Profile 2.0 Compatible Blu-Ray Players

[bradavon]

Panasonic details DMP-BD50 Pricing and Features:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/ ... tures/1713

The PS3 and Panasonic DMP-BD50 BD Player are the only Players with:

1. Profile 2.0
2. "On-Board" decoding of DTS-HD MA

AFAIK no HD-DVD Players have on-board decoding of DTS-HD MA. The Panasonic DMP-BD50 can also on-board decode TrueHD (as can the PS3 and other BD Players).

On-Board decoding is useful for users with HDMI Amps older than HDMI 1.3 and in the case of the Panasonic DMP-BD50, Amps with Legacy Analogue inputs. The Panasonic DMP-BD50 can also Bitstream TrueHD/DTS-HD MA (the PS3 cannot).

[bradavon]

Panasonic DMP-BD50 review:

http://reviews.cnet.com/video-players-a ... 15617.html

It seems unfair to say the PS3 is outright better when the review clearly mentions how the Panasonic beats it. It depends what your requirements are, to which is better.

I see several things the PS3 cannot do, these shouldn't be ignored. Both BD Standalone and BD Games Console should be considered when deciding what to buy. Here's one prepared earlier - "Six reasons you shouldn't use the PS3 as your Blu-ray player" - http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9941740-1.html

It's worth remembering the PS3 currently struggles with BD Live content, or at least it did. How is it now?

This is a big on in the DMP-BD50's favour: For audio, there are 5.1 multichannel analog outputs, and with the onboard decoding (including TrueHD and DTS-HD MA), that means you can enjoy high-resolution audio even on older receivers that lack HDMI connectivity

[Markgway]

The reviews of the BD30 that I read all commented on it having superior image output to the Playstation so how can the PS3 be better than the BD50 - unless the 50 is inferior to the 30? Or maybe that review site is just a little bit bias...?

I don't know what the 2.0 can do that the 1.1 can't and I'm not sure I care since I'm not one for arseing around the on-line/interactive content (unless you can create your own edits of movies - that would be cool)

The suggested mediocre DVD-playback is a bummer since 99% of my current collection is, er, DVD.

[bradavon]

Or maybe that review site is just a little bit bias...?

You reckon? . I've no doubt the PS3 is an excellent BD Player but most reviews do have a bias towards it. There's no way the DMP-BD30 will look worse than the DMP-BD50.

The PS3 was released in November 2006. That's some time ago in the technology arena. The PS3 seems to excel in general BD efficiency but image quality is getting old(ish) and Upscaling chips have certainly progressed.

I don't know what the 2.0 can do that the 1.1 can't

Profile 1.1 is basically PIP Video commentaries (which I hear are decent), Profile 2.0 is all the Web stuff. Things like new subtitles (so far not used), featurettes, quizzes. Whatever they want to put on it. Profile 1.1 doesn't require an Ethernet connection for example, which is crucial for the web to work.

In reality so far Profile 1.1 is far more important, maybe that will change later on.

and I'm not sure I care since I'm not one for arseing around the on-line/interactive content

You won't need Profile 2.0 then BUT one thing to remember (that is often forgetten) is that Profile 1.0 Players tend to be based on older/cheaper hardware, which means less picture quality and less efficency.

As Players get released, more will be Profile 2.0 and by default will have better hardware.

For example any Amp with Analogue inputs will be able to listen to the new HD High Res. Lossless audio with this new Panasonic Profile 2.0 Player. This isn't possible on the PS3, unless your Amp has HDMI. Analogue has been around as long as Optical/Coaxial and many Legacy amps have the connection.

Analogue are the first things to go as the price drops though.

The suggested mediocre DVD-playback is a bummer since 99% of my current collection is, er, DVD.

I seriously doubt it's mediocre. Reviewers tend to be ultra fussy.

I suspect most HD Players compared with High End DVD Players technically cannot compare (the same is certainly true of CD support on DVD Players) but that doesn't remotely mean it's poor.

[Markgway]

Yeah, I think 1.1 would do me as far as profiles go... I wouldn't pay more for a 2.0 put it that way.

But it would be sensible to try and get a machine that encodes the HD sound formats. To be honest I'm not really sure how it all works. Does it mean you can use any receiver to play HD sound... whereas you would otherwise need a special digital reciever (or something)?

[bradavon]

If all you care about is DD or DTS you DO NOT need to upgrade your Amp, your existing one will be fine. If you want to take advantage of th new Lossless audio (which is bit by bit identical to how it sounds in the studio) you may need a new Amp.

