Criterion Collection uses PS3 as reference Blu-ray player

Yeah, you read that correctly -- the obsessive audiophiles / videophiles at the Criterion Collection use Sony's PlayStation 3 as its reference Blu-ray player. In all honesty, we can't say we're too surprised. Time and again, Sony's latest console has been rated very highly as a dedicated BD deck, and the plentiful firmware updates ensure that it's always at the forefront of whatever interactive functionality is next. This snippet of factual goodness was extracted from a recent writeup that took an in-depth look at how the CC would be revamping its home theater, and even famed calibration guru Joe Kane gave his approval at using the console for playing back Blu-ray Discs. The real kicker? They also settled upon a DVIGear HDMI cable over one of those obscenely overpriced Ogre cables -- and that was after running clean out of coat hangers.

[Via CNET]

[Bassir @ Aug 13th 2008 5:15PM]

So, what is the best Blu-Ray players?

We're considering buying a Blu-Ray player, but we don't know what to get. The PS3 seems like the best option so far.

[Fatima @ Aug 13th 2008 5:20PM]

The PS3 is by the far the best.

[Mike10010100 @ Aug 13th 2008 5:35PM]

PS3 seems like your best bet. Most BluRay players go for 400 bucks, so you might as well just drop the extra cash for something that can play games as well. Not to mention the upgradable firmware...

Makes it a VERY good Blu Ray player if nothing else.

[required @ Aug 13th 2008 6:39PM]

With the PS3 you can go to the PlaystationStore and buy videos and rent videos. In fact there is a superabundance of things you can do with a PS3 that you can't do with a nonplaystation player. One little example being remote play / locationfree with the PSP.

[Jimmijam @ Aug 13th 2008 7:02PM]

PS3 seems be the most compatible with DVD as well. I've read many forum postings about having to upgrade firmwares with other stand alone players to resolve compatibility issues with certain DVD and BD titles.

[Ignatius @ Aug 13th 2008 7:29PM]

I really like my Samsung BD-UP5000... only paid $296 for it after tax.. then again, it was the display model at Circuit City.

[sr @ Aug 13th 2008 8:29PM]

I mean did you READ the article?

[KC @ Aug 13th 2008 8:32PM]

Actually, you can get a IR to BT converter that uses the PS2 IR codes to control the PS3 via an IR remote. Just google "H-PS3IR".

[brett @ Aug 13th 2008 9:28PM]

IIRC, there are a few manufacturers that make USB IR receivers. plug one of those into the front of your PS3, and you should be set.

anyone buy/use one of these with recommendations?

[unicode787plus @ Aug 13th 2008 11:28PM]

And as a plus, the top-of-the-line PS3 can play SACD discs, something no other Blu-ray player can do (and something no single computer DVD or BD drive can do)

The PS3 is so far the most versatile BD player ever. (Still, I'll stick to my LiteOn SATA BD burner in my computer - the only thing I would be missing would be SACD playback, currently impossible in a computer)

[phinnvr6 @ Aug 14th 2008 4:22AM]

The PS3 is the best Blu-ray player, and does DVD upconvertion too. As stated it's firmware upgradable, built in web browser, media streaming, etc. Oh and it plays tons of sweet games of course ;-)

[Joe Anstett @ Aug 14th 2008 5:03PM]

The PS3 is a good Blu-Ray player. My lone complaint is that one cannot get multichannel analog audio out of it (so the only way to enjoy the lossless audio is via HDMI, which means buying a new receiver). Well that and the odd shape means you can't stack it in a home theater rack.

[Joe Anstett @ Aug 14th 2008 5:04PM]

@rickjames: Lossless does NOT mean uncompressed. The HD audio codecs are comrpessed even if they are lossless. Think of a ZIP file. It is compressed but still lossless.

[slarity @ Aug 13th 2008 5:17PM]

I believe the PS3 is, has the most functionality. The only thing it cant do is bitstream HD audio which doesnt matter because if you LPCM it its the same thing.

[Fatima @ Aug 14th 2008 3:34PM]

Actually, it can do bitstream now

[Bloo @ Aug 13th 2008 5:28PM]

@Fatima
Wrong. It can decode Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA but it cannot bitstream them.

[GaryZ @ Aug 13th 2008 5:58PM]

Just hope that sony changes the production design later to include an updated hdmi chip

[ne01 @ Aug 13th 2008 11:20PM]

Indeed, and actually with Blu-Ray, decoding the audio in the player is preferable.

