Quote:
Originally Posted by BillP 
The 500 has better audio IF you output analog audio. If you're just using an HDMI connection (digital) for both audio and video, then audio will sound the same. PQ for BluRays will look the same. DVDs may look slightly better with the 500 (not sure, but probably not very much better, if at all). The main reason to get the 500 over the 320 is for the 7.1-channel analog audio outs (the 320 only has 2-channel analog audio outs) and the dual HDMI outs (which you only need if you have a 3D display but not a 3D receiver). All BluRay players upscale DVDs (you can set the output resolution to match your display's native resolution), so no advantage for the 500 there.

The 500 has better audio IF you output analog audio. If you're just using an HDMI connection (digital) for both audio and video, then audio will sound the same. PQ for BluRays will look the same. DVDs may look slightly better with the 500 (not sure, but probably not very much better, if at all). The main reason to get the 500 over the 320 is for the 7.1-channel analog audio outs (the 320 only has 2-channel analog audio outs) and the dual HDMI outs (which you only need if you have a 3D display but not a 3D receiver). All BluRay players upscale DVDs (you can set the output resolution to match your display's native resolution), so no advantage for the 500 there.
Ok, so, possibly silly question here, but...how about with the 220? I'm eying the 220 vs. 500, but since I'll be piping sound and video through what will likely be an Onkyo TX-NR1009, which I'll likely run in 5.1 or 6.1, I'm wondering if picking up the 500 isn't basically just spending $100 on features that I don't actually need. Assuming the video quality is the same, and assuming I'll run simply HDMI to the receiver, is there any good reason to go with the 500 over the 220?

























.



