Introduction

Despite our strong support for the Blu-ray Disc format, several columns suggested that it would be a clever idea to wait until the fall when several Profile 2.0 BD players would be on the market, likely at more reasonable prices than those paid by early adopters for Profile 1.0 players. As you know, Profile 1.1 players provide picture-in-picture capability (Bonus View) and Profile 2.0 players add Internet connectivity to access Web-based supplements (BD-Live). To the best of our knowledge, there will be nine Profile 2.0 players available by the holiday season: Sony PS3 (available now), Sony BDP-S350 (now), Sony BDP-S550 (early fall), Pioneer BDP-LX91 (late fall or early winter), Samsung BD-P2500 (fall), Panasonic DMP-BD50 (now), Panasonic DMP-BD55 (fall), Panasonic DMP-BD35 (fall), and Sharp BD-HP50U (rumored to be upgradable to 2.0).

We look for value and capability in the players we bring to your attention, and the Profile 2.0 Panasonic DMP-BD50 has the distinction of being able to decode all advanced audio CODECs (such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio) internally for output as 5.1 analog, HDMI 1.1, and native bit streams of the lossless CODECs over HDMI 1.3 to an external audio decoder. It’s competitively priced, offering value for its feature set.

Until the Panasonic DMP-BD50 was released, the Sony PS3 had been the only real option for Blu-ray enthusiasts who want a top-performing future-proof Blu-ray player that also has the ability to boast full 2.0 Profile capability. But unlike the Panasonic player, the PS3 has audio interconnect limitations. Many enthusiasts have been waiting to buy a player that they won’t have to replace in just a few years (or months) as they decide to explore emerging BD disc features, like BD-Live and Bonus View. The $599 list price is a little steep, but the unit is readily available for about $100 less from reputable dealers.

The Player

The DMP-BD50 looks nearly identical to the DMP-BD30. Dave found one design feature irksome: the non-illuminated power button is on the left, on the top edge of the player, just above the disc tray; and, the non-illuminated disc-tray open/close button is on the right, also on the top edge of the player. Let’s just say it’s a bit frustrating to inadvertently power the unit off while attempting to open the drawer to change discs. Other than this ergonomic gripe, the look of the unit is sleek and attractive. The blue LED that shines brilliantly on the front of the unit can be turned off via the setup menu for those who may find it distracting (it’s surprisingly bright once your eyes get used to the dark when watching a front-projected movie) and the LED display can also be dimmed (nice touches for those with the player sitting beneath the screen or in the eye-line).

There’s a flip-down faceplate on the front right that exposes some manual controls and an SDHC slot for an SD memory card to store BD-Live bonus features for viewing. The test sample came with a 2 GB card, but cards are sold separately. You can also view JPEG images (at up to 1920 x 1080) and AVCHD video files placed on the memory card, so there are distinct advantages to having a removable memory resource. While this may seem an inconvenience and it does add slightly to the cost, it’s also a mark of versatility; it allows users to take BD-Live features they have saved (like downloaded movie trailers or games) to someone else’s home where there’s a BD-Live player with an SD memory slot. Presumably, if in a few years you purchase another Panasonic player with a similar card slot, you could keep your existing memory card and not lose any saved information associated with your BD-Live discs. Subtitles for foreign films are a good example of something you might not want to lose should you change players in the future. It’ll be interesting to see if other BD-Live hardware producers choose to implement SD memory cards, although we believe Sony is opting for USB memory.

Turning the player around reveals another key difference between the BD50 and its BD30 predecessor: 5.1 analog audio outputs. These analog outputs and the BD50’s ability to fully decode all lossless audio formats on Blu-ray Disc internally are among the primary reasons many enthusiasts with audio gear that’s not HDMI equipped will be keenly interested in this player. Given that multichannel analog outputs are of primary interest to many potential customers, it’s disappointing that Panasonic didn’t provide full 7.1 analog outputs as they had in their earlier DMP-BD10A unit. For discs with 7.1 channel tracks, the center surround information is down-mixed to the left and right surround channels. If your decoder or decoding receiver will dematrix the analog surround channels, the center surround channel will be restored.

(For those keen on having 7.1 analog output capability, Panasonic already has another player, the DMP-BD55, on its release schedule. This player is designed with improved audiophile components to maximize the 7.1 multichannel analog output sound quality, so discriminating audiophiles strongly desiring the best analog audio performance and/or 7.1 output may want to consider the forthcoming BD55.)

