anyone compare HD DD w/ DVD to 1.3a receiver in?

Same answer as in the pre lossless codecs/blu-ray world. Connect using the HDMI to a processor that decodes lossless codecs rather than via PCM. The better processors use better components (ie. DACs) and sampling rates so a bitstream connection is best (i.e., a good quality HDMI cable)....imho.

I'm using a new Cary Cinema 11a processor.

Iplaynaked

Maybe the reviewers notes you posted were talking to the masses and not the higher end AV buyers? it makes sense to me that they were, by and large, accounting for those who have bought DVD & CD players well under the $200 marks and possibly even less. Given then their usually much more expensive AV reciever's DACs would then be readily more capable of processing digital signals.

Given even simple costs a single cable type interfgace, if good performance can be had from it, seems both the economical and wisest choice.

I have since played with various connections to the receiver via coax analog & optical, and realized such marginal differences with none being that night and day diff, I have just kept the HDMI connections to those items possessing such ins & outs. Analog elsewhere.

Due to the info at the time or point of purchase, I looked for HDMI explicitly for use as my sole AV HT interface. Primarily for costs and ease of connectivity.

Naturally the additional aspect of upsampling SD video to higher resolutions too, which I've since found out isn't the end all be all I thought perhaps it should be. But it's not bad either. Just not a significant enough aspect for a buying decision to be made upon, for there is darned little difference in image sharpness or color vividness by their said escalation. Also too the higher res audio carried on 1.3a is attractive too. This last feature might well be improved upon using analog cabling for audio at least.

In each case though I want to point out the 'bottleneck' as it were remains the processor (AV receiver or player), and it's doubtful to me the use of analog cabling will severely increase performance with todays HD capable devices.

it will however, severely increase costs. Eight times or even six times more just for audio.

I'm not motivated to alter the interfaces to other digital ones, for audio, nor to analog for video. What I'm getting via HDMI now is definitely good enough in both instances for the theater experience to be most involving. IHMO

My sole use of analog cables is for connections to outboard amps, sub, and speakers. I am going to add one RCA composite video from a VHS tape deck to the AV reciever only, as the rec allows such video to be passed along onto the HDMI output cable and then out to the projector.

It may well be otherwise for some, but I feel the mention previously of current digital processing is greatly improved
over past efforts. so much so I'm pretty comfortable with sticking to the one cable 'HDMI' fix.

I did not mean for you to take this so personally, Iplaynaked. I note your experiences, respectfully, but let's talk about "5. DD/DTS Decoding" for a bit, independently of all previously mentioned variables. That is, assuming all DAC's were equal, no additional THX processing applied, etc., I am merely stating that I don't logically see how there could be any difference where the formats are decoded, using DD/DTS supplied algorithms. Especially in this day and age when I could assume all processors should be perfectly capable of decoding lossy formats without fault. That may be debatable (although to a night and day difference??).

Now on the point of DAC's, I agree. DAC's often are more capable in the receiver end, and I suggest that your esteemed reviewers might be hearing this and not the format decoding. Or it could be that the average Best Buy receiver and/or digital processors (like the Anthem) have relatively weak analog stages. And by the way, Nick, the source dictates the sampling rates; pre/pros could upsample after they decode bitstream to PCM.

It's not like I have a problem with digital, though, really. What gets me into using analog, even today, is a little problem I have to HDCP (content protection with HDMI). Unfortunately, since HDMI is relatively new technology, especially to "audiophile" products, there still needs much ironing out of handshaking problems, and relays, which introduces pops in some products, in my experience. My main reason for considering analog connects is so I could get 7.1 lossless out of the player, and into an old fashioned, proven reliable, pre/pro. When it comes to lossy DD/DTS, I could just use s/pdif or optical, but then I would have redundant connections (analog for blu-ray, digital for dvd's), wouldn't I? It makes sense to use only one or the other, only with digital besides HDMI, you cannot transport lossless thanks to content protection!

My only other reason, besides faulty HDMI products, is it makes sense financially! I'd like to clarify that when Blindjim says analog audio increases costs "eight times or even six times more just for audio", he is presumably talking about the cost of the cable, which is dimes on the dollar compared to the cost of the pre/pro and the player. The options you have nowadays are:

1. Buy an HDMI receiver used or new and have it depreciate in value 50-70% in the next 5 years, and a good, cheap, player. Upgrade said receiver when new formats come out.

2. Buy an already depreciated analog receiver that might have been SOTA a couple years ago, and a good player that supports analog connections for $500-700, like the new Oppo. Upgrade only the player when new formats come out.

Cable costs are a one-time affair. A quality cable can be used for lifetime.

I should add that I was very interested in the Cary 11A, but can't afford $3.5k at this point. I'll probably pick one up later when it starts showing on Audiogon.

"Maybe the reviewers notes you posted were talking to the masses and not the higher end AV buyers?" (Blindjim)

Um no. This doesn't make any sense. No reviewer with half a brain would be giving out suggestions that would compromise their reputation as a knowledgeable expert on any given subject. I mean it would take only a second for anyone who's paying attention to spot the flaws in their logic. So, no, this would not be done under any logical circumstance I can see.
Also, I've simply way to much professional hands on experience with all the hookup and component options over the years to be fooled by such a thing. Bottom line, tried and true, you always always used a digital cable to your pre or receiver for DD/DTS decoding from a DVD player...ALLLLLWAYS! It just sucked any other way. Again, that was old 5.1 DVD/DTS decoding at 16 bit, not the newer HD 24/96 stuff and such. Also, I'm not refering to standard CD pcm to HDCD, SACD, or other - just DVD.
My understanding was that not only did the DACS for decoding DD/DTS tend to be superior in outboard processor/receivers and such, but the analog output stages and buffers from the DVD players tended to not be that great either! This all works together to determin the final sound. These pieces are not just a collection of DAC's, ya know. There more to audio equipment that that, I assure you. Otherwise, all cd players with the same dac's would sound the same. Doesn't work that way.

Ok, here's one for you then. Let's say that things have changed with the newer DD HD+ and DTS master and Uncompressed LPCM sources. Lets' say, for the sake of conversation that the playing field has been leveled a bit, for instance. In this case, someone did lots of side-by-side comparisons using otherwise good Blue and HD players from the analog outs, to pass DD HD and Master Codecs, as well as the same quality of processing in the AV receivers and pre's and such. And it was determined by the professional AV reviewers and industry experts that there was simply no benefit (all things equal and considered - i.e, cabling needed to be quality through out) over one method of decoding these codec's over the other - basically a dead heat in decoding in the player vs. the receiver/pre-pro. Then my question would there be any real siginifican benefit in buying any of the newer AV receivers and pre-pro's with these 1.3a HDMI capable HD decoding processors built in, when you could buy otherwise excellent performing several year old AV receivers with 7.1 channel inputs instead!?!!!! In fact, if that is indeed the case - besides needing HDMI upconversion and video switching so badly (your monitor can likely do all the switching you REALY need) - then what benefit would there be to any informed consumer to going out and jumping on the bandwagon to buy the latest processing capable AV receivers and pre's?! There would be none. And, in that case, I suggest everyone considering dumping a couple thousand or more on the latest receiver save your money, and buy some $150 6.1 or 7.1 receiver from a couple of years back on the used market, AND BE DONE WITH IT!...cause you're really not getting anything you couldn't live without, otherwise, imo.
In fact, I can find a boat load of AV receivers and couple year old pre/pro's that offer 8 channel direct inputs, right now! - some of which offer HDMI, some Component switching..both of which will handle most any of the needs out there (as long as your pj or monitor upscales to 1080p, if high def and such). Many of these old pieces also offer EQ's, older DSP, Audyssey, etc.
Anyway, bottom line, is that theory is nice and all. But what matters in the end is audio and video performance results! - in my mind, anyway.
So what's the real deal? That's what I'm after. Until I see a shootout with all the different connection and processing options explored, this is all just theory and conjecture. Someone show me the money....