-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Time to upgrade mjennings99! :ihih:
-
since the t163 doesnt have a hdmi hook up am I better off going with analog connections then optical? Thanks
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Uhh... you left me out too Mr. P. :sad:
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Boys boys! Fight nice now.
I vote for post #4. :ihih:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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."
|