Is the PS3 an excellent SACD/Blu Ray player?

[thadman]

My local walmart has 1 PS3 80gb left which includes 10 free in-store blu ray movies along with 5 free mail-order blu-rays. Pretty amazing deal if you ask me.

The problem is I already own an Xbox 360, and it doesn't look like PS3 will be coming out with any exclusive titles (other than MGS4) that will make it worth it as a gaming console. I'd be purchasing it for its capabilities as a blu-ray and SACD player.

Is it an excellent blu-ray/SACD player or just so-so?

[littlesaint]

I'm in the same boat as a 360 owner. The PS3 is the only Blu-ray player I would consider roght now, as it is network enabled, and much more future-proof than the current standalones. Plus the 80Gb model can play SACD. I don't see any PS3-only games that are worthwhile right now, but as a Blu-ray and SACD player for that price, I don't think you can go wrong.

[Charles]

It is a very good player and comes highly recommended from several sources. I just bought one a few weeks ago and very happy with it so far. Looking back though, I probably would have chose the new Panasonic DMP-BD300K since reading alot about it the last few days. You may want to look at it for the same money, but with only the 5 free mail in disc's. Circuit city has an online price of $450 with a coupon code you can get from slick deals.

[littlesaint]

The only drawback with the new Panny (for me at least) is the lack of internal decoding of HD codecs. This means you have to upgrade to an HDMI 1.3 AVR, and if you enjoy the PiP commentary or other secondary features, you lose HD audio as these features force the player to use the lossy codecs in order to mix and re-encode the audio for bitstream. The PS3 doesn't have these "limitations". Of course the flip side is no DTS-HD MA decoding with the PS3, but hopefully that will be worked out in the near future as this seems to be a common codec on the Blu-ray side of things.

[Charles]

I've about to come to the point where an HDMI AVR is pretty much mandatory. I really hate my Krell Showcase is aleady outdated after 2 years and looking to move on to the Intega 9.8 or close relative. With an A2 and PS3, theres not much left to do to get the full potential out of HD video/audio as my disc collection is rapidly growing. Very open for suggestions though.

[littlesaint]

If you are going to purchase an AVR, then HDMI 1.3 is probably a given unless you're looking to save money with last years models (and there are some very good ones still out there). For me though, I already have an HDMI AVR, but it's HDMI 1.2. If I forgo the "bitstream" option and only want in-player audio decoding (my preference), I don't need a new AVR. Not a problem for HD-DVD since all players do in-player decoding, but it looks like you have to read the specs for Blu-ray players to make sure. The PS3 does in-player decoding, the new Panny does not.

[Charles]

In player decoding is good for me, but is it true I will still need some version of HDMI to get full audio bandwidth out? A better question would be, would I hear a reasonable difference?

[Hdale85]

Charles, As I have gone about picking a new Pre/Pro for my self I have been asking my self that very question! I have heard the new audio formats converted to high bitrate PCM and it sounds EXCELLENT! But I always question...if I spend all this extra money will it really sound THAT much better then just having high PCM? I would have to say probably not as much as you think? Most of what you see on the box of things is marketing hype I would say. To be quite honest if you were unhappy with a very good signal converted to PCM I doubt your going to be that much happier with an HDMI 1.3A receiver playing the new HD formats. I'm still not sure what I'll go with? I've thought about getting the new DTC-9.8 or an Onkyo 1.3 reciever to use as a pre/pro or just getting something a little older with HDMI 1.2.

[littlesaint]

In player decoding is good for me, but is it true I will still need some version of HDMI to get full audio bandwidth out? A better question would be, would I hear a reasonable difference?

I think the biggest priority with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is picture quality. I only have a 720p display and i think the difference between HD-DVD and Std DVD is night and day. At first I didn't think it was a huge deal, but then I watched Std DVD and HD-DVD back to back and the difference became obvious, even with my XA2's fantastic Std DVD up-conversion. One point about video and HDMI is that you cannot up-convert Std DVD over component due to HDCP.

With audio, the difference is not as significant, but the lossless codecs that require HDMI do sound better. I won't get anymore colorful than that. In my opinion, sending these codecs as bitstream to an AVR is not an improvement, so HDMI 1.3 is not a big deal. However, sending the decoded PCM over HDMI is better than using optical or coax, since these interfaces only support lossy codecs, but the difference between the lossy codecs and the lossless can be arguable. Your speakers and AVR may make the difference more are less noticeable, and the engineering on the soundtrack can weigh in as well. A well engineered DD soundtrack can sound much better than a poorly engineered TrueHD soundtrack. Also remember that a lossless soundtrack does not necessarily equal the studio master which isn't that high resolution to begin with anyway. To me the lossless codecs do sound better, but that doesn't mean your ears will agree.

It looks like HDMI will be the standard for audio and video at the consumer level, so you may have to bite the bullet at some point, but for many, component video and SPIDF audio works just fine.

[Charles]

Good stuff, thanks all. I am getting the video benefit going HDMI-DVI to the TV (Sony KDF60XBR950) I would asume. I am hearing how the new lossless codecs are getting rave reviews, but with a reasonably good audio setup (Krell pre, Krell amps and B&W 800 series speakers) I wonder how much of a jump it would be. Right now I'm restricted to coaxial/optical with the series of players I have. I could get the A35 and one of the BR players with 5.1/7.1 analog out to buy some time, but then I'm approaching the price of one of the new processors. Maybe the wise move would be no move yet, or at least try to work out a demo.

[Hdale85]

Personally I'm waiting for the Samsung BD-5000U (I believe this is the right model number) which is dual format and has some awesome specs! HQV video processing and supports all the features of both discs. It's sort of the holy grail of HD players and should be coming out very soon (they said 4th quarter this year) Retail is 999 but I've seen prices online already for around 850.

[Charles]

I've been reading some about the new Samsung unit and it sounds like it has the right stuff. I've also read some bad about the existing Samsung units in general and this concerns me a bit. If it is a solid player with all decoding done internally then passed via 7.1 analog out this would indeed solve my issues. Thanks again everyone for the info.

[The 7th Taylor]

Is it an excellent blu-ray/SACD player or just so-so?

It's a great SACD player since firmware upgrades v1.80 and 1.90.

For more info have a look at PS3SACD.com.

[Race Car Driver]

Hrmmm... I have about 30 old PS2 games, want blu ray, have severeal SACDs....


PS3 seems to be the way to go....

[littlesaint]

Hrmmm... I have about 30 old PS2 games, want blu ray, have severeal SACDs....


PS3 seems to be the way to go....

This is where things can get confusing with the PS3. The only model AFAIK that does hardware emulation of the PS2 is the 60GB model which is no longer in production. The 80GB and 40GB do software emulation. I don't know what the differences are, but I would have to think hardware emulation would be better.

On the SACD side, again AFAIK, the 40GB model no longer supports SACD playback. Only the 60GB and 80GB support that.

These are cost-cutting decisions.

[Race Car Driver]

This is where things can get confusing with the PS3. The only model AFAIK that does hardware emulation of the PS2 is the 60GB model which is no longer in production. The 80GB and 40GB do software emulation. I don't know what the differences are, but I would have to think hardware emulation would be better.

On the SACD side, again AFAIK, the 40GB model no longer supports SACD playback. Only the 60GB and 80GB support that.

These are cost-cutting decisions.

So really I would want to find a 60gb version. I still see those time to time in the store and think why would I want that?

Seems everyone wants the 80g

[PewterTA]

There is no difference between the software emulation and hardware emulation for the PS/PS2 games.

Infact my one friend told me this way, the hardware in the 60GB PS3 model has limited upgraded/updated capabilities to it. The software emulation on the other hand can be (and is according to him) updated with each firmware revision to the PS3 to help enhance.

So far I've not had a single PS/PS2 game not work on it...and noticed no real problems with any of them. I do have to admit I think in the side by side comparison that I did the PS3 looks better. Course that could be with the blurring (or smoothing as they call it) and the HDMI connection might be the reasons.

I wouldn't shy away from the 80GB version especially with the bigger HD and free motorstorm!

[Chris D]

Yes, the PS3 is an exceptional BD player. As for SACD, I haven't tried it, because I have a dedicated "universal" player that does SACD very well. However, based on the link that 7th Taylor posted above, I may have to try it out!

[Azeke]

I purchased the PS-3 for it's blu-ray capabilites after the $100.00 price drop, I originally had the $500.00 Sony blu-ray player and exchanged it for the PS-3, great move as far as I was concerned. I'm sure better players will be coming down the pipe, but I like all the extras that I get with this machine.

On a separate note, Caveat Emptor, I've heard somewhere that the PS3 $399.00 model does not have the same video capablities as the $499.00 & $599.00 models due to a graphic card change, and therefore would limit it's video capability.

Peace and blessings,

Azeke

[aquaanox]

i have found the PS3 to be an excellant CD player in general. I did side by side comparisons with my cambridge audio 640c CDP and the PS3 (quality cables all around, both power and interconnects + power cleaner etc etc.. its all there). First i was impressed with the upsampling quality of the PS3 (176 khz) - CDs sounded identical to the Cambridge. Just to experiment, i converted some CDs to ATRAC 352 bps on the PS3 and again im amazed at how good it sounds. Honestly i cannot tell the difference in my setup (rotel 1080 amp, B&W xt4's). Im converting everything to ATRAC with album art etc as we speak for critical listening nothing comes close to a turntable anyway, so when i just want some whatever music, ATRAC it is. I expermented with AAC 320 as well, but the ATRAC sounded a tad warmer and musical in comparo.

Oh and the PS3 plays wav but you cant attach ID tags to that format. Again the ATRAC sounded so good, that it was of little concern to play everything in WAV vs having everything nicely organized. I went a bit crazy upgrading CDPs and auditioning a few weeks ago. At the end of the day, the PS3 is probably as good as most players under $2000. And yes, it does decode HDCD as well . For the price, i think Sony needs to advertize this console better.

~cheers

[pengilly]

since I bought my PS3 my Denon 3910 gets used very little

[Pez]

i have found the PS3 to be an excellant CD player in general. I did side by side comparisons with my cambridge audio 640c CDP and the PS3 (quality cables all around, both power and interconnects + power cleaner etc etc.. its all there). First i was impressed with the upsampling quality of the PS3 (176 khz) - CDs sounded identical to the Cambridge. Just to experiment, i converted some CDs to ATRAC 352 bps on the PS3 and again im amazed at how good it sounds. Honestly i cannot tell the difference in my setup (rotel 1080 amp, B&W xt4's). Im converting everything to ATRAC with album art etc as we speak for critical listening nothing comes close to a turntable anyway, so when i just want some whatever music, ATRAC it is. I expermented with AAC 320 as well, but the ATRAC sounded a tad warmer and musical in comparo.

Oh and the PS3 plays wav but you cant attach ID tags to that format. Again the ATRAC sounded so good, that it was of little concern to play everything in WAV vs having everything nicely organized. I went a bit crazy upgrading CDPs and auditioning a few weeks ago. At the end of the day, the PS3 is probably as good as most players under $2000. And yes, it does decode HDCD as well . For the price, i think Sony needs to advertize this console better.

~cheers

Call me stupid what is ATRAC and how do you convert files to it? And are you using analog or digital out for music on the PS3?

I am thinking of selling my CDP as I never use it and want to get a band saw with the funds I get for it (just got into woodworking). Since my pre/pro can only output analog audio to second zone I need an analog connection for CD listening.

[littlesaint]

Call me stupid what is ATRAC and how do you convert files to it? And are you using analog or digital out for music on the PS3?

I am thinking of selling my CDP as I never use it and want to get a band saw with the funds I get for it (just got into woodworking). Since my pre/pro can only output analog audio to second zone I need an analog connection for CD listening.

AFAIK it's a Sony proprietary format, and I would guess you'd use the PS3 to rip to it.

[Race Car Driver]

AFAIK it's a Sony proprietary format, and I would guess you'd use the PS3 to rip to it.

Yes from what I recall, it was just another way to convert music to your computer/burned cds.

Think MP3/WMA. Just Sony's proprietary format. Im sure you could DL whatever was needed on your computer.

[IllNastyImpreza]

what exactly is SACD ? and how can I tell if my 40GB will play it?

[Race Car Driver]

Super Audio CD,
no 40 gigs play SACDs.