream and PCM outputs versus the PS3 revealed a wider disparity. The bitstream output from the BD50 had better depth across the front soundstage with deeper bass and crisper highs. The internal decoding of the BD50 was also a slight improvement over the PS3, but I needed further clarification.”

Quote
“I've spent much of this review comparing the BD50 to its predecessor, the BD30, and to the king-of-the-hill PS3. The PS3 beats all other players in responsiveness and produces an impressive 1080p/24 picture, but it isn't perfect. It doesn't have the hardware to allow bitstream output, it's incompatible with IR remotes without buying additional equipment, and it doesn't have 5.1 analog outputs. The fan can also be quite loud, which wasn't an issue until the December 2007 firmware update, so this is something that can be fixed via software.
The BD50 and BD30 are very similar in their performance and aesthetics, with the exception of Profile 2.0 and internal decoding of high-resolution audio on the BD50. It targets a much larger audience by offering more audio flexibility and delivers a great movie experience for those who own older audio equipment, but at a premium price.
With the PS3 currently selling for $399 and $499, it delivers lightning fast operation and Profile 2.0 support. But if a standalone player is in your sights and you want full Profile 2.0 capabilities, the BD50 is the only game in town. It won't win any speed races compared with the PS3, but it offers an upgrade in audio performance and stellar video playback of Blu-ray discs.”

http://ultimateavmag.com/hddiscplayers/panasonic_dmp-bd50_blu-ray_player/index.html

[bootman]

It won't win any speed races compared with the PS3, but it offers an upgrade in audio performance and stellar video playback of Blu-ray discs.

Shouldn't PQ and SQ be the main reason to pick a player?

So we actually have a case where the PS3 actually sounded worse than a standalone while doing the decoding internally!
This would open the door to the possibility that having the decoding done externally by optimally designed equipment to be the potentially superior solution!
(my take all along, but fiercely disputed here.)

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by bootman

So we actually have a case where the PS3 actually sounded worse than a standalone while doing the decoding internally!

decoder chip would perform the same. (what is done after that point is up for debate)

not to mention he admittedly said a double blind test would need to be done. Then compares to HD-DVD version of V for Vandetta. The Bluray version was 48/16 bit, what was the HD-DVD?

[bootman]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

decoder chip would perform the same. (what is done after that point is up for debate)

not to mention he admittedly said a double blind test would need to be done. Then compares to HD-DVD version of V for Vandetta. The Bluray version was 48/16 bit, what was the HD-DVD?

So you are saying that the reviewer of the magazine, is not correct?
Impossible for there to be a difference?
Is the whole review then suspect?

[crackinhedz]

"Since I couldn't switch "on the fly," I had to rely on my audio memory to compare the two approaches. From what I could tell, the bass was a hair tighter utilizing bitstream, but the differences were subtle."

"Comparing the BD50's bitstream and PCM outputs versus the PS3 revealed a wider disparity."

"The internal decoding of the BD50 was also a slight improvement over the PS3, but I needed further clarification."

so he first states BD50 internal decoding vs bitstream, "differences were subtle".

BD50 internal decoding vs PS3 internal decoding was a "slight improvement"...yet BD50 bitstream vs PS3 revealed a "wide disparity" backed up with a comparison using HD-DVD material.

Gotta love it.

[crackinhedz]

So you are saying that the reviewer of the magazine, is not correct?

If he is using the assumption that "decoding" is different...Yes.

Are all reviewers correct about everything?


here is a snippet from dts:

DTS-HD Audio decoders will always deliver the maximum performance possible because the complexity
is built into the encoder, not the decoder.

[crackinhedz]

this is not a scientific approach—double-blind tests would be the proper way to conduct such a comparison—so take my findings as anecdotal.

which I commend him for stating.

[bootman]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

so he first states BD50 internal decoding vs bitstream, "differences were subtle".

BD50 internal decoding vs PS3 internal decoding was a "slight improvement"...yet BD50 bitstream vs PS3 revealed a "wide disparity" backed up with a comparison using HD-DVD material.

Gotta love it.

Good point. I missed the part about the HD-DVD material.

Edit, he used the V TrueHD soundtrack from the HD-DVD.
Are you saying that it is different from the TrueHD soundtrack on the bluray version?

[bootman]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

which I commend him for stating.

One would think that the guys at Stereophile would be a bit more careful.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by bootman

One would think that the guys at Stereophile would be a bit more careful.

well to be fair, he wasn't writing an article specifically comparing audio capabilities. I'm sure it would have been more thorough and accurate. But it would be nice if someone actually did one though. A true double blind test would be awesome and lay this debate to rest.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by bootman

Are you saying that it is different from the TrueHD soundtrack on the bluray version?

...im saying what is the bitrate of the HD-DVD version? The Bluray version is 48/16...if the HD-DVD version is 48/24, then that's an automatic difference.

Im just saying, its a comparison of two different format material with unknown specs (unless someone knows?).

[rrios28]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

...im saying what is the bitrate of the HD-DVD version? The Bluray version is 48/16...if the HD-DVD version is 48/24, then that's an automatic difference.

Im just saying, its a comparison of two different format material with unknown specs (unless someone knows?).

Is this worth it then in your view.?

[DJeffries]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

yet BD50 bitstream vs PS3 revealed a "wide disparity"

Um, For this to be possible using the same pre/pro as the article says, wouldn't the PS3 have to be reading different data off the disc than the BD50? After all with bitstreaming the player should be just demuxing and passing the audio as read.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by rrios28

Is this worth it then in your view.?

do you mean is the BD50 worth it?

well, If I were to buy a standalone player I probably would get the BD50 or maybe the Sony S350 (after seeing a review of course).

The BD50 does it all (except for 7.1 analog). It would make for a great player.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by DJeffries

Um, For this to be possible using the same pre/pro as the article says, wouldn't the PS3 have to be reading different data off the disc than the BD50? After all with bitstreaming the player should be just demuxing and passing the audio as read.

well, in the end after being decoded in the player or the receiver the information is PCM audio bit for bit identical to the studio master. So it should not make any difference. The question is, is the receiver handling the information the same? Same level matching? added information? lack of information (LFE issues that some players/receivers have)? sound modes being used? are sound modes applied the same to pcm vs. bitstream? etc

[prerich]

Originally Posted by bootman

This would open the door to the possibility that having the decoding done externally by optimally designed equipment to be the potentially superior solution!
(my take all along, but fiercely disputed here.)

+1 Here, Here!

[prerich]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

which I commend him for stating.

This is true, a double blind test is needed. But you guys know that I'm a HTPC'r myself! Faster than the PS3, Profile 2.0, and (when the Xonar HDAV 1.3 hits retail in July) will Bitstream and do 7.1 analog outs - the best of all worlds!

[DenonCI]

The soundtracks are supposed to be from the same source (or at least I read that somewhere).