• 07-09-2007, 06:19 PM
    Mr Peabody
    What if everyone quit buying products with HDMI
    All I've heard for awhile has been HDMI version 1.3. I thought this was a must if I bought a cable or product with HDMI. While reading a review of the Panasonic BD10a I discovered it did not offer 1.3 but the writer said it was a non-issue since NO player outputs the special features that would require 1.3. I could see maybe a receiver being 1.3, it has to be ready for what is coming down the road as a service to it's consumer, or, do they just capitalize on the deception. Why would it be important for a player like the Sony to say they have 1.3 when it doesn't do any good? It's a worthless selling feature. It confuses an already technology dazed general public. When HDMI first came out all the sales people where yelling multi-channel audio, when in fact it only done 2.0. Sure, 2 is more than one, but we all know that "multi-channel" has come to mean more than 2.0. At least several of the original upconverting CD players did not convert copy guarded discs via HDMI. No one told you that, you found out if you read the small print in your owners manual. There have been people here that refuses to accept that, and it could be that this is something that was quickly resolved. I have to admit after buying the HDMI when it first came out based on what I was sold and then learning the truth I've avoided it like the plague. Now if we want to jump on the HD (digital) bandwagon and take advantage of upconverting SD we are going to be forced to use HDMI. We could stick with component (analog) and still get 1080i or 720p but I have yet to find a DVD or HD disc player that does 1080p via component and the current trend is not to allow upconversion via component. I haven't read every single player available features, this is based on the several I have seen. In my opinion the group behind HDMI are the most deceptive, lieing, dishonest snakes that ever polluted the electronics industry.

    If no one bought the HDMI products the industry would have to come up with another digital video or audio/video connection or go back to DVI. Some one had a good idea with HDMI but has been putting out a product that can't do what it claims while those who bought the products and the manufacturer's who felt they had to add it, all paid HDMI for this work STILL in progress. I sincerely pitty any of you who feel this is alright.
  • 07-09-2007, 07:14 PM
    PAT.P
    I read an article saying there up to 7,000,000 early HDTV with DVI connection that wont make the handshake with the HDCP protection .Without the handshake it wont work with components like HD-DVD,Blue-Ray and HD-DVR. :mad5:
  • 07-09-2007, 07:54 PM
    Mr Peabody
    I read you could use a DVI adapter with a HDMI cable to receive HD content. I believe the problem is the fact that the early HDTV's were not HDCP compliant.
  • 07-10-2007, 12:33 AM
    elapsed
    You may want to read the "Why you don't need HDMI 1.3" thread over at AVS: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789994

    When building my new home theater over the past year, my frustrations with HDMI and constant new digital standards led me to rebel by purchasing a two-channel system, with all analog audio and no A/V receiver. All of my video sources connect directly to my HDTV, so I have no need for a receiver with the latest and greatest processing. Unfortunately, HDMI is required from new HD Players, but it really does not matter to me if the HD Player offers only HDMI 1.1 or HDMI 1.2a, seeing as there are no HDTV's on the market that offer Deep Colour. In my opinion, HDMI 1.3 is marketing hype for the next 2 years, there's no reason to buy into this nonsense as you'll never be future proof in any case.
  • 07-10-2007, 05:43 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Thanks for the link. It's interesting when DVD came out everyone was saying our receivers will be obsolete, we need receivers with the latest and greatest decoding. At the time I had an Arcam processor with 3 channels of built in amplification and I used the "Theater Through" on my integrated for the other two channels. I sold this and bought another processor because I thought some day I wouldn't be able to find a DVD with analog outs. Now the industry does a 180. Forget decoding in the receiver and just make sure you have analog pass through.

    Some will argue, but the set up with analog out on the DVD will make having a quality unit necessary for good sound as it does with a CD player. It will be interesting to see if receivers drop processing or struggle to keep up with the decoding. According to the articles in the link that would be almost futile.
  • 07-10-2007, 10:43 PM
    O'Shag
    Does the ABT/DVDO iScan VP50 scaler output 1080p on component I wonder? Personally I do love the idea of HDMI, because it maintains the digital signal to the TV, and because it eliminates the need for multiple cables. There is one digital standard that exists that has unfortunately failed to become a standard; Sony's iLink iEEE1394. This carries multichannel audio. It works like a dream too. I have my Denon DVD-3910 hooked up to my Yami RX-Z9 via ilink and it sounds fantastic with DVD-Video, SACD, and DVD-A. I've done A/B comparisons between analogue cables and the tiny ilink cable. The ilink does deliver a better sound to my ears - considerably more neutral, balanced and more transparent.
  • 07-11-2007, 03:52 AM
    kexodusc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Thanks for the link. It's interesting when DVD came out everyone was saying our receivers will be obsolete, we need receivers with the latest and greatest decoding. At the time I had an Arcam processor with 3 channels of built in amplification and I used the "Theater Through" on my integrated for the other two channels. I sold this and bought another processor because I thought some day I wouldn't be able to find a DVD with analog outs. Now the industry does a 180. Forget decoding in the receiver and just make sure you have analog pass through.

    Some will argue, but the set up with analog out on the DVD will make having a quality unit necessary for good sound as it does with a CD player. It will be interesting to see if receivers drop processing or struggle to keep up with the decoding. According to the articles in the link that would be almost futile.

    This whole HDMI 1.3 thing has become a bit silly.
    I doubt receiver's will drop the processing - that's pretty cheap and easy to throw in as a value-added feature, and they can charge a mint for extra processing ability. I can see them delaying from adding all the processing features until the smoke clears and the market or industry picks a clear direction though. Good to know my analog inputs are still worth something though.

    I generally flip a/v receivers every 2-3 years (that's way too often). I suspect I'll hold on to this one a bit longer.

    I really do hope HDMI gets figured out, and adequately replaces analog cables while doing what it's suppose to do though - I have one ugly mess o' cables behind my rack and TV, even tied up and labelled it's a pain.

    1 HDMI cable has the potential in my system to replace:
    - 1 optical cable
    - a set of 3 component video cables
    - 6 analog cables for my multichannel music

    That's 9 fewer lines running from DVD player to receiver...Ugh.
    Until then, I'll just keep getting nagged.
  • 07-11-2007, 04:26 PM
    Mr Peabody
    O'Shag, you do realize that when you compared the digital to analog the decoding was done in different places and the circuitry there after would be different as well. Any analog out would have been decoded by your DVD player, hence D to A, when going out of the DVD player digital it's still digital and has to be converted inside your receiver to analog. Unless your receiver has digital amplification and then it would remain in some form of digital state.
  • 07-11-2007, 04:34 PM
    musicman1999
    It still has to be converted to analog befor it gets to the speakers.Ours ears are analog devices.

    bill
  • 07-11-2007, 04:52 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Bill, that's what I used to think too, but if you read how some of the Class D amps work they remain digital and are output in Pulse Width Modulation. In fact, any analog source coming into the amp has to be converted to digital before reaching the output stage. That's as far as I go, if you read it and understand it, then you can explain it to me:) This is what the Panasonic HT receivers use. My Linn is also Class D, although it wasn't until recently that I realized what that meant. My 5125 is 5x125 wpc and weighs only 11 lbs. and no heat.
  • 07-11-2007, 05:22 PM
    musicman1999
    Mr P.

    The d in class-d,does not stand for digital,in fact when these amps were first introduced a,b and c classes were already used hence the d.These amps are commonly called switching amps,the output transformers are switches.They tend to generate less heat,so they dont need large heatsinks,so can be smaller in size.There are analog and digital types of class-d amps,analog are considered the best by most people.With some very expensive exceptions(Meridian)all speakers are analog and must be fed an analog signal.

    bill
  • 07-11-2007, 06:59 PM
    Luvin Da Blues
    I may be slow in my old age but
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicman1999
    Mr P.

    The d in class-d,does not stand for digital,in fact when these amps were first introduced a,b and c classes were already used hence the d.These amps are commonly called switching amps,the output transformers are switches.They tend to generate less heat,so they dont need large heatsinks,so can be smaller in size.There are analog and digital types of class-d amps,analog are considered the best by most people.With some very expensive exceptions(Meridian)all speakers are analog and must be fed an analog signal.

    bill


    Could you please elaborate? A transformer converts 1 voltage to another (except an isolating xformer) and a switch well....switches. How do these two essentially do the same thing????

    I'm not trying to be a smart ass just trying to understand. Thanks :)
  • 07-11-2007, 07:21 PM
    Mr Peabody
    I think he meant transistors. When you read how these amps work, it's hard to discern really whether they are technically digital or analog. They output a square wave that is filtered. He is correct though in the fact that there are two types one being more analog and the other called digital by some manufacturers.

    If you Google Class D amplifier, you should come up with a couple links to some nice confusing information:)
  • 07-11-2007, 07:28 PM
    Luvin Da Blues
    Thanks Mr.P.

    I'm aware that a transistor is a switch that varies the pass thru voltage depending on the trigger signals strength...I don't understand where the amplification of the signal comes from if there is no voltage step up device.
  • 07-11-2007, 11:32 PM
    pixelthis
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Luvin Da Blues
    Thanks Mr.P.

    I'm aware that a transistor is a switch that varies the pass thru voltage depending on the trigger signals strength...I don't understand where the amplification of the signal comes from if there is no voltage step up device.

    The voltage is "stepped down" in the power supply.
    Transformers trade voltage for amps and vice versa. CRT Tvs have about 30,000 volts
    going to the tube and almost no amps, which are "traded" for voltage
    Current is water, voltage is water pressure.
    Calling a transistor a "switch" is inaccurate, valve would be more accurate, indeed
    early tubes were referred to as valves.
    Basically current going thru the transistor is controlled by the signal, this allows the weaker signal to control a larger current, much as a man at a dam can control a large vollume of water by turning a valve. Thats the simple way of putting quantum mechanics, anyway.
    As for receivers giving up on decoding this will have to happen sooner or later.
    I am tired of paying 1200 bucks for a receiver and having it obsoleted in a year or two.
    This thing is built to last a lifetime, but only has proII, DD, etc.
    A receiver with several six (or seven) ins would be very versatile, but receiver manufacturers want to keep us buying receivers whenever some toy comes out.
    Well, I wont pay a grand or two just to upgrade, I'll handle hdmi switching with a outboard box, and any new type format I get better have decoding built in and a six channel out
    to plug into my set, which has a great set of amps, which is what a receiver really should be about, ayway:ihih:
  • 07-12-2007, 03:34 AM
    musicman1999
    I am sorry,Mr.Peabody is correct i did mean transistor.

    bill
  • 07-12-2007, 05:29 AM
    Luvin Da Blues
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pixelthis
    The voltage is "stepped down" in the power supply.
    Transformers trade voltage for amps and vice versa. CRT Tvs have about 30,000 volts
    going to the tube and almost no amps, which are "traded" for voltage
    Current is water, voltage is water pressure.
    Calling a transistor a "switch" is inaccurate, valve would be more accurate, indeed
    early tubes were referred to as valves.
    Basically current going thru the transistor is controlled by the signal, this allows the weaker signal to control a larger current, much as a man at a dam can control a large vollume of water by turning a valve. Thats the simple way of putting quantum mechanics, anyway.

    Thanks Pixelthis..but your preaching to the choir here on electrical theory (I was an electrician for 20+ years).

    Your right that "valve" is a better descriptor. But if the output is a square wave the term "switch" (much like a relay) may be a more accurate term tho. Current would be equivalent to the amount of water flowing past a given point and your right..voltage is equivalent to the pressure. This is NOT Quantum mechanics...just simple physics.

    CRTs may not have "amps" but the do have transformers tho.

    Transformers are rated by VA (volt amps), so if you have a100va stepdown xform with a 100v input it would draw 1 amp (ignoring efficiencies..at best 85%) and if it has, say, 12 v output you would get 100/12 = 8.33 amps out. This works in reverse for stepup xformers. Its all about the ratio of the number of windings in the primary side compared to the secondary side.

    I still don't understand how the class 'd' amps work if there are not xformers to do this function. Capacitors only store the input voltage. I guess if you charge the Caps in series and discharge in parallel you could effectively reduce the ouput voltage while increasing the amperage to drive the speakers.

    Did I just answer my question????
  • 07-12-2007, 03:27 PM
    bobsticks
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by elapsed
    You may want to read the "Why you don't need HDMI 1.3" thread over at AVS: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789994

    When building my new home theater over the past year, my frustrations with HDMI and constant new digital standards led me to rebel by purchasing a two-channel system, with all analog audio and no A/V receiver. All of my video sources connect directly to my HDTV, so I have no need for a receiver with the latest and greatest processing. Unfortunately, HDMI is required from new HD Players, but it really does not matter to me if the HD Player offers only HDMI 1.1 or HDMI 1.2a, seeing as there are no HDTV's on the market that offer Deep Colour. In my opinion, HDMI 1.3 is marketing hype for the next 2 years, there's no reason to buy into this nonsense as you'll never be future proof in any case.

    I'm not sure that yours isn't the most appropriate response and I share Pixel's apprehension about receiver purchases that are going to be outdated in a year or two. I don't doubt the figure of 7 million useless sets and am convinced that the industry would do it again with nary a second thought.

    Thanks for the good read.
  • 07-13-2007, 05:15 PM
    O'Shag
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    O'Shag, you do realize that when you compared the digital to analog the decoding was done in different places and the circuitry there after would be different as well. Any analog out would have been decoded by your DVD player, hence D to A, when going out of the DVD player digital it's still digital and has to be converted inside your receiver to analog. Unless your receiver has digital amplification and then it would remain in some form of digital state.

    Mr. P.

    I didn't think of that. Perhaps its not a level playing field a/b-ing the two then. That said, I do like one little cable as opposed to having to deal with another 6 cables for audio out. My system is overrun with cables and they are a pain in the butt to deal with. The ilink cable does sound very good although you wouldn't think it to look at this skinny little cable.

    With respect to Class D; I just bought a Class D digital amp. Haven't heard it yet but just wanted to know for myself how this technology done-right sounds. there seems to be very polorized opinion on digital switching amps, some people swearing by them and others finding them not quite right on the top end or slightly un-natural. I'm picking it up tomorrow so I'll be able to give my impressions then. By the way Mr. P, I would love to get the CJ ACT2 preamp - chance would be a fine thing....
  • 07-13-2007, 05:33 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Which Class D amp did you get? I think Class D or T, will be like any other amp technology, it will depend on the manufacturer.

    For instance, my Linn, the upper bass registers are pretty good but the lower loses something, it's there, just sounds a bit off. The lower bass resembles the bass produced by my old Velodyne sub. The Velodyne is killer for HT, but I wouldn't use it in a music set up. On the other hand, T+A amps I've heard create some of the best bass I've heard.

    I think as the design catches on and engineers figure out better ways to deal with the distortion issues unique to digital amps, maybe the overall sound will become more natural.
  • 07-14-2007, 07:07 PM
    O'Shag
    :7: Mr. P.,
    I was very fortunate to get a Spectron 1KW digital amp, and not only that, I got the matching spectron preamp. Both of these units are very special, because the amp is serial number 2 and the preamp is serial number 1, both handbuilt buy John Ulrick himself (a key figure in digital amp design). The spectron sign is silk screened in red, where the production amps are silk-screened in gold. My amp is different than the production models having left and right gain controls, as well as left and right LED level-indicators. All buttons and knobs on the amp and preamp are gold plated. They really are a beautiful pair. The preamp is sensational - and I've heard a lot of preamps. It has a phono stage built in, which I've yet to try. After I listen for a while I'll give my impressions on the amp.

    I'm very excited about a pair of Mark Levinson No 27s that are on their way to me. I wonder how they'll sound compared to the Spectron?
  • 07-14-2007, 07:54 PM
    Mr Peabody
    Nice... You are building up quite a renouned collection of gear. Too bad you aren't in my neighborhood.