Best Blu-ray player for $300, and best 42" HDTV...?

[martinblank64]

I want to buy a Blu-ray player for ~$300, what is the best one to get? It must also play regular DVDs, and preferably upsample them. I don't care about HD DVD. And what would it be lacking compared to the really expensive ones?

Also, I am in the market for a high quality (good LCD panel quality) LCD 1080p capable HDTV, around 42". I want one with good quality color, little to no backlight bleeding, and overall very good LCD panel quality. About how much money would I be looking to spend to get one that meets this criteria? And which one should I get?

Also, I want a good VCR. Something better than the 4-head crap that is all you can find these days. I am willing to buy used. What should I get?

 

[manimal]

ps3 if 5.1 is fine with you, tv wise there are alot of 40-42 lcd's on the cheap right now. The Sammy 40a550 was like 800 at BB and HHgreggs last I looked.

 

[s44]

Samsung P2500/2550 -- best upscaling, full lossless audio decoding. To spend any more is a waste unless you need to accomodate a legacy receiver/amp (but my guess is you don't have a sound setup anyway). Amazon price fluctuates but regularly drops to about $300.

 

[Shawn]

Another vote for the samsung. It even streams netflix movies.

 

[martinblank64]

What do you mean by accommodate a legacy receiver or amp? What would qualify as legacy? More specifically, what feature would an older receiver or amp lack that would necessitate the need for a more expensive player?

 

[Shawn]

One that doesn't have HDMI. The Samsung has analog out so no need to worry there.

 

[martinblank64]

With the analog out, is the sound or video quality down sampled or anything like that?

 

[hans030390]

For the TV, there's always the 42" 1080p LCD Dynex TV from Best Buy. It has surprisingly great reviews, and not just because it's priced at $700. Once it's calibrated properly (settings given on the AVS thread regarding the TV), it looks fantastic.

You'd probably have to spend a few hundred more to get something as nice...but hey, if you want to save money, there you go. You wouldn't be disappointed.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: martinblank64
With the analog out, is the sound or video quality down sampled or anything like that?

No, some of us have receivers that do not have hdmi capability. To send high res audio to a receiver without hdmi requires analog output for each channel (right front, left front, center, right surround, left surround, subwoofer).

Using analog outs gives you the same high resolution audio as hdmi. But many manufacturers do not include analog outs on their player to save cost.

 

[gar655]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: martinblank64
With the analog out, is the sound or video quality down sampled or anything like that?

No, some of us have receivers that do not have hdmi capability. To send high res audio to a receiver without hdmi requires analog output for each channel (right front, left front, center, right surround, left surround, subwoofer).

Using analog outs gives you the same high resolution audio as hdmi. But many manufacturers do not include analog outs on their player to save cost.

Most any DVD player and all Blu-ray players and nearly every receiver made in the last 10 years has optical audio capabilities. Optical works AFAIK with 5.1-7.1 through any of the newer digital formats.

 

[gar655]

Also for the best 42" HD skip the <$1000 LCDs (all pretty crappy IMO) and get a Panasonic plasma. Way better over all PQ.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: gar655

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: martinblank64
With the analog out, is the sound or video quality down sampled or anything like that?

No, some of us have receivers that do not have hdmi capability. To send high res audio to a receiver without hdmi requires analog output for each channel (right front, left front, center, right surround, left surround, subwoofer).

Using analog outs gives you the same high resolution audio as hdmi. But many manufacturers do not include analog outs on their player to save cost.

Most any DVD player and all Blu-ray players and nearly every receiver made in the last 10 years has optical audio capabilities. Optical works AFAIK with 5.1-7.1 through any of the newer digital formats.

That's true but completely different from the quoted conversation. They're talking about the quality difference between audio transmitted through an HDMI cable and audio transmitted through 6 analog cables (for 5.1) to separate inputs on the receiver. The answer to that as stated above is no, there is no difference in sound quality. However, there is a difference in sound quality between those methods and using a digital optical or coax cable. That is another option, but it is an option that cannot give you the same quality of audio as HDMI/analog and cannot even transmit the new HD sound formats. For some people (like myself) digital optical/coax is the best we can do. For those who have better options, they will yield better results.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: gar655

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: martinblank64
With the analog out, is the sound or video quality down sampled or anything like that?

No, some of us have receivers that do not have hdmi capability. To send high res audio to a receiver without hdmi requires analog output for each channel (right front, left front, center, right surround, left surround, subwoofer).

Using analog outs gives you the same high resolution audio as hdmi. But many manufacturers do not include analog outs on their player to save cost.

Most any DVD player and all Blu-ray players and nearly every receiver made in the last 10 years has optical audio capabilities. Optical works AFAIK with 5.1-7.1 through any of the newer digital formats.

Depends on what you mean by "works".

Optical (and coax digital) can pass 5.1 or 7.1 just fine...as long as it is DTS or Dolby Digital. But it can't pass any of the newer formats, like DTS-HD, TrueHD, etc. And it can't pass uncompressed 5.1/7.1 PCM, either.

So if you are perfectly happy with good old Dolby Digital or DTS 5.1/7.1, then optical and/or coax digital is fine. But if you want to take advantage of the new lossless formats, then you HAVE to do it with either HDMI, or analog outs (or some proprietary interface like Denon's high end receivers use)

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: gar655
Also for the best 42" HD skip the <$1000 LCDs (all pretty crappy IMO) and get a Panasonic plasma. Way better over all PQ.

The Dynex I listed is honestly very good, especially for the price of $700.

Don't believe me? Go to Best Buy, find the model number (42" 1080p), and search Google with it. You'll find a very large thread on the AVS forum about it. Very, VERY positive opinions on it.

Now, if you said that "most" were crappy in that price range, I would tend to agree. 😉

 

[s44]

Originally posted by: gar655
Most any DVD player and all Blu-ray players and nearly every receiver made in the last 10 years has optical audio capabilities. Optical works AFAIK with 5.1-7.1 through any of the newer digital formats.

Wrong.

(1) Optical only does 5.1 -- you're SOL on 7.1
(2) Optical only carries old-style (lossy) DD/DTS, not the lossless versions of these (or, obviously, uncompressed surround PCM)

Bottom line: if you're getting a receiver, make sure it has HDMI audio.

 

[blued888]

Originally posted by: martinblank64
I want to buy a Blu-ray player for ~$300, what is the best one to get? It must also play regular DVDs, and preferably upsample them. I don't care about HD DVD. And what would it be lacking compared to the really expensive ones?

People consider the PS3 to be a pretty good Blu-ray player.

If you can wait longer and can up your budget, the Oppo BDP-S83 might be worth a look. It has the same video processing chip as the Oppo DV-983H plus Blu-ray disc capability.

Originally posted by: martinblank64
Also, I am in the market for a high quality (good LCD panel quality) LCD 1080p capable HDTV, around 42". I want one with good quality color, little to no backlight bleeding, and overall very good LCD panel quality. About how much money would I be looking to spend to get one that meets this criteria? And which one should I get?

If you want little to no backlight bleeding, you either have to get one of those LED-backlit models or simply get a Panasonic plasma (or a Pioneer KURO if you can afford one before they cease offering them).

 

[s44]

Originally posted by: blued888

Originally posted by: martinblank64
I want to buy a Blu-ray player for ~$300, what is the best one to get? It must also play regular DVDs, and preferably upsample them. I don't care about HD DVD. And what would it be lacking compared to the really expensive ones?

People consider the PS3 to be a pretty good Blu-ray player.

If you can wait longer and can up your budget, the Oppo BDP-S83 might be worth a look.

No need IMO to wait and pay more for the Oppo unless you definitely need its better handling of analog outs (full distance and level calibration, 80hz crossover): the Samsung P2500/P2550 does excellent upscaling now. Incidentally, the P3600 that just came out to supersede those models doesn't have the Reon chip -- ugh.

 

[Shadowknight]

Originally posted by: blued888

Originally posted by: martinblank64
I want to buy a Blu-ray player for ~$300, what is the best one to get? It must also play regular DVDs, and preferably upsample them. I don't care about HD DVD. And what would it be lacking compared to the really expensive ones?

People consider the PS3 to be a pretty good Blu-ray player.

I'd pass on PS3 for dedicated playback... they've got issues with the blue-tooth module losing sync. My PS3's blue-tooth is now completely fried, so I can't use the remote or game controller anymore until I get the part replaced.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: Shadowknight

Originally posted by: blued888

Originally posted by: martinblank64
I want to buy a Blu-ray player for ~$300, what is the best one to get? It must also play regular DVDs, and preferably upsample them. I don't care about HD DVD. And what would it be lacking compared to the really expensive ones?

People consider the PS3 to be a pretty good Blu-ray player.

I'd pass on PS3 for dedicated playback... they've got issues with the blue-tooth module losing sync. My PS3's blue-tooth is now completely fried, so I can't use the remote or game controller anymore until I get the part replaced.

Agreed. As a pure BR-D playback machine, the PS3's day in the sun has pretty much passed.

 

[Shadowknight]

As an update, I managed to fix the sync issue by buying a $15 replacement part for the blue-tooth module in the PS3; I did the fix tonight, and have been able to watch all the way through Incredible Hulk without any issues. Before, I was down to losing sync within 40 minutes of watching a movie/playing a game (or less).