Combating system obsoletism

[topspeed]

Hey guys, I'd like your opinion on my current quandry.

As many of you know, I finally stepped up to HDTV and am receiving my JVC D-ILA set tomorrow. While I feel I can hold my own on the audio side, the video side is a whole new world to me. What I've found is the new set is the first in a chain of upgrade dominoes. Naturally, I'll be upgrading the Dish stb to a HD capable stb w/ dvr. While I'm not crazy about the price (around $1k), cable is really expensive here so I'll stick with Dish.

That's the easy part.

Now originally, I'd always envisioned getting a universal player to upgrade my antiquated Sony DVD player, which is neither progressive scan nor has DTS. However, there are two factors that are making me reconsider this course:
1) I'm not sure SACD/DVD-A is going to be around long enough to make an investment in.
2) The emergence of HD-DVD and BluRay

Based on what we know, should I buy a nice universal like a Denon 2910 and enjoy the limited library of hi-rez available (this would somewhat justify my overexuberance when buying surround speakers and satisfy my "music first" mentality) or buy a far less expensive prog scan dvd player (~ $200) that has great video capabilities as a stop-gap until the HD-DVD/BluRay debacle works itself out? What would you buy for $200-300? The JVC is 720p native so should I even worry about the new HD formats in the first place?

This is all very confusing to me so I appreciate your input.

[EdwardGein]

I definately recommend you get an HD DVR with this. Maybe your satellite company rents one? I get mine from my cable company & its not very expensive and definately worth it as the picture & features are excellent.

Personally, when I play my Harmon Kardon progressive scan DVD player on my Mitsubishi HD TV, the picture is perfect & I can't imagine a better picture. You might try your out before you invest in an HD one. Even if you do want an HD one, the price will drop drastically within a year or 2, so if money is a factor, I'd hold out.

HD TV rules!

[topspeed]

I definately recommend you get an HD DVR with this.


Naturally, I'll be upgrading the Dish stb to a HD capable stb w/ dvr.

The wife won't let me get one without it ;).

Thanks for your reply.

[recoveryone]

Kinda surprise your just now making this move, since I have seen your name on this form for over the last several years. Any who, IMHO I would go with a mid price univeral player for now which will give you the progressive scan for better picture on your new TV and allow you to sample some of the new SCAD/Dvd-A format music. As far as the blue ray question, I would use the want and see mind set. As good as it sounds, it will all come down to which format the major studios will support. Makes no since to buy some awesome new gear(In theory) and have no way to show it off.

[Aldo WIngate]

The best way to combat obsoletism is to buy a new stereo system!

Who's your DADDY???????????

[topspeed]

Kinda surprise your just now making this move, since I have seen your name on this form for over the last several years. Well it is audioreview, not videoreview :p.
Any who, IMHO I would go with a mid price univeral player for now which will give you the progressive scan for better picture on your new TV and allow you to sample some of the new SCAD/Dvd-A format music. As far as the blue ray question, I would use the want and see mind set. As good as it sounds, it will all come down to which format the major studios will support. Makes no since to buy some awesome new gear(In theory) and have no way to show it off.You really think hi-rez has some legs left in it, huh? I truly hope it does, but an article in TAS has me thinking otherwise as the rumor is that Sony has pulled out of SACD development and the reality is that new releases have decreased to a trickle. This new dual-disc thing sounds promising, so i guess I could take advantage of the DVD-A side with a universal player, right? Any suggestions for a midpriced universal? I prefer the way Denon decodes rbcd's over Yammie and Sony, but I haven't really messed around with anything from ARCAM or anyone else.

[Geoffcin]

Well it is audioreview, not videoreview :p. You really think hi-rez has some legs left in it, huh? I truly hope it does, but an article in TAS has me thinking otherwise as the rumor is that Sony has pulled out of SACD development and the reality is that new releases have decreased to a trickle. This new dual-disc thing sounds promising, so i guess I could take advantage of the DVD-A side with a universal player, right? Any suggestions for a midpriced universal? I prefer the way Denon decodes rbcd's over Yammie and Sony, but I haven't really messed around with anything from ARCAM or anyone else.

