osamanobama said:
SvennoJ said:
osamanobama said:
Chrizum said:
osamanobama said:
Chrizum said:
osamanobama said:
Chrizum said:
osamanobama said:
no, it also won performance.
and it faired very well in most things. features, visuals, audio, etc.
face it, your wrong. your own link show you that you wrong. cnets word> your word
|
LOL, again, I understand your brand loyalty, and I'm not saying the PS3 is a bad Blu-ray player (it's not bad at all) but it's NOT a high-end blu-ray player anno 2011 anymore. Do some research...
|
wow, great comeback. Do some research? what, really?
i have thankyou, and when you did some of your own, you proved me right. your own link said so.
this has nothing to do with brand loyalty (there are tons of sony bluray players out there, that arent as good as other players, and i dont care) this has everything to do with facts.
you caim in here saying, saying people would watch it on a better bluray player, i said the ps3 is the better bluray player because it is, and unless you want to spend $600 or so bucks, it is the best.
it is you sir, that needs to do their research, the ps3 was a high end bluray player back in 2006, and still is in 2011.
|
I'll let you believe you're right. In the meanwhile, no self-respecting audio- and videophile watches Blu-rays on a (relative to high-end blu-ray players) slow, clunky and outdated PS3.
|
soo... youre saying cnet.com is wrong?
based on what, your word?
in the meantime, would you care to explain how the ps3 is "slow, clunky and outdated"
if you want the best (audio and viddeo philes do) you choose the ps3 or one that is 3x the cost
im begining to think, you know you are wrong, ut have gone to far and dont want to admit it.
like i said your own link prooved you wrong (which you are now convieniently ignoring)
|
Don't just look at the arbitrary grades at the top, look at the raw data in that comparison: PS3 is slower on most aspects.
|
so tell me again, how loading up a disc a few seconds slower effect the audio and visual quality of the player?
dude, your grasping at straws now.
loading discs a bit slower does not an outdated bluray player make
|
I consider myself an audio/videophile with 15k invested in a theater room, and I'm perfectly happy with using a ps3 as a blu-ray player. Speakers, amplifier and projector are where you want to spend the money. Gold plated HDMI cables and 700 dollar blu-ray players, no.
All video and audio from disc to amplifier/projector is digital now, the ps3 is more then capable of decompressing the video and DTS-HD MA without any problems. Disc load speed is hardly a problem, all the unskippable crap you have to sit through is far more annoying. If you know of a player that boots up instantly at the menu screen then I'm interested.
|
thank you.
i got fooled into getting gold plated HDMI cables a few years back (monster HDMI cable) cost me $60 per 3-4ft of HDMI. but now i just buy the cheap $5 ones.
ive got my self a pretty decent mid-end speaker system, and what id like to think of as a pretty nice reciever (it better be, it cost around $500.
i know know that pretty much all HDMI cables are the same quality, but i still dont know if the same is true of speaker wire (being as speaker wire is analog and not digital, i would think that the is a vary range of spaeker wire). if have myself really nice (and somewhat expensive) thick speaker wire, that is rapped like in a spiral shape, helixacle, like DNA.
do you know if my speaker wire is any better than, say really cheap flimsy, thin speaker wire?
|
