Do audiophiles consider the PS3 a serious blu-ray player?

Uncompressed PCM (on BR discs that have this sound option) will sound no better or worse on ANY blu-ray player, IF it outputs it correctly (which the PS3 does).

TrueHD and DTS-MA is debatable as some think bitstreaming for the pre/pro to decode provides better results.

Decoding can be done with dedicated hardware or software. The Lexicon does not have either the hardware or enough processing power to use software. The PS3 has a full blown computer inside that can easily decode the audio. Other players have a dedicated chip to do that task. It makes no difference.

This is the same process that allows your PC to play DVDs despite not having MPEG decoding chipsets...software decoding....

So, if/when the firware is released the PS3 will have that capability.

Decoding is either done with dedicated hardware or software.

Most SAL use dedicated hardware. If the hardware wasn't designed to decode that it can't be changed in the field.

The PS3 is a computer in a George Forman Grill shaped box. A computer doesn't have dedicated hardware it has a general purpose processor. The CPU can do anything you tell it to do.

To decode DTS-HD on a computer you don't need a dedicated DTS-HD decoder card. You just need a) right software, b) fast enough processor, c) right drivers.

There is no doubt the PS3 has enough power to decode DTS-HD. It just needs the right software updates to it "learns how". Despite that IMHO the PS3 isn't and wasn't designed to be audiophile quality. PCM is very susceptible to jitter. HDMI makes the issue even worse due to it's high frequencies and lack of dedicated audio channel. Bitstream allows the codec to be decoded locally where clock rate and other conditions can be more controlled.

This is not a "bash" against the PS3. Bitstream was designed for a purpose. It allows the compressed signal to be delivered to the AVR or pre-pro where it is decoded in equipment designed to minimze distortion of the PCM signal.

PUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Decoding even when hardware based, is still software as far as I am concerned.

Right now yes, considering what else is out..... All depends, the whole audiophile thing when it comes to movie soundtracks it is a bit subjective. Meaning it is easier to distinguish listening to music and hearing a different than it is trying to compare a DTS-MA or Dolby True HD soundtrack of a movie. I think with the tied turning more Blu you will finally start seeing some higher end units out.. PS3 on audio isn't bad, border-lining on audiophile sound...

They are? I didn't think there were any HDM players yet that could send the new audio codecs via bitstream, and no receivers that could decode them? I think perhaps you are misreading the comments where people talk about bitstream versus internal decode of standard DTS and DD audio.

I think for the audio/videophile, PS3 is no better or worse than any of the standalone players. It may in fact be better as it has the ability to meet profile 2.0 specs.

I can attest to the difference. I have a friend who has a Onkyo (805 i beleive?) and I can't explain why but it sounded better than mine does and we have almost identical setups.

There sure are. The new ONKYO line can decode it and there are several players that can bitstreame it, BD-30 for one.

Quite right you are!

Your anecdotal experience with your friends system notwithstanding, based on my own listening experience with DTS/DD, I remain unconvinced that there is an audible difference between decoding the bitstream in the player versus in the receiver. In fact, if you do hear a reproducable difference, the decoder(s) must be broken!

Um. You are about 18 months behind the times. Check my sig it is a comparison of BD players. Any player marked STREAM can bitstream only. Any player marked COMPLETE can bitstream and decode. There are numerous players that can bitstream advanced codecs.

On AVR side there are literally 30-40 AVR that can decode all advanced codecs (DD+, TrueHD, DTS-HD, DTS-HA MA) over HDMI. They aren't even that expensive any more. The Onkyo 605/705/805/875 series is pretty well known as starts at around ~$400.

If they don't then they probably don't consider any of the current blu-ray players to be "serious". In any comparison the ps3 keeps coming out at or near the top. Given that the important stuff (blu-ray video and audio) are all digital it's not really all that hard, but the PS3 also excels at things like dvd upscaling.

There are some issues that will always be brought up such as

1) Lacks IR remote compatibility and 3rd party solutions aren't perfect
2) Lacks DTS-MA decoding, but may be added in the future
3) Form-factor.
4) Needs decent ventilation.
5) Fan noise

But just because it's first and foremost a game machine, no one should dismiss it as a Blu-Ray, DVD, and general purpose media player. It's well built, upgradeable, and very powerful.