Then I would absolutely get a new DVD player with HDMI. Smokey just posted a link to a shootout review of some new DVD players, and the mid-priced ($250) Panasonic looks like a winner.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=12908

I use an older JVC unit that does DVD-Audio and a slew of other things, but it's not HDMI, or has 720p (scaled) output like the Panny that was reviewed. With your new set, it's a given that your going to want to add a good source.

[topspeed]

Thanks for the link Geoff! I missed that thread and it was a real eye opener. I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to hook up all this stuff again so tell me if this is right.

The JVC has 1 HDMI, 2 firewire, and 2 component inputs. With that in mind, and considering this is my first foray into multi-channel hi-rez, I have a few questions:
1) Should I use the HDMI for the hd-stb or the new dvd player?
2) Let's say I use the HDMI for the stb, I still use its optical out to my reciever for audio, right?
3) In this scenario, now I'd use component out for the dvd player to my reciever to the monitor, correct? (I'm assuming a component cable can carry a HD signal)
4) For audio, from the Panny I'd need six sets of RCA's for the DVD-A, but do I still use the optical for the other formats? If so, will putting the AVR in "auto-select" mode take care of input switching?
5) Should I be concerned about no SACD compatibility? Technically, SACD is the superior format for sound but the catalogue is pretty sparse.

Sorry for the basic questions, I'm just a lot better with good 'ol two channel stereo :rolleyes:.

[Woochifer]

I think the answer to your question comes down to the degree to which you want to optimize the video processing, whether you want the SACD decoding to stay in the DSD bitstream before analog conversion, and how important the bass management is for your system playback.

The hometheaterhifi website posts regularly updated DVD player benchmark tests. This is where you should start in identifying the quality of the video processing and whether the player passes a series of benchmark tests. It also has a lot of good reference information on what all of the benchmark terminology means.

The primary difference between budget priced and more expensive universal players is with how they handle the SACD decoding. The more expensive ones are constructed practically like separate DVD-A and SACD players under one housing, with two entirely separate audio processing sections. Most of the budget universal players that sell for under $200 convert the SACD's DSD datastream to PCM before analog conversion. Purists would argue that conversion to PCM negates the sound quality advantages of SACD. Others on this board have still noted that SACDs sound great on budget universal players. The newer Denon players have gotten around this by using the newer DACs that simultaneously decode both the DSD and PCM signals on the same chip.

Lastly, the bass management is another consideration to weigh, and this is where universal players have been pretty weak for the most part. A lot of budget players have no bass management on board, meaning the signals for all channels get sent out full range with no crossover. (Some of them also lack level adjustments for the individual channels) Even higher priced players, including the Denons, have fixed crossover points with a lot of them using different crossover points for DVD-A and SACD.

As far as futureproofing goes, HD-DVD and Blu-ray haven't even been finalized yet. So long as your HDTV has a HDMI input, I think whatever happens with those formats, your setup will be ready whenever you're ready to make that upgrade. In the meantime, getting a progressive scan DVD player with good video processing will work great with your TV.

[Geoffcin]

Thanks for the link Geoff! I missed that thread and it was a real eye opener. I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to hook up all this stuff again so tell me if this is right.

The JVC has 1 HDMI, 2 firewire, and 2 component inputs. With that in mind, and considering this is my first foray into multi-channel hi-rez, I have a few questions:
1) Should I use the HDMI for the hd-stb or the new dvd player?
2) Let's say I use the HDMI for the stb, I still use its optical out to my reciever for audio, right?
3) In this scenario, now I'd use component out for the dvd player to my reciever to the monitor, correct? (I'm assuming a component cable can carry a HD signal)
4) For audio, from the Panny I'd need six sets of RCA's for the DVD-A, but do I still use the optical for the other formats? If so, will putting the AVR in "auto-select" mode take care of input switching?
5) Should I be concerned about no SACD compatibility? Technically, SACD is the superior format for sound but the catalogue is pretty sparse.

Sorry for the basic questions, I'm just a lot better with good 'ol two channel stereo :rolleyes:.

And since I've never hooked up any of this, save for the DVD-Audio, I'm not really the one to be giving advice here.

[kexodusc]

I went through all this just 2 or 3 months ago so I'll try to help you as best I can...

The JVC has 1 HDMI, 2 firewire, and 2 component inputs. With that in mind, and considering this is my first foray into multi-channel hi-rez, I have a few questions:
1) Should I use the HDMI for the hd-stb or the new dvd player?
Most cable companies aren't supporting HDMI yet...the lucky customers whose cable companies do generally report no improvement, over Component Video. For non HD-channels however, there is often reports that the video quality through HDMI deteriorates (extra D/A conversion?) My own experience with HDMI is that it isn't any better than component video, but only sports seem to be inferior for non-hd channels through HDMI. I went back to component video.


2) Let's say I use the HDMI for the stb, I still use its optical out to my reciever for audio, right?
For now, yes. Your next receiver will hopefully have HDMI inputs, in which case you'd probably run and HDMI from STB to receiver, and receiver to TV. This is the absolute biggest advantage to HDMI IMO. HDMI is a one cable hook up for video and audio, Imagine replacing 3 component videos, and an optical cable (or for multi-channel audio several additional RCA cables).


3) In this scenario, now I'd use component out for the dvd player to my reciever to the monitor, correct? (I'm assuming a component cable can carry a HD signal)
Yep, component video handles HD just fine. You can feed the receiver the component video from the DVD player, however, depending on the video bandwidth availability on your receiver, it might "bottleneck". Your receiver specs should indicate the number of MHz for the video section, most new receivers recommend at 100 MHz, but when I asked another forum the question, most agreed you can get by with 60 MHz (and less in some cases). If your receiver is like my old one, and you only have 30 MHz or so, you might be better off running components straight to the TV and skipping the receiver.


4) For audio, from the Panny I'd need six sets of RCA's for the DVD-A, but do I still use the optical for the other formats? If so, will putting the AVR in "auto-select" mode take care of input switching?
I still use optical on mine...Usually the analog inputs to the receiver are only picked-up if you select your receiver's "Multi-channel Input". The optical takes priority the rest of the time. This is how I understand most receivers to operate, yours might be a bit different.



5) Should I be concerned about no SACD compatibility? Technically, SACD is the superior format for sound but the catalogue is pretty sparse.

There's still a lot of debate as to whether or not SACD or DVD-A is the superior format for audio...I haven't been able to decide which I prefer. Unfortunately, the DVD-A catalogue isn't much better, and the new DualDisc format often "cheats" by not including a legit DVD-A track on it, just higher grade PCM format, 20 bit (or 24 bit) and 48 KHz. This sounds better to me than RBCD, but it's not all that noticeable. The multi-channel aspect is still nice though, and at least DualDisc does that.

Wooch already mentioned that some inexpensive universals convert the SACD DSD stream to PCM. The popular Pioneer 563A did not, but it's replacement does. You can still find a few inexpensive universal players that don't though. I have a cheap Toshiba and a more expensive Yammie right now, I can't tell the difference between them at all.

Given the price of Universal players, it's not a bad way to go. There's tons of excellent jazz and classical recordings available on SACD if you like that stuff. Last I heard, SACD wasn't being abandonned, just put on the shelf during the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD war. At any rate, there's enough excellent SACD music out there that it still might be a good buy for you. I've bought 11 SACD's since I bought the cheap universal, for the marginally added cost of getting an SACD capable player, it was worth it for me.

[topspeed]

The primary difference between budget priced and more expensive universal players is with how they handle the SACD decoding. The more expensive ones are constructed practically like separate DVD-A and SACD players under one housing, with two entirely separate audio processing sections. Most of the budget universal players that sell for under $200 convert the SACD's DSD datastream to PCM before analog conversion. Purists would argue that conversion to PCM negates the sound quality advantages of SACD. Others on this board have still noted that SACDs sound great on budget universal players. The newer Denon players have gotten around this by using the newer DACs that simultaneously decode both the DSD and PCM signals on the same chip.Thanks, I didn't realize there were different ways to decode SACD. Honestly, I don't have an opinion on one way vs. the other as I haven't spent any measurable time with either. The purist in me would think the less processing, the better.

Lastly, the bass management is another consideration to weigh, and this is where universal players have been pretty weak for the most part. A lot of budget players have no bass management on board, meaning the signals for all channels get sent out full range with no crossover. Wait a sec, if I'm running it through my Denon, won't the AVR's bass management suffice or am I missing something?

(Some of them also lack level adjustments for the individual channels)You lost me again, sorry. Doesn't the AVR's channel settings override anything the dvd player would send? In other words, if I've already got the thing calibrated, are you saying that the universal player may send channels so out of whack that it will affect playback levels from individual channels?

Even higher priced players, including the Denons, have fixed crossover points with a lot of them using different crossover points for DVD-A and SACD. That's bizarre. You're saying they have non-adjustable crossover points, say 60hz for DVD-A and 40hz for SACD? I can't even fathom the logic behind that. You can't use the AVR's bass management?

Thanks for all the great information :).

[topspeed]

Hey KC,

I wish I could say it's good to be back, but it's 104 degrees where I am at :(. I've been vacationing in Vancouver and at the Central Coast for the past few weeks and got used to the cool weather. It's been almost 10 years since I was in BC and had forgotten how beautiful it is up there. The city is soooo clean, the people are incredibly nice, and the cars are outrageous! I had no idea Vancouver had so much money. I saw more Ferrari's, Aston's, Porsche's, and Roller's in a day than I'd see in car-crazy SoCal in a month. It's a magnificent city and I can't wait to return.


My own experience with HDMI is that it isn't any better than component video, but only sports seem to be inferior for non-hd channels through HDMI. I went back to component video.One of the main reasons I'm going HD is to catch my Trojans in hi-def. It sounds like I should use the component out of the Dish stb.



Yep, component video handles HD just fine. You can feed the receiver the component video from the DVD player, however, depending on the video bandwidth availability on your receiver, it might "bottleneck". Your receiver specs should indicate the number of MHz for the video section, most new receivers recommend at 100 MHz, but when I asked another forum the question, most agreed you can get by with 60 MHz (and less in some cases). If your receiver is like my old one, and you only have 30 MHz or so, you might be better off running components straight to the TV and skipping the receiver. Great. Time to rtfm...


I still use optical on mine...Usually the analog inputs to the receiver are only picked-up if you select your receiver's "Multi-channel Input". The optical takes priority the rest of the time. This is how I understand most receivers to operate, yours might be a bit different. I thought you had to use RCA's for multi-channel hi-rez formats. You can't transfer dvd-a or sacd info through optical, can you?

I have a cheap Toshiba and a more expensive Yammie right now, I can't tell the difference between them at all.Good to know, thanks.


Given the price of Universal players, it's not a bad way to go. There's tons of excellent jazz and classical recordings available on SACD if you like that stuff. Last I heard, SACD wasn't being abandonned, just put on the shelf during the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD war. At any rate, there's enough excellent SACD music out there that it still might be a good buy for you. I've bought 11 SACD's since I bought the cheap universal, for the marginally added cost of getting an SACD capable player, it was worth it for me.
You're not making this decision any easier :D! We've been talking about the hi-rez formats so much, I don't want to forget that I really want excellent video processing as well. This tv has such a terrific picture, I want to take advantage of it as much as possible. Looks like I've got more reading to do.

Thanks for the great input (as always.)

[kexodusc]

Hey KC,

I wish I could say it's good to be back, but it's 104 degrees where I am at :(. I've been vacationing in Vancouver and at the Central Coast for the past few weeks and got used to the cool weather. It's been almost 10 years since I was in BC and had forgotten how beautiful it is up there. The city is soooo clean, the people are incredibly nice, and the cars are outrageous! I had no idea Vancouver had so much money. I saw more Ferrari's, Aston's, Porsche's, and Roller's in a day than I'd see in car-crazy SoCal in a month. It's a magnificent city and I can't wait to return.

Vancouver is a terrific city, sadly I don't get there very much. With the Winter Olympics comin' in a few years that place is only going to build up more and more...


I thought you had to use RCA's for multi-channel hi-rez formats. You can't transfer dvd-a or sacd info through optical, can you?
Sorry, guess I wasn't clear...I use both the optical cable AND the multi-channel outputs from the DVD player to the receiver. I only use 5.1 RCA cables, so in my 7.1 setup 2 would be unconnected. The optical cable also allows me to use the DSP's etc on my receiver (which I generally enjoy more than standard DD or DTS, but can't stand for music).
Some receivers won't allow for any processing, bass management, when receiving signals from the multi-channel inputs.



You're not making this decision any easier :D! We've been talking about the hi-rez formats so much, I don't want to forget that I really want excellent video processing as well. This tv has such a terrific picture, I want to take advantage of it as much as possible. Looks like I've got more reading to do.


Yeah, I kind of did it backwards, bought 2 universal players. Ended up using the better video player in my 2-channel system because it has 5-disc carousel and handles RBCD much better.
The crappy video player still presents an excellent picture though. In the end I figure I'll be upgrading players again in the near future to HD-DVD or BluRay (or hopefully a co-operative effort of the two).

Wait till you watch the NFL or MLB in HD. Here in Canada we're spoiled, Rogers is the largest HD provider and owns it's own Sports TV network, and the Toronto Blue Jays (who are surprisingly competitive this year). I've always been a Braves fan so there's some natural conflicts about cheering for Toronto (still mad about 1992) but I love the picture...

I

[Woochifer]

Thanks, I didn't realize there were different ways to decode SACD. Honestly, I don't have an opinion on one way vs. the other as I haven't spent any measurable time with either. The purist in me would think the less processing, the better.
Wait a sec, if I'm running it through my Denon, won't the AVR's bass management suffice or am I missing something?

With a universal player, you have to use the multichannel analog connections. On most receivers, the multichannel analog output bypasses all of the DSP processing and bass management circuitry. That's why the bass management settings on the universal player are so important if you calibrate your system and want to keep all of your sources somewhat consistent. If your receiver does extend the bass management to include the multichannel analog input, then that likely involves a redundant A-D/D-A conversion since the bass management on most AV receivers gets applied only in the digital domain. And with DVD-A and SACD, I'm not sure if you would want any additional A-D/D-A conversions applied.


You lost me again, sorry. Doesn't the AVR's channel settings override anything the dvd player would send? In other words, if I've already got the thing calibrated, are you saying that the universal player may send channels so out of whack that it will affect playback levels from individual channels?

On the channel levels, you're right, I misspoke. But, with the distance/delay settings, a lot of the lower priced universal players do omit any adjustments to that.


That's bizarre. You're saying they have non-adjustable crossover points, say 60hz for DVD-A and 40hz for SACD? I can't even fathom the logic behind that. You can't use the AVR's bass management?

Thanks for all the great information :).

With the Denons, I believe that they use an 80 Hz crossover point for DVD-A, and 100 Hz for SACD. A universal player that doesn't convert SACD into PCM right off the bat will include two separate third party audio processors, and the bass management gets applied at that stage. The crossover point is determined by whatever Sony builds into their DSD processor, and that's what the Denons use in their universal players. That's also why you cannot do any distance/delay adjustments with SACD, whereas a lot of universal players allow for those adjustments with DVD-A.

I know that Denon's flagship models (the 48xx models on up) include a parallel analog crossover so that the bass management can get applied in the analog domain with two-channel analog sources, but I don't know if those receivers or any others do any kind of analog bass management with the multichannel analog inputs. That's just one of the frustrations that have kept me from buying a universal player so far (like you, I plan on getting a universal player when I upgrade to HDTV, and still use a nonprogressive Denon DVD player because I use a non-HD non-progressive 32" TV). Good luck!

[topspeed]

This has truly been an education for me.

I've been studying the specs for the Denon 2910 vs. 1920 and it looks like the 2910 doesn't convert DSD to PCM, while the 1920 does (or maybe not?). It also looks like the 2910 utilizes superior video processing, better DAC's, and more memory, which could be important. Here's the link (http://www.usa.denon.com/catalog/products.asp?l=1&c=4) if you can make heads or tails of it.

I just talked to my dealer this morning and posed the same question to him. One of the most intersting things he noted was that at the past CES, Sony didn't have a SACD booth set-up for the first time in years. He also noted that there was only one booth that was using SACD as its main source that was musically involving, everything else was rbcd or analog. In his estimation, both formats aren't worth investing in and he recommended a budget progressive scan dvd player until the HD-DVD/BluRay mess works itself out. I bought my Cambridge stuff from him so of course he recommended the new 540D (which happens to decode DVD-A, but that wasn't brought up). My only reservations are that it doesn't have DVI/HDMI outputs (although I'm unclear how important it is to actually have those) and the player uses Crystal DAC's whereas I'm more familiar with Burr-Brown and Wolfson. At around $350, it would compete against a Denon 1920 universal player. What do you guys think? Anybody played with the CA 540D or 1920?

[kexodusc]

Topspeed:

To get you through to the HD-DVD/BluRay days, I think you can do without HDMI/DVI. It might offer you some convenience reducing the mess of cables a bit, but functionally won't degrade anything. If the rumours of resolution being capitulated at 480p on BluRay/HD-DVD player materialize, you'll need HDMI in one of those player later to take advantage of HD.

For this player, I guess the best thing to do is prioritize your goals:
Do you really want DVD-A? SACD?
Are they more important than picture quality?
Would you rather save money now to get you by for a few years until the market decides on the next format? Or is money less of a concern and performance the goal?

Being the uber-cheapskate that I am, I like the inexpensive Universal Players. Even with all their drawbacks, there's still enough of us crazy people out there who love'em to death and feel enriched by the SACD/DVD-A catalogue that is available. If you didn't get this capability now, there's no reason you couldn't get one in the future though if either format emerges...I guess I'm quite lucky in that my front 3 speakers are equidistant (cool word, can't believe I finally worked geometry lingo into a sentence) from my listening position, and my surround speakers are only 1/2 ft closer. My results are quite impressive. And for 2-channel hi-rez none of the distance/delay/crossover issues should matter much.

Even a budget Progressive Scan player on your new TV should deliver better results than what you had (unless it's REALLY budget). You could probably pick up marginally better video quality for the same money if you ignored the DVD-A/SACD stuff. Or luck out and get DVD-A. Then when things work themselves out in a few years, get a player that meets all your needs.

No sense throwing good money after bad...I'd hate for you to buy something now, not enjoy it to its full potential while knowing full well you need a new player in a few years anyway.

[ericl]

There must have been something wrong with the 1910 for it to have been replaced so fast by the 1920. Anyone know what happened?

Topspeed, fwiw, I was in a similar situation to you. I wanted good video to wait out the hd-dvd storm, and hi-res audio just to check out. I got a denon dvd-2200, which is reputed to have great video, (i can't tell because the dang component inputs on my hdtv crapped out!! - stuck using s-video, which is good but doesn't take advantage of the hdTV).

Our dearly departed video expert Woodman used to swear up and down six ways from Sunday that hdmi/dvi had no advantage over component in terms of video quality, especially when the content was just regular (non-hd) dvd. He'd say you were falling for their marketing strategy hook line and sinker (in his charming and cantankerous way). I took his advice and didn't worry about getting hdmi/dvi capable dvdp, and instead went for the now "obsolete" 2200 (non-hdmi version of the 2910 I believe). I am going to replace my tv soon so i will finally be able to test out the video.

I have about two sacd discs and no dvd-a discs, I haven't wanted to search them out and then pay a premium for a disc I just want to check out once or twice. the software just isn't there for me. Think about if it's there for you, because it could open up your options if you're not concerned about hi-rez.

As a cd player, the 2200 is ok, not spectacular. As a transport, really good. It should hold me off for a while, but who knows. I may have it for two years or I may sell it tomorrow!

[topspeed]

For this player, I guess the best thing to do is prioritize your goals:
Do you really want DVD-A? SACD?
Are they more important than picture quality?
Would you rather save money now to get you by for a few years until the market decides on the next format? Or is money less of a concern and performance the goal?You've nailed it on the head my friend. This thread has actually been quite cathartic (sp?) for me as it allows me think out-loud, as it were. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that video performance is becoming paramount as I'll likely use the the optical-out and have my Denon do the audio processing as it always has. The works for me because, as crazy as this may sound, I really do like the way Denon processed rbcd's vs. other makes.



equidistant (cool word, can't believe I finally worked geometry lingo into a sentence) LOL! Congrats on your linguistic gymnastics :D!


No sense throwing good money after bad...I'd hate for you to buy something now, not enjoy it to its full potential while knowing full well you need a new player in a few years anyway.Amen to that brother. I just found out the new TAS has a review on the 540D so I'm going to download it from AVGuide. One thing that I noticed is that the 540D outputs 480p while the Denon upconverts to 780p. Logically, more is better, right?

The search continues...