Originally Posted by sillysally
Ruined my friend. Yes I do own a BD-51, but I am here to tell you its not the same player as the BDP-09 is. So if you insist on comparing these two BD players, I would suggest you buy a BDP-09 and then tell me they are very similar in PQ and AQ. And also the fact that the BDP-09 owners are not having problems playing there source disc as the BD05/51 owners have and still are.
Chris Walker knows more about the design of these players than either of us and he already confirmed the 51/05/09/120/320/23 all use the same core SoC a long time ago. Which means same basic software, same BD-J engine, same SoC, same play, same rewind, etc.
I did not say they are similar in PQ/AQ, in fact, if you read my last post I specifically stated that PQ/AQ is the primary thing that seperates them through additional/different A/V chips/boards. But that does not make them at the core different players. The Pioneer 09FD is to the 05/51 what the Toshiba HD-XA2 was to the Toshiba HD-A20; same core player, different A/V chips to seperate them. Also, a BD-R was used on the 09FD instead of the BDROM found in the 51FD since BD-R drives have more strict tolerances in the hardware and hence might do a better job with dirty/damaged BDs; some of the drives with so-so lasers that got a lot of read errors on the 51/05 wouldn't pass muster as a BD-R drive. Again, direct feedback we gave on the 51FD/05FD that Chris was able to get implemented in the 09FD. I know for a fact Chris watches that #7 post. Again, what other manufs participate in this public forum like that?
Also, recently there have been no 05/51 issues aside from a comparatively small batch of recent players made in Malaysia that appear to have set off something in the BD+ security engine; probably a hardware revision that Pio did not write specific FW for or possibly a defective run - either way, it is not something affecting users like myself or any who bought in 2008 or early 2009 with made in Japan units and is probably something that can be addressed in the next FW revision. It is a big problem though since most Fox/MGM releases use BD+, so Pioneer better get a handle on what they want to do with those Malaysian players. Basically most of those Malaysian players can't play any BD+ titles at all. Thankfully, they are in the minority of players people receive.
You can make all the excuses you want for the info that CW feeds us, but please link what he said about when a update was to be the release date.
I'm not sure what that means, but Chris Walker is not master of the universe, or even master of Pioneer. He is a contact at AVSFORUM that gives direct feedback to the people writing the firmware, he also holds a relatively high position at Pio. Most bugs found on the 05/51 SoC - which is the same as the 09 SoC - were stamped out by 05/51 users, so now people buying the 09FD which uses the same SoC get a stable player. 09FD owners can now enjoy their player without the mess that was v1.0 on the 05/51 despite the SoC being the same chip. I would give you an example to try that causes problems on the 05/51 and the 09, but since there are really no easy glitches left on the 05/51, thats not so easy to do - not to mention it looks like they've advanced the BD-J/core engine to x.34 on the 09 while the 51 is still on x.25a. The 09FD is definitely the priority now due to its pricetag and the expectations that carries.
Also, while Chris does give feedback to those firmware programmers he cannot jump in and write code himself. It also is a complex process due to land and language barriers, if you catch my drift. I'm sure he wants it to happen as much as us, he is very passionate about the players.
Anyway why are we having this discussion, don't you think CW should have posted that there was going to be a delay. CW is very quick on posting good news but not the bad. We are adults and we understand stuff goes wrong, please let CW defend his position on the delays. I for one would respect that much more than having you defend Pioneer.
So, you think Chris should come on and say, "hey we found a bug, it was delayed a week." Then a week goes by and another bug is found. Now what? "Well guys, another delay." Oops, fixing that bug caused a DIFFERENT bug. Next week: "We fixed the first two bugs, but created a third." Yeah, that would get old fast, he would be crucified as would Pioneer, and the phone CSRs would get endless phone calls every week with people looking for firmware.
Chris now either has the option of operating the way he does, or simply not saying anything at all like most companies. After the issue with 1.07 release being pulled on the 05/51 and resulting calamity, his participation was forced to move towards the latter. He used to participate more than he does, but by giving users dates you set expectations. If you can't meet those expectations, they get pissed. If you set another date a short time ahead and can't meet that either, they get more pissed. So then the only other option if things are behind is to give no dates & only return when he has the finished product in his hand, and things will go there if people continue to give him a hard time (if they haven't already).
No other company gives dates, lets give some slack to the one that doesn't keep us entirely in the dark. If you don't, he is just going to leave entirely and then we will be in the Panasonic/Sony/etc boat. And you will have the phone CSRs (who dont know WTF is going on, seriously) telling you "in the summer" so you don't call them back the next day/week.