Choosing Blu ray player

[K-High-Fi]

Thank you Mr Peabody for reply. Sadly my processor does not have 5.1 inputs, so a high end player that have 5.1 output is useless.

My I ask is the digital coaxial output and SD DVD upcale of Sony s790 is good as Arcam 137?

I was thinking digital coaxial output sound different from player to another due to jitter noise, I wonder if this apply to blu ray players as well. Also I have many DVD that I want them at least to look good as Arcam 137 when upscale to HD.

Anyone care to answer.
Many thanks.

[Mr Peabody]

The Sony will sound slightly better with Blu ray audio using the optical digital, Blu ray will be less compressed than DVD. I would suspect the DVD video should be comparable based on the 790 reviews, what you could do is buy the 790 from a retailer who will allow a 30 day return if not happy.

[Smokey]

Sony along with with Panasonic bluray players always seem to get good remarks regarding their DVD upscaling capability. Here is a review of Sony BDP-S790 where is was chosen "Awards 2012 Product of the Year", and also check out reviews for Panasonic players:

Sony BDP-S790 review from the experts at whathifi.com

[K-High-Fi]

Thank you all for reply, and Smokey for the link. Is optical better than coaxial? As far i remember coaxial have 75 and optical is 65.

As for players, I hope Sony will do the job If only does not sound bright or less realistic when playing DVD movies.

[Smokey]

Is optical better than coaxial?

Although both are same, if given a choice I would go with coaxial. Coaxial is less finicky than optical and don't use conversions in the signal chain (electrical to optical and vice versa).

[Feanor]

Although both {optical and coaxial S/PDIF} are same, if given a choice I would go with coaxial. Coaxial is less finicky than optical and don't use conversions in the signal chain (electrical to optical and vice versa).

There is a school of thought that says between computer and DAC one ought to use optical because the DAC from radio frequency noise, (RFI/EMF), created by the computer. Personally I use coax.

If you use coax, a LONGER cable length is desirable to minimize the effect of source/target impedance mismatch; opinion varies as to the best length but 15 feet/5 meters would be conservative. On the other hand, optical cable should always be as short as possible.

[Mr Peabody]

Theoretically your DVD playback should sound the same, keep in mind whether the Arcam or Sony the signal coming out is still digital and will be converted by the Krell's internal DAC. So any potential difference would be whether you could detect any difference in transports.

I prefer coaxial digital connection based on reliability. I've never had issue with coaxial but have had an optical cable go bad and some compatibility issues. The optical cable was expensive so trouble seems to occur no matter the price range. Also, I've read papers claiming if the optical is bent or has to curve it could cause the optical information to become corrupt, as in timing changes or distorting the bit to where it can't be read.

[Smokey]

If you use coax, a LONGER cable length is desirable to minimize the effect of source/target impedance mismatch; opinion varies as to the best length but 15 feet/5 meters would be conservative.

The formula for [coax] cable impedance does not include cable lenght as one of its derivative. So it cable lenght should not be an issue

[E-Stat]

If you use coax, a LONGER cable length is desirable to minimize the effect of source/target impedance mismatch; opinion varies as to the best length but 15 feet/5 meters would be conservative.

Agree only to an extent. Like many parameters, there is a sweet spot where values below and above are less ideal.

RE: Long S/PDIF cable - audioengr - Digital Drive

Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio is the most vocal proponent of appropriate cable length. He prefers longer than one meter to reduce the reflection issue and shorter than five meters to reduce jitter.

RE: Long S/PDIF cable - audioengr - Digital Driv