Quote:
Originally Posted by
jlanier 
Sorry, you couldn't be more wrong; there are no absolutes, it's a question of where the DAC conversion happens, and which circuitry is better. IF you have a processor that has better DACs AND a better analog stage than the analog outputs from the source device, then yes, HDMI is the best solution. If you have a super-high-end processor like an Anthem D2v or a Mcintosh MX-150 or a Krell 707, that might even usually be the case. But in THIS case (BDP-83SE), that isn't guaranteed, by far. The SE's outputs are very good. You might be surprised to find that there are many players, not just the BDP-83SE, that can outclass the DACs in most HT processors and preamps, even the high-end ones (though not at the same price point, but they certainly exist). But if your processor's analog path is NOT as good as the source device (which, with HT processors coupled with high-end analog output stages, is a high probability IMHO), and you have a way of bypassing it (analog/pure direct, HT bypass, go straight to amp, etc.), then HDMI is definitely NOT the best solution. This presumes your definition of "solution" is, of course, the desire to have the highest fidelity audio output.
Yes, you might sacrifice bass management and room correction in the processor, but you are making an assumption that everyone needs those features, which is not true. A room with good acoustics might not need room correction. Some people who don't have subwoofers and/or use external active or passive crossovers may not need the bass management, or might do with the bass management in the BDP-83 itself. In these cases, the transparency of the source unit's superior analog stage will outweigh those other features provided by a processor. Some people (like ss, for example) might even forgo the preamp entirely; in that case, what good is HDMI then? You can't possibly have missed the last hundred or so pages discussing all this...?
Unless you have a specific reason to suggest that HDMI is better for a specific system configuration, please refrain from making blanket statements suggesting that HDMI is always the "best" solution, because that is obviously not a true statement. It may be your "best" solution, but that depends on your setup, and it can easily not be the "best" for other people with different gear. This sort of comment is especially out-of-place in the "Official BDP-83SE Analog Audio Discussion Only" thread...
People who come here looking for advice might see such a post and assume the BDP-83SE was a pointless device, and that is most assuredly NOT the case.
Yes I agree 110% with what you are saying.
For me and my setup the BD-83NE is a gift from God.
Not only is the music playback (CD, SACD) for a 2ch setup, but also the stereo 2ch analog downmix of Blu Ray soundtracks. The bass, mids and highs are excellent, along with the crossover to give me a real 3D image.
I have had a Panasonic DMP-BD50 and I am here to tell you it didn't come close to my BD-83NE for 2ch analog audio.
My setup is very simple, at-least on the surface.
My source is the BD-83NE>interconnect cables>Woo WA6SE modded tube amp 2ch>Sennheiser HD800 headphones with a Cardas Cable going from my amp to my headphones. This system is very well balanced so I don't need to play with room acoustics or speaker setup. I know that my amp and headphones are very well balanced and so is my BD-83NE.
So when I set out down this road I wanted to come as close to speakers as I could for the out of head 3D sound and also the impact, but also retaining the clarity that high end headphone rig can offer. And imo I do have the best of both worlds. The only thing I can't get is the window rattling of a good sub, but I do get the bone rattling of great impact-full bass.
ss
Love 'em both.
There's probably hundreds of times as many cheap department store home theater setups out there than there are high-end systems. Heck, I know people that use their TV as their stereo. 
