Purchased...Denon dvd 1920

[anamorphic96]

He actually HAS to use analogue cables to get the SACD signal to his receiver.

Orgasmdonor keep this in mind.

1. If you use an optical connection you are bypassing the Denon and using the HK's intenral decoders.

2. If you use the analogue connections you will be using the Denon's internal decoders.

So if you really want to know what the Denon sounds like go with analogue connections. If you go optical then you are listening to the Harmon Kardon.

Also getting a decent set of analogue cables for the DVD A and SACD connections is a good idea since the cables that come with players are pretty bad. Spending no more than 70 to100 bucks will get a you a great set of audio and video cables. Spending more on cables is useless and a waste of money. The rule of thumb in audio is to spend about 10% of your budget on cables.

[EdwardGein]

I think right now he doesn't even have any SACD or DVD-A recordings so that should be the last thing on his mind. I am referring to CD's & obviously DVDs as well. He shouldn't even try to listen via analogue if he has a cheap bunch of analogue cables because that will affect the sound. His CD sound will be basically consistant with a decent $20 optic cable. If he wants the receiver to take over his connection not the DVD player he still can do so when connected by optic cable by just making that part of the set up. I honestly don't even remember how many analogue cables are necessary when connecting your DVD player to a receiver for a regular CD or DVD- is it 5 for everything, its been that long since I attempted it? In any case, decent sounding analogue cables will cost I'd say over $150 retail. Keep in mind this is based on my perception of prices 2 years ago, maybe prices have gone down.

My prediction. His initial set up will be a disaster for him but if he gets someone to actually set the system up & tweak where necessary (like cables etc.) he'll be happy with the outcome.

[anamorphic96]

I think right now he doesn't even have any SACD or DVD-A recordings so that should be the last thing on his mind. I am referring to CD's & obviously DVDs as well. He shouldn't even try to listen via analogue if he has a cheap bunch of analogue cables because that will affect the sound. His CD sound will be basically consistant with a decent $20 optic cable. I honestly don't even remember how many analogue cables are necessary when connecting your DVD player to a receiver for a regular CD or DVD- is it 5 for everything, its been that long since I attempted it? In any case, decent sounding analogue cables will cost I'd say over $150 retail. Keep in mind this is based on my perception of prices 2 years ago, maybe prices have gone down.

My prediction. His initial set up will be a disaster for him but if he gets someone to actually set the system up & tweak where necessary (like cables etc.) he'll be happy with the outcome.

No more than 40 to 50 bucks for a set of stereo cables is needed. 150 is way to much to spend for an entry level DVD player. Thats around 50% of DVD player.

Hey Ed go over to Audioholics.com and get some insight on cables. You might be surprised. Plus it's all based on hard science. If you dont want to head over there why dont you explain in detail why a 150 analogue cable will peform better than a 30 to 40 dollar one.

Also Ed you can use the 6 channel analogue audio cables for basic stereo as well.

[Eric Z]

You guys bring up some good points- I have a few questions though. I currently use an optical cable for my connection between my DVD player and receiver. Is that bad? I thought optical/coaxial was the best route to go. I'm using a Yamaha 5760 in one set-up and a Yamaha 657 in the other. Fyi, I have a basic DVD player (< $100) with no DVD-A or SACD.

I know I can try both and see what sounds better, but I'm just curious about the way it's made to be connected.

Thanks.
Eric

[edtyct]

With all due respect, this advice about "decent-sounding analog cables" sounds a bit presumptuous to me, if not a little insulting to orgasmdonor (especially the part about him needing someone to set up his system for him). I fully subscribe to the idea that exorbitant spending on cables may be a waste of money, but I also think that the price point may slide according to how resolved a system happens to be. But without extensive testing of a wide range of cables at various price points, or some informed bias about the physics of sound transmission that precludes it, any pronouncements about what cables can or can't do is ill-advised. The fact that music at least sounds pretty good through almost any cable tends to lure people into the faulty contention that cables make no difference.

