the sony 550 or 350 or stick with the ps3

[ndirtdigler69]

which one should i get i use my 300 to watch movies and my ps3 for bd-live

if i have a ps3 is it worth me buying one of these players?

[ryoohki]

Originally Posted by ndirtdigler69

which one should i get i use my 300 to watch movies and my ps3 for bd-live

if i have a ps3 is it worth me buying one of these players?

Well the question is : Do you have the capability of using the new audio codec in form of : Bitstreaming (new receiver) or Analog Out.

If you have a receiver that is DTS HD MA, DTS HD HR, DD TrueHD compatible. You're choice is the S350 witch can be have for less than 250$ right now.

If you have an older receiver with Analog Inputs. You're choice should be the S550.

If you have neither, it doesn't matter.

[ndirtdigler69]

i just bought the yamaha rx-v1900 so yes i do have the abilty to use the new audio

[vsidhu]

I also thought about getting the PS3, but I went with the 350 b/c my receiver could handle the new formats. I also did not want a loud bulky system on my shelf, plus the 350 is cheaper (only in price )

[Zman2k2]

The main differences between those players is, of course, the way they handle the HD audio formats. The PS3 uses software to decode and send out the signal PCM. The 350 and 550 will bitstream out the audio so that the hardware of your receiver can do the work. The 550 will also send the audio out over the 7.1 analog outputs to your receiver if you'd like to have the hardware of the player doing the decoding work.

Personally, I have used a PS3 and my Pioneer 51FD, and I find that the HD audio is "crisper" or "more lively" when my receiver is doing the decoding. I feel that using software, as the PS3 does, is not the most efficient way of sending out the audio. Remember, the PS3 was not initially designed to handle the HD audio codecs, but was updated with firmware to do so. Most new receivers have hardware built-in that do quality work in decoding, which is a more efficient way of translating that much data.

[crackinhedz]

Most new receivers have hardware built-in that do quality work in decoding, which is a more efficient way of translating that much data.

how efficient do you have to be to unpackage 1's and 0's?

[Zman2k2]

You're right. Efficient is the wrong word. Don't get me wrong, I'm not slagging on the PS3. It's an excellent player that does it all. What I don't like about it is the way it processes audio. I'm an audio guy. To me, that's what makes a movie for me. I had the PS3 for about 6 months, and I was very pleased with it. But I was curious about bitstreaming, and wanted to see if there was a difference. I bought my Pioneer based on the video capabilities, and tried out bitstreaming for the first time. I was impressed. I felt there was a noticeable difference between the two, on titles like IronMan and Transformers.
How about purpose-built?

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by Zman2k2

on titles like IronMan and Transformers.

I sure do hope you had the Dynamic Range control turned off on the PS3 and the Receiver when you listened to these titles...both TrueHD.

...but we'll leave the Bitstream vs. LPCM debate alone...as its never accompanied by anything more than opinion. Plus there's about a hundred threads on the subject already.

[Zman2k2]

agreed.

And yes, DRC was disabled on both the players and the receiver.