This brings up an interesting question. If they've reduced the number of stereo inputs but retained the second zone, might they have provided a separate stereo DAC for the second zone? It would be a first for Outlaw, which is why I (and probably others) wouldn't expect it, but times are changing. I've been wrong before, after all - I could be wrong here again.
Fingers crossed, here, boss.
Originally Posted By: gonk
Originally Posted By: Wrong Hombre
Why not just use the HDMI, I would ask. I know my tone to this point may seem a bit sharp, but I would sincerely like an answer to that.
For most players, I recommend HDMI. It gives you access to room correction, bass management, AV sync adjustment, and lots of other useful DSP functions. It's also convenient - after all, you're likely using HDMI for video anyway, so the cabling is the height of simplicity and you've already been saddled with HDCP. For some players, though, the analog section may justify using an analog signal path all the way to the speakers. The BDP-95 is such a player. Heck, the BDP-83 (a generation older, half the price, and using Cirrus DACs instead of the BDP-95's ESS DACs) sounded at least as good via analog through the Onkyo PR-SC885 as via HDMI through the 885 - even though the HDMI path included Audyssey.
I have a BR player with component and 7.1 outs; I'd assume that using the HDMI with this model would be preferable, as the internal DACs in my player would be less effective (presumably) than the HDMI processing in a 978/998. However, if the 978/998 include high end DACs, such as the Sabre ESSs, then there would be no difference from using the analog outs the OPPO 95 compared to HDMI? And even preferable to use HDMI in the case of the BD-83?
Previous Topic
Index