This is counter-intuitive for those of us old enough to remember the days before HDMI, when bitstreaming to a receiver was the only way to get >2 channel sound over Optical/Digital Coaxial. But now, with HDMI being capable of carrying multichannel LPCM, and secondary audio tracks (such as commentary) that are mixed in with the main audio track on the fly, you gain nothing from having your receiver do the decoding, and can actually lose something, as HDMI can only bitstream one track at a time -- so if you're going to mix tracks together, you need to do it inside the player.

[tawak @ Aug 13th 2008 5:18PM]

the ps3 is a great blu-ray player but still, you'd think a stand alone might be better

[John @ Aug 13th 2008 5:30PM]

A standalone would only be better if you were obsessed about getting everything on one remote (Sony uses Bluetooth for its wireless PS3 peripherals, and most if not all fancy universal remote controls do not bluetooth)

[Ethan @ Aug 13th 2008 5:22PM]

I thought they were more about preserving and distributing old films, to make them watchable, rather than upholding any sort of 'snobbish' visual standard? I think they should move onto something like netflix or iTunes first though, that'd widen their market more.

Because, y'know, the best way to watch blood of a poet is on one's iPhone.

[cesium @ Aug 13th 2008 6:31PM]

I see what you did there asshole

[Ethan @ Aug 14th 2008 2:40AM]

It would bring a bunch of great films to people who'd otherwise propbably never get the offer to watch them though.

[ill trooper @ Aug 14th 2008 3:02AM]

Yeah, we know David Lynch would be on board, right?

[HalfJoey @ Aug 13th 2008 5:22PM]

Yeah if you want a Blu-Ray player, just get a PS3. Its can be the same price as stand alone players and does a whole lot more.

[slarity @ Aug 13th 2008 5:29PM]

whaaa? Ill have to look into that, Im still running it PCM to my Onkyo 606. Id love to see the nifty Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD Master on my receiver.

[Podaman @ Aug 13th 2008 5:55PM]

@slarity

You will not see your Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA lights on your receiver from a PS3.

The PS3 does not bitstream (pass along still compressed) Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA.

It decodes (decompresses) Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA and passes it to your receiver as LPCM (generic/unbranded and uncompressed).

[rickjamess @ Aug 13th 2008 6:24PM]

Actually, Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA are both lossless formats that are not compressed, so technically the bitstream would not be compressed--hence the need for HDMI over an optical connection because of its higher bandwidth.

The advantage to bitstreaming rather than LPCM is that for people who are audiophiles and want a separate processor to decode the audio with a more expensive D/A converter.

[Interpol @ Aug 13th 2008 7:17PM]

@rickjamess:

Uh, no. Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA is simply the LPCM stream, compressed. Bitstreaming has nothing to do with D/A conversion, since the end result of decoding these formats is still digital.

Think of the LPCM audio track as a file. TrueHD compresses it into .ZIP and DTS-HD MA compresses it into .RAR. What do you get when you decompress them? The same file. It doesn't matter.

[Podaman @ Aug 13th 2008 8:24PM]

@rickjamess

Just because codec is lossless does not mean it isn't compressed. Codec actually stands for COmpresser/DECompresser.

Wiki: "Dolby TrueHD uses Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) as its mathematical basis for *compressing* audio samples."

LPCM is digital. The PS3 is not doing D/A conversion. Purely digital decompressing/decoding, so you still use the expensive D/A converters in your receiver.

[Joe Anstett @ Aug 14th 2008 5:04PM]

@rickjames: Lossless does not mean uncompressed. Think of a ZIP file -- it's compressed but its contents are losslessly restored when unzipped.

[Miker @ Aug 13th 2008 5:37PM]

Anyone who buys a monster cable at $60 must be mad. gold plating etc CAN'T offer "better picture quality" on a DIGITAL HDMI signal, only on analogue signal.

With digital the bit is on or off, it has nothing to do with signal strength of the ON bit. The Gadget Show here in the UK did a test between a dirt cheap HDMI cable and a "top end" cable and showed that there was no difference in picture quality at all.

It's a big rip off.

[Hold McGroin @ Aug 14th 2008 3:30PM]

Do you buy $100 SATA cables? How about Ethernet or USB? Do you even worry about it? HELL NO. HDMI is just like any digital cable, if you get a picture, it's the best possible picture you can get, digital is 1 or 0 there is no half picture. NEVER listen to anyone who tells you they can see the difference in 2 HDMI cables, ever. They've fooled themselves into believing it.

There's so much error correction going on with HDMI, it wouldn't matter if you dropped a few bits anyway, the human eye would never notice.

[Zeus.:God @ Aug 13th 2008 6:41PM]

Yeah, actually, it can. Less resistance means a stronger signal- digital or not. A bad cable can reduce the quality, contrary to popular belief.

[paul34 @ Aug 13th 2008 7:02PM]

Zeus, I think you might not be aware of what "digital" means. It is either 1 or 0. Whether that 1 or 0 is "weak" doesn't matter. It still shows up as a 1, or 0.

For a bit to get so distorted to end up as a 0 when you should've been a 1 would require some SERIOUS resistance, enough so that I doubt the cable would even work.

The age of digital cables really separates those who actually have common sense and those who don't. Maybe with an analog signal you could go on with your graphs and advanced hearing abilities and justify that $1,000 cable... but with something like HDMI or optical, you no longer can.

[John @ Aug 13th 2008 8:40PM]

Well, it might matter for longer distances, but I don't think anyone makes HDMI cables long enough for that to be anything of a factor.

[sr @ Aug 13th 2008 9:21PM]

Exactly. However with old CD audio the cables do make a difference because of timing issues and smearing due to impedance mismatches. A nice buffer and reclocking should fix that and most modern DACs should do that for you.

Anyway I get mine from monoprice.com check it.

[rv @ Aug 13th 2008 9:29PM]

The funny thing is that my monporice cables which cost $4 each have gold heads.

[arfster @ Aug 13th 2008 5:41PM]

There's no difference on the video side these days - decoding is to a reference standard, there's no upscaling involved, and no postprocessing. Unless there's a major screwup, pretty much every Bluray player will produce 100.00% bit identical output.

Sound and interactivity are a little more complicated of course.

[Woody @ Aug 13th 2008 5:43PM]

Get a PS3! Like the author said, it's been one of if not the highest rated blu ray player in all of the reviews. I also garuntee that you'll eventually get at LEAST one game that you'll end up enjoying also. Ask a friend or family member for a game if you don't want to spend a little money on it. There are games for every type of person out there now.

[Zak @ Aug 13th 2008 5:45PM]

Blu-Ray movie quality on my PS3 is really good from what I can see. Movies that have been remastered for Blu-Ray look particularly fantastic so far.

[Eddie @ Aug 13th 2008 5:57PM]

Seconded.
Its fantastic. Plus upscaling is nice :P

[tasteslikechicken @ Aug 14th 2008 12:41AM]

As a PS3 owner (and I am very happy with it, both as a media gateway and a game machine), the only downside for me (of the PS3 versus a dedicated blu-ray player) is the noise (it isn't that quiet).

[Colin Potter @ Aug 14th 2008 1:38AM]

I watch my movies loud enough that I could have an industrial box fan running in the room and not hear it :D

[Colin Potter @ Aug 14th 2008 1:40AM]

I watch my movies with the volume cranked loud enough that I could have an industrial box fan running in the room and not hear it :D

[Colin Potter @ Aug 14th 2008 1:41AM]

sorry for double-posting... the browser froze and when it unfroze nothing had happened, so I re-typed my message in a way i thought made more sense, hit send and then BAM! 2 posts

[ill trooper @ Aug 14th 2008 3:02AM]

Colin, I thought maybe your hearing had gone so bad from watching movies so loud that your eyesight had somehow deteriorated too, and you posted twice because your memory had gotten messed up from the insane volume levels that you use and you couldn't remember if you had already hit 'add your comment' or not...

But now I see it was just a double-posting accident. Well, take it easy on your ears, anyway.

[phinnvr6 @ Aug 14th 2008 4:24AM]

Do you have the newer 40gb one? It runs whisper quiet for me, I can't hear it during movies or games. It uses the newer 65nm processor and makes less heat which helps it more.

[Colin Potter @ Aug 14th 2008 5:24AM]

I'm rockin the 80GB and its quiet enough.

[Skyride @ Aug 13th 2008 6:42PM]

Well Im lucky enough to have the ability to create 1080p video and i can tell you that the PS3 plays it just aswell as any other player or computer.

Again digital means its going to be exactly the same with any cable but if some idiot wants to spend £40 on a gold plated, oxygen free HDMI cable then thats there problem.