Multichannel Dilemma: What do I plug into the MC input?

[Woochifer]

Now I'm in a dilemma!

My SACD changer has come back from its rehabilitation tour at Sony's Laredo, TX repair facility with a brand new optical pickup and 18 months remaining on its 5-year ES warranty. The player can now reliably read my hybrid SACDs, and it's ready to assume its rightful place in Wooch's audio rack. But, that SACD player has a new neighbor, one that has been borrowing the multichannel analog input in the meantime -- the only one available on my receiver.

The new addition would be the Denon universal player (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=30685) that I bought last month. That player has been a great find, especially at the $69 price that I paid for it. Very good basic video and audio performance. I've been primarily using it as an unconverting DVD player to take the load off my PS3, which I use for Blu-rays and media streaming. In addition to SACDs, I also have been using the Denon to play my modest collection of DVD-As at their full resolution for the first time. Up to this point, I'd been listening to the 5.1 DVD-A tracks using DD or DTS output.

It would seem that the Denon is the keeper for multichannel audio duty. But, as they often do with their DVD players, Denon has hampered an otherwise excellent product with some horrendous setup options. The options for the delay timing and even basic level setting are awful. I cannot match the levels using the player's settings alone. So, while I've enjoyed listening to the 5.1 SACD and DVD-A tracks, the setup is less than optimal.

The Sony SACD changer also has some shortcomings in its setup options (namely the unusably bad bass management), but I've been able to use the delay settings and level matching to produce some excellent sound quality. Of course, the Sony's primary disadvantage is that it won't play DVD-A.

So, tonight I'm reinstalling the SACD changer into its old spot on the audio rack, but going back and forth on whether it will resume ownership over the multichannel input.

[markw]

(apologies to John Sebastian and The Loving Spoonful)

doncha just hate it when neither piece of gear does everything right and you're forced to make a decision?

With speakers, I'll generally go for the one that does the least things wrong. Hope that helps.

[GMichael]

Sounds to me like you need a second system.

[pixelthis]

THIS is why receiver and prepro designers need to get with it.
I have been shopping for receivers, and since they have HDMI I will no longer need the multichannel for BLU, so I can once again fancy the idea of a SACD player.
But really, do we need five SVHS inputs on a modern receiver?
FIVE composite?
And who still uses a TAPE MONITOR.
Its time to get rid of this legacy junk that collects dust and put on an extra multichannel
in, and just clean the rear panel so it won't be cluttered with junk that nobody
uses anymore.
REALLY!:1:

[Woochifer]

(apologies to John Sebastian and The Loving Spoonful)

doncha just hate it when neither piece of gear does everything right and you're forced to make a decision?

With speakers, I'll generally go for the one that does the least things wrong. Hope that helps.

Very sage advice! :thumbsup:

After reading your post, I thought back to why I bought the SACD player in the first place -- to listen to the SF Symphony's Mahler SACD series and recreate the live experience at Davies Hall as closely as possible. With their upcoming release of Mahler's 8th (The Symphony of a Thousand), a recorded performance that I saw live in person, I want my SACD playback as optimal as possible.

The shortcomings with the Denon's SACD playback are more relevant, since it lacks the delay and level matching that my Sony has. I guess I'll give my DVD-As a few more spins, and then plug the SACD player back in. The DVD-A playback definitely takes a step down with the DD tracks (less so with DTS), but at least the surround effect uses the correct delay and level settings.


Sounds to me like you need a second system.

Sure, I'll charge it to my GM card! :biggrin5:


THIS is why receiver and prepro designers need to get with it.
I have been shopping for receivers, and since they have HDMI I will no longer need the multichannel for BLU, so I can once again fancy the idea of a SACD player.
But really, do we need five SVHS inputs on a modern receiver?
FIVE composite?
And who still uses a TAPE MONITOR.
Its time to get rid of this legacy junk that collects dust and put on an extra multichannel
in, and just clean the rear panel so it won't be cluttered with junk that nobody
uses anymore.

It will take a long time before a lot of these analog components get phased out. According to a Ball State/Nielson study (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/hdtv_052109.pdf) on TV viewing habits released last month, more than one-third of households still use a VCR. This is more than double the number of households with a DVR, and more than 11 percentage points higher than the households with video game consoles. Only a handful of newer VCR/DVD combo units have any kind of upconversion to HDMI.

And before receiver manufacturers can phase out the analog video connections, component manufacturers will need to act as well. For example, all of my HDMI components (PS3, Denon universal player, and Directv HD-DVR) provide outputs for composite, S-video, component, and HDMI video. Yet, only a composite video cable comes with the unit and most consumers already already have drawers full of analog cables. Considering the outrageously high prices retailers charge for HDMI cables, consumers might think it better to just use their old analog video cables and only run a HDMI cable out from the receiver.

Older receivers needed to provide all of those connectors because typically they only provided a simple switch through with no conversion between the different connector types (i.e., only component video would get output through the component outputs, only S-video got output through the S-vid outputs, etc.). With newer receivers doing upconversion on all video inputs, and coming with the ability to reassign the video inputs, then it is more feasible to eliminate at least some of the legacy video inputs.

[markw]

If they were using them to record an analog signal, they're screwed. Setting these up to work with a digital converter (or STB) box is a PITA.

[Woochifer]

If they were using them to record an analog signal, they're screwed. Setting these up to work with a digital converter (or STB) box is a PITA.

That would depend on the cable system as well. So far, my cable company has maintained the analog channels. I would assume that taping from a STB or converter box would be no different than my pre-DVR days on Directv when I'd have to leave the satellite receiver on the channel I wanted to recorded, and set the VCR as usual.

Since I have a DVR, I only use the VCR for archiving things I no longer want to keep on the DVR, and for viewing older tapes. That 35% figure from the Ball State/Nielson study is already a huge drop from a few years ago.

[Auricauricle]

You guys need to step up...to Beta! :D

[pixelthis]

It will take a long time before a lot of these analog components get phased out. According to a Ball State/Nielson study (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/hdtv_052109.pdf) on TV viewing habits released last month, more than one-third of households still use a VCR. This is more than double the number of households with a DVR, and more than 11 percentage points higher than the households with video game consoles. Only a handful of newer VCR/DVD combo units have any kind of upconversion to HDMI.
And before receiver manufacturers can phase out the analog video connections, component manufacturers will need to act as well. For example, all of my HDMI components (PS3, Denon universal player, and Directv HD-DVR) provide outputs for composite, S-video, component, and HDMI video. Yet, only a composite video cable comes with the unit and most consumers already already have drawers full of analog cables. Considering the outrageously high prices retailers charge for HDMI cables, consumers might think it better to just use their old analog video cables and only run a HDMI cable out from the receiver.

Older receivers needed to provide all of those connectors because typically they only provided a simple switch through with no conversion between the different connector types (i.e., only component video would get output through the component outputs, only S-video got output through the S-vid outputs, etc.). With newer receivers doing upconversion on all video inputs, and coming with the ability to reassign the video inputs, then it is more feasible to eliminate at least some of the legacy video inputs.[/QUOTE]


Sure you still need some legacy connections, just not five of each.
WHO HAS FIVE vcr's?
As for "expensive" cables the answer to that is monoprice.com :1:

[GMichael]

Sure, I'll charge it to my GM card! :biggrin5:

Funny man. Just don't be surprised if that card bounces.



It will take a long time before a lot of these analog components get phased out. According to a Ball State/Nielson study (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/hdtv_052109.pdf) on TV viewing habits released last month, more than one-third of households still use a VCR. This is more than double the number of households with a DVR, and more than 11 percentage points higher than the households with video game consoles. Only a handful of newer VCR/DVD combo units have any kind of upconversion to HDMI.

And before receiver manufacturers can phase out the analog video connections, component manufacturers will need to act as well. For example, all of my HDMI components (PS3, Denon universal player, and Directv HD-DVR) provide outputs for composite, S-video, component, and HDMI video. Yet, only a composite video cable comes with the unit and most consumers already already have drawers full of analog cables. Considering the outrageously high prices retailers charge for HDMI cables, consumers might think it better to just use their old analog video cables and only run a HDMI cable out from the receiver.

Older receivers needed to provide all of those connectors because typically they only provided a simple switch through with no conversion between the different connector types (i.e., only component video would get output through the component outputs, only S-video got output through the S-vid outputs, etc.). With newer receivers doing upconversion on all video inputs, and coming with the ability to reassign the video inputs, then it is more feasible to eliminate at least some of the legacy video inputs.

I was shocked to see that both my PS3 and HD-DVD players came with composite cables only. Pissed me off that the PS3 need a special cable that even Monoprice doesn't sell.
I have a friend who bought a Wii and asked me to hook it up to their new HDTV. While back their I noticed that their cable was connected with composite cables. After going through the box of tangled cables they had in the closet, I changed their box to component cables. (No HDMI in the box) They couldn't believe the difference.




As for "expensive" cables the answer to that is Monoprice.com :1:

Sure, that's a great answer, but most people have no clue about them. They see HDMI cables "on sale" at Best Buy for $80. That's all they know.

[markw]

Isn't MC input a rapper or something like that?

[GMichael]

Isn't MC input a rapper or something like that?

Do you connect your inputs with a hammer?

[markw]

Do you connect your inputs with a hammer?Well, monster cable interconnects are pretty tight...

[GMichael]

Well, monster cable interconnects are pretty tight...

Must...
resist...
derailing..
thread...

Sorry Wooch,

Buwahahahahahaha He said tight....
Muwahahahahahahahahahah......

[markw]

I picked up a Philips four-way video/audio switch box that accepts composite, component, S-video, and the usual red/white analog audio connections.

That's four 75 ohm video and two (75 ohm?) analog RCA paths. This could handle the 5.1 audio with ease and still have room for two more units.

It's still hanging in the electronics gizmos section of your local Walmart and it's yours for $20. I saw this today.

I'm sorry this didn't dawn on me before. I'll blame it on age and a mis-spent (but well enjoyed, I think) youth.

[Woochifer]

Funny man. Just don't be surprised if that card bounces.

I don't normally succumb to word puns, but this low hanging fruit was too tempting ... :cornut:


I was shocked to see that both my PS3 and HD-DVD players came with composite cables only. Pissed me off that the PS3 need a special cable that even Monoprice doesn't sell.

Oh, but MONSTER will gladly sell you a PS3 cable! HDMI really is the way to go with a PS3.

I'm just surprised at how many manufacturers continue to only supply composite cables. I would guess that most people already got a drawer full of them, and don't need more.


Sure, that's a great answer, but most people have no clue about them. They see HDMI cables "on sale" at Best Buy for $80. That's all they know.

It's crazy how expensive HDMI cables are at retail. Even at someplace like Fry's Electronics, which carries bulk cabling, you gotta search hard to find anything less than $20. I did manage to find a 3m HDMI cable for $7, but it was not easy to find and got thrown into a bin with a bunch of other home installation cables.


Must...
resist...
derailing..
thread...

Sorry Wooch,

Buwahahahahahaha He said tight....
Muwahahahahahahahahahah......

You're all too easy. :hand: