Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    14

    hdmi v.s optical

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

  2. #2
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  3. #3
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    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.

  4. #4
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    6,777
    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?

  5. #5
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  6. #6
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    6,777
    Time to upgrade mjennings99!

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    14
    since the t163 doesnt have a hdmi hook up am I better off going with analog connections then optical? Thanks

  8. #8
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  9. #9
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mjennings99
    since the t163 doesnt have a hdmi hook up am I better off going with analog connections then optical? Thanks
    Simply 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.

  10. #10
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Notice post #5, yes
    Not to mention posts three and four as well, which brought up this option first.

  11. #11
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  12. #12
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Just pointing out your astigmatism. I love how you parrot others ideas and come off like it was all your idea.

    Enjoy. Mr Pee.
    Last edited by markw; 03-04-2008 at 09:01 AM.

  13. #13
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    6,777
    Uhh... you left me out too Mr. P.

  14. #14
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  15. #15
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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
    Last edited by markw; 03-04-2008 at 10:02 AM.

  16. #16
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  17. #17
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Out there
    Posts
    6,777
    Boys boys! Fight nice now.

    I vote for post #4.

  18. #18
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Optical will have a slightly better sound on Blu-ray over standard DVD
    Better 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?
    Last edited by markw; 03-04-2008 at 11:55 AM.

  19. #19
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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.

  20. #20
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Last edited by markw; 03-04-2008 at 01:31 PM.

  21. #21
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    halifax,nova scotia,canada
    Posts
    1,083
    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
    Speakers-Jm Labs
    Disc player-Sim Audio Moon Calypso
    Pre-amp-Sim Audio P-5.3 SE
    dac= sim audio moon 300d

    Amp-Sim Audio Moon I-3
    Display-Toshiba CRT
    Wires and Cables-Kimber,Straight Wire, ixos, Gutwire and shunyata research
    Sacd-Cambridge Audio
    Bluray--Sony and Cambridge Audio
    Remote-- Harmony 1100

    Power-- Monster

  22. #22
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    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.

  23. #23
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    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?

  24. #24
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    You do know you're contradicting yourself, don't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by 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?
    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.

  25. #25
    Forum Regular captjamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    121
    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."

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •