Blu Ray disc player advice

[morasp]

I have a really old sony DVD player and have decided it's time to get a new one. My TV is an M series Vizio with 1080 resolution. I just received the Samsung BD-J7500 player but can return it. It really hasn't overly impressed me. Blu Ray discs look good but DVDs don't look much better than on my old sony. It supposedly has excellent upscaling. My question is does anyone have a blu ray disc player that they would recommend?

 

[hairic]

Nope. I'm waiting for UHD prices to come down and then checking for updated/incoming industry specs (hdmi, hdcp, hdr, atmos, etc), then looking. Would probably grab the first $30 player I'd find on sale if my current one broke.

 

[morasp]

Nope. I'm waiting for UHD prices to come down and then checking for updated/incoming industry specs (hdmi, hdcp, hdr, atmos, etc), then looking. Would probably grab the first $30 player I'd find on sale if my current one broke.

Thanks, that's not bad advice.

 

[Bill Wooten]

Check out http://www.avsforum.com/ if you want some really detailed reviews.

 

[morasp]

Check out http://www.avsforum.com/ if you want some really detailed reviews.

Thanks.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I recommend not buying any more disks. Streaming is the way of the future. That way, you aren't limited by disk types or resolutions. I mean, who actually buys CDs anymore? It's all MP3s. Video is going the same direction.

 

[Kevinicus]

I wouldn't worry about the "quality" of upscaling too much. It can only do so much. You're still using a 480p source with DVDs.

I would probably recommend against Samsung for a blu-ray player. I like them for phones and TVs, but not blu-ray players. Oppo would be good if you are willing to spend the money. If you just need something basic, then just a cheapo player should be okay (one that can be updated and isn't incredibly slow).

I recommend not buying any more disks. Streaming is the way of the future. That way, you aren't limited by disk types or resolutions. I mean, who actually buys CDs anymore? It's all MP3s. Video is going the same direction.

I recommend the exact opposite. Unless you don't care about having the best quality. Streaming is for the birds.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I recommend the exact opposite. Unless you don't care about having the best quality. Streaming is for the birds.

Your Internet Provider must suck. Ultra HD (around 15mbps) and BluRay (around 35-45mbps) is fully capable over the Internet. So, you go buy your BluRay disks over and over and new players over and over while I stream it any time I want it. (actually, BluRay is likely to be the last disks you can buy since Streaming (whether you like it or not) is the future.

Get on board, or get left behind.

 

[Kevinicus]

Your Internet Provider must suck. Ultra HD (around 15mbps) and BluRay (around 35-45mbps) is fully capable over the Internet. So, you go buy your BluRay disks over and over and new players over and over while I stream it any time I want it. (actually, BluRay is likely to be the last disks you can buy since Streaming (whether you like it or not) is the future.

Get on board, or get left behind.

Who wants 15 mbps? I'll take the UHD discs that can go up to 108 Mbps. And most streaming places don't approach anything close to that number for 1080p content. You're likely to be lucky to get 15 mbps at 1080p resolutions (Netflix typically tops out around 12). And if you want the best audio, forget about it. Streaming is simply far more compressed than discs.

I have better than average connection (and soon Google Fiber), and maybe someday the infrastructure of the internet will be at a point that it can produce quality on par, or surpassing, discs, but we're not there yet. At with discs I don't have to rely on some other service. I have my movie there ready to go, and there's no concern about a service no longer offering a movie or going out of business.

Discs are better quality, period.

 

[morasp]

I wouldn't worry about the "quality" of upscaling too much. It can only do so much. You're still using a 480p source with DVDs.

I would probably recommend against Samsung for a blu-ray player. I like them for phones and TVs, but not blu-ray players. Oppo would be good if you are willing to spend the money. If you just need something basic, then just a cheapo player should be okay (one that can be updated and isn't incredibly slow).



I recommend the exact opposite. Unless you don't care about having the best quality. Streaming is for the birds.

Thanks.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Who wants 15 mbps? I'll take the UHD discs that can go up to 108 Mbps. And most streaming places don't approach anything close to that number for 1080p content. You're likely to be lucky to get 15 mbps at 1080p resolutions (Netflix typically tops out around 12). And if you want the best audio, forget about it. Streaming is simply far more compressed than discs.

I have better than average connection (and soon Google Fiber), and maybe someday the infrastructure of the internet will be at a point that it can produce quality on par, or surpassing, discs, but we're not there yet. At with discs I don't have to rely on some other service. I have my movie there ready to go, and there's no concern about a service no longer offering a movie or going out of business.

Discs are better quality, period.

You do realize the the human eye is finite right? There is a limit on the resolution the eye can detect at set distances. For instance, 8k (Ulta HD TVs) would need to be quite large. The larger the TV, the further back you have to sit to comfortably see the entire screen. (why do you think many people hate sitting in the front few rows of a movie theater?)

List list resolution stupidity.

1. Putting 4k on a phone (or even a tablet) is not just stupid, it's a complete and utter waste of money / technology. The eye can't detect pixels that small.
2. A 4k 32" TV is also stupid. To maximize the use of that resolution, you would have to sit really close. Otherwise, the human eye couldn't detect it anyhow while setting 8-10 feet from the TV. (that is about the average people sit from their TV)
3. Having a 100+" TV would completely dominate the room unless that room is a LARGE (don't give me 6-8 stadium seats as being large), but an 8k TV is close to what you would need to use that type of resolution.

The interesting thing is Ulta HD 4k is what's next. Not 8k, but I promise, the TV manufacturers will end up selling it because some smuck will be stupid enough to buy it when they will get no benefit out of it except to brag that they paid a ton of money for something they can't even take advantage of. (like me buying an F-16 when I can't even fly one!)

Where TVs need to get better is in:

1. Contrast ratios
2. Color and calibration
3. Lossy compression that leads to artifacts.
4. Faster refresh rates at lower costs.
5. Better viewing angles.
6. Less ghosting
7. Better black levels
8. Less motion bluring (refresh rates help, but some TVs just suck at it)
9. Better sound quality without purchasing extra sound equipment.

Guess what. None of the above improvements can be provided with a BluRay / Ultra HD disk. They are all within the TV itself. You want a better picture, the TV will have substantially more affect on it than a stupid BluRay disk. I can stream 4k now from Netflix to my 4k TV. Does it look good? Yes. Does my BluRay 2009 Star Trek reboot movie look substantially better? No, not really.

 

[Kevinicus]

You do realize the the human eye is finite right? There is a limit on the resolution the eye can detect at set distances. For instance, 8k (Ulta HD TVs) would need to be quite large. The larger the TV, the further back you have to sit to comfortably see the entire screen. (why do you think many people hate sitting in the front few rows of a movie theater?)

List list resolution stupidity.

1. Putting 4k on a phone (or even a tablet) is not just stupid, it's a complete and utter waste of money / technology. The eye can't detect pixels that small.
2. A 4k 32" TV is also stupid. To maximize the use of that resolution, you would have to sit really close. Otherwise, the human eye couldn't detect it anyhow while setting 8-10 feet from the TV. (that is about the average people sit from their TV)
3. Having a 100+" TV would completely dominate the room unless that room is a LARGE (don't give me 6-8 stadium seats as being large), but an 8k TV is close to what you would need to use that type of resolution.

The interesting thing is Ulta HD 4k is what's next. Not 8k, but I promise, the TV manufacturers will end up selling it because some smuck will be stupid enough to buy it when they will get no benefit out of it except to brag that they paid a ton of money for something they can't even take advantage of. (like me buying an F-16 when I can't even fly one!)

Where TVs need to get better is in:

1. Contrast ratios
2. Color and calibration
3. Lossy compression that leads to artifacts.
4. Faster refresh rates at lower costs.
5. Better viewing angles.
6. Less ghosting
7. Better black levels
8. Less motion bluring (refresh rates help, but some TVs just suck at it)
9. Better sound quality without purchasing extra sound equipment.

Guess what. None of the above improvements can be provided with a BluRay / Ultra HD disk. They are all within the TV itself. You want a better picture, the TV will have substantially more affect on it than a stupid BluRay disk. I can stream 4k now from Netflix to my 4k TV. Does it look good? Yes. Does my BluRay 2009 Star Trek reboot movie look substantially better? No, not really.

Streaming Ultra (4k not 8k) is going to look better than a standard blue. A UHD disk is going to look better than streaming 4k. Those issues you listed are NOT only a TV issue and the disc/streaming DOES matter.

And yes size and sitting distance is important, but compression is an issue at all sizes. And some of us have 130" screens where every little bit matters.

 

[JoeKing]

I recommend the LG BP730 with Ultra HD upscaling.

 

[morasp]

I recommend the LG BP730 with Ultra HD upscaling.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

 

[YosemiteSam]

lol at buying 130" screen. Compensate much?

 

[Kevinicus]

lol at buying 130" screen. Compensate much?

Almost everyone has either a screen that is too small, or sits too far away, than they should for optimal viewing. My screen size is appropriate for my room (which was professionally designed/spec'd) and the seating within.

 

[morasp]

Almost everyone has either a screen that is too small, or sits too far away, than they should for optimal viewing. My screen size is appropriate for my room (which was professionally designed/spec'd) and the seating within.

I was wondering what HDMI cables you use. I've had pretty good luck with Kabel Direkt for a decent price and have read that Blue Jeans are pretty good.

 

[Kevinicus]

I was wondering what HDMI cables you use. I've had pretty good luck with Kabel Direkt for a decent price and have read that Blue Jeans are pretty good.

Most of mine are probably monoprice. Generally just the cheap stuff except for my long run to my projector. Not really any difference except build quality, and unless you're pulling them a lot, that shouldn't be an issue either.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Most of mine are probably monoprice. Generally just the cheap stuff except for my long run to my projector. Not really any difference except build quality, and unless you're pulling them a lot, that shouldn't be an issue either.

I love Monoprice. Well, except some stuff. Their stuff for the most part is pretty good, or extremely awful. Most video / tech (USB, etc) cables are good, but I find their audio stuff lacking. I've bought cables or adapters for my guitar or headphones and stuff and they are terrible.

I haven't tried their USB-C cables though. Due to the extremely high standards required for USB-C, most USB cable manufacturers don't meet those standards. (which can ruin your USB-C devices) There is a guy from Google (Benson Leung) who works on USB for their new phones that does cable reviews. If you're going to buy a USB-C cable, I would make sure it's one he says is good. USB-C is much different that USB of the past.

 

[morasp]

Most of mine are probably monoprice. Generally just the cheap stuff except for my long run to my projector. Not really any difference except build quality, and unless you're pulling them a lot, that shouldn't be an issue either.

I hadn't heard of those, they look affordable so I'll check them out.