Of course, any audiophile really interested in the best possible sound (hint, hint) should be saving for an HDMI 1.3 audio decoder capable of accepting and decoding full digital bit streams whether native or PCM… regardless of his or her choice of BD player (more on that later). Of course, if your audio system is only 5.1, the lack of 7.1 analog outputs is a moot point.

There other major difference on the back panel is an RJ-45 network jack for your Internet connection to download all those snazzy BD-Live bonus features; it connects directly to your Web-ready network just like a PC. (If you use a router and have implemented MAC filtering, the player’s hardware address is readily available from one of the network menus.) An even more important role for this connection than BD-Live is the player’s ability to connect to Panasonic’s website and automatically update the player’s firmware by a simple click of the remote (just like the Sony PS3). No more hassles with waiting for snail-mailed update discs or trying to burn an ISO image file and ending up with a stack of improperly recorded discs in the process. Ah, progress.

Background

Dave… I’ve owned and used the Sony PS3 as my primary Blu-ray movie player for over a year and I don’t own a single video game. My rationale for purchasing the PS3 was that it was the most future proof player on the market with its Internet connectivity and upgradability that utilizes its powerful Cell Microprocessor. Out of the box, it was only a firmware-update away from providing full Profile 2.0 BD-Live compliance. And Sony did indeed deliver on that promise, along with providing the PS3 the ability to internally decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio. But unlike the BD50, the PS3 lacks both the ability to bitstream compressed advanced lossless CODECs and provide multichannel analog audio outputs. Several months ago, I briefly evaluated a Panasonic DMP-BD30 and felt its audio performance sufficiently superior to my PS3 that it really tempted me. But I couldn’t help but feel that the PS3 had a slight edge in 1080 Blu-ray Disc material as well as a superior ability to deinterlace and scale standard definition DVD content. For these reasons, the BD30 went back to the store, and I’ve been waiting for BD50 to see how it might have improved in these areas.

Dan… My first DVD player was the Sony DVP-S700. I trusted Sony to deliver a glitchless product and the unit is still considered to this day to be the finest interlaced DVD player ever sold. Unlike other players, it never barfed when confronted with advanced (at the time) DVD features, like seamless branching. The firmware is over eleven years old and it’s still in operation in my master bedroom. So having earned my confidence, I waited patiently for Sony’s first dedicated BD player, the BDP-S1, and with the exception of its Profile 1.0 limitations and the need for many firmware updates (I think I’m up to version 3.85), it’s served me extremely well.

1080p Native Picture Quality

Dave… When I first swapped the HDMI cable from my PS3 to the BD50 to view 1080p Blu-ray Disc content (viewed on a 106-inch diagonal front projection screen illuminated by a JVC HD2K 1080p projector), I was amazed at what I saw. To my eyes, the BD50 produced a better 1080p picture than my Sony PS3. In a few short minutes I had a stack of Blu-ray Discs I was hurriedly scene-swapping my way through: The Fifth Element (remastered); Across The Universe; Planet Earth; Blade Runner; Narnia; Ratatouille; Enchanted; Cars; Hellboy; Galapagos. No matter what disc, my impression of “wow, it’s really hitting me as looking even more detailed than the PS3” was the same. Switching back to the PS3 for a moment, my impression that the BD50 was just a tad better wasn’t diminished.

I then loaded Digital Video Essentials on Blu-ray Disc to look at some test patterns and to compare the two players. And after taking time to pause and carefully examine some of the test patterns (at times from just a few inches from the screen to literally count pixels), and moving the HDMI cable back and forth from between the BD50 and PS3, I discovered that each provided a perfect 1080p picture from 1080p source material (passing blacker than black, no clipping, no color banding and perfect 1:1 pixel resolution). As I switch back and forth, the 1080p images looked exactly the same. Sound confusing? It felt confusing.

When watching movie content, that “oohhh” feeling would just feel a tad more tingly when looking at the BD50’s picture, yet on close inspection of freeze-frames I could see no visible difference compared to the PS3. One possible explanation for my preference for the BD50’s picture is that with movies in motion the superior audio was affecting my brain’s perception of the picture (a documented effect of improved sound quality: viewers report an improvement in picture quality when none exists). Indeed, muting the audio or pausing the image made any visible differences harder or impossible to detect. I think that the most important thing to take away from my prolonged 1080p swap-fest is that, at the very least, the BD50 equals the PS3’s video performance with 1080p source material. And this is a very high compliment given the reference quality 1080p images produced by the PS3.

