|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.92.6.209
Is it better for the HD Master & Dolby audio to go with
a player that connects via analog out or go HDMI to a
Receiver? or is there no difference?
Follow Ups:
If you want good DAC performance, you are going to have spend somewhere, maybe having to upgrade two (2) components. I'm leaning towards the pricier Blu-ray players with high quality multichannel DACs and SOTA video processing.
I'm loath to replace my current multichannel analog preamp with an HDMI-capable preamp because I think it'd cost me a lot more money to get preamp-performance close to what I already have (I'm skepticle I'd be happy with anything else).
No one has come up with an HDMI-based processor that doesn't sound like mid-fi at best, so I'm going the pure analog multi-channel preamp route for a while. I've found the same as you - it's cheaper to buy a top-line player for several thousand dollars than it is to buy a mediocre processor for way more.
Lot of opinions here, but it all depends on the quality of the analogue outputs on the player, its internal decoding, and the quality of the processing in the receiver.No black and white here - just a case of suck it and see.
I use the analogue outputs of my Denon BD-3800 because the analogue outputs are recognised as being excellent, and my processor doesn't decode the Blu-Ray codecs. I could have replaced the processor with the newer version which does decode Blu-Ray codecs, and would have done if it wasn't for the reputation of the denon's analogue outputs.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Edits: 04/14/09
If you want to do a manual set-up and hear it the way you want to hear it, analog is the way to do it. If you trust a very basic microphone (which doesn't have the shell-shaped sonic passages labyrinth of your ears) to have the same hearing as you and you want to hear it the way a processor thinks you should hear it, go with HDMI.
If the microphone mimicked the shape of the external ear and canal, it would give you faulty measurements since it would provide a compensation for the system that does not exist with all live sounds. Thus, it would assure you of unrealistic reproduction, just the opposite of what is desired.
Now, I have no objection to anyone shaping the sound to suit his or her tastes but to distinguish between these two types of setups as you have is simply wrong, both logically and practically.
Kal
The point I'm making is the mic doesn't pick-up the sound the same way the ear does. Therefore it has significant limitations as a means to getting the best sound from your system. It's a convenience for those who aren't confident with their ability to tackle the manual set-up or for those who can't be bothered.
I've installed numerous receivers with auto set-up and whenever I've done the comparison (many times), the manual set-up has always yielded superior sonic results. It's simple why this is the case, the users ear knows what it likes, the mic is not the user's ear, and the processor's auto-mode doesn't know what the user likes to hear.
"The point I'm making is the mic doesn't pick-up the sound the same way the ear does. " Yes and properly so. If you do not appreciate that an objective measurement is necessary then you have little understanding of the logic or technology involved. There are valid scientific reasons for this and for why your silly/casual suggestion of having the mic mimic the ear or, indeed, the HRTF of the listener is wrong.
Now, as I said, if you or your clients prefer some other sound, you are certainly entitled to "flavor to taste."
Kal
As it is with an audio system. What Audyssey et al have come up with is a great marketing tool and clever feature which many find appealing. But to believe it is the only way to tailor your system for the best sound is to follow the lemmings off the cliff face.
I've tried many of the auto set-ups included on modern day receivers and they are a decent way to get up and running. For those who like a sound other than what auto set-ups do, there's a really good alternative. It's very simple. Let your ears decide. To many I've spoken with, manual set-up yields greater reward.
In rooms where the speakers have first say with placement over furnishings, by-passing the receiver's processor completely can also result in better sound via the Blu-ray players analog outs (providing it has the necessary decoders built-in of course).
It's a lot easier to understand once you've experienced it.
As it stands, you are either a particularly interested party in the auto set-up industry or you are Audyssey's wet dream.
You know, with some implementations of Audyssey (and not just the Pro version like Kal has), you can copy its findings, then adjust to taste. Not just the XOs and average level for each speaker, but the individual freq response of each speaker within at least a dozen freq bands. It may not be all you'd like, but it is fairly flexible, and not so "robotic"...Audyssey just gives you the starting point, and it does seem to do a fair job of that.
In order to use analog for those two codecs, the player must be able to decode them internally. Not all players internally decode all the codecs. In addition, the quality of the DACS and the analog section on the player is crucial to getting good sound quality. A player with quality DACS and an excellent analog section will perform in an outstanding manner. A player with an "afterthought" analog section will perform poorly. IMO, most Blu-ray players currently on the market that have analog sections fall into the "afterthought" category. The few that have good stuff tend to be pricey.
If you go over HDMI to a receiver, you are pretty much dependent on the DACs and analog section in your receiver. If your receiver has better components than your player, and the receiver is capable of decoding all the codecs, then this might be the way to go.
Thanks for the replys!
I was just wondering how good HDMI cables are, I thought it
might be better to go with some quality interconnects.
I've read how HDMI cables for audio are not that good,
any thoughts on that?
I would not even bother using analog cables to any AVR, mostly a waste of time IME. It's not what AVRs do best. Keep it digital/HDMI, so much easier. Now, if you had a good pre-pro that keeps a quality analog input in the analog domain, that's a different matter. As others said, it's mostly how good the gear is *after* the player output, whether analog or digital, that will be the main sonic difference.
I haven't seen any convincing (to me) evidence that a fancy HDMI cable improves the audio, when talking 3m or less. As usual, use a cable of quality you're comfortable with. I just use the cheapest Audioquest ones now as I can't tell any diff, and in fact the dirt-cheap Monoprice one I have seems just as good functionally but I like the AQ one's construction better.
One thing that is a bit "strange" about using HDMI for audio is that the bandwidth allocated for audio is set as a proportion of that used for video. So, if you want 7.1 lossless audio over HDMI, you have to make sure that the player is set for a high video rate. This typically only might be a problem if using a less-capable display while you're listening, because otherwise you'd just set the player to the highest video output rate (1080p) and not care what the picture is. It does matter for music on video discs though, since usually you need the display, and your display capability may not allow the audio rate you want over HDMI. Just something to watch out for, because the audio over HDMI can be automatically "degraded" without you being told...
I have the Monoprice also for Video. I have a glass optical
going from a Panasonic DMP-BD60K to a Panasonic SA XR-55
Receiver. The SA XR-55 does not have HDMI in, that's why I asked.
Sounds really good to me right now but I was interested in hearing
the new lossless audio. Maybe a new receiver is the way to go,
I was thinking of a Marantz - SR-6003 or 5003.
Personally, I would choose the AVR model that has the best quality Audyssey implementation within my price range. Right now, that is not generally Marantz for the price points. I would not underestimate the value of this feature for *movies*. I had no idea before I first used it, and truly fluked out on this. But really, ask Kal about it, he is much more experienced with it...And I'm not biased against Marantz here, I do have some Marantz gear in my main system. :)
Edit: or possibly an Audyssey equivalent. I am not sure how Pioneer's system really stacks up, or other modern ones either. I used to find these systems kinda flakey, so stopped paying attention to them, which is why I said I lucked out with the good Audyssey feature that actually did work well (IMO).
Edits: 04/13/09
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: