hdmi v.s optical

[mjennings99]

Is there much difference in hooking up Blueray to a NAD t-163 surround processor with optical instead of a hdmi cable

[Mr Peabody]

Yes. Blu ray discs offer uncompressed audio as well as other HD surround audio options which will not pass via optical. Optical will have a slightly better sound on Blu-ray over standard DVD. You can still get the core Dolby Digital or DTS. If your receiver accepts a PCM decoded signal via HDMI that is the best way to go unless maybe using a multichannel analog hook up.

[markw]

I don't think your 163 can avail itself of the new blu-ray audio formats unless it has the six analog inputs for the six analog channels from your blu-ray player..

That being said, you're no better off, audio wise, using HDMI than you would be using coax or toslink.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I don't know anything about the Nad processor, but if it can't handle Dolby True-HD or DTS-MA like markw said, there's no need to use an HDMI cable. The fact is, an optical cable is like 10x cheaper, so why spend the money on an HDMI cable if you don't need to?

[Mr Peabody]

After reviewing the T163 it does not have HDMI, for optimum sound quality from Blu-ray you should use the 7.1 analog inputs if not already taken.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Time to upgrade mjennings99! :ihih:

[mjennings99]

since the t163 doesnt have a hdmi hook up am I better off going with analog connections then optical? Thanks

[Mr Peabody]

Notice post #5, yes

I'm referring to multichannel analog, you will need a RCA cable for each channel from the BR player to the 7.1 input of your T163. I'm sure you are aware but in case, 2 channel analog wouldn't even allow true 5.1, so if the multichannel analog is out for some reason the optical is your next best thing.

[markw]

since the t163 doesnt have a hdmi hook up am I better off going with analog connections then optical? ThanksSimply put, yes. The player should be able to handle all your decoding needs for all DVD's. The tradeoff may be that bass management in the 163 may be adversley affected, though.

[markw]

Notice post #5, yesNot to mention posts three and four as well, which brought up this option first. ;)

[Mr Peabody]

Yes, Marky, don't cry, I'm sorry you were left out, by all means you did mention analog first, we are proud of you.

[markw]

Yes, Marky, don't cry, I'm sorry you were left out, by all means you did mention analog first, we are proud of you.Just pointing out your astigmatism. I love how you parrot others ideas and come off like it was all your idea.

Enjoy. Mr Pee.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Uhh... you left me out too Mr. P. :sad:

[Mr Peabody]

Sorry Rich.

Ah, Mark, if you wipe your tears long enough to read the thread, analog was actually mentioned in post #2 which comes before #3, so sit on your parrot. The only reason I revisited it is because I researched what features the t163 actually had.

[markw]

Sorry Rich.

Ah, Mark, if you wipe your tears long enough to read the thread, analog was actually mentioned in post #2 which comes before #3, so sit on your parrot. The only reason I revisited it is because I researched what features the t163 actually had.Ah, yes, the old "ambigious answer to a direct question" trick. That sometimes works when one doesn't know the correct answer and others that do aren't around.

It's too bad you didn't come up with the correct answer the first time instead of confusing him. That's called "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with ,well, you know".

See how simple and direct the answer was in post 3? Simple and accurate beats verbose and confusing, every time.

Now, had you simply answered the question posed in post 7* instead of pumping up your ego while dismissing all other input here with that arrogant "I already told you in post 5" BS, this thread would have been over long ago.

* Like I did in post 9

[Mr Peabody]

LOL, actually #2 was thorough and provided info on all his possibilities. You just got caught trying to be a *sshole and engaged mouth before brain and tripped yourself up. It didn't bother me you were being a parrot, I'm used to you doing that by now.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Boys boys! Fight nice now.

I vote for post #4. :ihih:

[markw]

LOL, actually #2 was thorough and provided info on all his possibilities. You just got caught trying to be a *sshole and engaged mouth before brain and tripped yourself up. It didn't bother me you were being a parrot, I'm used to you doing that by now.Parrot, right. Now that's funny.

You just spout whatever comes to mind, relevant to the situation or not, thinking it shows vast intelligence. Instead, it just shows your actual grasp on the subject under discussion is, at best, tenuous.

That's like someone spraying with a shotgun at a target 20 feet away telling a shooter with an M-16 shooting at a target 100 yards away that he's a better shot

Speaking of spreading BS, didja ever get that DC to the speakers and eddy current stuff straightened out?

That's right. Keep on trying to impress the newbies with your vast, errr, "knowledge"

(Pssst.... I think he knew blu-ray offered better sound. He just wanted to know how to get it into his unit. The sales pitch was unnecessary.)

But, since you're in such an explaining mood, perhaps you can clarify this statement in (your) post # 2 here?


Optical will have a slightly better sound on Blu-ray over standard DVDBetter than what?

Is it "better" than a digital coax connection?

Is the "standard" DD/DTS different on a blu-ray than on a "standard" DD/DTS on a "standard" DVD?

How does a receiver know what to do with it if it's different?

seewudahmean, vern?

[Mr Peabody]

Now Mark didn't mom tell ya fits of jealousy are simply not becoming.

Your childish attempt to twist my post is so petty. If you don't know the answer to those questions you shouldn't be helping anyone. Optical is digital. According to the Dolby website the core DD and DTS will still sound better on Blu-ray vs standard DVD because of less compression. I don't profess to be an engineer but I presume a receiver's DAC would decode larger or smaller bit samples the same way a mp3 can play 48 kbps to 320 kbps.

Now please, just get over the tantrum.

[markw]

Now Mark didn't mom tell ya fits of jealousy are simply not becoming.

Your childish attempt to twist my post is so petty. If you don't know the answer to those questions you shouldn't be helping anyone. Optical is digital. According to the Dolby website the core DD and DTS will still sound better on Blu-ray vs standard DVD because of less compression. I don't profess to be an engineer but I presume a receiver's DAC would decode larger or smaller bit samples the same way a mp3 can play 48 kbps to 320 kbps.

Now please, just get over the tantrum.Actually, it's got more to do with the bit rate but ultimately, he'll still get better sound via the analog connections.

But, why won't DD+ work over a coaxial connection? Methinks you're wrong on this.

[musicman1999]

I do not believe that DD+ was ever used on a Bluray, it was a HD-DVD audio format only. I don't know is coax would handle it or not but i would bet that it would not due to bandwidth issues. Dolby digital from a Bluray has 640 bit rate while dvd has 448 bitrate
no matter how you connect.

bill

[markw]

I do not believe that DD+ was ever used on a Bluray, it was a HD-DVD audio format only. I don't know is coax would handle it or not but i would bet that it would not due to bandwidth issues. Dolby digital from a Bluray has 640 bit rate while dvd has 448 bitrate
no matter how you connect.

billI don't think bandwidth is an issue here. I read somewhere that toslink has a bandwidth of 6Mhz while coax has the potential of 500Mhz but, all in all, I doubt this would be an issue unless we were talking every long lengths, the type which home systems would rarely encounter unless we were Bill Gates.

And, Dolby Digital with a 640 bitrate IS Dolby Digital plus.

[Mr Peabody]

The thing is Blu-ray will not, or hadn't, until recently output HD audio bitstream. And even if he, or I, had a player that output HD audio bitstream our processors are not able to decode it, so we will always only get the core DD or DTS unless we have the HD decoders. Why buy a new processor when the decoder is already in the player?

[markw]

The thing is Blu-ray will not, or hadn't, until recently output HD audio bitstream. And even if he, or I, had a player that output HD audio bitstream our processors are not able to decode it, so we will always only get the core DD or DTS unless we have the HD decoders. Why buy a new processor when the decoder is already in the player?So, essentially what you're saying is that everything you said in post two is bogus?

Funny, that...

Now, to be serious, some, not all, newer receivers WILL decode the new hi-rez formats, but only when fed by HDMI. So, you were partially correct there.

As most of us here know, older units don't stand a chance and the only way they have to access this is via the analog outputs on the players into the analog inputs on units that accomodate them, which was my first, and only, recommendation.

but, the downside to this is that all bass management in the processor is now null and void for this feed. It's all under control of the bass management in the player.

If you'll notice, nowhere did anyone seriously recommend he purchase a new processor just to avail himself of the new audio formats.

[captjamo]

Sounds like a Democratic primary campaign debate.

Jackie Gleason quote: "I know that you know that I know that you don't know what you are talking about."

[Mr Peabody]

I don't see where you get the contradiction. Is your hang up where I say that Blu-ray using optical, or coax as far as that goes, sounds better than standard DVD? That is still correct according to Dolby Labs. The core DD and DTS will still have a sound advantage over standard DTS and DD. This is also stated on the DTS website.

Also, some receivers and processors who do not have HD decoders can still accept and play PCM HD audio signal via HDMI.

[musicman1999]

but, the downside to this is that all bass management in the processor is now null and void for this feed. It's all under control of the bass management in the player.



Not strictly true, my pre-pro will apply bass management to the 5.1 analog inputs, but the signal has to digitized before this can happen. It also applies THX processing, speaker distance settings and room correction.Now the listener must decide which he likes better, but both sound very, very good as the Anthem does it's job very well.

bill

[musicman1999]

I don't think bandwidth is an issue here. I read somewhere that toslink has a bandwidth of 6Mhz while coax has the potential of 500Mhz but, all in all, I doubt this would be an issue unless we were talking every long lengths, the type which home systems would rarely encounter unless we were Bill Gates.

And, Dolby Digital with a 640 bitrate IS Dolby Digital plus.

No, bandwidth is the issue, neither toslink or coax are capable of the bandwidth needed for high def formats.
Dolby digital with a 640 bitrate is not DD+. The "core dd" track taken from DD+ when using optical has a 640 bitrate but to get dd+ you need a HDMI cable for digital transmission or an internal decoder and analog cables and it has a higher bit rate than DD, at least according to Dolby.

bill

[markw]

I don't see where you get the contradiction. Is your hang up where I say that Blu-ray using optical,or coax as far as that goes, sounds better than standard DVD? That is still correct according to Dolby Labs. The core DD and DTS will still have a sound advantage over standard DTS and DD. This is also stated on the DTS website.

Also, some receivers and processors who do not have HD decoders can still accept and play PCM HD audio signal via HDMI.Actually, my point is that you implied that only a digital coax connector won't work, only a toslink connection will suffice.

I disagreed. And, up until this post, so did you apparantly.

How classy of you to try to slip it in without it being noticed.

[markw]

Not strictly true, my pre-pro will apply bass management to the 5.1 analog inputs, but the signal has to digitized before this can happen. It also applies THX processing, speaker distance settings and room correction.Now the listener must decide which he likes better, but both sound very, very good as the Anthem does it's job very well.

billWell, if he had your Anthem you might have a point. You know as well as I do* that it's rare that any unit will do bass management with an analog input, particularly older units like the 163.

*Or at least you should.

[markw]

No, bandwidth is the issue, neither toslink or coax are capable of the bandwidth needed for high def formats.
Dolby digital with a 640 bitrate is not DD+. The "core dd" track taken from DD+ when using optical has a 640 bitrate but to get dd+ you need a HDMI cable for digital transmission or an internal decoder and analog cables and it has a higher bit rate than DD, at least according to Dolby.

billSee item 10

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DDPlus_FAQ.pdf

No format besides DD+ allows that 640 bitrate. Also, I don't see where it specifies digital, optical or HDMI connections as a requirement to access this on existing receivers. Heck, many don't even support HDMI

[musicman1999]

See item 10

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DDPlus_FAQ.pdf

No format besides DD+ allows that 640 bitrate. Also, I don't see where it specifies digital, optical or HDMI connections as a requirement to access this on existing receivers. Heck, many don't even support HDMI

I guess my point was that regular DD can have a 640 bit rate, it does not need to be DD+ and a regular DVD can have 640, such as Pink Floyd's Pulse, and you need Blu or HD-DVD to have DD+.

bill

[markw]

I guess my point was that regular DD can have a 640 bit rate, it does not need to be DD+ and a regular DVD can have 640, such as Pink Floyd's Pulse, and you need Blu or HD-DVD to have DD+.

billAFAIKT, a "standard", commercially available DVD movie with old fashioned Dolby Digital clocks in at 448.

I've never seen a regular DD DVD with a bitrate of 640. Blu-ray, yes, when it's cut with DD+, and DTS has it's own set of rules, but never a regular DVD with Dolby Digital (no plus) audio.

And, as the pdf states, blu-ray discs cut with DD+ will play on "regular" AC-3 machines @ 640.

[musicman1999]

AFAIKT, a "standard", commercially available DVD movie with old fashioned Dolby Digital clocks in at 448.

I've never seen a regular DD DVD with a bitrate of 640. Blu-ray, yes, when it's cut with DD+, and DTS has it's own set of rules, but never a regular DVD with Dolby Digital (no plus) audio.

And, as the pdf states, blu-ray discs cut with DD+ will play on "regular" AC-3 machines @ 640.

Granted they are rare, but i mentioned the Pink Floyd disc and it sounds very good at 640, but they are rare.I have also never seen a Bluray with DD+, HD-DVD yes but never a Bluray.
The pdf refers to the DD "core" track that is extracted from high def formats for digital outputs, 640 for DD and 1536 for DTS. High bitrate tracks for sure, but still plain DD and DTS (5.1 max not 7..1 like DD+ and above are capable of)

bill

[Rich-n-Texas]

I think either you guys ran off the OP, or he's sitting there saying: Good Lord, what did I get myself into!!! :eek:

[markw]

I think either you guys ran off the OP, or he's sitting there saying: Good Lord, what did I get myself into!!! :eek:Sumptin tells me he knew that he got all the info he needed in posts three, four, and nine. :)

[Rich-n-Texas]

I agree. This thread could've ended after post #4. :smilewinkgrin:

[Mr Peabody]

Mark you sure go out of your way to be a butt head. Why would I mention coaxial at all if it wasn't part of the original question. I made no such implication. I realize now you are reading comprehension challenged, I'll try to be more tolerant of you in the future. The thing is you tried to make a stink about nothing and it blew up in your face now you are grasping at whatever you can make up to save face.

This should help, I hope you can understand it. Page 2 describes the core signal provided to optical or coax, and page 3 will explain even if a player output a raw bitstream of a hi rez audio signal it will depend on the movie to allow this to happen and the movies that will could be rare. So if Dolby is correct it is a safer bet to stick with the PCM via HDMI or MC analog for the HD audio signals.

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD/avrs/trueHD_avrs_1.html

[Mr Peabody]

According to this Toslink is limited to 125 mb and will not pass DD+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSLINK

[markw]

According to this Toslink is limited to 125 mb and will not pass DD+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSLINKNow, I know that you find and believe anything that seems to suit your needs, but you really should have learned by now to be a bit more skeptical before jumping onto things. We've been down that road before, haven't we?

Re-read (and comprehend) that link I posted for musicman and, please, get your facts straight next time, particularly item 11. For some reason, I'd put my money on what Dolby Labs has to say on this, but it's really a moot point.

Nowhere did anyone ever imply that the the "raw" DD+ signal would be passed via either toslink or coax, but only that a DD+ equiped player would pass data at a bitrate of 640 to a "standard" DD box as opposed to a standard DVD player with DD, which will pass 450 or so. And, until you can prove otherwise, I'll have to accept thst this applies to toslink and coaxial as well.

You do realize that this totally contradicts your original statement in post 1 where you imply that to get any audible benefit from non-HDMI connected blu-ray players you needed a toslink connection, right? You're getting caught up in your own bluster now.

And you wonder why I get on you.

[mjennings99]

the reason I was asking is that with the BR I have to turn the volume up to at least -10db to get some real volume and when I used my Marantz i achieved the same volume but much less(around -20db.

[mjennings99]

Iam sorry the Marantz is a Unversal player DV7600

[markw]

the reason I was asking is that with the BR I have to turn the volume up to at least -10db to get some real volume and when I used my Marantz i achieved the same volume but much less(around -20db.I know it isn't HDMI, so it's got to be either coaxial/toslink or the group of analog audio outputs. My guess, since I doubt this would be an issue with the digitals, would be the analogs but I could always be wrong.

If so, it may simply be that the new unit outputs it's analog audio at a lower level than your previous unit, which was stated as 2 volts, which is fairly ambiguous onto itself. What's your new Blu-ray unit say about this in the manual?

In any case it's not a show-stopper. your unit isn't putting out any less "power" than it was before. You just have to give it a little more gain than previously to reach the same level.

[mjennings99]

I am actually using my Marantz for audio using analog RCA cables and my BR for movies using optical because my processor doesnt have HDMI connections

[markw]

I am actually using my Marantz for audio using analog RCA cables and my BR for movies using optical because my processor doesnt have HDMI connectionsYou're using the DAC (Digital Analog Converters) in the Marantz to generate your analog sound. But, you're usng the DAC's in your NAD to produce the analog sound for your Blu-ray unit. Two totally different machines and DAC's.

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

You DO realize you're not getting that whiz-bang hi-rez blu-ray sound that started this thread, don't you?

[Mr Peabody]

Apparently you see and read into things that aren't there, your assumption of any implication is just false.

[bobsticks]

Wow. There's five minutes of my life that I'll never get back.



NP: http://www.dance-lyrics.com/ama/mish_maoul_b000egd26y.jpg