I'm looking at the Pioneer Elite BDP-09FD and wondering who is going to buy this player? Who are they targeting?

http://gizmodo.com/5040707/pioneer-sneaks-out-2200-elite-bdp+09fd-first-blu+ray-player-that-crushes-the-ps3

If all I want is 1080p24 output, 480i output, and HDMI audio output... why on earth would I want this player?

When is a company going to come out with the best digital transport? For the high-end, we are already going to have expensive surround sound processors and likely also have external superior video processors. At the very least, we all have nice surround sound processors... I just don't understand why companies just don't understand their target market. We want an all digital pathway for the high end.

I would expect that anything video-wise that the Pioneer is doing, Lumagen Radiance is doing better. Further, I do not want bass management or analog outputs on a Blu Ray player!!! We have SURROUND PROCESSORS FOR THAT!!! Ughh.... Damn I can't even give my money away to have someone just make the best digital transport... I still see no reason to buy anything other than the upcoming Panny BD35.... The Pioneer has too much stupid circuitry and unwanted analolg outputs.... Ugh!!!

What is the best solution for high end? To me it seems like a great chassis (Heavy duty transport), Dual HDMI outputs, the best MPEG decoder available, and HD-SDI output option as well... All we want is: 480i output, 1080p24 output (native video output) and HMDI audio output. Why can't someone just do this already??

What would you like to have?

Lets answer this after CEDIA. Lots to see. Aren't you going?

The '09 is vaporware at this point. No one knows anything about it.

The Denon 3800 is here and now, does everything you want. About the same price as the '09.

Dual HDMI outputs on the Denon? What MPEG decoder does it use? Any opinions on HD-SDI output? Does the Lumagen Radiance accept HD-SDI?

I have plans for the weekend of CEDIA... I'll try to make it next year... Probably be travelling around the time of CES also, not sure yet.

Use a PS3.

Ummm, I already do that. It has NO 480i output and I don't see what is so special about its 1080p24 output either...

to me the denon 3800 represents the best out there now--extremely heavy duty build and high end d/a conversion, hqv processing, and it lookd great--i can't imaging anything more in a player..also does dts ma/dolby true hd. i am sure there will be more expensive players aty some point perhaps from esoteric and the like but the denon will in all lilkelyhood be my reference as the 5910 has been for dvd and hi res audio...

do not coun t on any off the shelf products to have HD-SDI. rules on content being "released" from a player with no content protection in place are pretty solid.

Denon DVD-3800BDCI HD-SDI (http://www.jvbdigital.nl/jvb.asp?cur=2&level=dvdplayers&page=title&title=471)


Panasonic DMP-BD50 HD-SDI Multizone + Multiregion (http://www.jvbdigital.nl/jvb.asp?cur=2&level=dvdplayers&page=title&title=484)


The other Pioneer BD's are hackable , probably the new one too.

Personally we need a changer, after trying the Hesv-1000 one gets spoiled. Best yet would be a HD-SDI and multizone hacked changer.

Health Nut, I do believe there are people out there who do not embrace HDMI as a solid platform yet. People who greatly enjoy a piece like the Proceed AVP2+6 are probably thrilled about this player.

I personally use HDMI and I use the Pioneer Elite 95 and love it. It is a rock solid player with excellent audio and video. I would like to see a bit faster load times, but beyond that I am extremely pleased with it.

I suppose, but to me true high end involves only ONE D/A step. Further, I don't want a Blu Ray player acting as my surround sound processor. Pioneer is simply not going to do high end surround sound in my opinion. It is a waste of electronics and undesireable to have electronics and circuitry that is not useful.

I'm sure some may be happy, but true high end to me is a pure digital pathway for the audio into a dedicated surround processor, with only one D/A step at the end. Takign the analog outs requires uneccessary analog cabling and another gain stage to say the least... and that is if Pioneer could do the things that Meridian, or any dedicated high end processor could do, which the Pioneer can't.

A dedicated digital transport with native video out should also be the best solution I would think.

I would personally love to see a true universal player, including blu-ray, from Esoteric.

interesting point--i think analog is getting a bad rap these days--we actually experience the world in "analog" via our senses--digital is at the very best a "snapshot" of the analog world taken and converted into 0's and 1's to recreate a variably accurate recreation of the analog experience--with higher resolution you get a closer approximation of the analog world but again it is still an electronic approximation. The problem is that recording media in the digital world have genera;y done a better job capturing data--getting more data that better approximate the analog source data than analog recording media. To me this is why vinyl sounds in some ways so much more natural and 'real" than cd as a whole despite the fact that there is better s/n. lower noise, no pops/crackles, etc. I wish there were a high resolution analog recording medium that would entirely avoid digitization/d/a conversion and maintain EVERYTHING in the analog domain the way we experience it in real life...

To me, the 09 would be desirable for its dual HDMI outs and to separate audio from video and avoid any HDMI switching in the pre/pro/rcvr which can degrade the picture especially with hi resolution projectors like the Sim2. I've been waiting for a manufacturer to do this as even the best HDMI switchers can degrade video according to a couple of install types I've worked with. My own experience with the EAD processors points that solid engineering keeps these signals separate for optimization of both.

Been playing around with the new Pioneer 05 and it's the best BD I've seen and heard, although I've not spent any time with the Denon which I'm sure is fine. On the Pioneer 05 thread Joe has the Denon and the new Pio 51 and says that the Denon is beaten by the new Pio in color reproduction and that the Denon is no longer worth the ticket. The PS3 is a toy comparatively to even the older BD 30, Pio 95 and it's especially apparent through the C3X. The standalones offer much more realistic picture quality, detail and sharpness as well as color gamut (Pio 05) and detailed transparent and dynamics than the ps3. I personally couldn't wait to replace the Ps3 with the 05 as I'd sold my Pio 95 in anticipation of it's release. I'm seriously considering the 09 as well. You may want to check this out: http://gizmodo.com/5040707/pioneer-sneaks-out-2200-elite-bdp+09fd-first-blu+ray-player-that-crushes-the-ps3

interesting point--i think analog is getting a bad rap these days--we actually experience the world in "analog" via our sensesActually, we don't. Both our eyes and ears perform a sort of analog to digital conversion, though it's not fully understood. Furthermore both senses are bandlimited. (Actually that's redundant.)

Research shows that our eyes respond to individual photons of light. It doesn't get any more digital than that.with higher resolution you get a closer approximation of the analog world but again it is still an electronic approximation.This is true of any analog medium as well. Vinyl is limited in dynamic range, bandwidth, SNR, and so forth. It is therefore an approximation as well. Both are far removed from the variations in air pressure we interpret as sound.

This notion that analog is somehow more "pure" just because it is analog is really just bunk. How are the grooves etched into a piece of resin somehow a more "authentic" method of storage of sound than pits in a piece of aluminum? Neither is remotely close to actual sound. Both forms of media must be interpreted.

Ummm, I already do that. It has NO 480i output and I don't see what is so special about its 1080p24 output either...What are you looking for in a 1080p24 output? Seems to me that the player should take the stuff off the disc and deliver it as it is supposed to be and although that might not seem special, it is really what most of us should be looking for. In this regard it looks to me like the PS3 does very well.

If your problem is the way the PS3 goes back to 1080i if the content is 1080i and won't output it as 1080i24 (with studders if the content isn't 24 or 48Hz), then I can understand that. Might be nice to force the output to 1080p24 even if the source isn't 24Hz, but there is no perfect way to handle the source changing from 24Hz to 60Hz, etc.

--Darin

I'm using a PS3 until Denon replaces their DVD-5910 with a new universal player that supports Blu-Ray along with SACD and DVD-A.

Actually, we don't. Both our eyes and ears perform a sort of analog to digital conversion, though it's not fully understood. Furthermore both senses are bandlimited. (Actually that's redundant.)

Research shows that our eyes respond to individual photons of light. It doesn't get any more digital than that.This is true of any analog medium as well. Vinyl is limited in dynamic range, bandwidth, SNR, and so forth. It is therefore an approximation as well. Both are far removed from the variations in air pressure we interpret as sound.

Couldn't you also say that the world itself isn't really analog either? I mean, aren't physicists now arguing that at a quantum level the world exists in a binary state, and the analog world, as well as depth perception, are just products of human consciousness, not really analog or having dimension in and of themselves?

Wouldn't that make vinyl really digital as well?!! :D

Well, I don't want to get far afield with metaphysics. I was trying to contain the argument as best I could, which was simply that this notion that analog sources somehow have an inherent advantage because of their "analog-ness" is really not well supported.

Well, I don't want to get far afield with metaphysics. I was trying to contain the argument as best I could, which was simply that this notion that analog sources somehow have an inherent advantage because of their "analog-ness" is really not well supported.

I wouldn't call it metaphysics, I read it a few years ago in Scientific American (unless that is a metaphysical periodical now...). I was just being silly anyway...

Actually, we don't. Both our eyes and ears perform a sort of analog to digital conversion, though it's not fully understood. Furthermore both senses are bandlimited. (Actually that's redundant.)

Research shows that our eyes respond to individual photons of light. It doesn't get any more digital than that.This is true of any analog medium as well. Vinyl is limited in dynamic range, bandwidth, SNR, and so forth. It is therefore an approximation as well. Both are far removed from the variations in air pressure we interpret as sound.

This notion that analog is somehow more "pure" just because it is analog is really just bunk. How are the grooves etched into a piece of resin somehow a more "authentic" method of storage of sound than pits in a piece of aluminum? Neither is remotely close to actual sound. Both forms of media must be interpreted.

In addition to being bandlimited, our eye-brain loop has some interesting non-linear memory effects. What you've recently seen shapes your perception.

http://www.davidoreilly.com/blog/2008/07/rotating-grid-illusion/

and another example, which you unfortunately have to see in person to experience...

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-nauman10-2008jun10,0,383011.story

"the Helman Gallery Parallelogram (1971), a room lit with green fluorescent lights that saturate the viewer's vision with intense color. Upon leaving the room, everything seems tinged with afterimages of magenta,"

Actually, we don't. Both our eyes and ears perform a sort of analog to digital conversion, though it's not fully understood. Furthermore both senses are bandlimited. (Actually that's redundant.)

Research shows that our eyes respond to individual photons of light. It doesn't get any more digital than that.

Only rods (night vision/black and white) are capable of detecting an individual photon. Cones for color vision are not as sensitive. Nontheless, the line does blur between analog and digital, especially if you look at the way neurons fire...

the Helman Gallery Parallelogram (1971), a room lit with green fluorescent lights that saturate the viewer's vision with intense color. Upon leaving the room, everything seems tinged with afterimages of magenta,"

Yea, tha is basic neurophysiology... you basically saturated the green cones and have temporarily decreased their sensitivity, theryby making the red and blu cones firing disproportionatly higher...

health nut- what about the simple dvd2500 from denon as an option? it has only hdmi (best back panel ever, not a single DIY client has messed this one yet haha) and will output 480i via HDMI.

I'm not sure I really believe that blu-ray movies should or shouldn't get additional processing out of the player, seems like a pass it to a display/VP instead type of operation to me.

I would personally love to see a true universal player, including blu-ray, from Esoteric.

Rydenfan,

+1, and I know of quite a few others in the same boat.

Ironically this new Pioneer player may be what is been holding up Esoteric from introducing a slew of new BD player transports.

In the past Esoteric has used discrete components from Pioneer players. This last CES I had a chance to get Esoteric's position why there were no BD offerings from Esoteric.

In Esoteric's position the HD DVD war had forced the BD camp to focus on cheapening the quality of the parts and to create low cost integrated and flimsy BD component parts. As of the last CES Esoteric did not feel the quality, precision and robustness of the key componentry was up to par to be incorporated in an Esoteric product.

This guy was right of course the Denon's are essentially armored versions of some very flimsy and delicate panasonic blue rays (the bd 10 and 30), with .1 channel bug and all.

From the looks of it there will be some meaty discrete BD parts in this player to be oem'd to Esoteric. I can't hardly wait.

do not coun t on any off the shelf products to have HD-SDI. rules on content being "released" from a player with no content protection in place are pretty solid.Even if you could get an HD-SDI output (and you can, from third parties), what benefit would it provide? After all, you'll still have to use the HDMI output to get the audio stream, and it will still be carrying the video on it as well.

Seems to me the idea behind HD-SDI is that there's a sense that it is more likely to be able to deliver the exact video content that was on the disc with no further processing. That's fine, but it does seem like at least some players do that with HDMI as well. Why not just go for a reliably clean HDMI transport and be done with it. A forum favorite may not have settled out yet but the format is still young. These new generation players are starting to look good.

I don't even have a BD player yet! I'm looking forward to things settling more, so that by the time I'm ready for one in a few months, they'll be ready for me. So these discussions are good info for me.

