stricko
If by sub/sat you mean 4 bookshelf style boxes, a larger centre speaker and a separate subwoofer, then that's where I am.
I really mean full range (as in frequency) rather than full size. See below.
When you find out what it takes to take full advantage of DVD-A/SACD, it's no surprise that the market is only taking off slowly, but the DVD player manufacturers and retailers are using the capability to shift more expensive players.
It's not just the 6 analogue connections either. Also bear in mind the increased frequency range that the amp has to handle (some are advertised as being DVD-a/SACD capable, and that the amps on board DACs need to have high sampling rates to take advantage of the high sample rates on the disc. Then as I said, you need speakers that will do justice to the wide frequency range, or else, you need the bass management and even then there will be loses.
The problem is that to do justice to DVD-A, it has to be considered more in the way that stereo systems are. The revolution in 5.1 (and beyond) for DVD movie watching has lead to a sub/sat revolution and also derivatives of. I.e. many people will have a decent pair of fronts and run them off a stereo amp direct when in stereo mode, or via preout from AV processor/amp in 5.1 mode. Then the rears and sometimes even the centre are then often smaller boxes. For movies, this is usually more than adiquate and for stereo to, but for proper DVD-A and multi channel SACD, it is not and there is no recognision of this by the budget DVD player maunufactures who are riding the wave. They bolt DVD-A on more as a marketing ploy as you point out. It's already on the chip sets that they use anyway. They don't care whether the consumer has only got a sub/sat system or not so long as you buy their player. The fact that you may have been swayed because of the DVD-A means it did its job. I think the marketing ploy of better stereo play back from a single source, as with the Limit player you've got, is more credible, although I'd still feed the analogue to a dedicated stereo amp for best results. Until you do, as I said in my previous post, the digital feed might still sound better, but let your ears decide.
Many people get so hooked up on features, so much so that they literally do feature check lists one player against another, and buy on this basis not ever evan having demod either. Half the features they get they don't even need (it's nice to have just in case, thinking) and the fact that those extra features are the ones that may well compromise the features they do need seems to be overlooked.
I went for an all singing all dancing Nintaus player some time back. Prog scan, DVD-A, 192kHz Dacs etc. It even had base management but DVD-A still sounded crap via my Yamaha receiver and Kef eggs which aren't cheap stuff. The video wasn't that good either dispite having Zoran Vaddis V (or might even have been VI version) chip set. I realised then that proper DVD-A was another realm again and decided that I didn't really want to go there. Another argument entirely, but when you listen to a band/group/orchestra, they are always in front of you, it makes no sense to me to want to give the impression that they are all round you. I like the idea of higher sample rates and I like the idea of surround sound for some types of music eg, Mike Oldfield, Jean Michelle Jarr type stuff, but I'm not upgrading to full speakers all round, driven by separate power amps (or top notch A/V integrated amp) to get it. I think DVD-A would take off better if/when we get more into the descreet (in wall) type speaker systems where the speakers are still full range. It means hanging up the idea that nice speaker cabinets are pieces of furniture. Yes, a nice pair of stereo speakers are a focal point for any room, but six or more certainly are not (ask any woman!).
LMK how you're getting on with the player
Cheers
Croc