Blu Ray..

[Will]

If I were to purchase a blu ray DVD player what else would i need to purchase in order to play the dvds on a hd 1080p tv....

[Frozen Sooner]

Blu-ray Discs are not DVDs. :D

You'd need nothing more than some RCAs. You'll probably want an HDMI cable, though. Plug that into the back of the BD player, other end into the HDMI port on the display, and done.

As for players: get the PS3. Best BD player on the market right now, particularly if you're not going to be using an HDMI 1.3 compliant receiver.

[Will]

What is the HDMI receiver and HDMI cables?

[Frozen Sooner]

Don't worry about an HDMI compliant receiver. You don't need it just to play the movies. It's a discussion for another time for when you want to take advantage of lossless multichannel audio-which is available on BD.

HDMI=High Definition Multimedia Interface. HDMI cables support the HDMI protocol, which is basically a copy protection scheme. Upshot is that most BD players will only support 1080p over HDMI. An HDMI cable will carry both the 1080p video and uncompressed audio, which means only one cable from the back of the player to the display.

Do not buy one of these from Best Buy, as Best Buy will try to get you to spend about $100 on the cable. Totally silly. Go to www.monoprice.com and buy one from them for about $7.

Do a search for the Consolidated Electronics and Display thread. Andy and I were posting in it a couple of weeks back. The first post should answer a lot of your terminology questions.

[Will]

Thanks Mike,

I actually have another question if you would indulge me. I was at circuit city the other day and they were showing a TV that was a plasma hd tv but also had audio motion frequency at 120 hz playing. it made the picture look more clear could you tell me what this audio motion frequency is or if i am even saying it right?

[Widescreen]

+1 on the monoprice.com reference. excellent cables and very cheap (inexpensive).

[Frozen Sooner]

Thanks Mike,

I actually have another question if you would indulge me. I was at circuit city the other day and they were showing a TV that was a plasma hd tv but also had audio motion frequency at 120 hz playing. it made the picture look more clear could you tell me what this audio motion frequency is or if i am even saying it right?

I think the feature is auto-motion...

Films are shot at multiples of 24 frames per second (or cycles per second for hz.)

NTSC video is shot at 60 fps, and displays are designed to display at 60fps. Since 24 doesn't divide equally into 60, most displays use what's called 3:2 pulldown where alternating frames are shown either 3 or 2 times (1:1:1:2:2) to bring up an even multiple of 60. This creates 3:2 pulldown judder, where images don't pan across the display evenly.

Some higher-end displays (like mine!) will display at multiples of 24fps to do away with 3:2 pulldown judder. Some newer displays will display at 120fps and instead of doing 5:5 pulldown (each frame is displayed five times) like a normal 24fps compliant display, they will interpolate frames-so instead of showing 1:1:1:1:1:2:2:2:2:2 it will show 1.1:1.2:1.3:1.4:1.5:2.1:2.2:2.3:2.4:2.5.

This type of interpolation gives filmed media a "video" look, which means it looks much more clear and sharp. A lot of cinema purists don't like this, as it takes away from what the director's vision might have been-if the director wanted to shoot on video, he could have. There's also the issue that the display is adding information to the raw signal that wasn't there before-which most purists consider verboten.

Make sense?

Thanks for the question, this is something I guess should be added to the consolidated thread, as I didn't address 120fps interpolation.

[Will]

So if i were to watch a lot of BD and play video games you would go with a 1080p plasma....

[Frozen Sooner]

It would depend on the brand of the display. Plasma is kind of a dead tech-only a couple companies are even making it any more. I loved it because it gave better black levels than LCD did, but that's changed and LCD gives a brighter picture. LCDs are also less power-intensive and lighter.

But yeah, if you're going to buy a BD player you might as well get a 1080p24 compliant display to go with it.

Go get yourself a decent AV receiver while you're at it. If you're going to watch a lot of movies, it's totally worth it. This is the one I have (http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3510.asp) but there's also much more affordable options out there-if you go with a PS3 as your BD player, you don't need HDMI 1.3 to get lossless audio, you just need 1.1 or better. Yamaha and Onkyo both make very nice and affordable receivers with this capability. Personally, I LOVE Yamaha receivers-that Denon is the first non-Yamaha receiver I've owned in almost 10 years. The only reason I ditched my RX-V1700 is it only had 2 HDMI inputs and I needed 4-I would have stayed Yamaha, but the first Yamaha with four HDMI inputs was gonna run me 2k+

[Will]

It would depend on the brand of the display. Plasma is kind of a dead tech-only a couple companies are even making it any more. I loved it because it gave better black levels than LCD did, but that's changed and LCD gives a brighter picture. LCDs are also less power-intensive and lighter.

But yeah, if you're going to buy a BD player you might as well get a 1080p24 compliant display to go with it.

Go get yourself a decent AV receiver while you're at it. If you're going to watch a lot of movies, it's totally worth it. This is the one I have (http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3510.asp) but there's also much more affordable options out there-if you go with a PS3 as your BD player, you don't need HDMI 1.3 to get lossless audio, you just need 1.1 or better. Yamaha and Onkyo both make very nice and affordable receivers with this capability. Personally, I LOVE Yamaha receivers-that Denon is the first non-Yamaha receiver I've owned in almost 10 years. The only reason I ditched my RX-V1700 is it only had 2 HDMI inputs and I needed 4-I would have stayed Yamaha, but the first Yamaha with four HDMI inputs was gonna run me 2k+

Thanks ill see what i can come up with

[Frozen Sooner]

Thanks ill see what i can come up with

Sounds good. 85Sooner is also a great resource. Even though he's a Sony shill (;)) he gives great advice. He actually works as a high-end AV salesman-I'm just a hobbyist.

Let me tell you: watching 3:10 to Yuma in 1080p24 with 7.1 lossless sound was a pretty amazing immersive experience. Being able to watch movies with better focus than you get in the theater (unless you have a good projectionist-good luck with that!) without having to deal with morons chomping popcorn behind you and asking for an explanation of the plot...

Nice.

[jkjsooner]

I think the feature is auto-motion...

Films are shot at multiples of 24 frames per second (or cycles per second for hz.)

NTSC video is shot at 60 fps, and displays are designed to display at 60fps. Since 24 doesn't divide equally into 60, most displays use what's called 3:2 pulldown where alternating frames are shown either 3 or 2 times (1:1:1:2:2) to bring up an even multiple of 60. This creates 3:2 pulldown judder, where images don't pan across the display evenly.

Some higher-end displays (like mine!) will display at multiples of 24fps to do away with 3:2 pulldown judder. Some newer displays will display at 120fps and instead of doing 5:5 pulldown (each frame is displayed five times) like a normal 24fps compliant display, they will interpolate frames-so instead of showing 1:1:1:1:1:2:2:2:2:2 it will show 1.1:1.2:1.3:1.4:1.5:2.1:2.2:2.3:2.4:2.5.

This type of interpolation gives filmed media a "video" look, which means it looks much more clear and sharp. A lot of cinema purists don't like this, as it takes away from what the director's vision might have been-if the director wanted to shoot on video, he could have. There's also the issue that the display is adding information to the raw signal that wasn't there before-which most purists consider verboten.

Make sense?

Thanks for the question, this is something I guess should be added to the consolidated thread, as I didn't address 120fps interpolation.

Hey, thanks for the info. A coworker yesterday was talking about the 120 fps auto motion as well. I thought it was somehow related to the refresh rate of the pixels but now I understand. (Although I guess there is still a minimum of 8ms refresh rate you would need to really take advantage of the 120 fps.)

Speaking of refresh rates, I get real nervous about LCD's because to me they still look a little jerky (i know most don't describe it that way) with fast changing video. I remember seeing some lower end ones a few years ago and it was almost unwatchable. They've gotten much better but I still notice it. Is it really a concern or is it just that I'm going to notice it because I'm looking too hard for it?

As for the "adding information to the raw signal" you have to consider that we're taking analog film (with a few exceptions) and digitizing it, dealing with compressed video, and the native resolution of the signal does not generally match the pixels on the screen (so some translation/scaling must occur) so there is all sorts of minor changes going on everywhere anyway....

[85Sooner]

Thanks Mike,

I actually have another question if you would indulge me. I was at circuit city the other day and they were showing a TV that was a plasma hd tv but also had audio motion frequency at 120 hz playing. it made the picture look more clear could you tell me what this audio motion frequency is or if i am even saying it right?


That was an LCD TV.

[85Sooner]

Hey, thanks for the info. A coworker yesterday was talking about the 120 fps auto motion as well. I thought it was somehow related to the refresh rate of the pixels but now I understand. (Although I guess there is still a minimum of 8ms refresh rate you would need to really take advantage of the 120 fps.)

Speaking of refresh rates, I get real nervous about LCD's because to me they still look a little jerky (i know most don't describe it that way) with fast changing video. I remember seeing some lower end ones a few years ago and it was almost unwatchable. They've gotten much better but I still notice it. Is it really a concern or is it just that I'm going to notice it because I'm looking too hard for it?

As for the "adding information to the raw signal" you have to consider that we're taking analog film (with a few exceptions) and digitizing it, dealing with compressed video, and the native resolution of the signal does not generally match the pixels on the screen (so some translation/scaling must occur) so there is all sorts of minor changes going on everywhere anyway....


Check out the Sony XBR's on any broadcast movie in HD. THey are the most three dimisional we have ever seen.

[sooneron]

NTSC is 29.97 FPS @ 60 Hz

Video CAN BE shot at 60 fps or many variations of- 24p etc.

[Frozen Sooner]

NTSC is 29.97 FPS @ 60 Hz

Video CAN BE shot at 60 fps or many variations of- 24p etc.

Or 50 for PAL, or whatever.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the difference between fps and hz. I guess that NTSC being interlaced you only get 30 new total frames per second while the image changes 60 times each second?

[sooneron]

It has to do with power freq- we are 60 hz, whereas, much of the world is 50. Just like the anal intruder or whatever not working in the UK. Basically its two interlaced fields per frame. That's why PAL is 25fps and we are 30fps or actually 29.97, due to our Hz REALLY being 59.94.

This kind of shows what happens when you do a 1 to 1 transfer of film to NTSC video. It's old, but it covers the basics.

http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/progscan/progscan.htm

[BigRedJed]

...Do not buy one of these from Best Buy, as Best Buy will try to get you to spend about $100 on the cable. Totally silly. Go to www.monoprice.com (http://www.monoprice.com) and buy one from them for about $7...
Thanks a lot for firing that tip out there AFTER I dropped $75 bucks for an HDMI cable. :mad:

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I have purchased a lot from monoprice myself.

I almost bought a $80 HDMI cable but came back home and sought out the wise sage(MR) and am glad I didnt do it.

[soonernation]

I bought a HDMI cable at Sams a while back for around 15-20 bucks. It works just as good as the 100 dollar cable I bought at BB.:mad:

[Frozen Sooner]

Cool, thanks for the explanation ron. That makes sense. I always thought of hertz in this context only relating to how many times the image refreshed per second and not in terms of the power being fed to the camera-I can understand why you'd want a divisor or multiple of the hertz of the AC power.

People concerned about the "quality" of an HDMI cable:

HDMI carries a digital signal. Either the signal gets there or it doesn't. When you were dealing with analog signals, the quality of the cable you used mattered a LOT. With a digital signal? Not so much. The major issue with analog signals was interference caused by other electronic devices. This doesn't happen with a purely digital signal. Best Buy will try to tell you all kinds of crazy stuff-that only Monster Cables are 1.3 compliant (BS, the revision of HDMI has to do with the hardware on either side-the cables themselves have nothing to do with it) or only Monster Cables will carry a 1080p signal (also BS, any HDMI cable will carry a 1080p signal.)

Anyhow, if you have to have an HDMI cable that very second, Wal-Mart sells very serviceable ones, as does Radio Shack, and you're going to pay a lot less. If you don't mind waiting a couple of days, monoprice.com or bluejeanscable.com have even better prices.

[C&CDean]

I'm in the market for an HD upgrade (I currently have a 1080P TV, but no HD DVD or satellite). And I've got to be honest, the only thing I've learned from this thread is that you guys are a bunch of geeks.

