hdmi v.s optical

[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.

bill

Well, 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.

bill

See item 10

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech...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...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+.

bill

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.

[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!!!

[markw]

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

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.

[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/techno...HD_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/TOSLINK

Now, 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 connections

You'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: