I think it's absolutely ridiculous to spend $400 on a DVD only player regardless of how well it upconverts.
Pat
Why? If one wants the best quality one can get out of one's DVDs, that is what it costs. If one does not care about the quality of one's DVDs, then, obviously, one can get a DVD player for less, or one can buy a player that plays high definition discs, like Blu-Ray, but is not as good at upconverting DVDs. But then one's DVDs would not look as good as they could look.
It is also very funny, in a thread in which a price range of $500-1500 is mentioned, that you express the idea that spending $400 is "absolutely ridiculous". For $1500, one could buy the DVD player I recommended, thereby getting the best upconversion possible for DVDs, and have more than enough money left over for a Blu-Ray player.
It seems to me that there are only two positions in which it would make sense to say it isn't worth spending $400 on a DVD player:
1) DVDs, even with state of the art upconversion, are of such low quality, that they are not worth watching. Obviously, this would mean that one would be advocating never, ever, watching DVDs.
2) It is not worth paying $400 for better quality than what one could get from a cheaper DVD player, because the quality one gets from a cheaper DVD player is good enough. Obviously, this would mean that Blu-Ray would be a waste of money, because, cheaper upconversion of DVD is "good enough".
Now, someone might not buy such a player due to lack of money. But unless one is serious about one of the two positions above, I don't see how anyone can say that it isn't worthwhile for someone to spend $400 on a DVD player.
Do you take one of the two positions mentioned above, or is there some third position that I have not thought of? Or do you have no good reason for your position?