But I'm no audiophile. I don't really see the sense wasting money on equipment fancier than the sound engineers use to master the discs. Garbage-in Garbage-out.

A blu-ray player is not meant to be a serious audiophile device. It MUST support video and be hooked up to a TV, hence not an audiophile device

Now the PS3 is noisy (I know many swear it is not) and gets very hot. It is made mostly of plastic so even as a transport I guess it is not that good.

The analog connections are not that great either.

So, it is not a serious audiophile device for the many reasons above.

Nice chart! Interesting to note that the players you cite as bitstream capable are either not yet available or the most recent models. So perhaps you slipped a decimal point and I am only 1.8 months behind the times (I also am a 'trickle-up' consumer with a hi-end processor which, curiously, has no HDMI capabilty at all ).

Anyhow, minutia aside, the point for me is that anyone who maintains there is a difference between decoding in a player versus a receiver (we are not even talking D/A conversion here) is ...... mistaken.

If DTSMA decoding/bitstreaming is at the core of this premise, then I don't think "audiophile" is the right term to use here. The (true) "audiophile" is going to be concerned about music reproduction on a dedicated music format (SACD/DVD-A, for example). That is where the utmost attention is invested in recording/mastering to produce content that really can challenge "audiophile" standards.

Though movie soundtracks can sound "good", rarely are they considered "audiophile grade" to the same level that is present in a well mastered musical recording (regardless of lossless compression or not). It's a different standard of quality, and it has been that way for some time. Just listen to the music they play at the closing credits of a movie and compare that to the literal version offered on CD, and it should be fairly obvious that even the CD runs circles around it.

What does all of this mean?...simply that the presence of an operational DTSMA on the ps3 is not a particularly definitive basis to determine "audiophile grade" status, until a wide library of music content arrives in this DTSMA format. Until then, movie soundtracks in DTSMA are simply movie soundtracks in DTSMA, and not much more. Why do I say a "wide" library?...because if there are only 1 or 2 actual music titles you can play on it in that format, then what good is it really, whether or not it is "audiophile" grade?

The only real way to evaluate (at this time) ps3 for "audiophile status" (not that I put much credence in such a classification, anyway) would be to evaluate how it performs on CD or SACD content in either analog output or pcm out.

If you wish to test it via bitstream on a lossless codec, then you would only be testing the ps3 as a transport, anyway (which should be fairly trivial to achieve properly). The "audiophile-ness" of the sound would then be more a reflection of the decoding and d/a in whatever receiver/amp you have connected to the ps3.

That said, I don't want to give the impression that ps3 is not a very good player. I would not be surprised if it scored very high on a technical measurement level. Audio output quality would still need to contend with the impacts of fan noise (ambient noise contribution) and 3-prong AC connection (potential for line level interference), in striving for that "audiophile" crown, though. It's still going to be capable of audio output far exceeding in quality relative to what most people will connect to it in amps and speakers.

As to if "audiophiles" consider it a serious blu-ray player, why would "audiophiles" care about blu-ray players, in the first place? That is not their domain, anyway. "Audiophiles" care about music players, not video players. The ps3 may very well be as "serious" a blu-ray player as any other standalone blu-ray player, as far as playing blu-ray movies is concerned.

If by audiophiles, do you mean audio is => video, I wouldn't consider the PS3 because it can't decode DTS-HD MA and it's fan adds noise to the environment. I've heard it, and it's annoying during dialog tracks. If they ever do get dts-hd ma decoding to work, I imagine that would increase the workload of the PS3, thus even more fan noise. No thanks.

Audio is critically important to me in order to be fully immersed in a movie. Try turning off the sound while you're watching LotR and see if the movie has anywhere near as much impact.

I prefer bitsteaming to player decoding if for no other reason than DTS-HD MA. It adds so much ambiance to soundtracks. Example, in Terminator 2 on hd dvd import, at the beginning of movie after the park scene shifts to the burnt out cars, with DTS-HD MA, you could clearly hear not only the wind, but every little screach of metal twisting in the wind and even that dirt or sand sound when it's blown against the cars. When the Terminator steps on the skull, it felt like getting punched in the chest. IMO, big difference over DTS.

For TrueHD and DD+ I felt that bitsteaming sounded better. PCM (after adjusting LFE) I felt was the same. DTS-HD MA can't compare as there isn't a player that can decode it, though as mentioned, blows away DTS when bitstreaming.

I've used the following equipment:
Denon AVR-3808CI
Toshiba HD-A35
Pansonic DMP-BD30K
Toshiba HD-A1
Samsung BD-1200

I've never counted all the posts but I see more from people who can't hear a difference. All the ones I've seen from people who can hear a difference are from people using Onkyos. It makes me thing that the Onkyos are applying some sort of post-processing that isn't necessary.

Has anyone not using an Onkyo heard a difference between bitstream and PCM with the same movie? (That's assuming levels are adjusted as needed.)

I would agree with the PS3 fan noise, but all it takes to eliminate that is an IR repeater and problem solved. I did this with mine and no more fan.

OP: NO ps3 is not a reference player. No full feature IR remote, and no rs232.

It's about as reference as you're going to find on the Blu side, until the BD-50 comes out. If you honestly discount a player from being reference-quality just because of a lack of IR....I don't know what to say to that.

The PS3 sounds great. I am not sure what else there is to complain about. No analog outputs is downer for some, but I have no desire to go back to analog connections.

But these are more operational and convenience-based issues than audio performance-based, aren't they? It's kind of like saying back in the old analog days that a Linn Sondek turntable wasn't a reference player because it didn't have a semi-automatic arm or auto shut-off.

The PS3 sounds as good as ANY other player out there. The picture is on the same level as well. DTS MA is on the way which will be icing on the cake.

digital via HDMI is digital. As long as the player implement LFE signal level properly, it shouldn't matter which player you use. What matters is the prepro or AVR that it's connected to and of course everything downstream of that.

The PS3 is certainly the most equipped, well built, and future proof BD unit available.
DTS HD- master wont be internally decoded by the PS3, till the Panasonic BD50k, and the Dnon are released. This is to promote the sales of standalone devices.

Damn, I want GTA4 and MGS4 also !!!
Thats what the PS3 is supposed to be for!!!

I love my PS3 for the video quality. My only complaint has been the sound when compared to my HDA1. Part of this is admittedly the limitations of my AVR which only has multichannel analog in and no HDMI. (Yamaha RXV 1400)

With a receiver that is less than 3 years old and cost $800, I can't yet justify trashing it just because of the lack of HDMI in and HD MA decoding.

With the limitations of only optical out with my setup I'm frustrated. I've gotten spoiled with the Dolby True HD and DD+ on the HDA1. 2 movies I own, Phantom of the Opera and the Polar Express have sound that blows any soundtracks played on the PS3 away. (despite the limitations of the lead male vocalist on Phantom) Although I really love the PS3, I kind of wish I'd waited for the panasonic bd-50. However, its cost will probably be close to the cost of a new AVR, so it is hard to know what to do. Trash the PS3 or trash the AVR. Any suggestions. Both would be a tough sell with the wife.

I have experimented and now listen with PCM setting when available on the movies. Even with the narrow pipes of optical, I do think the sound using PCM and optical is fuller than bitstream.

The release timeframe is another rumor being propogated here, like the CF/CE serial number thing. It is supposed to happen this quarter according to the DTS rep at CES. This is of course provided someone did not make that up as well.

The DTS-MA is apparently an issue but otherwise it does a good job with audio. Video is also superb, IMO. The one BIG thing it does do is:

Decode NHL '08.....

hehehehehe

The PS3 outputs up to 8 channels of up to 96 kHz/24-bit digital audio, depending on what's on the disc. The fact that it's also a gaming machine has no bearing on that fact.

What would determine whether your end results are "audiophile" or not would be your downstream equipment (receiver, pre/pro, power amps & speakers).