better in the long-run

[ironsword]

Which is better in the long run, HDMI or MUTLICHANNEL ANALOG.

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by ironsword

Which is better in the long run, HDMI or MUTLICHANNEL ANALOG.

I think you might want to define what you mean by "long run". Not trying to be smart, just want to make sure I understand you.

[rlf3911]

Doesnt matter one bit if you arent using separate amps.

[Twitch9]

I think i understand and if i do i would say HDMI will be better, it has way more possibilities over Multi analog, plus it's 1 cable that caries both audio and video the only benefit of using analog IMO is SACD players that don't have or don't support HDMI

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Twitch9

I think i understand and if i do i would say HDMI will be better, it has way more possibilities over Multi analog, plus it's 1 cable that caries both audio and video the only benefit of using analog IMO is SACD players that don't have or don't support HDMI

+1, I totally agree with you, but seemed kinda like an odd question that I didn't want to assume anything. IMO - HDMI, yes!

And make sure you check out monoprice.com or bluejeanscable.com for any HDMI cables you may be interested in, Monster is over-priced.

[brewp13]

Hdmi

[jomari]

long run meaning length, or longitivety?

all things considered, id go with HDMI's unless you dont have that capability in some SACDs/DVDAudio players. really depends on the application IMO.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by ironsword

Which is better in the long run, HDMI or MUTLICHANNEL ANALOG.

Your question is very vague...

If you're asking what will give you better sound quality, then the answer is "it depends". If your BDP has better DACs and analogue circuitry than your pre/pro or receiver, then analogue outs will probably give you a better result (assuming your BDP can decode all of the lossles codecs). But if your pre/pro or receiver has better DACs and circuitry than your BDP, then HDMI is likely to be better quality. This of course assumes that your BDP will stream all of the lossless codecs and that your pre/pro can decode them.

[zicmubleu]

One thing that has affected me is that my AVR does HDCP pass through with HDMI so I can't play music unless I first turn on my video display to get an intial HDCP handshake when I put in a CD. So the single cable option has some inconvenience pitfalls as well.

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by forsberg21

I think you might want to define what you mean by "long run". Not trying to be smart, just want to make sure I understand you.

"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. "

John Maynard Keynes

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy

"The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. "

John Maynard Keynes

Good one BD!

[kingofgrills]

Originally Posted by richteer

Your question is very vague...

If you're asking what will give you better sound quality, then the answer is "it depends". If your BDP has better DACs and analogue circuitry than your pre/pro or receiver, then analogue outs will probably give you a better result (assuming your BDP can decode all of the lossles codecs). But if your pre/pro or receiver has better DACs and circuitry than your BDP, then HDMI is likely to be better quality. This of course assumes that your BDP will stream all of the lossless codecs and that your pre/pro can decode them.

Thank you! You saved me writing a post on DACs.

[ironsword]

Thank you guys for your help.