New HD-DVD info: not good news if you use component vid for HDTV

[shokhead]

With all the pretalk about how important bass management was going to be for multi-channel players and they still dont have it. Oh i suppose that will be the next generation player and milk somemore money out of us. And there's no doubt in my mind that yes, about 5-6 years another format,one i belive they already know about will come along. I'll just stick with the old,run down DVD. The whole game is wearing thin and i mean my wallet also.

[Geoffcin]

With all the pretalk about how important bass management was going to be for multi-channel players and they still dont have it. Oh i suppose that will be the next generation player and milk somemore money out of us. And there's no doubt in my mind that yes, about 5-6 years another format,one i belive they already know about will come along. I'll just stick with the old,run down DVD. The whole game is wearing thin and i mean my wallet also.

But my multi-channel player has full bass management, and it didn't cost a mint either. The sad fact for HT manufacturers is that the jump to HD is going to be IT for quite some time to come. After HD, "Ultra-HD" or what ever is next, will not be a big leap in quality at all.

[Feanor]

How then are you going to build a mass market format when you are offering exclusivity to only a few? I completely understand about the copy protection, but you cannot build a format that is going to be the sucessor to the DVD by asking consumers to purchase a new player, television AND receiver.
...

The industry loves to "skim" or stratify the market. First, they want to find the people who are willing to pay a whole lot of money for an improvement. They want to grab all of that money. Then, over time, as ordinary people upgrade and manfacturing becomes more efficient, they will allow the previously elite technology trickle down to the masses.

Is this a good strategy versus going at once to the mass market? Will it work? Maybe not, but it's some thing the industry wants to try.

[shokhead]

But my multi-channel player has full bass management, and it didn't cost a mint either. The sad fact for HT manufacturers is that the jump to HD is going to be IT for quite some time to come. After HD, "Ultra-HD" or what ever is next, will not be a big leap in quality at all.

Most if not all the players i've seen do not have as good of BM as a receiver.

[kexodusc]

Most if not all the players i've seen do not have as good of BM as a receiver.

I tend to agree with you on this point...That said, most units I've seen have "good enough" Bass Management, enough that it shouldn't be an issue.
Usually the crossovers are around 80-100 Hz when they're fixed. If you play the speakers as full range in the DVD player menu (set them as large), and use receiver's Bass management (which works in Multi-channel mode on Yamaha's, and NAD's for sure, I suspect on most receivers) you can by pass the player's need for Bass Management altogether.

[Woochifer]

I tend to agree with you on this point...That said, most units I've seen have "good enough" Bass Management, enough that it shouldn't be an issue.
Usually the crossovers are around 80-100 Hz when they're fixed. If you play the speakers as full range in the DVD player menu (set them as large), and use receiver's Bass management (which works in Multi-channel mode on Yamaha's, and NAD's for sure, I suspect on most receivers) you can by pass the player's need for Bass Management altogether.

It's not an excuse. The bass management that I've seen thus far on the universal players that even have the feature in the first place (most of the sub-$200 universal players have no bass management whatsoever) lacks the ability to change the crossover point, and in the cases I've seen, you often have different crossover points AND different crossover slopes for DVD-A and SACD playback, with the crossover DISABLED with uncompressed PCM sources.

For anyone who's used to having all of their analog and digital sources follow the same crossover point and the same crossover slope, this is absolutely inexplicable and makes no sense whatsoever. The bass management issue (along with the inconsistent availability of delay timing) is the main reason I have yet to buy a universal player, so I obviously do not view this as an inconsequential issue, particularly since I generally see plenty of merit to multichannel music and high res digital audio. For someone like me who uses a parametric equalizer with multiple EQ filters, this means setting up FOUR separate EQ profiles for my system -- THREE for the output from the universal player alone -- and having to manually switch the EQ profile every time I switch sources.

Setting the DVD player outputs to LARGE and running the output through the receiver's multichannel inputs is not as simple as you make it out to be. With my receiver, the multichannel inputs completely bypass the processing circuitry (including the crossovers), which makes that kind of a setting useless in my situation. Unless there's been a radical shift in design philosophy over the past couple of years, my understanding has been that this is how the multichannel analog inputs for nearly all receivers since the "Dolby Digital-ready" days have been designed.

And even if the bass management can be handled through the receiver's multichannel inputs, that still involves a redundant A-D/D-A conversion. If the signal coming into the receiver is already in the analog domain, I would prefer that the bass management get applied in the digital domain before it gets converted to analog, rather than having an analog signal converted to digital for bass management and back to analog again for playback.

[Geoffcin]

It's not an excuse.

That Multi-channel music was NOT recorded or mixed with sat/sub HT in mind. Most of the studios that I've seen doing multi-channel recording use 5 identical full range speakers.

While I agree that bass under 100hz is hard to locate, if there's a bass note that's designed to be playing in the right rear speaker, and the sub is in the left corner, it's my opinion that you WILL be able to identify that somethings amiss.

[kexodusc]

.


And even if the bass management can be handled through the receiver's multichannel inputs, that still involves a redundant A-D/D-A conversion. If the signal coming into the receiver is already in the analog domain, I would prefer that the bass management get applied in the digital domain before it gets converted to analog, rather than having an analog signal converted to digital for bass management and back to analog again for playback.

Now this I hadn't considered...another stage of conversion to apply the processing? I'll have to investigate...still, redundant or not, if it's done well and the sound quality is fine, it could be an option for some.

You do bring up a valid point...when including DVD-A/SACD on the new universal players it is frustrating to see that they've abandonned or ignored most adjustable parameters required to make HT work...My room has a large disparity in the distance of a few speakers...if you're unable to adjust the delays or levels to the channels, I wouldn't want to bother with a universal player either.

I wouldn't get too discouraged though...a few DVD-A's I have with DTS actually sound better to me than the DVD-A track, Crystal Method's 6.1 Legion of Boom for example. And I usually prefer even crappy old Dolby Digital in 5.1 to some 2-channel CD mixes, that might have slightly better fidelity or resolution than the Dolby Digital track of the same music. In some cases, it's not even close. Odd, perhaps resolution isn't as important as a more cohesive soundstage and superior imaging?
You don't need a DVD-A/SACD player to enjoy multi-channel audio.

[shokhead]

And thats why i like DTS. Its just as good to me then DVD-A and SACD. I think better BM would make a big difference.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That Multi-channel music was NOT recorded or mixed with sat/sub HT in mind. Most of the studios that I've seen doing multi-channel recording use 5 identical full range speakers.

According to a survey taken at Surround Sound 2005 amoung studio owners and engineers, it is split about 50-50 with some studio going all full range(some of the most expensive mastering houses) and some going with sub/sat system. The manual on surround sound recording and mastering introduced two years ago by some of the most prominent recording engineers(Phil Ramone lead the committee) states very clearly that all engineers should monitor on a sub/sat system to make sure of the subwoofer information is of consistant volume and not overloading the system. This should be done because they understood that some listeners would be using sub/sat system to play back multichannel audio. Not that many people are using identical speakers all the way around, and bass sounds very different on all large speakers than it does from a sub/sat system with a single sub.

While I agree that bass under 100hz is hard to locate, if there's a bass note that's designed to be playing in the right rear speaker, and the sub is in the left corner, it's my opinion that you WILL be able to identify that somethings amiss.

The problem with your logic on this is that you would not hear bass from the right rear speaker if you use a sub. All the bass would be directed to the sub.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I tend to agree with you on this point...That said, most units I've seen have "good enough" Bass Management, enough that it shouldn't be an issue.
Usually the crossovers are around 80-100 Hz when they're fixed. If you play the speakers as full range in the DVD player menu (set them as large), and use receiver's Bass management (which works in Multi-channel mode on Yamaha's, and NAD's for sure, I suspect on most receivers) you can by pass the player's need for Bass Management altogether.

Not one DVD player with SACD has adequate bass management for this format. If the DVD player has to convert the signal to PCM(which all of them do) then it is not adequate for this format. The signal should probably be all PCM if this is the case. Some question to ask yourself.

1. What is my DVD players crossover frequencies when using its bass management?
2. What is the slope?
3. Any high or low pass filtering?
4. How does this interact with my speakers?

Most people do not have the answers to these questions. And if they did, they would probably find it not adequate for their system.

[Woochifer]

Now this I hadn't considered...another stage of conversion to apply the processing? I'll have to investigate...still, redundant or not, if it's done well and the sound quality is fine, it could be an option for some.

Among HT receivers, as far as I know, only the flagship Denon models include a parallel analog crossover to use with two-channel analog sources to avoid any redundant digital conversions with the bass management engaged (I think that the multichannel inputs on those models bypass the crossover and DSP circuitry). Since DVD-A and SACD both require multichannel analog inputs, this would mean that any other model that routes the multichannel input into the receiver's bass management circuitry (and I'm not aware of any that do), would require an A-D/D-A conversion somewhere in preamp section.

You do bring up a valid point...when including DVD-A/SACD on the new universal players it is frustrating to see that they've abandonned or ignored most adjustable parameters required to make HT work...My room has a large disparity in the distance of a few speakers...if you're unable to adjust the delays or levels to the channels, I wouldn't want to bother with a universal player either.

I wouldn't get too discouraged though...a few DVD-A's I have with DTS actually sound better to me than the DVD-A track, Crystal Method's 6.1 Legion of Boom for example. And I usually prefer even crappy old Dolby Digital in 5.1 to some 2-channel CD mixes, that might have slightly better fidelity or resolution than the Dolby Digital track of the same music. In some cases, it's not even close. Odd, perhaps resolution isn't as important as a more cohesive soundstage and superior imaging?
You don't need a DVD-A/SACD player to enjoy multi-channel audio.

Believe me, I've already heard plenty of good things with multichannel audio, which is why I buy DVD-As. My frustration with the existing situation centers on my having to decide between 1) compromising the resolution in order to use the optimal bass management, EQ, delay, and level settings on my system, or 2) taking advantage of the full resolution of the DVD-A/SACD formats while using less than optimal system settings. If multichannel already sounds as good as it does with an audibly compromised format like Dolby Digital, I'm just waiting for someone to settle on a formula that allows the consumer to enjoy multichannel audio in its full resolution without the ridiculous market barriers that accompanied DVD-A and SACD.

With DualDisc, it looks like multichannel audio will catch on finally, albeit with less than full resolution on titles without DVD-A soundtracks included. DD+ and DTS-HD represent the next frontier for high resolution multichannel audio because they are backwards compatible with existing decoders and fully scalable from lossy to lossless resolution. If those formats catch on, then we won't have to worry about choosing between the limitations of DD, DTS, DVD-A, and SACD.

[kexodusc]

My frustration with the existing situation centers on my having to decide between 1) compromising the resolution in order to use the optimal bass management, EQ, delay, and level settings on my system, or 2) taking advantage of the full resolution of the DVD-A/SACD formats while using less than optimal system settings. If multichannel already sounds as good as it does with an audibly compromised format like Dolby Digital, I'm just waiting for someone to settle on a formula that allows the consumer to enjoy multichannel audio in its full resolution without the ridiculous market barriers that accompanied DVD-A and SACD.

You could just quit being so cheap and fork out $500-$600 for a new player...hey, quit driving your car for a few weeks, the money you save on gas could be used for that...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You could just quit being so cheap and fork out $500-$600 for a new player...hey, quit driving your car for a few weeks, the money you save on gas could be used for that...

I own a hybrid, how will this work for me?? LOL

[nick4433]

Why are you guys so much in a hurry to jump on these new and untested formats?

[Mr Peabody]

To my understanding component hook ups ARE digital. Is there both digital and analog component? Am I mis-informed on the component being digital? My cable box is HD and it only has an component output, I have to set the box internally to 1080i, is the cable company being deceptive by saying I'm getting 1080i and I only receive 480p? I know when I compare the analog to the same HD channel there is a big difference. And component was delivering HD before HDMI and DVI was on the market, so what gives?

[nick4433]

To my understanding component hook ups ARE digital. Is there both digital and analog component? Am I mis-informed on the component being digital? My cable box is HD and it only has an component output, I have to set the box internally to 1080i, is the cable company being deceptive by saying I'm getting 1080i and I only receive 480p? I know when I compare the analog to the same HD channel there is a big difference. And component was delivering HD before HDMI and DVI was on the market, so what gives?

This is what I'm talking about. Not worth the headaches and the accompanying acid reflex desease it brings. Actually my cable company has offered me a digital HDTV box which has DVI output and component outputs.
Does 1080i offer a sharper pcture than 480p? I am not even on the HD bandwagon yet but somehow I am feeling I am being screwed by my cable company in advance. PLease help!

[kexodusc]

Component Video is analog as far as I know, there's no further A/D conversion inside the TV recieving the signal. It's the same cable as your basic RCA stereo/video and coaxial digital cable.
HDMI/DVI would allow the digital signal from the set top box/receiver to be carried to the TV for conversion. Cables themselves aren't digital or analog. Its really the the signal that they carry that determines this, how they're modulated.

You can argue what's better or worse. Right now, most sites I've visited suggest neither is better for 1080i, so component video is fine. Some people report worse results with HDMI at this point, particularly with non HD stations.

Keep in mind, HDMI/DVI were not made to replace Component Video at all.

If your company is saying you're receiving 1080i, you probably are. Whether it's better than 480p or not depends on what the original resolution was and the ability of your system. I think Fox still broadcasts at lower resolution than 1080i, but your cable company/receiver converts it to a "false-1080i" signal for output to your TV.

The newere HD-DVD formats will be beyond the bandwidth capability of component video, and a digital connection such as DVI/HDMI will be required.

[shokhead]

This is what I'm talking about. Not worth the headaches and the accompanying acid reflex desease it brings. Actually my cable company has offered me a digital HDTV box which has DVI output and component outputs.
Does 1080i offer a sharper pcture than 480p? I am not even on the HD bandwagon yet but somehow I am feeling I am being screwed by my cable company in advance. PLease help!

DVI is already old and not what the new stuff will be using.

[Woochifer]

Why are you guys so much in a hurry to jump on these new and untested formats?

Nickster -

As far as I know, Dolby Digital and DTS have millions of decoders currently in use, so I wouldn't go as far as calling them new and untested.

(Assuming that the two-channel Nick is still with us!)

[kexodusc]

DVI is already old and not what the new stuff will be using.

DVI is just HDMI without the audio...same stuff...they sell DVI/HDMI cables so you can run the video uncompromised to your TV.

IMO, the audio aspect is the best part of HDMI, think of the huge mess of cables 1 HDMI can eliminate - 1 digital, and 3 component video cables, if you use DVD-A or SACD, throw 6 more cables in that as they replace the analog multi-channel cables.

[Woochifer]

To my understanding component hook ups ARE digital. Is there both digital and analog component? Am I mis-informed on the component being digital? My cable box is HD and it only has an component output, I have to set the box internally to 1080i, is the cable company being deceptive by saying I'm getting 1080i and I only receive 480p? I know when I compare the analog to the same HD channel there is a big difference. And component was delivering HD before HDMI and DVI was on the market, so what gives?

Component video is an ANALOG video output, and it has sufficient bandwidth to carry a high definition progressive video signal. In reality, there's no technical reason to upgrade from component video to HDMI or some other digital video connector. The issue with the upcoming HD-DVD and Blu-ray formats is that they will downsample the video resolution for the analog video outputs to 480p, which is identical to the resolution for progressive scan DVD. The true HD signal will only get sent through the digital video signals -- HDMI being the most common digital video connector getting fitted onto newer HDTVs.

The reason? Once again, it comes down to copy protection. Analog component video is a nonsecured connection, and studios are paranoid as hell about anyone being to create copies indistinguishable from their video library masters.

Analog component video WAS around long before HDMI or DVI came along, and that's why there are so many HDTVs out there with no digital video connectors at all. While there are plenty of output devices out there right now that will support 720p or 1080i resolution through analog component video outputs, there's no guarantee that this will continue indefinitely.

The same kind of pressures that the studios have exerted to make sure that the upcoming HD video disc formats only output in HD through copy protected digital video connections, they are now applying to ALL device manufacturers. If they have their way, the next generation of HD digital cable/satellite receivers and HD DVRs might have similar output restrictions that limit the true HD output to the digital video connections. Without affordable digital-to-analog video converters coming out soon, this will screw the thousands of HDTV owners who bought their sets before digital video connections became standard.

[Woochifer]

If your company is saying you're receiving 1080i, you probably are. Whether it's better than 480p or not depends on what the original resolution was and the ability of your system. I think Fox still broadcasts at lower resolution than 1080i, but your cable company/receiver converts it to a "false-1080i" signal for output to your TV.

Fox and ABC both broadcast in 720p (in fact, during the World Series, Fox was running promos about how the following broadcast would be televised in 720p, "the finest high defintion standard in the world"), while CBS broadcasts at 1080i. Not sure about NBC, WB, or UPN. Some sports fans have noted that the action looks more fluid and lifelike on ABC and ESPN HD's 720p broadcasts than CBS' 1080i broadcasts.

I think you're right though that a lot of cable systems upsample all of their HD broadcasts to 1080i. I believe that satellite does the same thing, although Directv by this time next year will have started moving all of their HD programming into the MPEG-4 format which will require that HD customers get a new satellite receiver. Not sure if this means that they will continue upsampling the 720p content to 1080i.

The newere HD-DVD formats will be beyond the bandwidth capability of component video, and a digital connection such as DVI/HDMI will be required.

As far as I know, the new formats will likely stick to 720p and 1080i at the outset, and analog component video has more than enough bandwidth for those resolutions. Not sure about this, but I think that component video has enough bandwidth for 1080p as well. As I mentioned, the push for HDMI to carry all HD signal content is less a technical issue, and more of a copy protection initiative. Ironic that DVD-A and SACD mandated analog audio outputs as part of their anti-piracy strategy.

[nick4433]

Nickster -

As far as I know, Dolby Digital and DTS have millions of decoders currently in use, so I wouldn't go as far as calling them new and untested.

(Assuming that the two-channel Nick is still with us!)

Wooch, I was referring to the video formats.

[Woochifer]

Wooch, I was referring to the video formats.

I kinda figured you were. (just doing my part to keep the Nick alien abduction rumors alive! ) Keep in mind though that the theme across most of this thread has centered on why people plan to sit out this round of format upgrades. I know that Terrence is dipping into previously untapped reserves of self-control to keep his mitts off of those first HD-DVD players. But, I think the consortia rolling out these new video formats are doing more than enough on their own to dampen consumer enthusiasm.