...is to hook up the multi-channel analog outputs. Here's why:
With the HDMI output you will (soon, when the machines capable of doing this are available) be able to send your full rez (24BiT/192kHz) signal to the processor, but it is significantly compressed information. The signal from the m/ch analog outs is only 24/96 but is not compressed, and the signal gets to by-pass a lot of the internals of the processor allowing it to retain a higher level of purity on two counts.
I didn't know about the compression side of things with Dolby TrueHD/DTS HD before today.

Which is exactly enough for 8 channels of 192KHz 24-bit PCM audio. If your device can't transport 36.86Mbit/s reliably there is no way its going to be able to handle the upto 3.96Gbit/s of bandwidth used by video.

Secondly, Yes Dobly TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are compressed but its lossless (keyword there) compression; Dobly TrueHD uses MLP and DTS-HD MA uses some other form of lossless compression. With 1.3 if the player and processor support it you will be able to output the raw TrueHD or DTS-HD MA bitstream to the receiver where it will handle the decoding.

Finally most movie soundtracks even today are still mastered at 44.1KHz or 48KHz 20-bit.

Been out of the industry for nine months. Good to catch up on the new stuff. I don't find multi-channel anywhere near as interesting as 2 channel. I might if they put a little more effort into the sound side of things.
Shame the movies companies don't get with it from a sonic point of view. They don't know what they are missing it seems.

The suggestion is you're getting 24/96 quality sound from the analog outputs. Just like a CD player offers 16/44.1 quality sound from it's L&R outputs.

One thing that gets interests me is how they sound stacked-up against each other. Spec's are one thing, but in comparo's between SACD and DVD-Audio, I've always preferred SACD where the same titles were available on both formats. DVD-Audio is MLP (lossless) and SACD is DSD (uncompressed). Maybe the differences in sound I was hearing were more to do with how they were mastered by each camp. The proof is always in the pudding.

HDMI and I was thinking about using the analog out so that the HD-XA2 processes the audio and just passes it to my older Onkyo receiver.

less is more

The D/A converting is done just the once at either end.
When the player does the converting, the signal stays analog from there on because the signal is then sent to the receiver/processor's multi-channel input, and is then fed straight to the amplification (let's just say we're not talking about a Class D amp here) by-passing the digital part of the processor.

Regardless of what the spec's say, as always, proof is in the pudding. The right way to hook something up is the way that is most sonically rewarding. If a difference can't be heard either way, then convenience/economy is the deciding factor.

besides lexicon, and im a analog junkie

are spec' driven without sitting them down in front of an A/B comparison done right. Hence so many people poo-pooing vinyl and tube amplifiers.

when they first came out and i still swear the cassettes had more of a pure sound, yes the volume distortion is higher on the cassette but you hear more Ill still say it hahahaha

and ill be honest yamaha has the best features out of all the recievers made today. i been using denon alot lately and ITS NOT THE SAME!!!! i like the yama rxv series better, but i dont have a distributor for them.

also, the yamaha dvd players are so so and i hate to mix up recievers and dvd players so because denon has better dvd players I have been stickin with them.

I still like yamie best though(for all around bang for your buck)

Pre-recorded tapes have always been a rip-off, particularly when the manufacturers started using even cheaper ribbons. But a good tape on a deck with a well aligned head (or a Nakamichi with a dedicated azimuth control) can easily sound more involving than CD. The only trouble was, very few people actually bought a decent enough tape deck to be able to hear this.
No compression on tape of course. I've done the comparison many times and the only reson I bought CDs instead of tapes was durability and convenince.

Sony and Philips could have easily made CD sound a lot better going with 20 or 24 BiT, but they were more concerned with what they could charge for redbook CD so they stuck with 16 BiT (which they thought was 'good enough').

the digital conversion can be heard, something abotu converting out of analog, I dunno, i can hear the difference. can hear it mre so in the 10k and up range..

the sampling rate in studios IS higher then 96khz 64 bit depending on how much money you want to spend. I beleivee they have 128khz 96 bit rate and i know there is 256khz 128 bit, cost a lot though.apogee has stuff like that, new pro tools etc.

BTW there are still artist out there that only use analog

It really hasn't been in the last 5 years or so 192/24 gear has become more readily available. I'm sorry but in the realm of tape CC was ass no matter how you cut it. CC was consumer thru and thru, no one used CC ever in the pro world. If you guys wanted to trump the realm of analog tape, you should of talked about reel to reel in the 15/30 ips range.

It's quite a different world from how tape sounds in almost any other brand's decks? And 3 Head Nak's make superb recordings. Not quite the quality of the better reel to reels, but very close.

Yes, Nakamichi were the kings of CC playback and came up with a lot of inventive ways to make them sound better but it was like polishing a turd, it's still a turd. CC was a compromise from the very beginning.

a high end cassette player like a nakamichi or a pro tascam cassette player sounded better then cd's HECK even my XRU 800 sony mobile es head unit sounded better then cd's
on the subject of bit rates and such, ive seen the future, and it will be 256khz/ 128 bit rate in like 10 years maybe less the way technology is going..

<center><img src="http://www.shanling.com/images/new/CD-T300_L_02.jpg"></center><p>Both are flawed technologies, but CD wins out for convenience and durability, despite lacking the visual drama of a nice cassette deck. There are some exceptions though...

Who is making this 256KHz 128bit gear? I don't even know any DAC manufacturers that have released anything that high.

There really isn't a need to go beyond 192KHz/24-bit unless you come up with some kooky tests like square sines or stuff like that, it's more than adequate.

No degradation over multiple playbacks and a noise floor that was unheard of at the time (Sadly that's not taken advantage of).

Secondly, CD's had no where to go but up, the cost and quality of DACs were surely going to improve unlike expensive materials and complicated mechanical designs with CC.

I never said it was the end all and be all of formats, it's just the best format the consumer market had seen. Today we are moving backwards with lossy compression and the compression wars.

I still have a fondness for LP, I'm a proud owner of a Rega Planar 25 with a Lehmann Black Cube SE preamp, so you can't say I'm one of those "it's digital, it's better" people :)