Somebody just put together a decent HD DVD (or blueray)/tuner/audio package and tell me where I can buy it. I want quality, but I don't need to know how many times the dumaflatchy rotates around the whatchadingy every nanosecond.

Thanks.

[Widescreen]

HDMI carries a digital signal. Either the signal gets there or it doesn't. When you were dealing with analog signals, the quality of the cable you used mattered a LOT.
Years ago, I remember having a lot of online arguments with a few morons who stated they could absolutely hear the difference between a Monster Toslink cable and a generic one. Yeah, right.

[Widescreen]

but I don't need to know how many times the dumaflatchy rotates around the whatchadingy every nanosecond
That information is critical to enjoying true HD. Heretic.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm in the market for an HD upgrade (I currently have a 1080P TV, but no HD DVD or satellite). And I've got to be honest, the only thing I've learned from this thread is that you guys are a bunch of geeks.

Somebody just put together a decent HD DVD (or blueray)/tuner/audio package and tell me where I can buy it. I want quality, but I don't need to know how many times the dumaflatchy rotates around the whatchadingy every nanosecond.

Thanks.

As a guy who really liked the HD DVD technology: don't buy an HD DVD player. It's a dead format, it just hasn't stopped kicking yet.

How much do you want to spend, Dean? Are you going to need speakers or do you already have speakers?

And for 99% of the viewing public refresh rates aren't that big a deal-but for those who want to get the very last bit of quality, they can make a small difference. :D

[C&CDean]

As a guy who really liked the HD DVD technology: don't buy an HD DVD player. It's a dead format, it just hasn't stopped kicking yet.

How much do you want to spend, Dean? Are you going to need speakers or do you already have speakers?

OK, so I need to go Blueray. Are there any differences in the Blueray models or is blueray just blueray?

I've looked at several of the Bose sound systems, and really like them, but I think they're overpriced. I own the QC-2 headphones and love them, but I ain't dropping $4K for a sound system for my TV. The 3-2-1 deal they have is affordable, but is it worth a ****?

I've been to Best Buy and they tried to pimp me on a couple systems with Yamaha, Onkyo, and some other brand receivers/tuners with a brand of speakers I can't remember the name of (but would if I heard it) german sounding if I recall.

I don't have a set budget, it depends on what kind of quality I can get for a reasonable price.

[Frozen Sooner]

Harmon-Kardon possibly? Oh, you said speakers-Klipsch?

Don't get Bose. Bose is overpriced, particularly for home theater applications.

Both Yamaha and Onkyo make affordably-priced good home theater AV receivers. For Yamaha, go with the RX-V line-I just sold my RX-V1700 which was an excellent receiver. You can get an RX-V1700 at Best Buy for around $750. Best Buy blueshirts will generally try to get you to buy the HRT line from Yamaha unless you go into the Magnolia section. The Onkyo 805 is highly recommended by a lot of people on AVSForum, though I think it's about $1100.

Speaker-wise, you'll want to spend a couple of grand at least. If you're married to Best Buy, check out either the Definitive or Mirage 5.1 sets they have for sale. Decent sound quality, decent prices.

Yes, there are rather major differences between Blu-ray players. The absolute best one on the market right now is the Pioneer Elite, which will run you about $1,500. It uses the Reon HQV upscaler for SD content and will pass bitstream DTS-HD MA as well as bitstream Dolby TrueHD. That's a pretty full-featured player, though, and prety unneccesary unless you're much more of an AV snob than I am. Get the lowest-price PS3 you can find: if you're not going to use it for games, then the hard drive and ability to play back PS2 games doesn't matter, and it does an excellent job of BD playback and has the advantage of being VERY upgradeable-Sony upgrades the thing via firmware all the time.

[C&CDean]

Yeah, it was Klipsch.

So, if I drop a couple grand on speakers will I still be able to listen to music at an ear-shattering decibel level if I'm getting my drunk on? I want a sound system that is good for the movies, but is also good for music.

Do bluerays play CDs? MP3s?

