Panasonic DMP-BD80 good enough for Onkyo 905?

[Sliced Bread]

I'm finally going to buy my first blu-ray player. My question though is how much I should spend. I was thinking of something like the Panasonic DMP-BD80 or similar, pending the next super-test of course

.

The thing is, I'm sure the picture quality from this player is more than good enough for my display, however I don't want my amplifier to be held back. Is the sound quality via HDMI from this player good enough for my 905, or should I be looking further up the price range?

I would raher not spend much more than this player, however I will if it is going to let the system down. Sound is the highest priority to me.

Any help is REALLY appreciated.

 

[Anonymous]

JohnNewman: Is the sound quality via HDMI from this player good enough for my 905, or should I be looking further up the price range?

With audio over HDMI the sink i.e. AVR, pre pro etc is more critical as it is this that is responsible for the audio clock regeneration. This is because the audio clock isn't carried over the HDMI interface from the source. The audio decoders in the players, AVR's, Pre Pro's etc need to meet a bit perfect reference target before they can claim support for the HD codecs. Thus the decoded data must be the same be it a £10 player or £100 player in this regard assuming you're using to player to decode to LPCM. If you're using bitstream the data is decompressed and decoded in the sink rather than the player anyway so the player doesn't affect this. Depending on how well your AVR regenerates the HDMI audio clock it may be the weakest audio link using HDMI rather than the Blu-ray player be it a cheap or expensive model.

If you don't need analogue MC output the BD60 offers the same HDMI performance. If you want a better all round player the Oppo 83 is worth looking at (I've owned both).

Dasp

 

[Sliced Bread]

das:
JohnNewman: Is the sound quality via HDMI from this player good enough for my 905, or should I be looking further up the price range?

With audio over HDMI the sink i.e. AVR, pre pro etc is more critical as it is this that is responsible for the audio clock regeneration because the audio clock isn't carried over HDMI interface from the source. The audio decoders need to meet a bit perfect reference result before thay can claim support for the HD codecs. Thus the decoded data must be the same be it a £10 decoder or £100 decoder.

If you're using bitstream the data is decompressed and decoded in the sink rather than the player anyway. Depending on how well your AVR regenerates the HDMI audio clock it may be the weakest link rather than the player.

If you don't need analogue MC output the BD60 offers the same HDMI performance. If you want a better all round player the Oppo 83 is worth looking at (I've owned both)

Dasp

Thanks for the feedback Das

My understanding is that the HDMI output is not equal in all players. The BD80 review on these pages notes that the BD80 is a sonic improvement over the BD60 via HDMI (unless I've interpreted it incorrectly)

 

[Anonymous]

JohnNewman:das:
JohnNewman: Is the sound quality via HDMI from this player good enough for my 905, or should I be looking further up the price range?

With audio over HDMI the sink i.e. AVR, pre pro etc is more critical as it is this that is responsible for the audio clock regeneration because the audio clock isn't carried over HDMI interface from the source. The audio decoders need to meet a bit perfect reference result before thay can claim support for the HD codecs. Thus the decoded data must be the same be it a £10 decoder or £100 decoder.

If you're using bitstream the data is decompressed and decoded in the sink rather than the player anyway. Depending on how well your AVR regenerates the HDMI audio clock it may be the weakest link rather than the player.

If you don't need analogue MC output the BD60 offers the same HDMI performance. If you want a better all round player the Oppo 83 is worth looking at (I've owned both)

Dasp

Thanks for the feedback Das

My understanding is that the HDMI output is not equal in all players. The BD80 review on these pages notes that the BD80 is a sonic improvement over the BD60 via HDMI (unless I've interpreted it incorrectly)

What do you believe is different about the HDMI audio output between players? [EDITED BY MODS - SECOND WARNING]

The BD60 and DB80 use the same UniPhier audio decoder (if you choose to decode in the player) and HDMI transmitter solutions. The player doesn't do anything to bitsream and the audio clock is regenerated by the sink not the player.

Dasp

 

[nads]

But the DAC in the amp are doing the decoding if you are using the HDMI connection. so it does not matter.

 

[Clare Newsome]

It's not only the HDMI circuitry that's different in the '80 over the '60: slightly better-quality audio components/connections all-round.

And in answer to the OP - you'll notice a step-up to better machines such as the Denon DVD-2500BT, but the Panasonic '80 is by no means a poor partner for the '905. I'm still waiting to invest in a premium Blu-ray player (waiting for a next-gen Profile 2.0 affair at a great price), and the Panasonic '55 (last year's equivalent of the '80) is proving a fine stop-gap with my Yamaha 'Z7!

 

[Anonymous]

Clare Newsome:
It's not only the HDMI circuitry that's different in the '80 over the '60: slightly better-quality audio components/connections all-round.

Apart from the multi channel analogue outputs on the BD80 (which requires DAC in the player) what different circuits does it use to the BD60 to produce better bitstream or LPCM audio over HDMI ?

