Originally Posted by kdssrugby
@rdgrimes, Thank you for your input. Although the item is used, the store I'm buying it from will give me 1 years technical support so that is less of an issue. You also raise a point that I've noticed in many reviews of the BDP 95, that the difference between it and the 93 is minimal (in terms of what you hear, not technically). Do you have any experience with either the 93 or 95?
Here you are venturing into the murky and frightening world of esoteric audiophile language. Both the 93 and 95 offer analog audio quality that's as good or better than players costing many times more. I think it's fair to say that less than 1% of AVS denizens have speakers and amps capable of fully resolving these differences.
One reviewer put it well: With the 93, sitting in a noisy Times Square you can hear a knat fart in Baltimore. With the 95 you can hear that in Miami. (or words to that effect)
Both can claim to have DACs and analog boards that far exceed the quality of those found in even higher-end AVRs. So you really want to ask yourself just how demanding you want to be and what that last 1% of performance is worth. The 95 has noise levels and distortion that is not measurable on most testing bench equipment, with a totally flat FR curve. That's a claim that very few devices can make.
People tend to "prefer" a sound that's like what they are used to. So when people make reports about how some new piece of equipment sounds it's always
being compared to what they've been listening to before. When a device is truly accurate and imparts no characteristics to the source at all, some people don't like it and call it all sorts of audiophillic terms. It also tends to be very unforgiving of sources that are less than ideal.
So here you add the wrinkle: what will you be listening to? Is it really good enough source material to demand total accuracy in order to appreciate it?
So maybe sometimes the real task is to ask the right questions, not so much get the right answers. </$.02>