Video Asylum

The BDP-550 is a stopgap...

192.31.106.35

oscar

In Reply to: RE: I was looking at the Sony BDP-550 posted by Prisoners on June 19, 2009 at 16:50:30

...I'm not that satisfied with the sound. But it was dirt-cheap compared to the Pioneer 09....

Follow Ups:

Do you mean sound via the analog outputs? - cfraser 18:49:59 06/23/09 (5)
If so, that is a problem for sure. Audio seems to work much better via HDMI for the lesser-priced players, I have been quite happy with it in general, never thought I would be.
People say the Oppo BDP-83 has a half-decent analog section. But at $500, and I don't know of any cheaper for "good", that is somewhat out of the price range the OP wanted. Also, Denon is coming out very shortly with a $500 BDP that will be very close in features (and analog section) to the Oppo...presume it will street in the $400 ballpark. They will have another model that's $800 IIRC that's supposed to kick it up a notch. So it looks like $500 is the entry MSRP for a BDP with attention paid to the analog section.
Personally, at this point, I prefer NOT to pay for an analog section in a BDP, nor a multi-ch input analog section in an AVR/pre-pro. Because they cost a lot to be good, and they both have to be good to make it worthwhile. Whereas HDMI is cheap, keep the audio digital as long as possible...but give me a great AVR analog output section. I prefer to keep my analog source signals totally out of any digital processor box.

Edits: 06/23/09
- "I prefer to keep my analog source signals totally out of any digital processor box. " - oscar 05:33:00 06/24/09 (4)
  Um... isn't an AVR a "digital processor box" ?
  
  I've tried two different "analog" multichannel preamps both of which blew away my "digital" pre/pro for preamp stage performance. This is one reason I'd want to go with a source player w/ decent DACs in lieu of a new (expensive) HDMI-capable pre/pro whose MC preamp performance is not likely to match my current preamp.
  - I think you and cfraser are saying pretty much the same thing - racerguy 06:34:09 06/24/09 (3)
    It appears you are misinterpreting his comments.
    - Yes, I think so - cfraser 10:44:54 06/24/09 (2)
      Anyway, to clarify: I do not feed any analog source outputs into my AVR pre-pro. When I opened it up to have a look, it looks a helluva lot more like a computer than a "stereo". Not surprising. There are much better pre-pros of course, and those with some decent analog design, so then I wouldn't mind so much. But like many people here, I had an analog pre already, so I keep like with like signal-wise.
      
      As far as this topic is concerned, my point was that keeping digital source material digital as long as possible throughout the reproduction chain seems a good idea to me. Easier and so convenient too with BDP output.
      - So if you use HDMI for your sound, don't you wind up going through the pre/pro's preamp anyway ? nt - oscar 08:53:24 06/28/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Yes, I think so posted by cfraser on June 24, 2009 at 10:44:54
        
        Seems to me feeding the MC analog preamp via the Blu-ray player's analog outputs is more "direct" than routing HDMI from the player to a pre/pro, then converting to analog, and then routing the analog outputs through the MC analog preamp (plus you will be "tainting" the sound with the "digital processor box's preamp stage).
        
        RE: So if you use HDMI for your sound, don't you wind up going through the pre/pro's preamp anyway ? nt - cfraser 14:33:33 06/29/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: So if you use HDMI for your sound, don't you wind up going through the pre/pro's preamp anyway ? nt posted by oscar on June 28, 2009 at 08:53:24
        
        Yes, of course! That's why I said I don't mind paying for GOOD analog output circuitry in the pre-pro. But "resented" paying for good analog output circuitry in the BDP, and for corresponding good analog input circuitry in the pre-pro...not needed with HDMI. Besides, most AVRs (what my pre-pro is) probably convert analog inputs back to digital anyway, since all the volume control circuitry etc. is digital. And...I want to use worthwhile things (IMO) like Audyssey...makes a big diff with movies I think...so might as well just leave digital sources' signals as digital until the final output stage. Bass management isn't nearly as good or flexible with BDP analog ouput...this should be enough reason to stay digital if you're picky. You may not like the idea, but when you get used to it, the HDMI works pretty well (the connectors are unnecessarily flimsy IMO) and is convenient, besides being overall quite flexible.
        I'm not sure what you mean in your second statement, but my digital pre does not really interface with my analog pre. Digital sources (BDP, DVDP, both HDMI, Ethernet music) go into digital pre, analog sources (tuner, tape, phono, CDP analog outputs and stereo DACs) go into analog pre. The L/R outputs of each pre go into one (front/stereo) amp (input used is selectable), the surround channels go into other amps.
        If I had a really good modern pre-pro, I'd still use the HDMI BDP output. No reason not to from what I've seen (heard). For both music and video.
        
        Edits: 06/29/09

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft