PCM over HDMI vs. Analog out

[mperfct]

I'm considering a DMP-BD55K to pair with my Marantz SR-8001. My question is if there is any difference between sending decoded signals via PCM-HDMI or pushing the decoded signals out via analog outs. If there isn't any difference, I may as well get the DMP-BD35K.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

 

[bandphan]

I'm considering a DMP-BD55K to pair with my Marantz SR-8001. My question is if there is any difference between sending decoded signals via PCM-HDMI or pushing the decoded signals out via analog outs. If there isn't any difference, I may as well get the DMP-BD35K.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

IIRC the 55 will do 5.1 over analog and the 35 is 2.0. If your letting the player decode, then you are using bass management in the sub or in the player itself.

 

[mperfct]

Well after some further reading, it looks like PCM over HDMI is the way to go, since if you are sending audio via analog, Audyssey will not be applied. Am I right or off base?

 

[billy p]

Well after some further reading, it looks like PCM over HDMI is the way to go, since if you are sending audio via analog, Audyssey will not be applied. Am I right or off base?

I would rather bitstream via HDMI and let my receiver do the processing, than using PCM via analog or HDMI. The player themselves don't have great bass mgm abilities. JMO.

 

[mperfct]

I would rather bitstream via HDMI and let my receiver do the processing, than using PCM via analog or HDMI. The player themselves don't have great bass mgm abilities. JMO.

Ordinarily I'd be down with that, except my Marantz is one version too old to handle HD decoding. There's not enough incentive, imho, to upgrade the Marantz just for that...

 

[billy p]

Ordinarily I'd be down with that, except my Marantz is one version too old to handle HD decoding. There's not enough incentive, imho, to upgrade the Marantz just for that...

I hear you and that's what I thought, but the lack of bass mgm from the player to my receiver via analog PCM has made me rethink my position.
In the end its your call, Bill

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I recently also compared the different routes, and I prefer to bitstream everything to the receiver and let the receiver do all the processing/decoding.

 

[mperfct]

I recently also compared the different routes, and I prefer to bitstream everything to the receiver and let the receiver do all the processing/decoding.

Why would there be any difference? I'm curious...

 

[billy p]

Why would there be any difference? I'm curious...

Analog basically bypasses all your receiver's digital processing for the surround sound formats which defeats your ability to calibrate, set up and level match your speakers with the receiver. With my panny I have some leeway to adjust the fronts and set them to large or small but I can't establish a cut off and the sub & surrounds don't even have a level adjustment, only a time delay.

Don't get me wrong the SQ is still amazing. Now I have figured out what all the fuss was regarding the use of analog.

 

[zumbo]

If you don't want to upgrade, then PCM via HDMI.

As others have posted, analog inputs bypass any processing/calibration done by the receiver.

I purchased a Marantz BR player just for 7.1 analog, and it has adequate bass management, but bypassing YPAO(for me) $ucked.

In your situation, PCM for sure.

I have ordered a new receiver to utilize bitstream.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Why would there be any difference? I'm curious...

Theoretically, there would not be a difference.

But in some cases, like mine, bitstreaming from the BD player to the Receiver produced more bass, although I set the subwoofer leve in the receiver to +0dB in both cases.

Also theorectically, if your receiver has better quality components inside (a $3000 receiver vs a $170 DVD player for example), it would also make sense to just bitstream everything and let your receiver do all the processing/decoding.

In the review of the Denon DVD-3800BDCI, Home Theater Magazine also noted that the Bitstream produced "better" sound than PCM.

Who knows? It's probably different for everyone because we all differ in our tastes.

Heck, I still can't get over how disappointed I am of both the Transformers BD and HD DVD!!! And a lot of people thought the SQ of it was perfect!

 

[NicS]

The general consensus of this thread leads me to assume that by using the analog outs on my future Panny 55 to my Pioneer VSX-1015 with my Outlaw ICBM in between, for bass management is all I'm going to need. Correct ?

 

[zumbo]

The general consensus of this thread leads me to assume that by using the analog outs on my future Panny 55 to my Pioneer VSX-1015 with my Outlaw ICBM in between, for bass management is all I'm going to need. Correct ?

You will still need to calibrate, as you will still be bypassing any calibration done/set by you/your receiver.

I haven't read the manual, but I would assume the player has BM and the ICBM will be pointless.

I can honestly tell you that DD/DTS via coax/toslink will perform the best, when you compare it to the analog connection. I have done it already.

 

[NicS]

You will still need to calibrate, as you will still be bypassing any calibration done/set by you/your receiver.

I haven't read the manual, but I would assume the player has BM and the ICBM will be pointless.

I can honestly tell you that DD/DTS via coax/toslink will perform the best, when you compare it to the analog connection. I have done it already


Thanks for the reply. I will try both ways and report my findings too