Movie surround via 5.1 analog cables from a DVD player has little value, but sometimes (as anamorphic says), stereo redbook CDs can sound better through a DVD player's stereo analog output directly to a receiver's amp stage than through a digital cable for processing by a receiver's own DACs. The proof is in the listening.

At any rate, buying coaxial or optical cables for DVD players, STBs, etc., as well as associated video cables, to replace what came in the boxes, is obligatory. So is a reputable set of analog cables for SACD and/or DVD-A, if the formats are important (I hope so; they can be a revelation).

[EdwardGein]

In all respect, if you want so called improved sound on a fancy system you need to have a good set of analogue cables if you do not want to use optic cable & like everything else, good costs. An analogy is component cables for your HD TV. The cable company gives you a free generic cheap set of component cables but no one who invests in an HD TV uses them and they buy a decent better set of component cables privately for probably $75 upwards. Same with analogue cables. I wasn't trying to insult anyone but I was basing my recommendations based on his previous posts which gave me the impression that he wasn't aware if he had one weak link in his sytem that would affect the whole system.

[drseid]

In all respect, if you want so called improved sound on a fancy system you need to have a good set of analogue cables if you do not want to use optic cable & like everything else, good costs.

Cables are *way* overrated IMO. I have a very revealing system, but I would not recommend anyone waste much money on cables no matter what their system costs (unless they want to impress audiophiles with their cost). I do agree that the cables that come with DVD players and the like in the box are throw away quality... But most decent grade interconnects bought after-market are more than sufficient (entry level AR or Monster cables for example). I won't go as far as to say there are no differences between cables, but after you get past the bottom rung (the ones that come in the box), the incremental improvement to sound is quite insignificant compared to the additional cost. A *much* better investment is in the speakers themselves, as your dollar buys far more improvement in sound, IMO.

---Dave

[EdwardGein]

I agree with your statement that speakers will make a bigger difference then cables but if you invest in a decent speaker system then you may as well invest in a decent cable system as well, whether optic cable or analogue. I can't speak from your experinece with cables but in my case for both optic and analogue cables I do notice differences in sound quality, specifically in regards to regular CD's & if I was blindfolded & you played the same song on the same system with different cables each time, I'd say I could identify a different cable was used 90% of the time. Again and this isn't trying to brag, I did record producing professionally a decade ago and so my ears are more atuned to slight differences in sound that other people might not notice. As far as differences in audio quality being worth spending alot of money on, that's basically down to someones tastes. My personal philosophy is if your going to invest some bucks on a good sound system then you may as well go full tilt on the cables too and not try to save there.

Cables are *way* overrated IMO. I have a very revealing system, but I would not recommend anyone waste much money on cables no matter what their system costs (unless they want to impress audiophiles with their cost). I do agree that the cables that come with DVD players and the like in the box are throw away quality... But most decent grade interconnects bought after-market are more than sufficient (entry level AR or Monster cables for example). I won't go as far as to say there are no differences between cables, but after you get past the bottom rung (the ones that come in the box), the incremental improvement to sound is quite insignificant compared to the additional cost. A *much* better investment is in the speakers themselves, as your dollar buys far more improvement in sound, IMO.

---Dave

[Smokey]

My personal philosophy is if your going to invest some bucks on a good sound system then you may as well go full tilt on the cables too and not try to save there.

That statement is kind of misleading. As far as cables are concerned, quality and price are not always linear. Higher priced cables does not necessary buy one more transparency (although it might alter the sound of system intentionally which some perceived as better).

So one should decide if they want transparency (not that expensive to achieve), or altered sound out of their cable (this could run into thousands)

[edtyct]

Eric,

Given the age and pedigree of your DVD player, I'd say that you probably don't need to second-guess your current connection. Going analog into the receiver is warranted only when the digital to analog converter in the DVD player is better than the one in the receiver. Either connection is legitimate, but the analog one isn't so privy to all of the digital goodies that a receiver may have to offer (like bass management etc). It's usually the domain of those with great CD or DVD players whom a friend of mine refers to as "two-channel freaks" (he's one of them). And, as I said, the analog route is better only under certain conditions.

