Stand Alone Blue-Ray or Playstation3

[gmcgown]

I have reached the conclusion that a Playstion3 is superior to a stand alone Blu-Ray player since it can be used as a media center as well as play Blu-Ray discs and has equal picture quality. The recent anouncement that Sony is ready to download movies to Playstation3 via the internet is the icing on the cake. Or is it? What do the forum members think?

 

[JamesJ]

moving to right forum.

 

[allargon]

I have reached the conclusion that a Playstion3 is superior to a stand alone Blu-Ray player since it can be used as a media center as well as play Blu-Ray discs and has equal picture quality. The recent anouncement that Sony is ready to download movies to Playstation3 via the internet is the icing on the cake. Or is it? What do the forum members think?

The equal picture quality part is the only thing debatable that you said. No brainer is if you're a gamer or want the media center extender like a buddy of mine. Quite a few have said that the PS3 has softer PQ than most standalones.

If you want a PS3 get one. If you want a standalone you have a lot of choices.

 

[duckydan]

I would disagree with the equal picture quality as allargon said was debatable. My short lived experienec with the PS3 (about 2-3 weeks) was that the ps3 wasn't as nice looking as my Sony BDP-S300 and definately not as good as my current player the Panny BD-30.

Also depending how you feel I'd rather have my receiver decode the DTS-MA and DD:True Hd than have the PS3 do it and stream the PCM track... just a preference.

As for downloading movies... doesn't that defeat the purpose of the PS3 as a BD player?

 

[jayn_j]

I would also add the factor that if you have kids, you will constantly fight the pressure to make it yet another game platform. I already have a 36" TV and a room dedicated to the XBOX/XBOX360 and I know that if I brought a PS3 into the house, my primary theater would be taken over.

 

[gmcgown]

I'm glad to know that PS3's picture is not thought to be equal to a stand alone...I assume that the HD downloads would be 1080p, but maybe that's whistling a happy tune. Looking at the PS3 reviews you get the impression that PS3's picture quality was equal to the stand alones...I'll have to rethink the whole thing. What ever I do will happen at Christmas so I have some time to think about it. Unfortunately all my kids have grown up..I can handle the grandchildren.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I would also add the factor that if you have kids, you will constantly fight the pressure to make it yet another game platform. I already have a 36" TV and a room dedicated to the XBOX/XBOX360 and I know that if I brought a PS3 into the house, my primary theater would be taken over.

Yup, one reason and one reason alone for me NOT to have a PS3 as BD player. I don't want my HT room to be a gaming room. And the same with my SONY XBR4 LCD.

He games on his PS2 on a 27" WEGA, and it is more then adequate. If I were a gamer, it might be different; but I am not.

 

[riffjim4069]

The PS3 delivers the most bang for the buck IMO...

 

[SKrueger]

Some thoughts. While for me the PS3 works great as a Blu-ray player some things to consider:
1. If you your S.O. has problems with tech or you have very young kids, the player can at times be a little more confusing to operate than a stand alone player.
2. A lot of the movies don't start a the point you stop. Now I don't know if this is a PS3 problem or a Blu-ray issue. I've been told by some it has to do with the Java programing a lot of the menus use.
3. If you're into conserving energy and are only looking for a Blu-ray player and don't plan on using it for gaming this is not the option for you. It uses a lot more juice when playing a movie than a stand alone player. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 135watts vs 35watts.

 

[navychop]

The PS3 delivers the most bang for the buck IMO...

Exactly.

 

[yourbeliefs]

Apparently this comes down to what is more important to you.

If high fidelity, absolute best picture and sound quality is more important, then a stand alone is probably a better option.

If versatility and expanded functionality is more important, then a PS3 is probably a better option.

 

[gmcgown]

Thanks so much for all your opinions and advice...I'll let all know what I decide to do...but I'm leaning towards the stand alone.

 

[allargon]

Thanks so much for all your opinions and advice...I'll let all know what I decide to do...but I'm leaning towards the stand alone.

The facts:

#1) Standalones use a IR remote out of the box without a workaround.

#2) Most standalones have multichannel analog outs for AVR's and pre-pro's that don't do PCM audio over HDMI. (Most of those don't decode all formats,

#3) The PS3 won't do region free playback. The LG BH200 can be modified with a few simple remote codes (plus a minor software hack -- no opening the case necessary) to do region free SD DVD and Blu-Ray playback. For people who don't want to be fed just what their home country feeds them, this is a real alternative. Any LG BH200 can also do PAL playback for displays that support it.

#4) DVD-A support--the Panasonic DMP-BD10AK can play DVD-A's out of the box.

#5) The PS3 uses more electricity than a standalone.

The subjective stuff:

#1) The PS3 is loud. Many say the 40GB models are quiet.

#2) Many say standalones have better PQ when playing back Blu-rays.

#3) The PS3 is ugly.

#4) The PS3 runs hot.

#5) Some standalones arguably have better upconverting abilities.

#6) The PS3 can't bitstream high res codecs for a receiver to decode. (IMHO, this one is a feature. But others want their receivers to light up. It's a fact, but I put it in subjective as it's not really a drawback.)