Dan… Since my system is equipped with an HDMI switcher, my task was a little easier than Dave’s. I also own two copies of several titles, so I was able to start and synchronize the same BD on the BD50 and the BDP-S1, and using my remote control, switch back and forth between the two players. I viewed the material on a 110-inch diagonal Stewart StudioTek 130 screen illuminated by a Sony Ruby 1080p front projector. I began with Spider-Man 3, a highly detailed and colorful BD release, and as I did my A/B comparison, I saw no discernable differences. I paused each player on a few complex frames and again switched back and forth. No difference. This suggested that I should immediately examine some test patterns. Since a Sony BD was in both players, I retreated to the main menu and accessed the easter egg test images by keying in 7669 on the remotes. I paused each player on the resolution pattern and compared. No differences. Nothing. Nada. Not a sausage. Each reproduced the test pattern identically; and as Dave felt about his PS3, compared to the BDP-S1, this is high praise for the BD50.

It was time to stress the player with more challenging high definition tests. I have a set of DVD, HD DVD, and BD test discs from HQV Silicon Optics, and these discs offer a clever set of pass/fail tests. The BD50 did extremely well on the high definition tests, passing them all. I was left with the impression that this is a very capable player, but one note of warning. There are several preprogrammed video setup configurations available from one of the BD50’s setup menus. I used the cinema configuration for these tests, but there is a user defined configuration. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to modify video parameters but if you do, I think the picture will only suffer. For example, the sharpness defaults to zero. Any setting above zero generates halos on boundaries of high contrast. And any setting under zero softens the image and reduces resolution.

Deinterlacing and Scaling

Dave… Deinterlacing 1080i filmed material to 1080p is quite good, although it still left occasional, but not distracting, visible stair-stepping on diagonal lines in some challenging 1080i-recorded material; this is not unusual for any Blu-ray device. Since the PS3 doesn’t deinterlace 1080i Blu-ray content at all, the BD50 clearly beat the PS3 on this test. To get the best possible 1080p deinterlacing in your system, try setting the player for 1080i output and see if your display does a better job. I think most will be quite happy with the BD50’s deinterlacing performance, but it is possible that your display might do better.

Deinterlacing of 480i standard definition content is a different matter, and the PS3 clearly (pun intended) has the upper hand. For this test I pulled out a stack of some DVDs that I know have dinterlacing challenges (the DVD menu for the Cinderella DVD is a perfect example; it’s a combination of mixed-method content) and the PS3 has the edge in all tests in terms of fewer jaggies, fewer instances of combing with bad video edits, and an all around smoother, more natural looking picture with native 480i source material. These differences will be subtle or invisible to someone seated perhaps 3.5 screen-widths away from the screen. For wider fields of view, those with state-of-the-art DVD processing/scaling devices may opt to keep them connected alongside the BD50.

With film-based DVD content, the quality of deinterlacing native video material is moot since the Panasonic does a fine job of reverse 3:2 pulldown for perfect frame reconstruction. However, the PS3 still has better overall image quality with film-based DVDs due to its superior scaling. DVD images scaled to 1080p from the PS3 are a tad more natural (film-like), have more believable depth, and have better fine detail. I played an assortment of discs (Cinderella, Into The Wild, The Fifth Element Super Bit) and the PS3 always had a slight edge. The differences were subtle, and by any definition the Panasonic BD50 is a good DVD scaler, but the PS3 is better still. Those accustomed to the above-average scaling of the PS3 or Toshiba’s HD DVD players might choose to keep those devices connected. But if you’re currently happy with the scaling from your existing dedicated Blu-ray player, you’ll probably find the Panasonic’s performance equal or superior.

Dan… Since time was getting short, I went directly to the HQV Silicon Optics test DVD. Alas, unlike my Sony BDP-S1, the Panasonic BD50 failed or did not excel in any of these tests. While scaling DVD to high definition, it: failed the motion adaptive test, exhibiting jaggies at a steeper than acceptable angle; failed the mixed 3:2 with titles test, exhibiting interlace-type motion artifacts in horizontally moving titles for one second before settling down, and continuously for vertically moving titles; failed the film resolution loss test, exhibiting a Moiré pattern in the seats of a grandstand as an Indy-class race car streaked by; and, was only “fair” during the diagonal filter jaggies test. During real-world viewing, DVDs looked fairly respectable, but I prefer either my Sony BD player or either of my Toshiba HD DVD players for DVD playback.

