Automotive Deals HPCC Shop Women's Clothing Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM
Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

DVD vs Blu Ray

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 245 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jan 15, 2013 1:58:53 AM PST
Fred says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 5:33:13 AM PST
bfore13 says:
"For example a 5 or 6 DVD set of anything should be able to be put on a SINGLE bd"

True but only if you used the SD material on the DVDs and didn't use HD material. Who would want that? I want Blu-ray becasue of HD video and audio.

"and cost less since only 1/5 of the media is needed"

Maybe, maybe not. Blank DVD media are much cheaper than blank Blu-rays so it may be negligible especially since the media is only a small portion of the cost of the DVD/BD.

Posted on Jan 29, 2013 8:00:17 PM PST
KingV911 says:
I love Blu. The image is always clearer and more pronounced, with little to no digital artifacts that always bother me with DVDs. Even the poor transfers still look better than DVD. I don't believe people who can't see the difference. Either they are genetically wired to see detail differently or they have something setup incorrectly with the display. Sometimes I rent DVDs because they do not carry the Blu version or something, and I immediately can tell. The image is always inferior, and it's just less clear and present - like there is a thin veil over everything that just needs to come off. I watched Once Upon a Time in the West on DVD recently, and then saw the bluray (both from same transfer) and the bluray had incredible detail; the DVD just couldn't compete, and I didn't expect it to. Some people just don't care about that and I understand. However, I can tell and I appreciate what Blu offers, usually for the same price or very slightly more.

Posted on Jan 30, 2013 12:17:56 PM PST
I don't agree with people who say the audio is that much better on Blu-Ray than on DVD. I have a nice 7.1 home theater system, and I don't notice any difference between the 5.1 on DVDs versus the 5.1 on Blu-Rays, and I don't notice much difference between 5.1 and 7.1 on Blu-Ray, but that may be how I have rear surround speakers positioned.

Some 5.1 DVD soundtracks are incredible, and they aren't much different on Blu-Ray, if at all. And, on a lot of Blu-Rays, they neglect to provide decent soundtracks anyway, or the source does not have a decent soundtrack. The soundtrack to Boogie Nights is the same on Blu-Ray as it is on DVD - left/right/center, with almost no surround sound, and no sub-woofer bass. A lot of soundtracks are mono, or stereo anyway. So don't go out any buy Blu-Ray because you think you're going to get that much better sound.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2013 12:33:49 PM PST
Graham says:
Also and Quite Important..The Uncompressed Superior Sound tracks you will experience on BluRay..(As any soundtrack on DVD) will ONLY be as good as the Equipment you are playing it back on and it's ability to Decode the latest remember...BluRay Does have approx. 6 times the detail of a DVD...but to enjoy the superior need PROPER Equipment!

Posted on Jan 30, 2013 6:23:48 PM PST
I only get action movies on blu ray, tv shows and others i get on dvd cuz it doesnt make a big difference

Posted on Jan 30, 2013 7:50:52 PM PST
Cavaradossi says:
Andrew R. Peters

Generally, I agree with you about TV shows being fine on DVD, but there are some vivid exceptions. Sherlock, Chuck, Firefly, The Vampire Diaries, and the Battlestar Galactica are some examples I have on BD. I owned Firefly and rented the others from Netlfix in their DVD guise, so I had some comparison before buying them on BD. Let me tell you, I have no regrets!

The exception in the above list is the excellent BBC series, Sherlock. I originally saw the show on BD, rented from Netflix. Not only was a blown away by the brilliance of the show, but the HD image was spectacular. I've reordered the series and it turns out Netflix no longer carries the BD versions. The fall off in picture quality on the DVDs from that on the BDs is disheartening. While I'm definitely enjoying seeing the show again, I'm always conscious of what I'm missing. When I buy Sherlock, there's no question whatsoever as to which version it will be.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2013 5:41:58 PM PST
turkish says:
yep. cinematography of Tree of Life on HD doesn't really live up to it after seeing that car blow up in full resolution in Death Race 3. (end of sarcasm)

Posted on Feb 8, 2013 5:57:58 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Feb 14, 2013 11:46:39 PM PST]

Posted on Feb 11, 2013 6:31:07 PM PST
Blu-ray is just far superior to DVD in PQ, AQ and in every other way. Even upscaled DVD's can't compare to Blu-ray quality. The only advantage DVD has over BD is perhaps the uploading time if that matters to anyone. Never had a BD that would not play and 99% look superb.

Posted on Feb 11, 2013 9:10:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 11, 2013 9:15:52 PM PST
Bryan Willis says:
Blu-rays, typically better sound and video.
Dvds- Typically cheaper. Better compatibility. MUCH higher durability*

Dvd, other than lower video quality, really is perfect. I've never personally bought a bad dvd, that someone didn't scratch already. The only real issue with a dvd, new movies really aren't mastered anymore. The dark knight rises looks absolutely terrible on dvd. Worse than batman begins. Mainly because the studio just doesn't care. That they will tell customers, if you want something that looks better, buy this better blu-ray version.

Sounds like you should run out and buy all blu-rays right? No. Theres a few major issues with them. First off, they do not last anywhere near as long as a dvd. I have a collection of 54 blu-rays. 15 of them had to be replaced. They weren't scratched. Misued. Anything. 1- they're very sensative to heat and cold. Out in either for very long, and they experience major data loss. You'll put in the blu-ray, it'll play for awhile, and look like its skipping. When in reality, theres nothing to play. 2- bd-roms don't like being touched. Period. I had 6 blu-rays in a 80+ cd holder. Over the course of 4 months, every single one experienced data loss. Not a single dvd stopped working. But all 6 blu-rays had to be replaced. Data loss once again. I've rebought so many countless blu-rays. Never once had to do that to my dvd collection.

Secondly, DTS-MA. This is one thing that could majorly effect you. Some tvs can't decode dts, and some players *mostly older sony players* won't downmix them to pcm. Meaning, you're stuck with no audio, or crappier downmix. As small as the file would be, every blu-ray should include a dolby 5.1 track. My 5.1 dolby headphone amplifier won't play any dts mix. I've got one of the fat 30" Sony CRT Hdtvs that won't play dts at all. My ps3 and lg blu-ray player will downmix to 2.0 pcm, but my sony standalone blu-ray player doesn't have a downmix option.

And to add one more thing. Sony has a new mandate. Look on the back of most newly manufactured blu-ray players. You see usually one thing. An hdmi port. No component for hdmi. Or composite connections for regular sdtvs. I'm pretty sure the ps3 will only do hd video over hdmi now. This is inexcusable crap that people shouldn't have to worry about.

In reality, I personally think unless you have a blu-ray drive and rip all your blu-ray movies onto it, I would save money and stick with the dvd. Now of course, if the prices are about the same, and the dvd quality is bad. In that case I would consider the blu-ray.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2013 10:16:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 11, 2013 10:19:19 PM PST
EdM says:
"And to add one more thing. Sony has a new mandate... No component for hdmi. Or composite connections for regular sdtvs... This is inexcusable"

This is not a Sony thing; don't spread ignorance. It's been coming for a long time:

"Analog Sunset Hits 2011 Blu-ray Players"

"By 2013, analog video output will disappear outright from all BD players."

The earliest BD players of many brands will not decode DTS HD Master Audio. My first BD player was able to add [only] Dolby TrueHD lossless audio via firmware update. That you and others didn't know this has been coming for literally years, is a problem only because you failed to keep informed.

Further, anyone playing a Blu-ray Disc should have long ago upgraded to HDTV with HDMI inputs, so having an old analog TV is not a good reason to need component outs for BD players, IMO. Just use an old style DVD player. Plus, almost any AV receiver will decode all lossless audio codecs, if only to 5.1 channels. As TV sound is usually the worst in AQ, a low end digital TV lacking lossless audio is NOT likely to be noticeable, compared to the audio quality of the basic TV set alone, w/o some minimal AV gear with separate speakers from those in the TV.

If one can't afford a nice HDTV and/or an AV receiver and speakers [you can always start with only two, to save cost], then a DVD player will serve. OTOH, the upgrade in AQ and PQ is so great that I'd hate to be without BD. Some shows that only come out in DVD don't get my or some others' business, for the simple lack of BD product.

Posted on Feb 12, 2013 3:07:49 AM PST
MikeT says:
Doesn't the BR spec require a basic 5.1 lossy track be included so it is backwards compatible with basic playback devices (i.e. non DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD)?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2013 5:42:56 AM PST
I would start with three speakers if possible, rather than two. The center speaker makes a big difference in dialog clarity. The side, rear, high, or wide speakers can all wait, though.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2013 7:49:15 AM PST
EdM says:
Mike - Yes, but... There are two aspects of this - the BD players and the content discs themselves. On the players, all _players_ must support LPCM, Dolby Digital (DD) and DTS Digital Surround; all other codecs are optional, but greatly desired IMO.

Plus, on DTS HD Master Audio [lossless] itself:

"DTS-HD Master Audio is a lossless audio codec created by Digital Theater System.... an extension of DTS which, when played back on devices which do not support the Master Audio or High Resolution extension, degrades to a "core" track which is lossy."

However, each manufacturer decides what actual codecs are included on each movie, concert, etc. One problem is that there is a lot of gear that is older, from before DTS HD Master and Dolby TrueHD had been invented, and all the older gear doesn't know how to deal with modern codecs, although lossy Dolby 5.1 was present long ago, via either DVDs or even LDs. DTS was more a high end codec, IIRC. So, much more older gear can deal with Dolby but not DTS. Compare:

"I have a Technics SA-DX750 receiver. It's only capable of playing Dolby Digital and has no DTS decoder built in. No problem playing DVDs in 5.1 surround. Also plays the previews on Blu-ray discs in 5.1 surround. However, when the main movie plays, I lose all sound."

This receiver, as an example, is over 10 years old - sold in 2002, and for only about $200. There may be quite a few still working. But, they will never be able to decode or play any DTS tracks. Thus, that a DTS HD Master Audio codec disc includes a lossy core track is irrelevant, as this and similar receivers can't do ANY DTS at all.

There are reasonably priced modern receivers, for example, Yamaha RX-V373 5.1-Channel AV Receiver at under $200 that can do both DTS and Dolby lossless codecs. Not a specific product recommendation, just an example for information. Still, a consumer can choose from a number of electronics options to get up to date, especially as there are so many decent players and AV receivers at good prices these days.

Still, if one has older electronics that is still working, even an existing stereo receiver, most BD players have stereo audio analog outs, that could be attached to an old stereo setup [or a new 5.1 receiver as a kind of starter setup. This might be fine as a make do, not ideal, but sufficient to start. Plus, there may well be some who are perfectly happy with most shows in stereo only, if that fits their needs and budget.

But, first, it is good to be knowledgeable about the basics. Sadly, there are too many big box stores w/o knowledgeable sales people. Hopefully, we who volunteer our knowledge here on Amazon forums [and/or elsewhere ...] can fill in some of the gaps.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2013 10:12:50 AM PST
You'll be waiting a while. Part of the official tech specs for Blu-Ray dictate that the main content is always 1080i or 1080p, not just a boatload of standard definition content. I'll be honest: I kind of wish it wasn't a rule too, but that's no reason to avoid the format.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2013 10:26:34 AM PST
I didn't believe that BD was better then DVD, unti I was moving and I had both of my tvs (samsung LCD) in the office. my brother had brought me a BD movie that I had the same one but on DVD played both at the same time. Now I only buy BD.
FYI amazon prices go up and down all the time so watch the price. I have seen them jump by $15 dollars. I will put a movie in a wishlist and wait for a good price. (the wish list will also tell you how much the price has changed since the day you put it in the wishlist)
Amazon has awesome deals on BD the week of Thanksgiving and the week after. I will wait until then to buy a lot of movies on BD

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2013 10:48:34 AM PST
JVAN says:
Buy a BD player with RCA (Composite) outputs. I don't think you can get one with component output for video anymore, but most have the L/R audio on RCA, and many also have Optical (TosLink). With L/R audio the decode for Dolby Pro Logic should be there within the channel signal. That's how it used to travel between your VCR or DVD player and receiver.

Posted on Feb 12, 2013 10:53:20 AM PST
I still say you are misleading people when you say that Blu-Ray audio is "far superior" to DVD audio. I have heard some fantastic 5.1 soundtracks on DVD, and couldn't hear any noticable improvement listening to the Blu-Ray of the same movie. Many Blu-Rays have only mono or two channel soundtracks. Are you going to say that those Blu-Rays have far superior mono or two channel soundtracks, compared to the DVD?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2013 10:55:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 12, 2013 10:56:22 AM PST
turkish says:
Bryan i dont really know what you do to mess up 15 out of 54 blu rays you have. you know those discs are not to be played as freesbies, and they are not coasters either. I have over 500 blu rays, I have only had problem with one maybe 2 of them so far. and I had no major problem with any of my discs except sunshine. I sure have more problems with my old DVD collection.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2013 11:59:50 AM PST
EdM says:
Cincinnati Dan "I still say you are misleading people when you say that Blu-Ray audio is "far superior" to DVD audio... fantastic 5.1 soundtracks on DVD"

I must agree with Robert M. Eastman, who had that opinion. OTOH, clearly this is a value judgement, an opinion, and subject to an emotional input, just as your opinion differs emotionally as to "far superior".

Let me say that there surely must be 5.1 DVD soundtracks that are the same identical track as when laid down on BD, as a technical matter. Likewise, there are a few BD movies that are only slightly better visually or maybe the same, possibly even worse if there's some mess-up.

However, this is clearly limited by each individual's hearing acuity, the quality of their audio gear, and how much difference it takes to be noticeable, as you say, "any noticable improvement". I have literally hundreds of BDs, and only a relatively few old movies, like Casablanca, Seven Samauri, King Kong [original version], etc. have only mono audio. Maybe your taste in BD is to old content, originally with only mono. Or maybe, what you have bought has only had Dolby Digital 5.1 [e.g.] on both the DVD and BD, in which case the difference would likely be minimal at best.

I know that recently, I bought "Lawrence of Arabia", and the lossless audio was clearly better than I have ever heard before, in any form. OTOH, if you are using a somewhat older AV receiver without DTS HD Master but with regular DTS, then the HD Master lossless audio will fold-down to the included, lossy 5.1 track, and then maybe there is little or no difference. BUT, htat does not give a chance to hear the superb audio that is possible.

I have listened to or at least sampled a number of different audio codec tracks on the same BD, and I have always preferred in significant degree, the lossless version. I bought a number of different forms of "The Red Violin": maybe this one Red Violin, later this one The Red Violin (Remastered) (Meridian Collection), and finally the BD versionThe Red Violin [Blu-ray].

The Meridian version DVD clearly was quite superior to the (original?) DVD, particularly the audio. (Meridian from the UK makes a slew of high end AV gear, perhaps this table radio Meridian Alfred Dunhill AD88 (Black) at under $4k.) However, the BD which I got "early on" as an import from Canada, was/is little improved visually, and with perhaps a slight audio improvement.

There are a few DVDs with "lossless" 16 bit PCM, including JT Live at the Beacon James Taylor Live at the Beacon Theatre, which are fairly good, but IMO ONLY when listening to the stereo PCM audio track.