On the blueray thing, what brand/model could I buy that would be great, but not the Mercedes Benz (cause we all know what kind of problems you get into with those POS.....:D )? I saw a Sony 301 something or other for about $500 or so. I probably ain't gonna buy a game player (cause I would have to knock the **** out of my kids for playing games on my bigscreen) so the PS3 thing is out. Unless you can convince me otherwise...

[Frozen Sooner]

OK, here's the thing:

The PS3 currently has more features than all but the most expensive BD players on the market for a third of the price. It is also the only player on the market that is upgradeable to take advantage of the full BD 2.0 spec. Representatives of the Blu-ray Disc Association-the group responsible for licensing BD technology and marketing BD going forward-recommend that people buy the PS3. It's quite simply nearly the best player on the market and costs a butt-ton less.

The early Samsung BD players did not play CDs or MP3s. The PS3 will do both, and if you buy the 40GB or above model they will also play SACD. Hell, if you have to, just put a lock on the equipment cabinet. :D

I've got about $2.5k into my speakers and I can **** the neighbors off pretty good with them.

[Vaevictis]

(...) (cause I would have to knock the **** out of my kids for playing games on my bigscreen) so the PS3 thing is out. (...)

I'm very surprised that this is deal killer for you :D

[Widescreen]

The early Samsung BD players did not play CDs or MP3s. The PS3 will do both, and if you buy the 40GB or above model they will also play SACD.
Also, bluray players will up-convert regular DVD's to HD resolutions so they will look a lot better than normal.

[Frozen Sooner]

Also, bluray players will up-convert regular DVD's to HD resolutions so they will look a lot better than normal.

I hesitated to mention this because it's not in the BD spec as mandatory. The PS3 did not upconvert when it first came out.

Plus, frankly, I'm not a huge fan of upconversion to begin with. It looks marginally better to my eye.

[StormySooner-IN]

Thanks for the HDMI link, Mike.


I haven't been able to find them for under $70 anywhere, even in Extreme Clearence sales or on the innerweb places.

[Widescreen]

I hesitated to mention this because it's not in the BD spec as mandatory. The PS3 did not upconvert when it first came out.

Plus, frankly, I'm not a huge fan of upconversion to begin with. It looks marginally better to my eye.
I don't fully understand the concept anyway. Converting from 480P to 1080P - where does the extra picture information come from? That's some weird voodoo.

[goingoneight]

I wondered about the benefits of getting a PS3. Aside from getting MGS4 if it's really ever coming out. Blu-Ray compatibility is another plus for me.

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't fully understand the concept anyway. Converting from 480P to 1080P - where does the extra picture information come from? That's some weird voodoo.

It's not converting from 480p in fact. DVDs are mastered at 480i.

It depends on how the upconversion is done, what chip is used, and which software algorithm is used. I'm sure sooneron can give a better technical explanation, but what generally happens is that the information is extrapolated from the surrounding pixels. How that extrapolation occurs is what they pay mathematicians the big bucks for.

[Widescreen]

It's not converting from 480p in fact. DVDs are mastered at 480i.
Right - my bad. However, the amount of information is the same, it's just sending it in odd and even field sets. The interpolation is interesting. It's almost like error correction where gaps are filled by analyzing the surrounding data.

I think I'd just rather get HD and not worry about it. :D

[OUDoc]

Speaking of speakers, is Norman Labs still around? They used to make a hell of a high quality speaker 10 years ago.

[bluedogok]

Speaking of speakers, is Norman Labs still around? They used to make a hell of a high quality speaker 10 years ago.
I found this post on classicspeakerpages.net (http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=673) that had a question about Norman Labs speakers.


I can provide the information you are looking for because I was one of the founders of Norman Labs. The company was started in 1971 by myself and Leonard Bernstein (not the former music director of the New York Philharmonic). I was an engineerng graduate of the University of Oklahoma but was not a student at the time we started the company. I graduated in 1965 and worked in the audio field for a few years, including a stint with Altec, before we formed Norman Laboratories. I handled the engineering and production and Leonard Bernstein handled sales and marketing. We sold the company to an investment group from Ft. Worth, Texas, in about 1981 and I left the company in about 1984. Until I left the company I did all of the design work (including the Model 10 that was mentioned above). The company was sold again a few years later and was closed down about 8 or 10 years ago.

Jim Long