Audio Performance

Dave… As I previously mentioned, not only can the BD50 output bit streams of all advanced audio CODECs over HDMI 1.3, it has the rare ability to decode both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio signals internally to linear PCM, giving the listener the choice of outputting the PCM over HDMI or convert the PCM to analog and output via the 5.1 multichannel outputs. The player will allow consumers, who don’t have receivers with HDMI inputs, but do have 5.1 analog inputs, to listen to the lossless-quality audio for the first time, and without having to upgrade their decoder or decoding receiver. Its lack of 7.1 analog outputs aside, the BD50 is the Swiss Army Knife of advanced audio versatility. It even lets you output mutlichannel analog and digital over HDMI simultaneously making A/B comparisons an easy task.

For those with HDMI… Armed with my HDMI 1.3 equipped Marantz 8002 receiver, I first configured the Panasonic DMP-BD50 to send native advanced audio bitstreams over HDMI to my receiver (something that my Sony PS3 cannot do). I then loaded my new favorite Blu-ray Disc for audio testing: Across the Universe. Without even needing to swap back to my Sony PS3, I was instantly and profoundly impressed by how much better the bit streaming Panasonic sounded. The improvement was almost troubling; the unequivocal improvement in clarity, soundstaging, detail, realism, and musical timbre with the Panasonic was unexpected to say the least given my strong familiarity with the audio on this particular disc. I was hearing a higher level of detail for the first time, and the improvement was across the board with every Blu-ray title I tried. Wondering if I was hearing some issue with the way that my receiver might be handling compressed bit streams versus PCM input, I then reset the Panasonic BD50 to decode internally everything to PCM before sending out via HDMI, just like my PS3. I assumed that the Panasonic would then sound much more similar, if not identical, to the PS3.

Imagine my surprise when the Panasonic decoding to PCM sounded even better than it did bit streaming the native compressed signals. The difference between having the Panasonic bit stream versus decode internally was slight, but the soundstage seemed even more cohesive and the speakers tended to disappear even more than it did with PCM decoding. This was consistent even after about an hour of disc-swapping and turning out the lights to listen to movie tracks in total blackness just as I would if critically evaluating music. The Panasonic seemed to open up an entire layer of realism, low-level detail, and crystal-clear front-to-back soundstaging I had not heard before in my system, ever. It was like visiting a high-end audio showroom with a familiar CD and enjoying a journey into the recording for the first time. I have no answer as to why this improvement exists with the BD50 decoding to PCM versus having it bitstream, nor can I fathom why either choice on the Panasonic sounds better than my PS3 (which can only extract to PCM). It’s possible that clock jitter or some sort of undocumented decoding/digital processing might be affecting the signal from the PS3 versus the Panasonic, there’s no way to be certain. But rest assured, those of you with HDMI-equipped audio devices won’t be missing out on a thing given the improvement I’m hearing over the PS3 and the Panasonic’s ability to send lossless audio to your receiver in every way possible (allowing you to determine which method sounds best to your ears in your own system, if you can perceive any differences between them at all).

Those without HDMI… So what about those analog outputs? Well, I toted the BD50 over to a friend’s house to listen to its analog performance on his Lexicon processor, which is a state-of-the-art surround processor with reference-quality d/a converters. Connecting the BD50 from its 5.1 analog outputs left us both unimpressed; sadly, we couldn’t enjoy lossless multichannel via a direct digital path since his Lexicon lacks HDMI input. The reason for testing the analog output of the Panasonic BD50 on such a high-end device was that many audiophiles with esoteric processors probably don’t have HDMI, and might be considering the BD50 for its 5.1 analog outputs as the way to get lossless audio from Blu-ray Discs into their system. If that’s the case with you, my recommendation would be to wait for the BD55 which not only has full 7.1 analog outputs, but is also designed as an audiophile device with improved audio components and circuitry for more critical listening.

I later hooked the BD50’s 5.1 analog outputs to the multichannel analog inputs on my Marantz receiver. I was then able to seamlessly switch the audio back and forth between the digital stream over HDMI and the BD50’s own analog output (which bypasses all DSP in my receiver, resulting in a true-to-the-source sound). The verdict? Well, after making some adjustments for calibration (like turning down the center channel) and adjusting the volume control given the 5.1 analog’s lower average sound level, the “ahhh” factor with the 5.1 analog output was present in my own system, only being slightly outperformed by the HDMI’s “aahhhhhh” sound quality. I can easily say that based on the “upper mid-fi/lower high-end” sound quality of my much loved Marantz 8002 receiver, most receiver-based listeners without HDMI but with multichannel inputs will regard lossless over 5.1 analog as a revelation compared to lossy digital audio. However, those with HDMI and good-to-great sounding receivers will probably hear a subtle improvement if they opt for the digital path for lossless sound; in my system, the low level detail and subtle cues that add that last degree of depth and realism were better rendered by the HDMI signal path.

Dan… I’m at a bit of a disadvantage, since my decoder can only accept SPDIF coax and optical lossy bit streams, or 5.1 analog. I sampled discs using the internal decoder of the BD50 and listened to the analog signals. And since my BDP-S1 cannot decode DTS-HD Master lossless internally, I was impressed with the BD50’s performance with discs that offer that advanced audio format. The level of detail, sound staging, clarity, more realistic timbre, and tightness are all improved, but this is strictly the difference between DTS core and full DTS-HD decoding. I was not able to perform the extensive comparisons available to Dave. So I’ll simply add that the BD50 did a splendid job of down-mixing 7.1 tracks to 5.1; my B&K Reference 30 decoder extracted the center surround channel from the audio signals and provided a very effective 180-degree surround sound field. However, I’ll also mention that the BD50 balked at outputting a few of the continuous pink noise test signals when I ran audio tests from the Digital Video Essentials BD (this might present a problem to those who wish to use a third-octave band analyzer for room equalization). Perhaps this glitch will be corrected with a firmware update.

BD-Live Performance

Dave… Part of the appeal of this player is its Profile 2.0 capability. So just what’s so exciting about all those BD-Live bonus features? Well, quite honestly, nothing’s very exciting just yet. I checked out some of the Web features on a few of my BD-Live discs and aside from the ability to download a few trailers in high definition, there’s not much compelling content available. (Wait for Disney’s Sleeping Beauty before judging the merits of BD-Live bonus features.) When it comes to downloading HD material like movie trailers, it’s slow. The PS3 isn’t lightening fast either, but it’s better. For instance, the Men In Black Blu-ray Disc took just over six minutes just to load the BD-Live Menu versus the PS3’s just over two-minute delay. It then took the Panasonic over sixteen minutes to download the high definition trailer for Hancock versus the PS3’s four minutes. And once that trailer was fully downloaded, it took the BD50 seven minutes to read and play the video from memory versus the PS3’s one and a half minutes.

Dan… I subscribe to the Cablevision/Optonline cable service. In a head-to-head comparison with other such services by PC Magazine, it was rated as a top performer. Before I performed my download tests, I checked the speed of my Internet connection by linking to a bit rate test website. My download speed clocked in at a tad over 6 Mbps, and my local area network is substantially faster than that. And yet, I observed virtually the same download times as Dave.

Dave… Verdict? All hardware (the PS3 included) need to improve download speeds for BD-Live features to really take off. Either that or come up with menus that can display useable content even before fully downloaded and come up with ways of bypassing unavoidable download delays with HD content by allowing users to start an HD download, and then watch disc-based bonus features or the feature film while the player continues to download the requested content behind the scenes.

Dan… My reaction isn’t as forgiving as Dave’s. The BD-J load delays are bad enough (although I did find that the BD50 is twice as fast as my Sony BDP-S1, reducing BD initial load times to about one minute), but to wait well over a half hour to access the BD-Live menu, download a 2-minute HD trailer, and begin to watch it is unacceptable. Enthusiasts and early adopters may tolerate the excessive delays, but for BD to become a highly successful product, I’m concerned about mainstream tolerance of the long delays.

Final Thoughts

Dave… The Panasonic DMP-BD50 is the first dedicated Blu-ray Disc player that’s tempted me to replace my Sony Playstation3. Although the Panasonic’s deinterlacing and scaling of standard definition DVD content isn’t quite up to par with the PS3’s reference-quality processing, the BD50’s picture with 1080p Blu-ray Disc material is breathtaking, and at least equal to that of the Sony PS3. When it comes to audio performance, the BD50 is a very versatile BD player, providing bit streaming of all advanced audio over HDMI 1.3 and the ability to internally decode all advanced audio CODECs. The quality of the 5.1 analog output isn’t audiophile quality in comparison to esoteric high-end gear (my advice would be to wait for the 7.1 equipped BD55 if that’s your priority), but it’s easily on par with mid- and upper-fi level receivers and will demonstrate the advantages of lossless audio for those who are not yet HDMI equipped but have multichannel analog inputs. Panasonic has produced a winner that’s impossible not to recommend.

Dan… The DMP-BD50 is a capable, feature-rich player that will be a strong competitor with the fall’s other Profile 2.0 players. With a street price of about $500, it has the potential to save consumers cash by avoiding the purchase of a new decoder or decoding receiver to enjoy the superior fidelity of advanced audio CODECs. And it’s 1080p performance is superb. The downside is its weak scaling performance of standard definition DVDs, but within a few years, as you build your BD collection and retire your DVDs, it really won’t matter.