I pay careful attention to reviews of BD movies, etc., and even purchase BD audio, such as

Flute Mystery by Fred Jonny Berg [Blu-ray Audio]

Which I find to be outstanding, as an audiophile classical recording, which I like. Likewise for

2L: Nordic Sound - 2L Audiophile Reference Record (Blu Ray Audio & SACD)

IN general, "far superior" is a fair characterization for BD audio, if you care about quality audio, if your ears are up to the task, if your gear is decent, and if you get/watch content with high audio quality. In other styles of audio, I like Heart: Alive in Seattle [Blu-ray], Diana Krall: Live in Rio [Blu-ray], and AC/DC: Live At Donington [Blu-ray], e.g.

The good stuff is out there, and it really is far superior IMO. OTOH, there's a lot of schlock out there, and I doubt that AQ matters for that kind of audio. If you like, e.g., Game of Thrones: The Complete First Season [Blu-ray], the audio is SO MUCH better on the BD, that even thought I have already watched it on HDTV cable, I HAVE to get it in BD, especially for the lossless audio but also for the notably improved video on BD. If you can't see or hear that, I'm truly sorry as you're missing something, regardless of how you don't get/hear it.

Posted on Feb 12, 2013 1:24:08 PM PST
JVAN says:
The CAPABILITY of blu-ray is much higher than DVD. But just because it's on that format means nothing. Some studios just slap the same low-res copy on a blu-ray as what is on the DVD and resell it as a "Blu-ray!". Unless they go back to the source material, or better yet, clean up and remaster (as was done with some of the classics, like Gandhi), the format means nothing. It's merely an A/V vehicle which has a headroom for better audio and video.

Before I buy a blu-ray, especially if it's for an old title, I check the reviews to verify if is indeed worth purchasing.

Also, I may be in the minority here; but over the years and many kits of A/V equipment, I no longer see the purchase of equipment as an investment. I see it more as a rental, and what I'm going to get out of it for the money for X number of years. Looking at it that way, I tend to not cling to old equipment, or buy things where the parts that don't obsolesce as quickly are higher quality. For instance, I didn't buy an Oppo when they came out, because I didn't want to feel like I couldn't upgrade my player for 7 years because of what I paid for it (I'm on my third blu-ray player since 2008). However speaker technology is evolving much slower, so I'm more likely to spend a lot more money on speakers that I'll have for 15+ years (my speakers are now about that old now, but i am already shopping for my next set which I'll probably purchase in two years).

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 12, 2013 2:24:20 PM PST

Number of tracks have no bearing on the improvement in audio on BD. That's like saying the traction between this car, that car and the tractor are all the same because they all have four tires. Depends on how good the tires are.

HD audio is not transmitted over TOS-link, so make your system has
(1) HDMI cable to receiver
(2) Player set to output lossless audio
(3) Right movie settings. Unfortunately some BDs do not default to lossless audio track, so check from movie to movie which selection is used.

Posted on Feb 12, 2013 2:59:00 PM PST
Yes, I have my Blu-Ray player hooked up to my 7.1 AVR via HDMI cable.
" Player set to output lossless audio" - If my player wasn't setup properly, my AVR wouldn't say DTS-Master Audio, or Dolby TrueHD, right?

Posted on Feb 12, 2013 5:03:12 PM PST
CB says "Number of tracks have no bearing on the improvement in audio on BD.".

Think about that for a minute. I think audio quality has a lot to do with channel separation and usage. It is not just quality of the sound, it is the separation of sound to the various speakers that is important. That's why I said there isn't as much difference with mono sound, because only sound quality is considered. When you guys say Blu-Ray audio is far superior to DVD audio, I'm thinking you mean channel separation and usage, not just sound quality. If you are only talking about the quality of the sound, maybe I don't hear as much difference as you do, because I have not spent $10,000 on speakers. If you are talking about channel usage, I would think I would be hearing the same differences as you, and I don't hear much difference, if any at all.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Blu-ray forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  61
Total posts:  245
Initial post:  Oct 25, 2011
Latest post:  Dec 26, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions