Linear PCM or Bitstream?

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

I must be an idiot, but after reading up on PCM, bitstream, and these new HD sound formats like TrueHD and the like, I still have no clue what I should set my settings to.

In particular, my PS3. There's a setting where I can select either Linear PCM or Bitstream. Now, here's the rub. Let's say I watch a BR movie, with Dolby True HD. My reciever cannot decode that format. (Pioneer Elite 81). My PS3 is hooked to the receiver via HDMI, and the receiver is HDMI 1.3 compatible.

So, what happens in my situation? Does the PS3 decode the True HD, and then pass it on to my receiver, or is my receiver being asked to decode... but since it can't, it converts it to something else? With my setup... what do I get if I select Linear PCM, and what do I get if I select Bitstream? What sound am I actually getting out of the speakers in the end?

 

[cubby1223]

When set to bitstream:
TrueHD > Dolby Digital core
DTS-HD > DTS core
PCM > PCM

When set to PCM:
TrueHD > PCM
DTS-HD > DTS core > PCM
PCM > PCM


Hopefully in an update, when set to bitstream the PS3 will still decode TrueHD and send it as PCM, but that's not how it works right now.

 

[dwell]

Just set it to Linear PCM. You'll be able to play anything. The PS3 decodes it and sends it as PCM to your receiver. The only downside is no pretty DTS/DD/etc light on your receiver.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Originally posted by: Chris
Just set it to Linear PCM. You'll be able to play anything. The PS3 decodes it and sends it as PCM to your receiver. The only downside is no pretty DTS/DD/etc light on your receiver.

OK, that's kinda what I thought. So, I'd still be "hearing" the True HD sound then? Even though the receiver won't display as such?

And, what's the difference between PCM and Bitstream? Is Bitstream just the undecoded data being sent to a receiver for decoding, whereas PCM is already decoded data being sent? So in the end, you have the same thing either way assuming the receiver could decode the HD formats?

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
OK, that's kinda what I thought. So, I'd still be "hearing" the True HD sound then? Even though the receiver won't display as such?

You're hearing the format on the disc, decoded by the PS3. Linear PCM is the only way to get True HD out of the PS3 (currently).

And, what's the difference between PCM and Bitstream? Is Bitstream just the undecoded data being sent to a receiver for decoding, whereas PCM is already decoded data being sent? So in the end, you have the same thing either way assuming the receiver could decode the HD formats?

PCM is a just a transport mechanism. The audio is not re-encoded or compressed when sent over LPCM.

For more info than you'll probably ever need, check out:

http://www.edepot.com/playstation3.html#PS3_Audio

 

[cubby1223]

A sign of things to come concerning DTS:HD MA decoding on the PS3
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showp...=716226&postcount=1804

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
And, what's the difference between PCM and Bitstream? Is Bitstream just the undecoded data being sent to a receiver for decoding, whereas PCM is already decoded data being sent? So in the end, you have the same thing either way assuming the receiver could decode the HD formats?

IIRC, the advantage to having your player do the decoding is that it can add menu sounds and such to playback. The disadvantage is that some receivers can do a better job of decoding and post-processing TrueHD/DTS-HD MA than your player can. Your receiver doing post-processing can sometimes be important, if your speakers aren't set up exactly correct due to positioning limitations, or if you have very specific desires for audio style.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=842477

In the specific case of the PS3, if you're using optical, you'll generally want to use bitstream. Otherwise, use linear PCM if you're using HDMI. Lack of any DTS-HD (HR or MA) support is a bigger issue, but I find it hard to believe that Sony doesn't realize this already. I'm thinking it'll be rectified by summer.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
A sign of things to come concerning DTS:HD MA decoding on the PS3
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showp...=716226&postcount=1804

Man, I REALLY hope that's true! Hopefully with the 2.20 firmware release.

 

[vi edit]

Your receiver doing post-processing can sometimes be important, if your speakers aren't set up exactly correct due to positioning limitations, or if you have very specific desires for audio style.

That's one major complaint about doing PCM. When using that mode my receiver won't let me change any of my channel options to adjust volumes while in the movie. Really sucks for movies that have very quiet dialog and I can't adjust the center channel volume.

I'll set it to PCM for BR movies and let the PS3 do the TrueHD decoding, but I will move it back to bitstream for DVD's since there really is no benefit to the PS3 doing the work on DD or DTS soundtracks.

 

[erwos]

It's pretty clear, in retrospect, that Sony did everything it could reasonably do to make the PS3 unappealing to the home theater market. No IR, no bitstream output, no analog outputs, etc. My guess is that they were trying to protect the other BR-D player manufacturers, who were aiming for the high-end.

I'm sure that in four years, I'll be adding a $150 BR-D player to my setup that can do all of the stuff my PS3 can't.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: erwos
It's pretty clear

Not really.

They cut out some home theater features not to protect their other standalones, but to lower the price tag to compete against the xbox.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: erwos
It's pretty clear

Not really.

They cut out some home theater features not to protect their other standalones, but to lower the price tag to compete against the xbox.

eh, makes sense... they want to give the great option for the PS3 to play BD, but they would much rather sell their own branded BD stand alone players, because they make [more] money off of them.

+

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: erwos
It's pretty clear

Not really.

They cut out some home theater features not to protect their other standalones, but to lower the price tag to compete against the xbox.

Yes, because we know that cutting out a 50c IR receiver is the way to cost-cut. Be realistic - what they cut out was not particularly expensive for them to implement in the first place. I wouldn't be shocked at all to hear that the lack of H.264 in MCX mode for the 360 was from a similar desire to protect the v2 extender sales from Linksys and D-Link, at least for a while.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: erwos
It's pretty clear, in retrospect, that Sony did everything it could reasonably do to make the PS3 unappealing to the home theater market. No IR, no bitstream output, no analog outputs, etc. My guess is that they were trying to protect the other BR-D player manufacturers, who were aiming for the high-end.

I'm sure that in four years, I'll be adding a $150 BR-D player to my setup that can do all of the stuff my PS3 can't.

Give me a break. No need to bitstream when the PS3 finally receives its DTS-HD MA decoding update. And the "high end" HT crowd will be using HDMI, NOT analog. So the BIG downside to the PS3 is no IR? Whoop-de-dee-do! There are nice hacks that will take care of that problem. Now how are you going to take care of the problem of stand alone players not being able to upgrade their profile? Maybe those manufactures that came out with $800+ 1.0/1.1 profile players were trying to make their players unappealing to the HT market. :roll:

The funny thing is, in 4 years, a $150 STILL won't be able to do what a PS3 can do now.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Chris
Just set it to Linear PCM. You'll be able to play anything. The PS3 decodes it and sends it as PCM to your receiver. The only downside is no pretty DTS/DD/etc light on your receiver.

my problem is that when I set to Linear PCM, I can't get any high-end sound. It's going into an Onkyo 605. I attribute this to lack of a sub, and my receiver won't decode any TrueHD without at least a full 5.1 set-up (only way I can rationalize this). in my case, Linear PCM just distributes "loud" sound to all channels using any codec that my receiver allows.

So I leave it at Bitstream...b/c I can at least get DD, which is way better than every channel outputting the same track.

(Reason for no sub: apartment living, and I'm somewhat less of an asshole that my upstairs neighbor )

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
A sign of things to come concerning DTS:HD MA decoding on the PS3
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showp...=716226&postcount=1804

:beer:

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
There are nice hacks that will take care of that problem [IR].

Almost all of which have no solution whatsoever for that little button known as "power". Face it: they crippled it when it comes to IR, and that was almost certainly out of a desire to not have the PS3 compete on the high-end, where there are large profit margins. They were trying to please their partners, and convince them to keep making BR-D players. It worked quite well.

Now how are you going to take care of the problem of stand alone players not being able to upgrade their profile? Maybe those manufactures that came out with $800+ 1.0/1.1 profile players were trying to make their players unappealing to the HT market. :roll:

I think you're really missing the point. The HT market is composed of early adopters. These are people who aren't afraid to spend money on something that they'll replace later on, so long as it actually works very well with their setup (eg, TrueHD bitstreaming, IR, etc.). Factor that in with the lack of 2.0 discs (and for that matter, the relatively small number of 1.1 discs), and there's just no incentive to bother with the PS3 for the serious HT crowd.

The profile thing is a red herring when it comes to market acceptance. And cut it out with the eye-rolling, it's patronizing and insulting. Let's have a discussion here.

The funny thing is, in 4 years, a $150 STILL won't be able to do what a PS3 can do now.