Dasp

 

[Clare Newsome]

The '80 uses a better-quality DAC than the '60, and offers gold-plated connections.

 

[Anonymous]

Clare Newsome:The '80 uses a better-quality DAC than the '60, and offers gold-plated connections.

Bitstream and LPCM over HDMI doesn't require a DAC stage as it isn't
converted to analogue prior to HDMI output from the player. The only audio DAC in the
BD60 is used for basic stereo output. The DAC is required for
conversion to analogue not processing bitstream or LPCM per se.

Dasp

 

[Clare Newsome]

Gee, I love being patronised - and there's me thinking people reading this thread would want to know ALL the reasons the '80 is superior to the '60

As with last year's '35/'55 players, the pricier machine offers advanced HDMI circuitry, which - among other things - claims to reduce jitter. In blind testing, the '80 certainly just pips the '60 for audio performance

 

[Anonymous]

Clare Newsome:
Gee, I love being patronised - and there's me thinking people reading this thread would want to know ALL the reasons the '80 is superior to the '60

As with last year's '35/'55 players, the pricier machine offers advanced HDMI circuitry, which - among other things - claims to reduce jitter. In blind testing, the '80 certainly just pips the '60 for audio performance

I was only asking if you could explain how the additional circuits/components etc in the BD80 you mentioned made a difference to bitstream/LPCM over HDMI compared to the BD60 as it being down to the quality of DAC doesn't make sense.

Dasp

 

[Sliced Bread]

Clare Newsome:And in answer to the OP - you'll notice a step-up to better machines such as the Denon DVD-2500BT, but the Panasonic '80 is by no means a poor partner for the '905. I'm still waiting to invest in a premium Blu-ray player (waiting for a next-gen Profile 2.0 affair at a great price), and the Panasonic '55 (last year's equivalent of the '80) is proving a fine stop-gap with my Yamaha 'Z7!

Thanks Clare, that is actually very useful

Does the Panasonic match the sound quality of the Pioneer 51FD?

Many Thanks

 

[Clare Newsome]

When the '80 is using the HDMI connection, it turns off the analogue video circuitry to prevent any potential interference. Such circuitry isolation is, of course, a common theme in higher-end kit.

 

[Sliced Bread]

Ah, so pretty similar then

 

[Clare Newsome]

JohnNewman:Clare Newsome:And in answer to the OP - you'll notice a step-up to better machines such as the Denon DVD-2500BT, but the Panasonic '80 is by no means a poor partner for the '905. I'm still waiting to invest in a premium Blu-ray player (waiting for a next-gen Profile 2.0 affair at a great price), and the Panasonic '55 (last year's equivalent of the '80) is proving a fine stop-gap with my Yamaha 'Z7!

Thanks Clare, that is actually very useful

Does the Panasonic match the sound quality of the Pioneer 51FD?

Many Thanks

I haven't heard the '51 against the '80; it sonically pips the '55, though the Panasonic loads discs in about double the time!

Can't wait to hear the new Pioneers vs the Panasonics vs the Denons vs the Sonys... Finally hope we'll get a wide choice of do-everything Profile 2.0 players with the best-yet pictures and audio for decent money.

 

[Sliced Bread]

Clare Newsome:
JohnNewman:Clare Newsome:And in answer to the OP - you'll notice a step-up to better machines such as the Denon DVD-2500BT, but the Panasonic '80 is by no means a poor partner for the '905. I'm still waiting to invest in a premium Blu-ray player (waiting for a next-gen Profile 2.0 affair at a great price), and the Panasonic '55 (last year's equivalent of the '80) is proving a fine stop-gap with my Yamaha 'Z7!

Thanks Clare, that is actually very useful

Does the Panasonic match the sound quality of the Pioneer 51FD?

Many Thanks

I haven't heard the '51 against the '80; it sonically pips the '55, though the Panasonic loads discs in about double the time!

Can't wait to hear the new Pioneers vs the Panasonics vs the Denons vs the Sonys... Finally hope we'll get a wide choice of do-everything Profile 2.0 players with the best-yet pictures and audio for decent money.

Looking forward to reading all about it

 

[Andy Clough]

Clare Newsome:
It's not only the HDMI circuitry that's different in the '80 over the '60: slightly better-quality audio components/connections all-round.

And here's the picture to prove it:

 

[Anonymous]

Andy Clough:Clare Newsome:
It's not only the HDMI circuitry that's different in the '80 over the '60: slightly better-quality audio components/connections all-round.

And here's the picture to prove it:

It's difficult to make out what some of those bits are but I can make out the analogue audio phono's, a DAC and some capacitors (?) and possibly a transformer (?) which again I assume are analogue related. Can you confirm which of those is related to producing better bitstream/LPCM digital audio data over HDMI rather than employed in the conversion to analogue and output via the analogue phono's ?

Dasp