Sony's $400 BDP-S350 Profile 2.0 Blu-ray player now shipping

Wow, Toys 'R Us was only a day off. Sure enough, Sony's BDP-S350 -- which was first introduced / spotted in February -- has gone on sale at Sony Style retail outlets, the Sony Style website and other fine retailers near you. If you're looking for a quick refresher, this Profile 2.0-compliant deck supports BonusView (picture-in-picture), but curiously enough, Sony mentions that "a firmware update enabling BD-Live is planned [for] later this year." You'll also find full 1080p output, 7.1-channel Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD Master Audio support and a promise to suck down 21% less power in playback compared to the BDP-S300. All yours for $400 (give or take a few pennies).

[Krush @ Jul 16th 2008 5:32PM]

Sony to early adopters --- "Ha Ha"

[Krush @ Jul 16th 2008 5:36PM]

... also $400 for stand alone BD player or $400 for patch friendly - game playing - networked - online store enabled PS3

... I'll have my PS3 thank you very much.

[makishima @ Jul 16th 2008 5:38PM]

By your logic you may as well say
Every single electronic device manufacturer on the planet to early adopters --- "Ha Ha"

I'm not sticking up for Sony, just saying every early adopter gets screwed by something or another. But that's the risk you take when you get a brand new technology. And if you don't realize your taking that risk, its your own fault. And honestly the only case I can think of where the early adopters got at least something in return was (and it really pains me to have to bring this up in an essentially unrelated article) the original IPhone.

[Krush @ Jul 16th 2008 5:43PM]

Omicron 8 to earth dwellers --- "Ha Ha"

[1234321 @ Jul 16th 2008 6:03PM]

early adopters = PS3 launch buyers

[Galley @ Jul 16th 2008 7:08PM]

@Krush, if you're gonna do it, do it right.

It's Omicron Persei 8.

[dave @ Jul 16th 2008 7:52PM]

As good as the PS3 is, it sucks for home theater nuts. No IR (or at least RS-232), and no bitstreaming.

[Mega-Nonsense @ Jul 16th 2008 10:00PM]

I say boycott all blu-rays players until the price falls. I have been, but I NEED HELP!

[Matt @ Jul 16th 2008 5:33PM]

Hope it loads faster than the last ones.

[Cal @ Jul 16th 2008 5:34PM]

Don't Sony already have a slightly better value $400 blu-ray player?

[Jerk Face @ Jul 16th 2008 5:39PM]

Okay gadget nerds:

Sell me on why this is a better value than a PS3.

[Kimleng @ Jul 16th 2008 5:53PM]

Easy:

It's thinner, therefore, having a higher success rate of cutting a cake than the PS3. If you would like a blunt knife built into your Blu-ray player, the BDP-S350 is it! Not only is this a Blu-ray player, it is also a Blu-knife. The PS3 is more like a Blu-hammer with its fat profile.

[Jimmy @ Jul 16th 2008 5:55PM]

I actually think the PS3 is a better value but this device is nice for a couple of reasons.

1. It is a small standard component footprint.
2. It is passively cooled. Makes almost zero noise when playing.
3. It uses infrared remote.

All of these things in a home theater environment make it nice.

[Sarig @ Jul 16th 2008 6:24PM]

"7.1-channel Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD Master Audio support"

Does ps3 have that? No, I'm not being rethoric, I don't have a ps3 so I'm curious.

At the risk of starting a console war ;) I have an xbox 360 and a normal dvd player right next to it, since the latter has by far the best audio stuff going on.

[Chuckles McGee @ Jul 16th 2008 6:33PM]

The fact that this makes the BDP-S300 obsolete, pushes the S300's price down and lets you snag a Blu-ray player for significantly less than the PS3 price.


Ok...I really had to try on that one. It's not a better value, but the common people will buy it instead of a PS3 because:

1. They don't realize the PS3 can do all the 350 can and more or somehow think a dedicated unit would have better playback quality.
2. They're technophobic, and the nice talking man at Best Buy conned them into this simple, easy to use unit.

[Goo @ Jul 16th 2008 6:44PM]

b/c it does not play PS3 games.

[Nick Catalano @ Jul 16th 2008 7:01PM]

Might I also add that you cannot use a standard remote with a PS3, you have to buy the special Blu-Ray Bluetooth one (which goes for $20 on Amazon.) If you want to use a standard remote there are USB-dongle adapters available but you will probably want a PS2 remote to use it. (and those dongles go for min $25)

Even if you get one of those, there is currently no accepted way to turn on or off the PS3 using an IR remote. So you will have to get up and turn the box on or off.

As others have said, there is also the decoding issue, but I doubt most people will find that to be an issue. Stacking can be done with adapters, but those are going to run you $10 + S&H.

I would get a PS3 myself simply because I want to finish GTA4 at some point in my life, preferably on my new plasma, but I'll wait until September when the 80GB goes down to $400

[Bryant @ Jul 16th 2008 5:41PM]

Why this over a PS3?

[AdamRLeggett @ Jul 16th 2008 6:10PM]

....because a PS3 is frikkin huge by comparison and doesn't stack well in an entertainment system.

Why do Sony insist on charging the same for it as a PS3? - that I don't get. Perhaps they think of the PS3 as being subsidized by the games.

[5thMeridian @ Jul 16th 2008 5:43PM]

Pfft. Sony fails again. This thing isn't an iPhone AND I'm pretty sure it can't play crysis on high. nubs

[matt @ Jul 16th 2008 6:21PM]

Awesome.

[SimbaDogg @ Jul 16th 2008 8:05PM]

no...very not awesome

[Jason @ Jul 16th 2008 5:44PM]

At the current prices, why would anyone buy a stand-alone BD player instead of a PS3? I don't own a PS3 nor a 360, so I'm no fanboy for either side, and I don't know the PS3 specs vs the stand alone units, but for the money it seems to me that you'd get far more functionality out of the PS3. Or am I missing something here? Is it just to have a BD player that looks the part with the rest of your home theater equipment?

[beakasdf @ Jul 16th 2008 5:50PM]

This is just a guess, but maybe Sony wants to make the PS3 the better deal. Sony makes a ton of money off software sales. Having people who would normally just buy a media player now buy the PS3 could possibly increase their software sales.

[BB @ Jul 16th 2008 5:48PM]

Here we go again, another box that sits on a TV that takes physical media. I mean, I'm not knocking the quality of Blu-Ray or anything, it's just the giant merry-go-round that bugs me. Wouldn't it be better to simply invest in technology that uses the internet as a pipeline for the content even if the bandwidth isn't quite there yet?

[5thMeridian @ Jul 16th 2008 5:55PM]

Hmm. I agree with the poster a couple up that say that maybe sony wants to make the ps3 a better deal. With the new updates to the PSN store you have two options with the console: play HD movies that you can rent at blockbuster, or rent them online if you have high enough bandwith.

Sony FTW

[Jazper @ Jul 16th 2008 6:54PM]

If you give me DRM-free, full res/quality, and the ability to save it so I can play it again, anywhere, on any device, and anytime I want to then I'm all over digital content. Until then, I want something in my hands that the RIAA/MPAA can't later say "oh no, you can only watch that once, bub".

[OX4 @ Jul 16th 2008 6:05PM]

why a standalone over a PS3? One word: ugly. The PS3 is ugly and bulky. And I don't play console games. So that's three reasons right there.

[Krush @ Jul 16th 2008 6:51PM]

add that you are a m0r0n and there - you have 4 reasons -- go back to licking your toad

[Salacious @ Jul 16th 2008 6:10PM]

PS3 v BDP-S350

Hopefully the S350 is quieter, has a decent remote and allows bitstream output. For me the styling is hugely important, the player is a seperate and stackable and would fit into my system

[David Ron @ Jul 16th 2008 6:50PM]

PS3 supports bitstream output of AC3 (dolby digital 5.1). It also supports a bitstream of PCM 5.1 and 7.1 over HDMI Audio I believe (which is even better than bitstream because more receivers are capable of supporting it and there is no loss in quality - it's still digital).

[jim @ Jul 16th 2008 6:39PM]

Oooo... but the PS3 does stack well in your current home theter setup take a look for yourself.

http://www.play.com/Games/PlayStation3/4-/3512535/Madcatz-PS3-Horizontal-Stacker/Product.html?cm_mmc=Froogle-_-VideoGames-_-Hardware-_-Madcatz+PS3+Horizontal+Stacker&source=5063&engine=froogle_videogames&keyword=Madcatz+PS3+Horizontal+Stacker

[Will @ Jul 16th 2008 6:47PM]

This unit will be able to output Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream while PS3 cannot. On PS3 it is decoded internally through software and output each channel through hdmi interface. Many audiophiles do not want this and do not care for the gaming capability. It's obvious the posters here do not have Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD Master Audio decoding receivers.

[Ignatius @ Jul 16th 2008 6:52PM]

It's also obvious that a minor difference in sound quality probably isn't worth the sacrifice of playing games.

[David Ron @ Jul 16th 2008 7:12PM]

Why don't audiophiles like PCM streamed through HDMI? The receiver likely decompresses the Dolby/DTS to PCM before processing it into analog. Since PCM is digital, what does it matter if the PS3 does the decompression or of the receiver does the decompression. Passing it through an HDMI cable doesn't introduce noise or change the quality.

My guess is that these audiophiles are the same guys who buy Monster Cables for their digital connections because they "sound better".

[Chuck @ Jul 16th 2008 7:48PM]

ignatius: It's also obvious that a minor difference in sound quality probably isn't worth the sacrifice of playing games.

It can't be obvious, and probably not worth the sacrifice at the same time. The audio difference is like 160kbps vs lossless. TrueHD has much greater resolution than standard DVDs, and TrueHD downgraded to dolby digital or dts. There is a difference mostly during dialog and the movie scores. Huge explosions, not so much (like deep bass in 160kbps & lossless). Games on the PS3 don't sell me. If this had TrueHD analog out I'd get it over the PS3. To each his own.

@David Ron. Screw overpriced Monster cable, especially with digital connects. For the most part, digital is digital is digital and generally stays bit for bit. Terrible cables can muck it up a little though.

[Will @ Jul 16th 2008 6:46PM]

This unit will be able to output Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream while PS3 cannot. On PS3 it is decoded internally through software and output each channel through hdmi interface. Many audiophiles do not want this and do not care for the gaming capability. It's obvious the posters here do not have Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD Master Audio decoding receivers.

[sadboy17 @ Jul 16th 2008 6:46PM]

This unit will be able to output Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD Master Audio
bitstream while PS3 cannot. On PS3 it is decoded internally through
software and output each channel through hdmi interface. Many
audiophiles do not want this and do not care for the gaming
capability. It's obvious the posters here do not have Dolby TrueHD /
DTS-HD Master Audio decoding receivers.

[zargon @ Jul 16th 2008 6:47PM]

$400 is still too much for me, never mind the player that I actually want is $200 more than that (Panasonic 50). I however did finally break down and bought a refurbed player for a more reasonable price, $175.

I think I need to wait a year or more before I would be willing to spend some coin on the higher end players, basically wait for the price to come down and the profile 2.0 based players to mature.

[Chuck @ Jul 16th 2008 6:51PM]

No TrueHD analog output = no sale.

I'm an audio junkie. I have a great system that handles everything but HDMI. Sony, give me some high quality dacs and analog output and I will give you money.

[Deluxe @ Jul 16th 2008 8:05PM]

It's funny because when you show it all off your friends only pretend they can hear the difference ;)

[m4272000 @ Jul 16th 2008 9:43PM]

As the owner of a HD DVD player my curiosity has noe peaked with this new Sony Blu Ray Player. DTHD Bitstream Audio, HDMI 1.3 xvycc, PIP, Quick Load, Ethernet connection, Upscale chip for 480i DVD...Mmmmm! Can't beat em, I might as well join em..Now! If only the price was a bit lower...

[Sith Lord 24 @ Jul 16th 2008 7:30PM]

prices like this reminds me of why i wish HD-DVD would have won. everything that blue-ray needs updates for it came with HD-DVD as standard. and prices for HD players and movies would be alot less now.

[Pete @ Jul 17th 2008 2:31AM]

Ever thought that the reason that HD DVD was so cheap was because it was subsidised, since they had no content. Take a look at the retail price of the fully-functional cost of a equally specced HD DVD player and you will see it cost way more than this. HD DVD was cheap simply because Blu-ray [PS3] was there and vice-versa. HD DVD didn't drop their prices every 3 weeks because they had stumbled on a new way of building them, they had to do something to make people buy them.

[Chuck @ Jul 16th 2008 8:17PM]

I remember people telling me the same thing 10 years ago when I said mp3s @ 128 sounds better than 96kbps. Some people could hear a difference, some couldn't. And of the one's who could, only some cared. To each his own. ;)

[Kimleng @ Jul 16th 2008 9:44PM]

Those same people who are lucky enough to get to borrow my Shure SE530s also agree that 128kbps sounds like crap compared to FLAC :-D

[aanidaani @ Jul 17th 2008 8:00AM]

I like the case... Nice color. It would look good next to my TV if I could afford it.

[bonedog73 @ Jul 17th 2008 10:17AM]

Does it play my HDDVD's???

[SteveJ @ Jul 17th 2008 11:20AM]

If I'm watching movies I'd much rather watch on this due to dramatically lower noise this thing produces compared to a PS3. But, it is the cost of a 40 GB (and soon, 80 GB) PS3, and since I also like gaming, I'd be hard pressed to buy this instead of a PS3. Now, if I had the money, I'd buy both. Of course, I don't. Err... actually I don't even have an HDTV yet. I've got a lot of saving up to do....

[Steven J. Ackerman @ Jul 19th 2008 11:35AM]

Great - a couple of years late, over 4X the target cost, and their own player isn't fully Blo-Ray compliant...