Lossy audio: DD, DD+, DTS or DTS-HD HR
Lossless audio: PCM, Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA

PCM Audio (found on BD) is different from TrueHD or DTS-HD as it's already Uncompressed RAW audio and as such any Player/Amp with HDMI or Analogue will fully support it. Think of PCM as an Audio CD and TrueHD/DTS-HD as an MP3 file (although MP3 happens to be Lossy), they're codecs.

The complications arise with TrueHD and then more so again with DTS-HD. "Most" Players/Amps that support DTS-HD MA also support DTS-HD HR.

Audio can be decoded in two ways:

1. On-board: The Player does the decoding and sends it out a PCM, at whatever bitrate. PCM is the Universal standard for RAW audio
2. Bitstream: The Player sends it in binary form and the Amp decodes it as PCM

* Optical/Coaxial are always Bitstreamed
* 5.1 Analogue/7.1 Analogue (6 or 8 RCA Phonos) is on-board only
* HDMI supports both

Analogue outputs aren't the best connection as they're well analogue but they do support signifanctly high bitrates (such as Lossless audio) to Optical/Coaxial, which only support up to 1.5Mbps. Making them very handy for older Amps.

* Optical/Coaxial Amps: DD, DD+ or DTS only (many players can convert TrueHD/PCM/DTS-HD to DTS or DD)
* Analogue Amps: All formats provided the Player can decode the format on-board
* HDMI 1.0 to 1.2 Amps: DD, DD+ or DTS Bitsream or On-board. DTS-HD HR, DTS-HD MA, TrueHD provided the Player can on-board decode them.
* HDMI 1.3+ Amps: All formats on-board or Bitstream. Only HDMI 1.3+ is capable of bitstreaming DTS-HD HR, DTS-HD MA or TrueHD

As far as HDMI is concerned you need version 1.3 to Bitstream all formats. If the Player does the decoding Analogue OR HDMI 1.0+ is fine as it's already been decoded.

Playstation 3: HDMI 1.2 (I think) hence why it on-board decodes all formats, so even if your Amp also supports DTS-HD/TrueHD the lights will never come on because it will never be sent anything but PCM. Because the PS3 on-board decodes all formats any Amp with HDMI will give you full bitrate audio (Lossy or Lossless), the version isn't important.
Most Standalone Players: DD/DD+/DTS: Bitstream or On-board, TrueHD: Bitstream or On-board, DTS-HD HR/MA: Bitstream only (i.e - you need an HDMI 1.3 Amp)

The Panasonic DMP-BD50 is unique (I think) in that it can Bitstream or On-board decode all Audio formats, ultimate choice!

On-board is technically better as Bitstream isn't compatible with PIP commentaries but many people prefer their amp do the decoding. If you use Optical/Coaxial on your DVD Player this is how it will always be sent. From a technical point of view there is no difference to the Player or the Amp decoded it, at the end it all ends up as PCM.

I know on my DVD Player I much preferred the quality of Bitstream than On-board of DD and DTS. I could also then use the Amps DSP enhancements too.

Analogue is handy as it allows you to use a pre-HDMI Amp but still get all the lossless audio codecs.

For me: My Sony Amp has Optical, Coaxial or Analogue. No HDMI. The Samsung BD-UP5000 Combo Player HDMI, Optical or Analogue but the LG BH200 Combo Player has proven to be the better player and as it doesn't have Analogue outputs I use Optical and set the player to convert everything to Full-rate 1.5Mbps DTS, on HD-DVD/BD (DVD is unaffected). This means except for 640Kbps DD I always get a minimum of Full-Rate DTS. Both the Samsung BD-UP5000 and LG BH200 are Profile 1.1 and support TrueHD/DTS HD MA.

If I was to buy a new Amp I'd make sure it has at least HDMI 1.3 (and supports TrueHD/DTS-HD MA). In the long term HDMI 1.3+ will be the only consideration!

HDMI versions can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#Versions

The current version is HDMI 1.3b1, but as you can see nothing has been added of significance since HDMI 1.3.

I hope that helps. To think Salty reckons I'm clueless about High Definition .

Yeah, I think 1.1 would do me as far as profiles go... I wouldn't pay more for a 2.0 put it that way.

It's worth paying a bit more for (say £50) but not a lot, if only to make it future proof. I'd pay much more for Profile 2.0, but then I pay much more for my kit than most people would.

Right now there are several Profile 1.1 players but Profile 2.0 literally is only the players mentioned in the first post of this thread.

[Markgway]

Brad, I really appreciate your attempt to explain all those audio formats... but I'd be lying if I said I understood any of it. Tech isn't my strong suit and I'm now more confused than I was before, with names, specs and options whirling round my head. Aaarrgghh!!

I tend to listen to most DVDs thru headphones, with the jack plugged into my Dad's ancient Pioneer (which is about 30 years old). So as you can see I'm no buff! Maybe DD and DTS would do but right now our receiver doesn't decode either of those - I don't think. I'd imagine the playback is plain old 1970s stereo. I think to get ANY proper digital sound we'd have to buy a new Amp (is that another name for a receiver?) anyways. I suppose it would thus make sense to get one that could decode the HD audio. Very complex, dude. :bom:

[bradavon]

Brad, I really appreciate your attempt to explain all those audio formats... but I'd be lying if I said I understood any of it.

It's hard not to answer without being "technical" but try reading it slowly and it should make sense. I really don't mean that in a patronising manner, you know what I mean. I thought I might lose you, sorry. You know what DD5.1, DTS, Optical and Coaxial means. So you're part of the way there.

In short, there are two ways of transmitting audio: The Player handles it or the Amp handles it. This also applies with DVD Players but almost everyone tells their Amp to do handle it.

If the Player/Amp has Analogue outputs (they look the same as the red/white stereo phones but there is 6 or 8 of them) there is much more chance of being able to take advantage of the new High Resolution audio without needing a new Amp, if not you need an HDMI Amp.

If you're happy with DD5.1 or DTS (same quality as found on DVD) you can stick with your existing Optical or Coaxial Amp (most Amps have both).

That's it in a nutshell.

Tech isn't my strong suit and I'm now more confused than I was before, with names, specs and options whirling round my head. Aaarrgghh!!

Technology is my strong suit and it took me ages to get my head around the new HD Audio formats. They've managed to make it far more confusing and complicated than it ever was with DVD . Don't worry, you're not alone.

I tend to listen to most DVDs thru headphones, with the jack plugged into my Dad's ancient Pioneer (which is about 30 years old). So as you can see I'm no buff!

If you only use Stereo only headphones then you can forget everything I said , everything will give you stereo.

Maybe DD and DTS would do but right now our receiver doesn't decode either of those - I don't think.

Don't tell me after all these years of DVD talk on Bullets you've never even experianced DD or DTS? I'm actually shocked. I didn't know there was anyone left who browses DVD forums but has never even heard DD5.1.

I'd imagine the playback is plain old 1970s stereo. I think to get ANY proper digital sound we'd have to buy a new Amp (is that another name for a receiver?)

If your Dad's Amp doesn't have Analogue inputs (unlikely) or strictly only supports Stereo, then yes you will need a new Amp.

Likewise if the Amp/Stereo/Hifi was made in 1970 then no it definitely won't support DD or DTS.

Amp: Everything that produces audio has an Amplifier to some extent, even a TV. A Hifi/Stereo has Amp inside it.
Receiver: An Amp with a built-in Radio, that's the only difference between an Amp and Receiver. All Home Cinema dedicated Amps (those massive ones you see in shops) are now Receivers.

I prefer calling them Amps still though, it's just my thing.

Those "Home Cinema in a Box" Players you see, are essentially a Home Cinema Receiver with DVD Player in one. They usually also come supplied with cables and speakers too.

I suppose it would thus make sense to get one that could decode the HD audio.

If you want to support all HD Audio formats make sure your Player supports:

HDMI 1.3 or above *
TrueHD
DTS-HD Master Audio

* I think they all have HDMI 1.3. Certainly new ones, except the PS3 but as explained above it gets around it in another way.

Then make sure your amp also supports:

HDMI 1.3 or above
TrueHD
DTS-HD Master Audio

Make sure the keywords: HDMI 1.3 (1.3 or above is crucial), TrueHD and DTS-HD Master are mentioned, and you're good to go. If all you care about is DD5.1/DTS then any HD Player will do and pretty much any Amp will do. Some very old Amps only support DD5.1, which are no good.

If all you care about is Stereo then you don't need to buy shit .

I hope that simplifies it, a little. I should've probably just said the above first time, you know me. I love to waffle .

[Markgway]

I really don't mean that in a patronising manner

It's fine... I'm really dumb sometimes when it comes to tech. I often need a step-by-step in order to understand... and even then...

You know what DD5.1, DTS, Optical and Coaxial means. So you're part of the way there.

Umm... what were the last two?

If you only use Stereo only headphones then you can forget everything I said , everything will give you stereo.

I listen to the vast majority of movies on headphones. Just a habit I got into some years back. I also like to watch loud films late at night after everyone has gone to bed. 8)

Don't tell me after all these years of DVD talk on Bullets you've never even experianced DD or DTS? I'm actually shocked. I didn't know there was anyone left who browses DVD forums but has never even heard DD5.1.

Don't think I have. We only have two speakers - and of course headphones only have two speakers. Our system is older than I am. No shit. Back in the day these buggers were built to last. It weighs a ton but still works.

If your Dad's Amp doesn't have Analogue inputs (unlikely) or strictly only supports Stereo, then yes you will need a new Amp.

What's the cheapest price for a decent receiver... roughly?

If you want to support all HD Audio formats make sure your Player supports...Then make sure your amp also supports

So you need BOTH the player AND the amp to support the HD formats? What if it's just the player or just the amp?

If all you care about is Stereo then you don't need to buy shit .

Lol. It's usually down to what we can afford. I was always happy with stereo via headphones so it never seemed worth the upgrade... but I guess if you're gonna shell out for a BD player AND an HD TV it's silly not to go the whole hog and get the best audio you can... If I plug headphones into a new souped-up receiver what would I get? Still stereo as now or something better?

[bradavon]

Umm... what were the last two?

Connections types, that support up to DTS "quality". Even Grim knows what Optical and Coaxial means . I imagine he does anyway.

Anyway who listens to DD5.1 or DTS is familiar with them. They both offer identical quality, it's down to personal preference and available connections which you use.

I listen to the vast majority of movies on headphones. Just a habit I got into some years back. I also like to watch loud films late at night after everyone has gone to bed. 8)

I could watch movie in stereo no problem but I hate having to use headphones.

I'm surprised you cannot listen to stereo even late at night, certainly talkie films. When I lived with my Dad it used to wind him round the bend when I listened to 5.1. The bass went right through the floorboards. I ended up only listening to 5.1 when he was out and Stereo late at night.

Back in the day these buggers were built to last. It weighs a ton but still works.

I know what you mean. My Dad has an LP Player that up until I left home last summer I used to listen to MP3s in the room our computers were in. I had to buy a really funny connection adapter from Tandy's (while we still had them here), as it's "Auxiliary Audio in" connection was so old. Once I had that it worked fine.

The ancient HP Laser printers go on forever but the newer ones end up breaking after a few years (i.e - in a lot of use work environment). I'm sure companies nowadays do it deliberately.

What's the cheapest price for a decent receiver... roughly?

If you want it to be future proof (i.e - lossless audio) £300 but if you just want DD5.1/DTS I'd be surprised if you cannot get a decent one for £200, likely less. The Onkyo 605 is known to be good value for money. AFAIK it's the cheapest TrueHD/DTS-HD MA Amp. Cooey (remember him) has one.

This is for a Home Cinema separates Amps, speakers and cabling is more. You'd be better with a Home Theatre in a Box model to start with (obviously one without a DVD Player), these are much cheaper and come with cabling and speakers too. You should be able to pick up an acceptable one for about £150. This will support up to DD5.1/DTS but as you've never heard them .

I find it hard to call "Home Theatre in a Box" kit decent as I'm so use to "Home Theatre separates Amps" but many are more than happy with them. I believe Grim uses a "Home Theatre in a Box" Amp originally designed for a PC.

"Home Theatre in a Box" kits are much simpler to setup and have speakers/cabling suitable for their job. I'm not aware of any "Home Theatre in a Box" kits that support TrueHD/DTS-HD MA. I bet they'll come though, not that I've looked.

You can see pictures and info on what a "Home Theatre in a Box" kit is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_theater_in_a_box

I'm not sure it's still called "Home Theatre in a Box" if it doesn't have a DVD Player, but you can definitely get them without DVD Players.

So you need BOTH the player AND the amp to support the HD formats? What if it's just the player or just the amp?

Ideally yes, but if only one of them supports it read my waffle above . If the Player supports it but the Amp doesn't (i.e - HDMI 1.0 to 1.2) you should be fine, if the Amp supports it but the Player doesn't it won't work (nothing is being sent in the first place). That's a very simplified answer though, it's really hard to answer that question without getting technical.

Going forward it's likely HD Lossless Audio will become standard on all Players, like DTS is now standard on DVD Players but wasn't originally. I suspect it will take a lot longer to become standard on Amps, if at all.

If your Amp has HDMI (all Players obviously have HDMI) then you should be able to get some form for Lossless Audio, if it just has Optical or Coaxial then you'll just be able to get Lossy audio (DD, DD+, DTS). When people say "HD Formats" they of course really mean Lossless audio.

I was always happy with stereo via headphones so it never seemed worth the upgrade... but I guess if you're gonna shell out for a BD player AND an HD TV it's silly not to go the whole hog and get the best audio you can...

True, maybe people are happy with Stereo of course. If my parents or some of my mates bought a HD Player I bet they'd just use the TV speakers. Those I always think suck personally and would use Hi-fi Stereo speakers as a minimum (like you). TV speakers even in high end TVs tend to be very basic.

If I plug headphones into a new souped-up receiver what would I get? Still stereo as now or something better?

If the headphones/amp supportd Dolby Headphone (or whatever DTS's format is called) you'll get a 5.1 effect from a Stereo source. Tom uses this and raves about how good it is, ask him.

For the majority of headphones you'll get Stereo. The big difference with headphone quality is the headphones themselves, more so than the source feeding them. If you're only planning to ever use headphones personally I wouldn't bother to upgrade the amp, not that I've heard Dolby Headphone!

[Markgway]

I'm surprised you cannot listen to stereo even late at night, certainly talkie films. When I lived with my Dad it used to wind him round the bend when I listened to 5.1. The bass went right through the floorboards. I ended up only listening to 5.1 when he was out and Stereo late at night.

Loud is loud. You can crank up your headphones and have explosions coming out of your ears 'til your heart's content, but do the same without headphones and you'll get angry neighbours and probably an ASBO. I'm fine with headphones, 'tis not a problem.

Ideally yes, but if only one of them supports it read my waffle above . If the Player supports it but the Amp doesn't (i.e - HDMI 1.0 to 1.2) you should be fine, if the Amp supports it but the Player doesn't it won't work (nothing is being sent in the first place). That's a very simplified answer though, it's really hard to answer that question without getting technical.

So in short. Better BOTH amp and player. But if only one machine better the player. Gotcha!

TV speakers even in high end TVs tend to be very basic.

Yeah, you really notice the difference between our TV speakers and our receiver. It may be old but (to my untrained ear) it's powerful.

For the majority of headphones you'll get Stereo. The big difference with headphone quality is the headphones themselves, more so than the source feeding them. If you're only planning to ever use headphones personally I wouldn't bother to upgrade the amp, not that I've heard Dolby Headphone!

Maybe I'll just buy new headphones?

[bradavon]

Yeah, you really notice the difference between our TV speakers and our receiver. It may be old but (to my untrained ear) it's powerful.

I'd wager the speaker quality of your 1970s Hi-Fi is better than most modern TVs, expensive ones too. They're always so small and of so low quality. I have to use them late at night and it sucks, because I dislike headphones.

So in short. Better BOTH amp and player. But if only one machine better the player. Gotcha!

If the Amp has HDMI and/or Analogue inputs then yes correct. If the Amp just has Optical or Coaxial you'll never get lossless audio.

[bradavon]

There's more on the new Panasonic Profile 2.0 Player here, including some swanky photos:

http://blog.homecinemachoice.com/page/h ... phone_here

It looks like quite a machine. It would be my first choice if I wanted a BD Player.

Although with the advent of more European companies starting to use Region B encoding a region locked player would be a worry, especially as a Region A player is less likely to be suitable, than it once was.

[gasteropod]

I've just been trying out BD Live for the first time, on my So I Married an Axe Murderer disc. The first time you select it, there's just a white disc image spinning in the centre of the screen for about 2 minutes but it doesn't let you know how long it's going to be so it's quite confusing, I wasn't sure if it was doing anything at all. This is when it's downloading some software to your player. Then you see a bar which is loading/connecting to the BD Live site. There are 9 trailers on there, a 'sneak peek' of Hancock, and a multiplayer trivia game for Men In Black (but you need the MIB BD to play that). Pretty lame so far then.

[IronMonkey]

BD Live is a complete waste of time.

[bradavon]

I really hope they start using it properly, it has great potential but so far it's being wasted.

[Markgway]

They've put the cart before the horse. Got the technology and nothing to do with it. The UK Axe Murderer disc isn't marked as a special edition. The US one IS despite, er, not being one. I wonder if they planned it to be an SE and never changed the packaging back? A fuck-up anyways on the Americans' part. Speaking of fuck-ups the consumer advice on the UK disc claims "passed '15' for moderate nudity and comic horror'. Great, except there isn't any moderate nudity (there's a brief view of Myers' bare arse, which would be classed as mild) and the comic horror is also equally PG-worthy. What got the film a '15' was two uses of strong language and references to violence.

[bradavon]

LG unveils first Profile 2.0 BD player to access online video streaming service:

http://blog.homecinemachoice.com/page/h ... _bd_player

I cannot see this being released outside The States. It still looks cool though. I wonder if we'll see reasonably priced Profile 2.0 BD Players come Xmas 2008 or Summer 2009.