You'll be eating those words in four years, guaranteed. You only need to compare the state of the DVD player market in 2000 to the market in 2004 to know why. Sony has a $400 profile 2.0 player coming out _this year_ that can do bitstream and all that other great stuff. Are you really telling me it won't be $150 in four years?

 

[biggestmuff]

Here's a thread from the AVS forum. Text
In the first post is a chart detailing how the PS3 handles an audio source when the player is configured for bitstream (external decoding) or LPCM (internal decoding).

If this chart is true, up-to-date and accurate, then the PS3 doesn't handle audio very well. Collapsing a TrueHD bitstream to DTS core is sick.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: erwos
Almost all of which have no solution whatsoever for that little button known as "power". Face it: they crippled it when it comes to IR, and that was almost certainly out of a desire to not have the PS3 compete on the high-end, where there are large profit margins. They were trying to please their partners, and convince them to keep making BR-D players. It worked quite well.

You sure about that? On top of that, pretty much all high end setups use an IR extender, which will work out perfect for this workaround. But let's play devil advocate, Sony wanted to keep this PS3 out of the high end market and the best they could do was not include IR, yet include every other option under the sun? Seriously, that makes sense to you?

I think you're really missing the point. The HT market is composed of early adopters. These are people who aren't afraid to spend money on something that they'll replace later on, so long as it actually works very well with their setup (eg, TrueHD bitstreaming, IR, etc.). Factor that in with the lack of 2.0 discs (and for that matter, the relatively small number of 1.1 discs), and there's just no incentive to bother with the PS3 for the serious HT crowd.

The PS3 supports TrueHD decoding, DTS-HD MA is what it's lacking. And no, the HT market doesn't like to just throw out equipment just for the hell of it. Profile changes have been pissing the Blu-Ray crowd off for awhile. The truth is, the MAIN reason some of the HT people prefer a stand alone Blu-Ray player over a PS3 is because a dedicated Blu-Ray player is usually quieter, and also the fact that they can't believe a "gaming console" can be better than a stand alone. I actually think it is more the latter than the former given that my PS3 (60GB) is damn quiet. Also note that the new PS3 will be released and have an even cooler running chip.

You'll be eating those words in four years, guaranteed. You only need to compare the state of the DVD player market in 2000 to the market in 2004 to know why. Sony has a $400 profile 2.0 player coming out _this year_ that can do bitstream and all that other great stuff.

Wow, that's fantastic, Sony will be releasing (as rumor has it) a DTS-HD MA update for the PS3, so the only difference is, the PS3 will be decoding the audio instead of a receiver (bitstreaming). So what was the advantage of the Sony Blu-Ray player again?

Are you really telling me it won't be $150 in four years?

Yeah, I'm telling you that. Your $150 Blu-Ray player won't have built in wifi, built in memory card reader (for the HD camcorder you just bought), and the ability to stream content from a PC to your Blu-Ray player. On top of that play every Blu-Ray movie even if Sony decides to add yet another profile. The GREAT selling point of the PS3 is its flexibility. It can do anything a stand alone player can do, and MUCH more.

I've been recently shopping around for THE best Blu-Ray player and guess what player I keep coming back to? Yeah, the PS3. And this is taking the Panasonic BD50 into account.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Chris
For more info than you'll probably ever need, check out:

http://www.edepot.com/playstation3.html#PS3_Audio

This link thoroughly confuses me.

The PS3 provides options for either "Bitstream" or "Linear PCM" when outputing the audio signal... Linear PCM is audio data that is not encoded (nor compressed) and is in it's pure digital form, ready for conversion into analog for the speakers. A regular CD stores all its songs in Linear PCM form. Most audio starting with the DVD store digital data encoded and compressed (like Dolby Digital or DTS Digital Surround). If "Bitstream" option is selected, the PS3 will take this undecoded and uncompressed audio and send it untouched to the HDMI or TOSLINK cable for your external decoder to decode. In other words, the receiver at the other end of the HDMI or TOSLINK must have special chips that can decode and uncompress formats like Dolby Digital and DTS Digital Surround, and then convert the resultant Linear PCM to analog (via a DAC) for the speakers connected to the external decoder. If "Linear PCM" option is selected, the PS3 will actually decode the audio into Linear PCM first, before sending it to the HDMI or TOSLINK. In this case the receiver on the other end of the HDMI or TOSLINK only needs to convert the Linear PCM to analog for the speakers connected to it. Because of the current bandwidth limitations of TOSLINK, choosing Linear PCM (the decoded and uncompressed signal) on this connection limits you to only two channels of audio. For multichannel (like 5.1) over TOSLINK, you must use "bitstream", which uses smaller bandwidth of compressed and encoded data.

1. so both Linear PCM and Bitstream are not compressed???, according to first 2 bold points.
then it goes on to say for bitstream, the receiver much have special chips to decode and uncompress formats like DD and DTS.
I thought u just said Bitstream is not compressed! why do you have to uncompress it then???

2. PCM is not encoded, bitstream is undecoded???, still according to first 2 bold points.
so that means bitstream is encoded right?
what poor, confusing choice of words to use for comparison.

3. if linear PCM is not encoded (according to 1st bold pt), then why does the PS3 have to decode it to Linear PCM??? (1st highlighted pt).

4. last sentence, for TOSLINK, use bitstream which uses smaller bandwidth of compressed and encoded data - i thought u just said bitstream is not compressed! how could it use less bandwidth then???????

am i stupid? if not, i am now after reading that. if his info is accurate, it is the most poorly worded and confusing paragraph ever.


can someone just clarify these basic questions?

Linear PCM:
compressed? yes/no
encoded? yes/no
who does the decoding (if applies)? ps3/receiver/neither

Bitstream:
compressed? yes/no
encoded? yes/no
who does the decoding (if applies)? ps3/receiver/neither

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

well, i guess according to the chart, since i have an HT-SR800 receiver, i won't be able to strip audio via HDMI anyway, so my only options are DTS and DD+ through Bitstream/TOSLINK.
am i right?

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
You sure about that? On top of that, pretty much all high end setups use an IR extender, which will work out perfect for this workaround. But let's play devil advocate, Sony wanted to keep this PS3 out of the high end market and the best they could do was not include IR, yet include every other option under the sun? Seriously, that makes sense to you?

First of all, I said "almost all". Second, it's a really ugly hack, and has limited availability. It's not a mass market thing.

Also, they didn't include every other option under the sun. It's missing bitstream TrueHD and DTS-HD MA, for one thing, and that's not as small a point as you're making it out to be. It also doesn't have DTS-HD MA support _at all_ yet, and didn't have it when it was released. There's no HDMI-CEC, either.

The PS3 supports TrueHD decoding, DTS-HD MA is what it's lacking. And no, the HT market doesn't like to just throw out equipment just for the hell of it. Profile changes have been pissing the Blu-Ray crowd off for awhile. The truth is, the MAIN reason some of the HT people prefer a stand alone Blu-Ray player over a PS3 is because a dedicated Blu-Ray player is usually quieter, and also the fact that they can't believe a "gaming console" can be better than a stand alone. I actually think it is more the latter than the former given that my PS3 (60GB) is damn quiet. Also note that the new PS3 will be released and have an even cooler running chip.

It's missing TrueHD and DTS-HD MA bitstream support, and decoding TrueHD is _not_ a replacement for that. And, yes, the HT market doesn't waste gear, but it does replace it at a generally faster rate than the public. They understand gear becomes obsolete after time in some cases, especially when the specs aren't finalized.

Wow, that's fantastic, Sony will be releasing (as rumor has it) a DTS-HD MA update for the PS3, so the only difference is, the PS3 will be decoding the audio instead of a receiver (bitstreaming). So what was the advantage of the Sony Blu-Ray player again?

My thesis was that Sony initially released the PS3 (this would be in the past) without IR or bitstream support to provide an initial boost to the other BR-D manufacturers and keep them on the BR-D side during the format war. This was in the past. Now that the format war is over, Sony doesn't have to suck up to them any more, and very well _might_ add DTS-HD MA support in the future. I'm getting a little tired of hearing about it as a done deal when it's still just unsubstantiated rumor, but I'll play ball.

But what's the advantage to the new Sony players? It's bitstream, HDMI-CEC, and real IR support. How many times do I need to say it? That stuff matters to some people, even if decode to linear PCM is fine for you.

Yeah, I'm telling you that. Your $150 Blu-Ray player won't have built in wifi, built in memory card reader (for the HD camcorder you just bought), and the ability to stream content from a PC to your Blu-Ray player. On top of that play every Blu-Ray movie even if Sony decides to add yet another profile. The GREAT selling point of the PS3 is its flexibility. It can do anything a stand alone player can do, and MUCH more.

You're selling us on a PS3 for its gaming and multimedia. I own one, so, clearly, we have some agreement here. But, ultimately, you're using a red herring, because we're talking about the BR-D playback capabilities. Or at least I thought we were. When it comes to pure playback abilities, I stick by my statement: as a pure BR-D player, the PS3 will be eclipsed by a $150 player within four years.

I've been recently shopping around for THE best Blu-Ray player and guess what player I keep coming back to? Yeah, the PS3. And this is taking the Panasonic BD50 into account.

I think the problem I have with your reasoning is that you're comparing the PS3 as it might be to players as they are, not the PS3 as it might be to announced future players (BDP-S550), or the PS3 as it is to other players as they are. I'm not saying upgradability isn't a cool and useful feature, but I am saying that you're stacking the deck in a fashion that will _always_ result in a PS3 being the best.

I'm done debating this, because it's pretty clear you're not going to be changing your mind no matter what I say.

 

[erwos]

First, sorry for the thread hijack. Back on topic. Replace TrueHD with DTS-MA HD and DD-5.1 with DTS as applicable if it makes you feel better.

Let's use the computer world for comparison:
1. Think of a TrueHD track as a zip file containing raw sound data - all the data is in there - you haven't lost anything when you open it up. This is lossless compression.
2. Similarly, think of a Dolby Digital 5.1 track as a zip file containing a PNG - there's some quality loss associated with the compression, but it still sounds/looks good. This would be lossy compression.
3. Finally, think of a linear PCM track as a bitmap. All the data is there in a completely uncompressed format. This is equivalent the raw sound data in the TrueHD track when it gets decoded.

So, your BR-D player runs into a track, and depending on what track it is, it has to make a decision:
1. If it sees a TrueHD track, it can decode it and send the linear PCM it derives from it ("open the zip file and send the contents") to the receiver. Or it can send the track's raw information (the bitstream) to the receiver ("send the zip file to the receiver, let it deal with it").
2. If it sees a DD-5.1 track, it has the same set of options. It can transcode to linear PCM (it won't sound as good as TrueHD), or it can send to the receiver untouched.
3. Finally, if it sees a linear PCM track, it will _always_ send the track to the receiver untouched.

When the BR-D player sends that TrueHD or DD-5.1 track to the receiver without first decoding it to linear PCM, that's called "bitstreaming". Otherwise, your player is going to do the decoding.

Now, the PS3 doesn't have the option to bitstream TrueHD (or DTS-MA HD) at all. The PS3 will always decode to linear PCM and send it to the receiver like that. It _can_ send DD-5.1 and DTS via bitstream (so it won't decode on the PS3). There are advantages and disadvantages to bitstreaming vs. on-player decoding. If you don't care about the advantages that bitstreaming provides, then the PS3 is perfectly suitable for your audio needs.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: erwos
First, sorry for the thread hijack. Back on topic. Replace TrueHD with DTS-MA HD and DD-5.1 with DTS as applicable if it makes you feel better.

Let's use the computer world for comparison:
1. Think of a TrueHD track as a zip file containing raw sound data - all the data is in there - you haven't lost anything when you open it up. This is lossless compression.
2. Similarly, think of a Dolby Digital 5.1 track as a zip file containing a PNG - there's some quality loss associated with the compression, but it still sounds/looks good. This would be lossy compression.
3. Finally, think of a linear PCM track as a bitmap. All the data is there in a completely uncompressed format. This is equivalent the raw sound data in the TrueHD track when it gets decoded.

So, your BR-D player runs into a track, and depending on what track it is, it has to make a decision:
1. If it sees a TrueHD track, it can decode it and send the linear PCM it derives from it ("open the zip file and send the contents") to the receiver. Or it can send the track's raw information (the bitstream) to the receiver ("send the zip file to the receiver, let it deal with it").
2. If it sees a DD-5.1 track, it has the same set of options. It can transcode to linear PCM (it won't sound as good as TrueHD), or it can send to the receiver untouched.
3. Finally, if it sees a linear PCM track, it will _always_ send the track to the receiver untouched.

When the BR-D player sends that TrueHD or DD-5.1 track to the receiver without first decoding it to linear PCM, that's called "bitstreaming". Otherwise, your player is going to do the decoding.

Now, the PS3 doesn't have the option to bitstream TrueHD (or DTS-MA HD) at all. The PS3 will always decode to linear PCM and send it to the receiver like that. It _can_ send DD-5.1 and DTS via bitstream (so it won't decode on the PS3). There are advantages and disadvantages to bitstreaming vs. on-player decoding. If you don't care about the advantages that bitstreaming provides, then the PS3 is perfectly suitable for your audio needs.

excellent explanation, much clearer now (in computer terminology lol). thank you!

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: erwos
First of all, I said "almost all". Second, it's a really ugly hack, and has limited availability. It's not a mass market thing.

Ok, explain to me how that is an "ugly hack." In the end you'll have a cleaner looking setup than with a player that had IR functionality. Again, most "high end" setup use an IR extender, and instead of connecting one end to the player, you can connect it to the PS3 remote which you can store completely out of sight.

And "it's not a mass marketing thing?" Who cares? If I can get my hands on it, I don't care about the rest of the "normal Joe Blow market." I thought we were talking about the HT enthusiast?

It's missing TrueHD and DTS-HD MA bitstream support, and decoding TrueHD is _not_ a replacement for that. And, yes, the HT market doesn't waste gear, but it does replace it at a generally faster rate than the public. They understand gear becomes obsolete after time in some cases, especially when the specs aren't finalized.

Ok, maybe you need to clarify your stance on bitstreaming, because I'm obviously missing your point. Why would I care if the player decodes it, or the receiver? I can understand the lack of DTS-HD MA audio support, but that is really the only downside, and admittedly a big downside. However, when/if Sony adds DTS-HD MA support to the PS3, we'll be back to the PS3 being the best Blu-Ray player.

But what's the advantage to the new Sony players? It's bitstream, HDMI-CEC, and real IR support. How many times do I need to say it? That stuff matters to some people, even if decode to linear PCM is fine for you.

I've already addressed bitstreaming and IR, so I'd like to touch on HDMI-CEC since you brought it up. I'd definitely take away points for the PS3 for not having that feature, however, we get back to IR and universal remote support. And if you use RF>IR extenders, I don't see the real NEED for HDMI-CEC. Yes, I would rather have the two-way communication that HDMI-CEC provides, but in the end, it wouldn't really make a difference with a proper RF>IR solution.

You're selling us on a PS3 for its gaming and multimedia. I own one, so, clearly, we have some agreement here. But, ultimately, you're using a red herring, because we're talking about the BR-D playback capabilities. Or at least I thought we were. When it comes to pure playback abilities, I stick by my statement: as a pure BR-D player, the PS3 will be eclipsed by a $150 player within four years.

Wifi doesn't benefit Blu-Ray playback? It sure will when your player needs an update. Along with my PS3 I have a HD-A2 and HD-A35 player, and let me tell you, network connectivity is almost a must, and wifi would be PERFECT.

I think the problem I have with your reasoning is that you're comparing the PS3 as it might be to players as they are, not the PS3 as it might be to announced future players (BDP-S550), or the PS3 as it is to other players as they are. I'm not saying upgradability isn't a cool and useful feature, but I am saying that you're stacking the deck in a fashion that will _always_ result in a PS3 being the best.

I think the problem I have with your reasoning is you're willing to trade little features that really will have no impact on Blu-Ray playback, but you insist they are this HUGE drawbacks, and at the same time ignore every other capabilty the PS3 has. Maybe you just haven't played with all the features your PS3 has to offer. Did I mention the PS3 has the fastest load times of ANY Blu-Ray player or is that something you want to overlook too?

I'm done debating this, because it's pretty clear you're not going to be changing your mind no matter what I say.

Listen, the only reason my mind is made up is because I've done the research and weighed all the positives and negatives of all the Blu-Ray players on the market. I'm looking to recommend a Blu-Ray player to my parents and I've looked at just about every Blu-Ray player out, and the ones that will be coming out shortly, and again, I keep coming back to the PS3. And let me tell you, my parents couldn't care less about games. So what do they get with a PS3? They get a player that will do anything a current or future Blu-Ray player will do, PLUS have multimedia capabilities. Not to mention a player that updates itself to whatever the current standard is. I just don't see a downside to it.