Aren't Blu-Ray Players all the same?
Hi All,
For the past few years I've been using my PS3 for Blu-ray duties, and while its served me well, reading What Hi-Fi has made me contemplate upgrading to a dedicated player. I'm not interested in features and am simply after a Blue-Ray player which will give me the best picture quality; however while considering my options I've started to question whether an upgrade will make any noticable difference. 
To may way of thinking a Blue-Ray disk is a digital medium which is used to store a film in a digitial format. The Blu-Ray player is then simply reading that information off the disk, then feeding it down an HDMI cable, in the same digital format in which it was read off the disk, for the TV to process and ultimately display a picture.
Can anyone clarify thought process is correct? If it is, then I cant see how one Blue-Ray player would be any different from another with regards picture quality and therefore am I not better off sticking with my PS3 and saving a few quid?
Perhaps I'm wrong and Blue-Ray players are indeed doing something extra before sending the picture to the TV. If that's the case can anyone clarify what that "something" is? I'd hate to fork out for a shiny new player only to find there is no difference in PQ.
My thanks in advance.
My thinking -
if you use digital out (hdmi for video and hd mutich sound, or opt/coax for stereo) I think the only difference between them in interface, looks and price. that is if processing is not done in the player
if anlaog outs are used for stereo - very little or no differecne
if analog outs are used for video or if vido processing is used in-player - may well be differences (due to any differences in video processing in the player) but most likely youo will not notice them, if for stereo - little or no differences
my experience -
I have experience of using two different players (same make and level but different generations) and also taking part in a 'big question' where two different class players were compared. in both cases I coudl not tell any difference in sound or picture.
in summary, I think modern br plyers are practically the same in picture/sound quality so choose based on price, functionality, interfce, ease of setup, looks, compatibility with other kit etc.
PS3 here. The only issue with the PS3 is fan noise when it's hot weather.
I had the same thoughts and spent £300 on a Panasonic as an "upgrade".
Pile of slow loading **** now sits gathering dust.
As for picture/sound - identical in every way via HDMI
Changed the PS3 for a dedicated BDP for a few reasons
1) Fan noise
2) To try and prolong the life of the PS3 through reduced usage
3) To move the PS3 upstairs so I can play whenever I want 
Also, as I had the fat one, it's nice to see the format on the AVR rather than multi-in.
As mentioned above, there is decoding goes on in the player before outputting over HDMI, so it's not just a pass through stream of the info on the disc.
That said, I'd personally buy a player on build quality and features rather than Blu ray picture quality, since I haven't noticed much if any difference between players using BD. Analogue audio and upscaling of DVDs are another matter, where I've clearly seen and heard improvements in more expensive players.
The size and quality of your display can showcase any differences between players, especially - in my experience - when it comes to motion-handling on Blu-rays. But then I sit close to an 80in projector screen, so more likely to notice any differences that do exist.
DVD upscaling varies even more, however...
Indeed, I should perhaps have added the caveat that I watch a 32in LCD...
Changed the PS3 for a dedicated BDP for a few reasons
1) Fan noise
2) To try and prolong the life of the PS3 through reduced usage
3) To move the PS3 upstairs so I can play whenever I want
Also, as I had the fat one, it's nice to see the format on the AVR rather than multi-in.
I simply got another PS3 and consigned the Panny to the naughty pile.
I now have one fat and one thin. The Laurel and Hardy DVDs have never looked better 
There are several factors that can affect the performance of a Blu-ray player:
1) How well the player/transport reads the information on the disc
2) Whether the digital information is degraded in any way as it passes through the player – this could be caused by:
(I) Jitter or digital timing errors
(ii) Rounding errors caused by the digital processing
(iii) Low-level distortion caused by power supply instability and noise
(iv) External vibrations can interfere with the performance of the circuitry
The same issues applied when CD players first came out, which is why they don't all perform the same.
That said, the PS3 is still a perfectly good Blu-ray player.
I buy a new, £100(ish) Sony every couple of years and pass on the last one to whichever daughter needs it.
I don't need 3D and the sound is passed along HDMI (and then optical digital) to my stereo so I don't need it to have audiophile credentials in the analogue outputs.
It does need to be as quiet as possible, so I have the 'fast startup' (or whatever it's called) disabled to avoid fan noise.
I don't play video games so a PS3 would be a waste of money. (And I don't want to be tempted to start gaming now.)
It used to be important that it played BBC iPlayer, but the Humax has taken over those duties (and much more) with a far better quality and quicker interface than the Sony (even when both are connected with ethernet). Sony have 'dropped the ball' WRT to iPlayer with their last two upgrades but I assume that's true of all recent Bravia devices and not just the S390.
I usually find that cheaper Bluray players tend not to be very good with DVD playback. I've had a Sony 350, and still have a multi-region Panny BD60, both of which aren't very good in this respect. It was only when I moved to the Sony 5000ES that I was happy, even if it is slightly on the soft side. Bluray reproduction is definitely better than a PS3 though (which I originally started out with).
The Sony S370 (and my current S390) are both excellent in this regard. (This is important as my DVDs outnumber my Blu-rays by about 10 - 1 at the moment.)
The WHF?S&V BDP-S370 review even mentioned it's excellent DVD upscaling as a 'For' point.
Weirdly I find DVD playback/upscaling on the PS3 excellent, and better than my previous player, a Canbridge DVD99, by quite a margin. One thing with the PS3 is making sure you have the upscaling settings correct.
Apart from a bit of fan noise in summer, which isn't a problem really, the PS3 imo is as good as anything I've seen for HD playback.
Based on my experience of comparing the PS3, Denon 2500BT & Panasonic BD60 on my 50-inch Kuro, my conclusions:
1) Blu ray 1080p/24 playback: No difference
2) DVD upscaling: There is a difference. Denon better than PS3 better than Panasonic BD60
3) Audio decoding. There is a small difference, but if you bitstream to your AV receiver for it to decode, then no difference
The only one i've come across with extra processing from the norm is the Sony S780 i have, it has an upscaler for low grade internet feeds like on you tube and it also does super bit mapping to reduce gradiation. I noticed the difference from my previous player and my ps3. On the spec sheet on the website they are listed as Internet Picture Enchancer Pro and Super Bit Mapping, no idea if other do this
Bluray video is decoded before streaming, its compressed on the disk in a h.264 format. Many process the video in various way to improve motion etc.
Can you tell us whether you have a PS3 fat or thin, and what model and size your television is? Viewing distance would be useful too.
I upgraded my PS3 fat to a Panasonic BDT-310, mostly to get bit streaming audio and to be rid of the PS3's obvious fan noise at low volumes. I did noticed improved motion performance amongst other things, but my TV is the bottle neck in performance now.
Paul's BR/805 system thread
(where the photos live) Paul's Flickr page