Is there an advantage for expensive Bluray players?

[aliasfox]

Well of course we can tell. Back then you bought something and it lived for decades. Now its broken out of the box, disposable appliances.

Personally I can not tell the quality difference on most items, they all do the same thing. I cant see 2 bluray players and say "Yup, this is the $1K one" . But where it gets you is the durability of the product. The cheap one will start throwing around errors soon and die in 2-4 years maybe.

I blame the people who look at 2 products and always opt for the cheaper one thinking they are saving money. In the long run factories just quit building the quality products because no one is buying them. Now the consumer is hurt. Each new product you buy is basically a "loot box" you open it and you get a varying degrees of quality no matter what the brand.



Ok i do not know too much, but if analog audio is better why is analog video not better? Isn't the audio files on the disc stored digitally? I feel I am missing something here.

To be fair, you're the one asking about the advantage for expensive blu-ray players. If you know $60 buys you junk, then why bother with this thread?

As for analog audio vs analog video: Video is essentially pixel-for-pixel mapped onto a digital display. If a digital image says a certain pixel is a certain color, then the display will show that particular pixel as that color. From an analog source, there has to be mapping of color and location to get it onto a digital screen, and that will always introduce room for error.

Audio, on the other hand, always has to be output to analog amplifiers and speakers, and on a CD, DVD, or Blu-Ray, is always stored digitally. These digital files have to be converted, and in the earlier days of blu-ray, most receivers did an absolutely atrocious job of doing the Digital-Analog conversion. Oppo recognized this, and built in very respectable DACs and algorithms to process the audio into analog - that way, the receiver didn't have to 'figure out' what the signal was, and could simply amplify it and send it to the speakers. My Denon AVR-987 (Circuit City version of the AVR-2807) was a $1200 receiver, with a poor HDMI 1.1 implementation and bad codec support for Blu-Ray audio. The Oppo, with its DAC, could decode the audio, bypassing the Denon's audio limitations. I would then HDMI the video directly to the TV, avoiding the HDMI board on the receiver altogether.

As for Digital vs Analog recordings - ie, CD vs Vinyl - it depends on what you want, and what your ears are sensitive to. Digitally recorded music can have much lower noise floors, as that noise can be 'scrubbed' after the recording, and the producer has more flexibility in managing tonal response after the fact. Analog recordings are 'seamless,' ie, each instance of sound isn't discrete (as in digital), but rather a continuous flow, which some people say sounds more natural to them. Others like the fact that the noise floor and the dynamics aren't suppressed, which can give an airier sound that's more reminiscent of a live performance. Some of the experience with vinyl (less audio manipulation) can be replicated with CDs (light cleanup is often better than heavy-handed noise reduction), some (the seamless quality) cannot.

Later Oppos not only had full 7 channel analog outputs, but also had dual HDMI outputs as well, providing the most flexibility possible. I really should've bitten the bullet and gotten an Oppo 203 when I still had the chance.

 

[MacBH928]

Do you mean analog as in vinyl vs digital on optical media? That's a matter of opinion and contention. Some might say that SACD audio is the best you can get.

Analogue video - not sure what you mean.

video used to be in analog not digital. VHS, LaserDisc, betamax and probably others did not have digital video but stored in analog signal.

below aliasfox explained why audio is better in analog because the final output is analog speakers not digital format like a tv screen.

To be fair, you're the one asking about the advantage for expensive blu-ray players. If you know $60 buys you junk, then why bother with this thread?

As for analog audio vs analog video: Video is essentially pixel-for-pixel mapped onto a digital display. If a digital image says a certain pixel is a certain color, then the display will show that particular pixel as that color. From an analog source, there has to be mapping of color and location to get it onto a digital screen, and that will always introduce room for error.

Audio, on the other hand, always has to be output to analog amplifiers and speakers, and on a CD, DVD, or Blu-Ray, is always stored digitally. These digital files have to be converted, and in the earlier days of blu-ray, most receivers did an absolutely atrocious job of doing the Digital-Analog conversion. Oppo recognized this, and built in very respectable DACs and algorithms to process the audio into analog - that way, the receiver didn't have to 'figure out' what the signal was, and could simply amplify it and send it to the speakers. My Denon AVR-987 (Circuit City version of the AVR-2807) was a $1200 receiver, with a poor HDMI 1.1 implementation and bad codec support for Blu-Ray audio. The Oppo, with its DAC, could decode the audio, bypassing the Denon's audio limitations. I would then HDMI the video directly to the TV, avoiding the HDMI board on the receiver altogether.

As for Digital vs Analog recordings - ie, CD vs Vinyl - it depends on what you want, and what your ears are sensitive to. Digitally recorded music can have much lower noise floors, as that noise can be 'scrubbed' after the recording, and the producer has more flexibility in managing tonal response after the fact. Analog recordings are 'seamless,' ie, each instance of sound isn't discrete (as in digital), but rather a continuous flow, which some people say sounds more natural to them. Others like the fact that the noise floor and the dynamics aren't suppressed, which can give an airier sound that's more reminiscent of a live performance. Some of the experience with vinyl (less audio manipulation) can be replicated with CDs (light cleanup is often better than heavy-handed noise reduction), some (the seamless quality) cannot.

Later Oppos not only had full 7 channel analog outputs, but also had dual HDMI outputs as well, providing the most flexibility possible. I really should've bitten the bullet and gotten an Oppo 203 when I still had the chance.

1- I know $60 is probably cheap build, I would assume the $200-300 is the higher quality build , but it goes way up to $1k+ ! So you want to tell me $950 is just for re-enforced build quality?! I assumed there is more to it.

2-Ok I get it now, because digital video gets out in a digital output but audio gets converted from digital to analog output (speakers) . The question is, if the DVD/BD is digital, does a dvd player convert it to an analog format when is displayed on an old CRT tv? those did not have pixels.

3- I thought current Vinyl are made from the same digital master as the cd? just one burned to a CD and the other is engraved in Vinyl?! So other than the aesthetic difference in the sound output, they should be mostly the same?

 

[phrehdd]

Later Oppos not only had full 7 channel analog outputs, but also had dual HDMI outputs as well, providing the most flexibility possible. I really should've bitten the bullet and gotten an Oppo 203 when I still had the chance.

I feel exactly the same way about the Oppo 203. It would have lasted for years.

 

[aliasfox]

video used to be in analog not digital. VHS, LaserDisc, betamax and probably others did not have digital video but stored in analog signal.

below aliasfox explained why audio is better in analog because the final output is analog speakers not digital format like a tv screen.



1- I know $60 is probably cheap build, I would assume the $200-300 is the higher quality build , but it goes way up to $1k+ ! So you want to tell me $950 is just for re-enforced build quality?! I assumed there is more to it.

2-Ok I get it now, because digital video gets out in a digital output but audio gets converted from digital to analog output (speakers) . The question is, if the DVD/BD is digital, does a dvd player convert it to an analog format when is displayed on an old CRT tv? those did not have pixels.

3- I thought current Vinyl are made from the same digital master as the cd? just one burned to a CD and the other is engraved in Vinyl?! So other than the aesthetic difference in the sound output, they should be mostly the same?

1. $60 is the cheap build with cheap electronics. $200-300 is still a cheap build, but with less cheap electronics. $500 is a mid-quality build, with better electronics. Above that is when you start getting into 'good' builds. Check the weight of players in each category - while not a definitive factor, it's usually a good indicator of quality in something like a blu-ray player. More copper for power supplies, more aluminum for heatsinks, more steel for chassis dampening all add to the weight.

2. Yes, CRTs require analog. DVD players usually connected to TVs using S-Video, Composite Video, or Component video, which were all analog connections. There were some HDMI equipped TVs near the end of that era, but they would've had a DAC that converted that signal to analog to display. A good DAC/video processor is even more important when doing conversions such as these to minimize signal loss.

3. All else being equal, vinyl will inherently still be a noisier format, due to being a medium that's physically read using a needle - nothing will ever be manufactured to the tolerances that a CD (or SACD, or DVD Audio) can manage with regards to a low noise floor. Additionally, even if the master is a digital file, it will still end up being analog once it's engraved (right back to the 'manufacturing tolerances' argument), which will still smooth out the sound (for those who can hear that). The other piece, regarding the artistic decisions to compress dynamics and apply excessive dampening - well, that's more of a modern issue that can be sidestepped by buying vintage vinyl - though vintage CDs exhibit less of this, as well.

 

[aliasfox]

I feel exactly the same way about the Oppo 203. It would have lasted for years.

I'm glad that my Oppo BDP-83 is still working. Wouldn't mind updating to a 4k player with Dolby Vision, but I can't get over the feeling that I'll likely be disappointed in anything cheaper than a $1k Panasonic UB9000. Given that I don't actually have any 4k discs right now, I figure I might as well spend my money elsewhere.

 

[phrehdd]

I'm glad that my Oppo BDP-83 is still working. Wouldn't mind updating to a 4k player with Dolby Vision, but I can't get over the feeling that I'll likely be disappointed in anything cheaper than a $1k Panasonic UB9000. Given that I don't actually have any 4k discs right now, I figure I might as well spend my money elsewhere.

I can appreciate that. I can however also believe you could enjoy a 4k player for all your other media if you had a 4k TV and wanted good upscaling and perhaps rent discs.

 

[aliasfox]

I can appreciate that. I can however also believe you could enjoy a 4k player for all your other media if you had a 4k TV and wanted good upscaling and perhaps rent discs.

True - never said there wasn't any value in getting a 4k player with DV, just that I'd be unhappy getting something less than a UD9000. I don't really rent that often (maybe <12 times a year?), and frankly, anything that's only worth $2 to rent (rather than $20 to keep) is probably perfectly adequate on a standard 1080p blu-ray - or streaming for that matter.

In which case, I can probably apply that money towards something else - like a 14" MBP next year. Or carbon wheels for my road bike...

 

[winstars]

I feel exactly the same way about the Oppo 203. It would have lasted for years.

Its never too late!!! LOL

Oppo UDP-203 Blu-ray Player for sale online | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Oppo UDP-203 Blu-ray Player at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

 

[MacBH928]

1. $60 is the cheap build with cheap electronics. $200-300 is still a cheap build, but with less cheap electronics. $500 is a mid-quality build, with better electronics. Above that is when you start getting into 'good' builds. Check the weight of players in each category - while not a definitive factor, it's usually a good indicator of quality in something like a blu-ray player. More copper for power supplies, more aluminum for heatsinks, more steel for chassis dampening all add to the weight.

2. Yes, CRTs require analog. DVD players usually connected to TVs using S-Video, Composite Video, or Component video, which were all analog connections. There were some HDMI equipped TVs near the end of that era, but they would've had a DAC that converted that signal to analog to display. A good DAC/video processor is even more important when doing conversions such as these to minimize signal loss.

3. All else being equal, vinyl will inherently still be a noisier format, due to being a medium that's physically read using a needle - nothing will ever be manufactured to the tolerances that a CD (or SACD, or DVD Audio) can manage with regards to a low noise floor. Additionally, even if the master is a digital file, it will still end up being analog once it's engraved (right back to the 'manufacturing tolerances' argument), which will still smooth out the sound (for those who can hear that). The other piece, regarding the artistic decisions to compress dynamics and apply excessive dampening - well, that's more of a modern issue that can be sidestepped by buying vintage vinyl - though vintage CDs exhibit less of this, as well.

1-I can see where you are coming from but the rule says you are only as strong as your weakest link so while a well built(heavy) player might be around the $1K range it might have that 1 lesser than reliable component that might malfunction and the whole thing wouldn't be worth it. Then there are brands while they are higher priced they are not necessarily better quality I like to make an example between bmws and toyotas, a bmw will break far before a toyota will. So going with price is not always the best thing to do.

one thing that seems reliable is the spinning mechanism. I am not sure if there is a libricant and how long can it survive, but I believe bluray disc can spin up to 166rp second which should equal to 6 million rounds per average movie!!!!! I don't know if my number are correct but a lot of 2 decade CD spinners are working just as new without any maintenance.

2-So which part of the player converts the signal for digital to analog? The player? the wires? or the CRT TV? I will assume it if has analog output this means it has a digital-to-analog converter built in?

Its never too late!!! LOL

Oppo UDP-203 Blu-ray Player for sale online | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Oppo UDP-203 Blu-ray Player at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

well...the price is totally worth it. Going with what people are saying this is the best player ever made and it no longer is being manufactured. I would say its worth it. There is a rare LaserDisc player going for $4k+ and its used !

 

[HDFan]

These digital files have to be converted, and in the earlier days of blu-ray, most receivers did an absolutely atrocious job of doing the Digital-Analog conversion

elow aliasfox explained why audio is better in analog

His post discusses earlier digital > analogue conversions when DACS were relatively primitive. That is no longer the case. Many DACs, even those in iPhones, are pretty decent. Some individuals prefer vinyl, but it is hard to beat listening quality of a 9715 kbs recording converted to analogue with a reasonable DAC

 

[aliasfox]

2-So which part of the player converts the signal for digital to analog? The player? the wires? or the CRT TV? I will assume it if has analog output this means it has a digital-to-analog converter built in?

Depending on the specific make/model, any of the electronics (disc player, receiver, tv) can be the device that does the actual digital to analog conversion. If you're outputting an analog signal, that means the conversion's already been done. If you're outputting a digital signal, that means one of the devices down the chain has to do the conversion.

 

[aliasfox]

His post discusses earlier digital > analogue conversions when DACS were relatively primitive. That is no longer the case. Many DACs, even those in iPhones, are pretty decent. Some individuals prefer vinyl, but it is hard to beat listening quality of a 9715 kbs recording converted to analogue with a reasonable DAC

Correct - assuming they're all programmed correctly, I doubt I could blindly pick out an ESS Sabre relative to a TI Burr Brown (or any other brand) these days. That said, that landscape is ever shifting, depending on what multi-channel lossless formats you want to be able to play. Back 10-12 years ago, many receivers couldn't process DTS TrueHD, and would revert to a basic DTS or Dolby Digital audio stream. In another case, I had a Sony DVD player (S530, I think?) that had serious faults to the point that some dialogue would be almost inaudible. Playing the same scene, with the player alternately connected via analog and optical (processed on the receiver) was a night and day difference.

Speaking of iPhones - does the DAC even matter anymore? It really only needs an analog signal for the internal speakers, given that there's no headphone jack anymore. There was a point back in the day where iPods actually had Wolfson and Cirrus Logic DACs, depending on the model.

 

[Herdfan]

You didn't mention which Oppo model. I find that they make excellent audio players as well for music and if you have yours on a network, it makes things really easy.

I have the BDP-103.

Ok i do not know too much, but if analog audio is better why is analog video not better? Isn't the audio files on the disc stored digitally? I feel I am missing something here.

It is about the processing and conversion. The BR disc contains the raw analog audio files. If you are using HDMI or optical, the player has to convert them to digital, send them to the AVR, which then has to convert them back to analog to be sent to the speakers.

But using analog audio, the original data is sent directly to the AVR without conversion. Also, at the time, new Codec's were coming out, but many AVR's didn't have them. Using analog bypassed the need to get a new AVR for new Codec's.

 

[HDFan]

Speaking of iPhones - does the DAC even matter anymore?

Ah, yes, was thinking to the time when they had headphone jacks. Happens in the bluetooth listening device these days.

 

[MacBH928]

I have the BDP-103.



It is about the processing and conversion. The BR disc contains the raw analog audio files. If you are using HDMI or optical, the player has to convert them to digital, send them to the AVR, which then has to convert them back to analog to be sent to the speakers.

But using analog audio, the original data is sent directly to the AVR without conversion. Also, at the time, new Codec's were coming out, but many AVR's didn't have them. Using analog bypassed the need to get a new AVR for new Codec's.

how can BR disc have raw analog audio files when the BR itself is a digital storage medium

 

[phrehdd]

Ah, yes, was thinking to the time when they had headphone jacks. Happens in the bluetooth listening device these days.

For iPhone - external DAC would be the way to go. There are a few portable ones made for use with smart phones. As for Bluetooth, just an off item. Recently switched from Samsung Galaxy S10+ to iPhone 13 Pro Max. I have the airpods2 and honestly, they sounded better with the Samsung which really surprised me.

 

[Herdfan]

how can BR disc have raw analog audio files when the BR itself is a digital storage medium

I guess uncompressed would have been a better description.

 

[almostinsane]

Which is digital audio, not analog

 

[Alex771]

Is it okay to pick up this thread after more than a year?

"Is there an advantage for expensive Blur-ray players?" I am looking at this question from a different perspective. I am mainly interested in Blu-ray players without analog outputs. I want to route the video to a screen and the audio to a seperate DAC. I want the Blu-ray player to be a good transport, in the same way you might want a CD transport and not a CD player with an internal DAC.

With digital-only outputs, a Blu-ray player's audio performance will still depend on internals, as described at the end of avforums review of the Sony UBP-X800, but the digital-to-analog conversion is left to the next device in the chain.

So, in terms of audio, how does a "real" Blu-ray player like the UBP-X800 compare to a "cheap" SATA device like the LG WH16NS40? Both read Blu-ray discs. Both pass a digital audio signal (via USB, HDMI or SPDIF). Is there any difference?

I do not have a TV, I watch everything on a 1440p computer display. In terms of video, the LG WH16NS40 will deliver the video, and I am wondering what's the difference to a TV? Why are there no reviews of how well desktop Blu-ray players perform? It seems to be assumed that they will do just fine.

Inside a Sony UBP-X800, the actual disc drive is surrounded by electronics, whereas the desktop ODD goes through a computer. So what?! I am looking for a good reason why connecting a Sony UBP-X800 to my computer screen is a better solution compared to using the LG WH16NS40 or the ASUS BW-16D1X-U.

 

[phrehdd]

Is it okay to pick up this thread after more than a year?

"Is there an advantage for expensive Blur-ray players?" I am looking at this question from a different perspective. I am mainly interested in Blu-ray players without analog outputs. I want to route the video to a screen and the audio to a seperate DAC. I want the Blu-ray player to be a good transport, in the same way you might want a CD transport and not a CD player with an internal DAC.

With digital-only outputs, a Blu-ray player's audio performance will still depend on internals, as described at the end of avforums review of the Sony UBP-X800, but the digital-to-analog conversion is left to the next device in the chain.

So, in terms of audio, how does a "real" Blu-ray player like the UBP-X800 compare to a "cheap" SATA device like the LG WH16NS40? Both read Blu-ray discs. Both pass a digital audio signal (via USB, HDMI or SPDIF). Is there any difference?

I do not have a TV, I watch everything on a 1440p computer display. In terms of video, the LG WH16NS40 will deliver the video, and I am wondering what's the difference to a TV? Why are there no reviews of how well desktop Blu-ray players perform? It seems to be assumed that they will do just fine.

Inside a Sony UBP-X800, the actual disc drive is surrounded by electronics, whereas the desktop ODD goes through a computer. So what?! I am looking for a good reason why connecting a Sony UBP-X800 to my computer screen is a better solution compared to using the LG WH16NS40 or the ASUS BW-16D1X-U

A high end stand alone disc player more often than not is passing whether analogue or digital to another device such as an AVR/Receiver which in turn handles the audio and passes through the video to you monitor/tv.

If all you want to do is play discs to through your computer and an external DAC the chances are you are not really interested in anything but stereo sound? Beyond traditional set up, I have media files that do much as what you suggest - I play them through my computer and the "DAC" is built into my set of speakers. They connect via USB. I get stereo sound along with the image. There are ways to play discs and decrypt within a computer system. You may want to check out MakeMKV being used only to decrypt and playback, if I recall correctly, with VLC. If I am misunderstanding you let me know please.

 

[Alex771]

Correct, I am fine with stereo sound. I connect any playback source to a pair of speakers with a built-in Cirrus Logic CS42528.

I am saying that in its most basic form, a Blu-ray player is just a drive, like an LG WH16NS40. Compare this to – say, 800 to 1200 USD Blu-ray players. Focus on digital outputs only. My theoretical argument is that in terms of audio, the sound quality deliverd via ODD –> USB –> computer –> (DDC) –> DAC –> speaker can be the same as the audio quality from Blu-ray player –> Bitstream via S/PDIF out -> DAC -> speaker.

So, why indeed would anyone buy an expensive Blu-ray player?

I just purchased my first Blu-ray player, a Panasonic DP-UB424 (DP-UB420 U.S. version) after keeping myself from buying a used expensive Cambridge CXUHD.

If you just want to keep it simple and look at the bare LG WH16NS40 drive, I have to ask: why is nobody building a small drive like this but with the ambition that goes into the larger Blu-ray players? The build-quality, low jitter, low vibration, super-precision kind of ambition.

When you read the reviews, and ignore analog output capabilities, the differences are mainly about build quality, Dolby vision/HDR, HDR tone mapping, upscaling, picture modes, the chipset, supported audio formats.

I am just wondering, why are those differences not discussed in in the marketplace for desktop Blu-ray players? Once the data is deliverd via USB into the computer, I guess it is up to the playback software what you can do about image quality. Can you not have Dolby Vision or HDR10, 4K upscaling from an LG WH16NS40 (or any other desktop ODD for that matter)?

If you ignore all the additional non-essential, non-image-quality related stuff that's being put into Blu-ray players (analog audio outputs, networking features, display, support for SACD), how do they differ from a simple LG WH16NS40?

Build quality. Okay, what else? Does HDMI do something USB cannot do?

 

[HDFan]

"Is there an advantage for expensive Blur-ray players?" I

For desktop players depends on whether the best audio and video quality means something to you. It can have

1. many ports:
multiple HDMI ports so you can separate audio and video
HDMI in ports
Coax Digital output
etc.
3. Headphone jack and amplifier
4. Rich configuration options - resolution, frame rate, color space, etc.
4. It can play virtually every format such as SACD, DVD Video, etc.

The discontinued reference Oppo BDP-205 sells on ebay now for over 3 times its original purchase price (~$3K). There was at least one other manufacturer who based their product on the Oppo, but without some of the features.

Here's a review of an originally slightly cheaper model:

Oppo UDP-203 Ultra HD Blu-ray Player Review Page 2

The player’s Setup Menu options are extensive, filling 16 of the owner’s manual’s 91 pages. I’ll give just a sampling here. You can take sub- titles recorded in the black bars of widescreen films and shift them into the picture area, which could be useful if you have an equal-height projection...

www.soundandvision.com

 

[phrehdd]

There is an assumption on your part from what I am reading that "DAC" devices are all the same. This is not so. Also, not all "stereo" is the same either. Playing 2 channel from multi channel doesn't sound the same exactly as just "stereo" on a disc. Some discs may not have stereo or if they do, it is not the best audio stream. As well, some speakers play better than others. Desktop speakers in general are mid to low quality sounding (though we may like the sound). With this in mind, a reasonable external DAC is not a bad way to go. As I said, I opted for (powered) speakers that have the DAC built in and bypass my Mac's audio entirely (Peachtree M-24 with a 24/96 DAC internal).

Fancy disc players - my last disc player (I still have it in storage) was an Oppo 103. It has very good sound and did a better job with handling sound than my AVR which only was used for amp for the most part. Audio was great for music as well. As much of my discs are "archived" on a NAS, I could opt to have the Oppo see the file and play it akin to the original disc. I also, because it was on NAS, play it on my computer as well. From what you are saying, if you are sure that an external DAC is the way to go, then perhaps try the MakeMKV + VLC route on your Mac. I am sure there could be an entire thread devoted to external DACs from the simple plug in types that look like thumb drives to the units costing over a thousand.

 

[Alex771]

1. many ports:

A computer has many ports, too.

3. Headphone jack and amplifier

You don't buy a Blu-ray player for a headphone port.

4. Rich configuration options - resolution, frame rate, color space, etc.

Don't you have those when playing from a desktop Blu-ray player?

4. It can play virtually every format such as SACD, DVD Video, etc.

You don't buy a Blu-ray player to play SACD. This is just an add-on.

 

[Alex771]

There is an assumption on your part from what I am reading that "DAC" devices are all the same. This is not so.

I don't know how you infer this. On the contrary, I said that in the desktop Blu-ray player -> computer scenario, there is no doubt you can get good sound. For each of the audio formats a Blu-ray disc may come with, I do not have the experience as to if and how each of these can be utilized via a computer. If this is difficult, then of course that would be an argument pro fancy Blu-ray players.

Playing 2 channel from multi channel doesn't sound the same exactly as just "stereo" on a disc.

Hm, that's interesting.

Fancy disc players - my last disc player (I still have it in storage) was an Oppo 103. It has very good sound and did a better job with handling sound than my AVR which only was used for amp for the most part.

If a player can bitstream audio, then there is always an AVR or DAC than can make more of it than the player. Tell me why this should not be the case.

From what you are saying, if you are sure that an external DAC is the way to go, then perhaps try the MakeMKV + VLC route on your Mac.

Yes, I believe a Blu-ray player should bitstream the audio out and let dedicated devices decode and make the most of it. Hence the comparison with a simple desktop Blu-ray player. Regarding video/image, I don't have the technical expertise to say whether the same argument can be made.