The problem appears to be that some of these hdmi signals go into chips that allow for rgb conversion, they may be converted from ypbr to rgb and then back again. No one really knows how pure the ypbr signal going into these circuits how unperturbed it comes out at the other end. So a prudent videophile just taps it before such rgb processing.:cool:

Perhaps so, but it seems the proof is in the results, and if critical reviews show excellent VQ then you're good to go without HD-SDI.

But maybe here's the ultimate choice: a multi-format combo that should prove particularly appealing to the analog lovers here :)

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/25/panasonic-intros-dmr-br360v-blu-ray-vhs-combo-player/

I'm looking at trying HD-SDI. With the Radiance. But for that I have to use a BlackMagic HD/SD SDI-HDMI converter. It's suppoesd to do a clean conversion (No RGB change, etc). I'm mainly trying the converter so I can use my SD-SDI Denon 2900 wiht the radiance. But I have my eye on a modded Denon BR player if it works out. Post CEDIA.

Scott

Even if you could get an HD-SDI output (and you can, from third parties), what benefit would it provide? After all, you'll still have to use the HDMI output to get the audio stream, and it will still be carrying the video on it as well.

Seems to me the idea behind HD-SDI is that there's a sense that it is more likely to be able to deliver the exact video content that was on the disc with no further processing. That's fine, but it does seem like at least some players do that with HDMI as well. Why not just go for a reliably clean HDMI transport and be done with it. A forum favorite may not have settled out yet but the format is still young. These new generation players are starting to look good.


Main thing for me is that HD-SDI is extremely robust over distance, whereas HDMI, well, sucks over distance. But, DIYers aren't largely going to be motivated by this, they'll largely be motivated by what you describe, largely irrationally. Integrators who are trying to distribute HDMI (a pain in the ass) aren't going to avail themselves of this opportunity because it's a gray-market solution. It's a catch-22. The people who gain little or nothing other than bragging rights will use it for no good reason, and those who could benefit the most won't touch it. :-/

I wish there were a high resolution analog recording medium that would entirely avoid digitization/d/a conversion and maintain EVERYTHING in the analog domain the way we experience it in real life...

Do you mean for video? If you mean for audio, I don't disagree, I am convinced about vinyl done right. But for video, this is a completely silly desire. Uncompressed video content delivery is dumb multiplied by ridiculous.

to me the denon 3800 represents the best out there now--extremely heavy duty build and high end d/a conversion, hqv processing, and it lookd great--i can't imaging anything more in a player..also does dts ma/dolby true hd. i am sure there will be more expensive players aty some point perhaps from esoteric and the like but the denon will in all lilkelyhood be my reference as the 5910 has been for dvd and hi res audio...


I like this player too, but I've found some odd problems. For DVD, if you're going RGB out it decodes the color wrong. I haven't been able to test if it twists the color properly for DVD when upconverting for component output. But I would be wary of this player if you also want to use it for DVD at this point. This really surprises me given Denon's excellent last few years with DVD playback performance.

Do you mean for video? If you mean for audio, I don't disagree, I am convinced about vinyl done right. But for video, this is a completely silly desire. Uncompressed video content delivery is dumb multiplied by ridiculous.

look, I was making a thoretical point. I didn't mean to imply that there is a means of making a perfect analog (audio or video) medium with today's technology. I disagree with the assertion that the brain sees things via some sort of analog to digital conversion. Inded, our senses--all of them are based on physical contact, whether via photons hitting rods/cones, vibrations affecting pacinian corpuscles, heat via thermoreceptors, or the like. I am not making an attempt to take the analogy further than that--I do not believe the idea of various neurons being stimulated VARIABLY by various stimuli and deciding to fire is necessarily comparable to an analog or digital process but the senses themselves rely on physical interactions that are graded and variable and do not represented and can only be approximated by any sort of digital conversion. I know we're of topic so i'll leave it alone at this point...

and I fully agree that vinyl is an imperfect medium--no argument there but he pits in the groove represent the physical encoding of graded and variable analog signals, not a series of 0's and 1's that are converted back and forth into sound--have you ever listened to a stylus 'reading" the grooves?

Main thing for me is that HD-SDI is extremely robust over distance, whereas HDMI, well, sucks over distance. Chris, I see you're point here, but where does that leave audio? I guess if your A/V stack is located far away from your display (whether it be a projector or not), then it is nice to have more distance robustness for that "last mile" of the video connection.

But since the audio and video are inextricably intertwined in an HDMI transmission, you still need a clean HDMI output within the A/V stack itself. Right? I guess with these modded players you get both HD-SDI and HDMI in parallel so you can go long with the video and stay short with the audio.

I'll leave the analog/digital debate alone too since it is off-topic.

I'm surprised how much HDMI gets criticized for just about everything... lack of a robust connector, jitter, not great at distances... makes you wonder what engineering team and lack of peer review allowed this to happen...

For some reason I thought Lumagen had an HD-SDI Input... guess not. I think dual HDMI output should be the standard for any mid or high-end player. I guess I'm just holding out for a digital transport with:

1) Dual HDMI outputs
2) No analog audio outputs
3) High quality chassis, feet, etc...
4) Profile 2.0
5) Outputs native 480i over HDMI

I'm still not aware of any Blu Ray transport that meets these criteria.

Certainly having HD-SDI seems interesting as well.

Esoteric from introducing a slew of new BD player transports.

What is Esoteric's website again? Who is a dealer for Esoteric...?

I have to say, the upcoming BD-35 sounds like a decent player, not sure if it will meet all the criteria though...

http://www.teac.com/esoteric/Transports.html

Mmiles is a dealer...

....No one really knows how pure the ypbr signal going into these circuits how unperturbed it comes out at the other end .....

Gary demonstrated ringing being added by the PanelLink IC (HDMI interface) in one of the threads on SDI interfaces. Don't remember which one but it was regarding his mod to one of the Oppo players. That doesn't necessarily mean that all HDMI interfaces do it, but at least it has been documented in one case of adding pulse distortion.

....No one really knows how pure the ypbr signal going into these circuits how unperturbed it comes out at the other end .....

Gary demonstrated ringing being added by the PanelLink IC (HDMI interface) in one of the threads on SDI interfaces. Don't remember which one but it was regarding his mod to one of the Oppo players. That doesn't necessarily mean that all HDMI interfaces do it, but at least it has been documented in one case of adding pulse distortion.

And there are a number of them that Stacey Spears mentioned that clip video levels. Still, there is no reason why (and there are many many cases where it is) it can't be done right, in which case SDI has no advantages except for the distance issue that I mentioned before, or if you want different decoding than in the player.

look, I was making a thoretical point. I didn't mean to imply that there is a means of making a perfect analog (audio or video) medium with today's technology. I disagree with the assertion that the brain sees things via some sort of analog to digital conversion. Inded, our senses--all of them are based on physical contact, whether via photons hitting rods/cones, vibrations affecting pacinian corpuscles, heat via thermoreceptors, or the like. I am not making an attempt to take the analogy further than that--I do not believe the idea of various neurons being stimulated VARIABLY by various stimuli and deciding to fire is necessarily comparable to an analog or digital process but the senses themselves rely on physical interactions that are graded and variable and do not represented and can only be approximated by any sort of digital conversion. I know we're of topic so i'll leave it alone at this point...

and I fully agree that vinyl is an imperfect medium--no argument there but he pits in the groove represent the physical encoding of graded and variable analog signals, not a series of 0's and 1's that are converted back and forth into sound--have you ever listened to a stylus 'reading" the grooves?

But whether the delivery format is analog or digital doesn't pertain to this at all. We're still hearing analog sound. It's not as if we're actually hearing digital impulses at the ear. The waveform is reconstructed based on the samples, and then that analog waveform is amplified and played through speakers. The assertion that this is somehow fundamentally different is a strange one. What frequencies can be captured by digital sampling are defined by nyquist, and as long as you're below the nyquist limit, you have 100% of everything in the original waveform. You're not getting an approximation, you're getting it all. That is, of course, in theory.

As for desiring analog video, I think that's well and behind us. Analog video is pointless because it can't be compressed unless you digitize it. And uncompressed video for any kind of actual delivery format is(other than production, archiving, editing, or other esoteric tasks), to put it bluntly, stupid.

Ummm, I already do that. It has NO 480i output and I don't see what is so special about its 1080p24 output either...

Why would you want to use the PS3 for anything other then a blu ray player?

I suppose, but to me true high end involves only ONE D/A step.

HDMI + PS3 will do just that.

Further, I don't want a Blu Ray player acting as my surround sound processor.

So are you using HDMI or not, you can use LPCM or bitstream.

Pioneer is simply not going to do high end surround sound in my opinion.

Well as long as that is your "opinion".

and that is if Pioneer could do the things that Meridian, or any dedicated high end processor could do, which the Pioneer can't.

What can't the pioneer do?

I've been waiting for a manufacturer to do this as even the best HDMI switchers can degrade video according to a couple of install types I've worked with.

The cheap $99 oppo switch works perfect.

Been playing around with the new Pioneer 05 and it's the best BD I've seen and heard, although I've not spent any time with the Denon which I'm sure is fine. On the Pioneer 05 thread Joe has the Denon and the new Pio 51 and says that the Denon is beaten by the new Pio in color reproduction and that the Denon is no longer worth the ticket. The PS3 is a toy comparatively to even the older BD 30, Pio 95 and it's especially apparent through the C3X. The standalones offer much more realistic picture quality, detail and sharpness as well as color gamut (Pio 05) and detailed transparent and dynamics than the ps3.

If you are using a HDMI out and sending the video as digital there will be no difference.

whereas HDMI, well, sucks over distance.

How long do you need? 60-100 feet is fine and now you can buy powered switchers for up to 200 feet support.

How long do you need? 60-100 feet is fine and now you can buy powered switchers for up to 200 feet support.

More than 40-50feet can be unreliable. Media adapters are expensive, and also are not 100% reliable. This can be annoying since you can't rely on a single cable pull, and you may have to try a number of different solutions before something works reliably. And if you have to go even farther, then you're looking at pulling fiber, which is expensive and a *lot* more difficult to deal with if you have to terminate it.

More than 40-50feet can be unreliable. Media adapters are expensive, and also are not 100% reliable. This can be annoying since you can't rely on a single cable pull, and you may have to try a number of different solutions before something works reliably. And if you have to go even farther, then you're looking at pulling fiber, which is expensive and a *lot* more difficult to deal with if you have to terminate it.

Less then that actually but it does not become unreliable since the signal will not longer pass a benchmark but that is because the signal is not amplified. With the new powered HDMI solutions coming out 200 feet will be possible and not that much more expensive.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests

I don't know if it has been brought up, but the DVDO VP-50pro has an
HD-SD SDI card available with 2 inputs which will take the SDI output of the modified BD players. Regards, Norm

Less then that actually but it does not become unreliable since the signal will not longer pass a benchmark but that is because the signal is not amplified. With the new powered HDMI solutions coming out 200 feet will be possible and not that much more expensive.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests

But my point is that the alternatives are also not reliable 100% of the time. That includes active cables, active boosters, active EQs, and full-on media adapters for HDMI over cat6 or coax. If there were one fully reliable solution it'd be great, but I don't know what that is. It's always 'try one thing and then try another until one works.' Pushing several gbps down a wire over any distance is very hard to do, unless it's fiber...

Which is why SDI has an inherent advantage because it's just a fraction of the bandwidth because it hasn't been decompressed yet. Much smarter in terms of getting the content from point A to point B. HDMI/DVI was not designed for that in mind, it was designed mainly as just a way to connect a local PC directly to a monitor. It does that just great, but unfortunately distribution isn't at all a part of that model, and now that's what we're stuck trying to do. :(

SDI and HD-SDI are after decoding and are full bandwidth video.

Sorry to drag on the analog-digital debate, but reality is neither analog or digital. It is what it is, which kind of sounds tautological, but there it is. Analog is one way to model or approximate the world so that we can manipulate and analyze it. Digital is another way. Both are far removed from reality, because both aggregate complex behavior into simpler things for the sake of our intellectual convenience and/or limits.

For example, we don't hear analog. We hear because air molecules hit our ear drums which vibrate and excite fluid which wiggles little hairs which generate electrical pulses that go to the brain. Which part of that is analog or digital? None is, but some of it can be modeled with analog or digital means. Some are more easily modeled using one scheme or the other.

But try designing a speaker worrying about pushing air molecules around, and you'll never get anything done. At that point, we use a simplified model or theory (acoustics in the speaker's case), so that we can apprehend the overall design. Similarly, EEs don't use quantum theory or even (most of the time) Maxwell's equations to design amps. Things are simplified into R, L, C, some rules of thumb and design so that they can actually understand a pretty complicated device.

Saying sound is analog is like saying rocks are analog: it makes no sense.

--Andre

Of course it makes no sense... that because anyone that knows anything knows that rocks are Digital.

Duh!

Of course it makes no sense... that because anyone that knows anything knows that rocks are Digital.

Duh!

Rocks are also compressed too much nowadays... Which is why I prefer vinyl... :D

The Pioneer Elite 09FD could have been a really nice frontrunner, had it just included SACD/DVD-A support IMO. The jury is still out whether or not the Qdeo processor will be on par (or best) with the denon's HQV Realta, and whether the QPLS will add anything extra above Al24+ found in the Denon. Hopefully CEDIA will show us more insight.

but having nabbed a 3800 for a great price, I'm perfectly happy with my setup:
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/ssabripo/misc_stuff/zzz2.jpg

I still hear the herds of "lets go Digital, why use analog, HDMI all the way" debating this issue, when it is a very simple thing: At some point in the chain, there will be
a) Processing (decoding, application of Bass Management, effects, etc)
b) Digital-to-Analog conversion.

The important thing is WHO does it best, not WHERE it is done. Lets look at some extreme examples:

for example, using the 90FD as the transport vs, say a 84TSxi receiver, the obvious choice would be to use all the audio processing and DAC conversion on the 90FD, as it will be factors better than that found the receiver:
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/ssabripo/misc_stuff/zzz1.jpg

Conversely, if one where to use the 51FD as the transport, and pair it up to a high end receiver or Processor, such as the SC-09TX or Halcro SSP200 or Classe SSP-800 for example, the obvious choice would be to let the pre do all the processing, and DAC conversion:
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/ssabripo/misc_stuff/zzz3.jpg

[QUOTE=Michael Grant;14516806]Even if you could get an HD-SDI output (and you can, from third parties), what benefit would it provide? After all, you'll still have to use the HDMI output to get the audio stream, and it will still be carrying the video on it as well.

QUOTE]

There is the option to bypass the HDMI output for audio altogether by disembedding the LPCM signals from the hd sdi stream to your dacs of choice with device like this:

http://www.aja.com/html/products_converters_HD10AM.html

I don't know whether this will work with the other HD audio formats though.

SDI and HD-SDI are after decoding and are full bandwidth video.

yeap, I dunno what i was thinking. Must have needed some coffee! :)

Couldn't you also say that the world itself isn't really analog either? I mean, aren't physicists now arguing that at a quantum level the world exists in a binary state, ...
QueuCumber,

Depends on the range of the quantum number if it is a binary state or more...

For example, an electron has spin = 1/2. Therefore there can be two states; +1/2 and -1/2.
You have a binary system there.

However, if you have a spin 1 particle; there are THREE states -1, 0, +1

Quantum Mechanics gives you discrete states; but not necessarily binary.

IMHO, for a high end solution - both image and sound - one needs one of the following solutions:

1-2x HDMI out on the BD player.

The first HDMI cable is used for sound and goes directly to the surround processor.
The second HDMI cable is used for the image and travels directly to the pj.

The key word here is 'directly', as the simpliest A to B connection is always preferable.

2-HDMI out + HD-SDI out on the BD-player.

The HDMI cable is used for sound and is connected to the surround processor
The HD SDI cable is connected to the projector (are there any pj's with a HD-SDI in?) or the scaler.


I just wonder how many BD-players have dual HDMI outs (so allow for the first scenario) and how many can be modded to have HD SDI ount (and which pj's accept it?)

Quantum Mechanics gives you discrete states; but not necessarily binary.

I knew something about it made it akin to digital! :D

(I'm just glad I sort of remembered the article at all!!! I'm not a physicist and the article was a bit out there...)

IMHO, for a high end solution - both image and sound - one needs one of the following solutions:

Are you saying that by having the audio and video in the same cable that the signal is some how affected?

I bet he means that it's better to keep the Video signal and audio seperate so as to prevent any "messing with" of the video by the audio processor. Not that it's bad to have them in the same cable per se. I'm inclined to agree with him, for similar but not equal reasons. I'd prefer to pull the audio off the disc and go straight to my audio processor, and likewise take the video to my VP.

http://www.teac.com/esoteric/Transports.html

Mmiles is a dealer...

Thanks for the plug Peter but I kinda have held a grudge against this thread since mine was bumped to the BR forum a month or so ago.

Esoteric and Cary Audio Design (as well as others I'm sure) are looking hard a BR but not until 2009 so I've been told.

The Esoteric transports are top notch some say the best made. Frankly I can't argue that point. Recently I replaced a Cary 306 SACD, Denon DV2910 and a Sony something another (9000 - 7000?) with a DV-60 and the guy was pleased as punch!

The high end has to address what they will do better than Sony, Denon, Pioneer and Samsung ($500 - $2000) to justify the 10 - 20x $$$.

Sorry to drag on the analog-digital debate, but reality is neither analog or digital. It is what it is, which kind of sounds tautological, but there it is. Analog is one way to model or approximate the world so that we can manipulate and analyze it. Digital is another way. Both are far removed from reality, because both aggregate complex behavior into simpler things for the sake of our intellectual convenience and/or limits.

For example, we don't hear analog. We hear because air molecules hit our ear drums which vibrate and excite fluid which wiggles little hairs which generate electrical pulses that go to the brain. Which part of that is analog or digital? None is, but some of it can be modeled with analog or digital means. Some are more easily modeled using one scheme or the other.

I think you're right on. To emphasize your statement, so far all audio systems in some way work by presenting the ear with an analog signal, so at some point or another, you need a D/A conversion. If nothing else, an all digital amplifier works in itself as a DAC, the output is analog. Video products are different, it is actually possible to present the eye with an all digital signal, and "fool" the eye just as well (or even better?) than you could with an analog signal. In video, we don't have to end up with an analog signal. I don't know if that proves that we don't see analog or not, but that's not the point - the point is that all digital works.

Look at it this way: To get the "perfect" representation, we need to be "lossless" between either the source and the medium, or the medium and our senses. We cannot be both. However, it is a _lot_ easier to be lossless between the source and the medium, and then convert that signal into something that our senses pick up at the consumer side, than it would be to convert to analog in the studios and then deliver an error-free signal to the consumer. As long as most, if not all, of the source material is digital at one point or another, an all digital path as long as possible is going to be as close to perfect as we're going to get. Of course, digital isn't _automatically_ perfect, but it's a prerequisite.

Re: Denon 2500BT, this is the player that had the possibility to be the ideal transport, however as I understand it (I haven't tested it myself) this player is unable to change output depending on the source, so if the output is set for 1080P it will upscale DVD to 1080P, if it is set to 480i it will downscale BD to 480i. As the upscaling is pretty crappy, it basically renders this player useless for anything other than 1080P BD playback in practice (even 1080i BD's will be an issue). To me, it's a faulty design that hopefully will be fixed with a firmware update, and I cannot believe Denon made such a screwup. The Pioneer's have a source direct mode though, I believe they're the only solution right now for source dircet output?

I bet he means that it's better to keep the Video signal and audio seperate so as to prevent any "messing with" of the video by the audio processor. Not that it's bad to have them in the same cable per se. I'm inclined to agree with him, for similar but not equal reasons. I'd prefer to pull the audio off the disc and go straight to my audio processor, and likewise take the video to my VP.

That is indeed exactly what is was trying to say. If your audio and video signals are not being processed in the same machine (like the new Denon pre/pro or whatever), then it is IMHO better to have a direct link between source and audio processor and another link between source and VP or pj.

I'm using a PS3 until Denon replaces their DVD-5910 with a new universal player that supports Blu-Ray along with SACD and DVD-A.

I agree. I want to use a combination of DVI and DENON Link instead of HDMI. HDMI physical connections and vendor integration is lackluster. DVI and DENON Link just work.

Andrew:

Your comments remind me of a conversation many years ago. Having been introduced to mathematical models for the behavior of light both as particles and waves, I asked the professor whether light is a particle or wave. He responded that different aspects of the behaviour of light are consistent with models for particle behaviour; others with models for wave behaviour.

We tend to refer to the implicit conceptions of models in use as if that's how reality "is".

All models are wrong; some are useful (George Box).

Cheers, Ian

Just wondering how you all feel about the upcoming BDP-83 Blu Ray player from OPPO? Also, Are there new DENON Blu Ray players coming out and will they offer transport only version?

Further, I am planning on getting the HOST/LUMIS and I understand the HOST has an HD-SDI input... Should I get an HD-SDI modded player as I believe there is a company offering HD-SDI mods.... Can someone reiterate the difference between an HD-SDI and HDMI output?

By the way, the only reason I have the OPPO DVD player is to get 480i out over HDMI... If you have an HD-SDI output, does it pass 480i and 1080p24, regardless of what the 'factory' capabilities are??

Finally, how does the HOST videoprocessing compare to the Lumagen Radiance?