Why would someone buy a standalone Blu Ray player instead of a PS3?

[gomez1856]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Fingers

Bought a new Panasonic BD60 for $119.00 a month ago. Plays every format and it's dog, SD slot, LAN/Internet access. If I'm not gaming why pay 2+ times more?

Same here, the BD60 is the best value out there if you're not interested in the gaming aspect.

I've had mine for a year or so and it's lived up to all the praise and glowing reviews out there.

I already have a Xbox 360, so didn't need another gaming console. That's why I choose not to go with the PS3. Other than that, the PS3 is a great deal, given what you get for the price.

Rick

[Marble]

keep in mind that some of the lower cost BD players are not as powerful as the PS3 and might not even be able to handle all the features the PS3 can do, just from a BD standpoint (other than multi ch. analog audio). My family got a PS3 for Xmas and I got our first BD last week- Hendrix at Woodstock and there was some notice about load times. I didn't ever see it, but I think BD players of lower cost will have lower processing power. Who wants to wait for a movie to load? The PS3 is one of the most powerful BD players, and it can play back all the different kinds of HD audio codecs. That will be even more useful when the powers that be come to their senses and start releasing HD audio on BD.

[Marble]

Originally Posted by puckhead

because my blu-ray player is dead sexy

wow

[amigo30]

I've used quite a few of the stand-alone Blu-Ray players and the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player.

You can kind of break them down into 3 categories:

1. PS3 - When it first hit the market, (1st gen players), it was one of the best Blu-Ray players around. Plus you got a gaming system with it. If you were first-gen, it made sense.

Now that time has gone on, it doesn't really hold up well in picture quality to the better players, and you have the fact that it doesn't use an IR remote, forcing you to go to 3rd party solutions if you need to control it with a universal remote. Not very practical for a serious AV system.

2. Standard consumer players. Now that we are in later generations of them, they are a bargain price-wise, and come with a lot of features. Features include things like netflix streaming, BD-live, etc..

The downside to these players is that many of them are slow to load a disc still, and aren't up to the better ones in terms of picture quality. They also tend to have relatively high failure rates because they were manufactured to be sold at a low price. Many of them have a difficult time reading a dirty disc. They are to be considered "throw-away" electronics because they are manufactured as cheaply as possible. These will usually set you back somewhere between 100-300 bucks.

3. Quality players. These players hold the cards when it comes to picture quality, load times, ability to read discs, and reliability. They function very well for their primary purpose - playing a blu-ray disc - but may not come with some of the streaming features as the focus is on performance for the primary function and build quality. The difference is pretty staggering on the improved experience when you go to these players...things like the Marantz and Pioneer Elite players. IMHO, well worth the extra cash. These will usually set you back about 400-550 or more.


Not to get all "preachy" here, but I really think the constant quest for the cheapest price that seems to be the hallmark of a "good shopper" these days leads to throw-away electronics, items that aren't expected to last or perform very well. I personally really dislike the concept of throw-away consumer products and would rather spend more for a quality product that isn't built so cheaply that it is expected to break and be tossed in short-order. YMMV, IMHO, etc, etc....

[Guitar55]

Amigo,

Thanks for that analysis. Based on your comments, it seems I'd be better off with a (#2) standard consumer player in order to get streaming capability and I'd have to live with slow load times and expect to replace it in a few years. I can live with that. How slow is slow though?

[Boobala]

Originally Posted by aeolian

For folks who aren't gamers, futzing around with those stupid controllers just to watch a movie, no way. Give me something with buttons dedicated to what I'm trying to do.

For about another $20.00:

[Papajuice]

X BOX 360

[Amp360]

I have a PS3 but it has a lot of fan noise. This can be annoying when watching a movie.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by amigo30

Not to get all "preachy" here, but I really think the constant quest for the cheapest price that seems to be the hallmark of a "good shopper" these days leads to throw-away electronics, items that aren't expected to last or perform very well. I personally really dislike the concept of throw-away consumer products and would rather spend more for a quality product that isn't built so cheaply that it is expected to break and be tossed in short-order. YMMV, IMHO, etc, etc....

If the marriage is only going to last two years in total, you might as well buy a $100 bluray and sit on a Bob's Furniture Outlet couch and save for the lawyers.

[ImmortalSix]

Originally Posted by Guitar Josh

It's not worth it to them to pay more than double for features they'll never use.

[joolzriff]

anything dedicated to 1 thing will usually be better than a multi purpose unit..
i would choose to buy a stand alone blue ray player.. maybe something like a Marantz or Denon w/ master sound duplication... the picture and sound will kill a PS3.....
check this out.. over 10 yrs ago i bought an expensive marantz dvd player well $500 or $600.. to this day it performs amazingly,picture perfect and sound only 1 problem..the dvds tody are containing too much info and my old expensive player refuses to play the movies properly as it cant read them correctly...its hit and miss renting films.
conclusion is... i'm not sure if spending a lot of money on a stand alone player is worth it anymore as tech will over take it......
what is the future of blue ray..... LOOK INTO THAT! before purchasing
good luck

[ethandt]

I just bought a new PS3, mainly for the Blue-Ray player (although I do play some games). What I really love about is it's ability to act as a media server, allowing me to stream content from my Mac to my tv... that rules. Maybe stand alone players can do this, I don't know. But being able to access all of my media on my laptop and stream it at near perfect quality really opens up a lot of options for me.

[Bankston]

When I went to buy my Blu-Ray a couple of weeks ago, everyone was sold out of the $299 PS3 and only had the $350 PS3 in stock.

They had a Samsung Blu-Ray for $150.

I already have an XBOX 360 that I hardly ever use, so it was a simple choice for me.

'Course, by the time I'd bought an HDMI cable and a couple of movies, the price came out over $250 any way.

[Guitar Josh]

Originally Posted by amigo30

1. PS3 -

Now that time has gone on, it doesn't really hold up well in picture quality to the better players.

Absolutely false.

[amigo30]

Originally Posted by Guitar Josh

Absolutely false.

And I would retort: Absolutely NOT false.