[edtyct]

Let me throw this out for grabs. What don't you hear when the cables aren't up to snuff? In all seriousness, I find it difficult to describe subtle improvements in sound. It's relatively easy to say, "Bass sounds fuller, the highs are more extended, and the overall balance is better." But sometimes the differences are harder to articulate. There are issues concerning timber and accuracy, but I'm not always sure what the correct timbre of a violin at Sympony Hall is through a particular microphone or just how a Rickenbacker 12-string is supposed to sound through DIY amplification. Similar difficulties obtrude when it comes to the attack or decay of notes, or even the ambience of a live venue or a fake one created via a multichannel mix. In general, how do people justify hearing "better sound," especially when they're putting the onus on a set of audio cables? I'm not a skeptic about better sound at all myself, even in increments that someone as close to me as my wife would scarcely bother to notice (though her hearing is much better than mine). However, I do think that we often make knee-jerk assumptions about abstract sonic valuations that come to us secondhand, just by force of general opinion (which need not run in one direction). We can almost think that we hear it ourselves until someone subjects us to, say, a blind listening test, and we fall flat on our faces. I'm not trying to say that the only way to justify difference is through blind listening, because I believe that it omits the crucial temporal dimension that listening requires. But I am interested on what specifically motivates opinions about sound quality when people refer to cables, or even components. What kind of evidence, and how much of it, do you rely on?

[EdwardGein]

In the case of Mastah Norwegian Wood, he obviously knows music and knows what he likes & knows what he wants to hear as opposed some average schmoe on the street who wouldn't be aware of nuances in audio sound in regards to musical recordings. As such, I would bet he would notice 100% of the time, differences in sound caused by different cables, as I think most musicians would. I used to produce and I notice minute things which drive me nuts at times. As his goal is to try to get the best Metal sound he can from a new system and set up, I think considering that, cables will make a difference in his audio perception.

In regards to DVDs if its not clear, optic cable produces a 5.1 or 7.1 dolby and DTS surround sound. It will also produce 5.1 or 7.1 all channel sound as well as prologic sound. If you use optic Cable you have the option of setting up (programing) your DVD player to control your receiver or vice vera. I have a $40 Monster THX Sub Cable that's more then sufficient. I rely on a $20 optic cable for my DVD connection & a glass optic cable that is $30 for TV sound. While I got a good set of analogue cables for DVD-A, I rarely if ever play this format.

[drseid]

In the case of Mastah Norwegian Wood, he obviously knows music and knows what he likes & knows what he wants to hear as opposed some average schmoe on the street who wouldn't be aware of nuances in audio sound in regards to musical recordings. As such, I would bet he would notice 100% of the time, differences in sound caused by different cables, as I think most musicians would. I used to produce and I notice minute things which drive me nuts at times. As his goal is to try to get the best Metal sound he can from a new system and set up, I think considering that, cables will make a difference in his audio perception.

In regards to DVDs if its not clear, optic cable produces a 5.1 or 7.1 dolby and DTS surround sound. It will also produce 5.1 or 7.1 all channel sound as well as prologic sound. If you use optic Cable you have the option of setting up (programing) your DVD player to control your receiver or vice vera. I have a $40 Monster THX Sub Cable that's more then sufficient. I rely on a $20 optic cable for my DVD connection & a glass optic cable that is $30 for TV sound. While I got a good set of analogue cables for DVD-A, I rarely if ever play this format.

Actually optical (or any cable) does not "produce" anything. When you use a coaxial or optical digital cable you let your receiver/pre-pro take the digital signal that is transmitted through the cable, and it processes the sound through its own chip set (the decoding takes place in the receiver/pre-pro).

By the same token, if you run standard CD sound through the digital out of your DVD player (optical or coaxial) then you rely on the receiver/pre-pro to do the D/A conversion... If you use the two stereo RCA out connections for stereo playing from the DVD player, then you rely on the DVD player's own D/A conversion capabilities.

If you use the 6 (5 channels and also one more for the subwoofer channel)analog out connections for SACD or DVD-A into the receiver/pre-pro's analog inputs then you are utilizing the onboard DVD-A/SACD chip in the DVD player (the decoding takes place in the DVD player).

---Dave

[orgasmdonor]

Hello Fellas...To answer some questions...I bought the Denon dvd 1920 from Crutchfield for $349. Could have got it for less but it would have not been much of a difference. The guys from Crutchfield gave me a lot of input on my questions. If I remember correctly the digital coaxial cable from your dvd to your recevier will not produce any dolby effects (5.1 audio,DVD-A,SACD ) on a music CD ...only dvds..In order to produce the Dolby 5.1 in audio you need to have the dvd player with the RCA inputs and the reciver has to have them as well. My current Pioneer dvd270 player doesn't have this capability....all it has is an opital out and digital coax. I did not get the optical connection because I was told that the coax is good enough. What are the advantages of the optical anyway ??? ...I do not know. The more I think the more confused I get....Anyway Eddie ....I own no "cheap" cables or wire for my home theater. My stuff may be cheap currently ...but can't wait for the "good" stuff to be delivered....I use all 12ga speaker wire. and all my cables are middle of the road Monster....which at that may be overkill. My friggin wire and cabling cost more than my current system...sony str de595 , pioneer dvd270, and an old sony 5 disc changer. My sub connection alone was $80 bucks for the 10 footer ...I was amazed that you can buy sub cables for $200 plus...But how good is too good and how good is overkill....who knows for sure...What I know for sure (being a guitar player) is that you cannot use cheap cables...youll get static,distortion,and feedback. All my guitar equipment is either high end planet waves or monster connected. From the processor to the guitars to the pedals to the amps to the cabinets to the mics etc....I within the last 3 months have caught the home theater/audio fever. I appreciate talking to you all (most of you are experts) ..Okay ED I thought about an H/K dvd player ...I was looking at the new h/k 47....I did some research and found out that the H/K dvd players traditionally have serious QC issues. So I bought the Denon...they are about the same price...But if I were to turn and and sell the Denon player...I am sure I'd get more for it than an H/K. Any way I can ramble on...Would love to hear from you all again....Thanks

[paul_pci]

For clarification purposes on playback on your dvd player:

CDs: recorded in 2 channels will playback in two channels through optical/coax input unless you engage a dolby prologic dsp of your taste.
DVDs: those recorded (most are) in 5.1 will playback in 5.1 through optical/coax input.

For SACD and DVD-A you need the 6 analog cables.
DVD-A: encoded in 5.1 will playback in 5.1 only through 6-channel analog input. There are however many DVD-As that will playback through the regular optical input; however that isn't true DVD-A and is simply a dolby or DTS mix.
SACDs: those encoded in stereo will only playback in 2 channels, and those encoded in 5.1 will playback in 5.1 only through 6-channel analog input.

As for cables you should definitely be spending less than 10% of total system cost. Yes you want decent analog cables, but you don't need to spend $100/pair for them to get what you want out of them.

Have fun.

[EdwardGein]

A couple of quick questions as I forgot this a while go.

1. If you do not want to use optic cable, how many analogue cables is it necessary to connect to your receiver to play in 5.1 sound? I thought it was 5 for each channel but maybe that's wrong.

2. If you have a 5.1 receiver and have the option of playing your CD in the All 5 Channel Natural Mode (meaning music is coming out of all 5 of your speakers & sub and is not changed except got the center which is a mix of the left & right speakers), don't you still need 5 analogue cables to do this if you don't use an optic cable? I'm not talking about Prologic here.