-
I don't remember a brand but Denon's Universal player upsamples music, including Redbook CD to a 32 bit signal. As stated they do use the Silicon Optix for video but also mentions additional algorithms, and dual HDMI, one for video and one for audio.
I forgot I started this thread, now all the sudden we have two going although the 2nd was actually started because of the McIntosh unit.
-
Thanks for the feedback
Hello frahengeo - thanks for the info about which connection type to go with, I was 99% sure that XLR would be the ideal choice for 2-channel audio. What slightly raised my doubt which is better, or are they the same since HD-Master Audio is a form of "lossess sound".
I sincerely believe that the circuitary is paramount (how the source is built), and the technology used. How it looks, what it looks like, how many features, ease of use of the remote is a far second.
To the unbrainwashed ear, you should be able to trust your own judgement. That is why it took me 7 years to finally locate a worthy Amplifier that could power my speakers. When I found my Xindak Power Amps, it look my listening experience to a totally new level. I can only improve it more on a better source. The PS3 plays back much better than my PC, and the SACD playback is noticable over CD.
I'm thinking about what was said in response to my last post on this thread, Denon, Marantz, Yamaha especially concentrate their R&D on home theatre. Are you going to find Class-A 30K+ power amps from these companies ? Maybe when man find a suitable planet outside out solar system with a breathable atmosphere.
Each brand has their place in the market. The hope of this great forum site is to help people make the right informed decisions to purchase what is best suited to their needs.
I grow tired to hear my peers/colleagues praise HDMI, this brand of cable, that brand, when they have no idea what they are talking about, nor that they wish to learn anyway.
Just because it has a HDMI socket automatically means you can buy a $5 HDMI cable to get the exceptional quality that would found the same elsewhere.
I found a good indicator is try to pick up the component. If you cannot, it's worth the purchase hahaha. Well Xindak power amps, yes trust me, you really don't want to drop that on your foot.
I am going to find it a struggle to justify this Denon universal player over a dedicated CD player with a 384 upscaler such as the Cambridge Audio 840C. I know Apples vs Oranges, but I value my overall listening experience over convenience any time and every time. I will audition the Denon and if sounds just as good at the Cambridge, I will consider it.
Pity the Denon Universal Player release could not of been more badly timed when HDMI 1.4 will spawn it's first demonstrations at the end of this year. You can already purchase cables which support nearly 15.8 Gtz that in many cases 1.4 will demand.
So would I consider a piece of equipment which will not be much use to me in 12 months time ? Don't think so.
I will wait perhaps 2 years for a good selection of HDMI 1.4 fully supported disc players, and when a good selection of 3D movies/games are in the market.
A dedicated CD player with upscaler would be my next upgrade.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzieAudiophile
Hello frahengeo - thanks for the info about which connection type to go with, I was 99% sure that XLR would be the ideal choice for 2-channel audio. What slightly raised my doubt which is better, or are they the same since HD-Master Audio is a form of "lossess sound".
You will get your HD-Master audio via the 7.1 ch/output (RCA) for multi-channel. I'm not sure whether you can combine the balanced and unbalanced (e.g. Front Left & Right via XLR, and Center, & Surrounds via RCA) with the Denon. For redbook CDs, the XLRs would probably be best, since the DACs in the Denon should be very good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzieAudiophile
I'm thinking about what was said in response to my last post on this thread, Denon, Marantz, Yamaha especially concentrate their R&D on home theatre. Are you going to find Class-A 30K+ power amps from these companies ? Maybe when man find a suitable planet outside out solar system with a breathable atmosphere.
Confused about this paragraph...Are saying that an amplifier needs to be Class-A (as oppose to A/B or even D) and cost 30K+ to be something worth using?
Those brands mentioned above did produce great 2-channel audio in the past. Plenty of rare statement pieces. They simply made a business decision to go in a different direction. Check out this website:
http://www.thevintageknob.org/index.html
If you haven't viewed this website and love audio, its a fun place to browse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzieAudiophile
I grow tired to hear my peers/colleagues praise HDMI, this brand of cable, that brand, when they have no idea what they are talking about, nor that they wish to learn anyway.
For some, HDMI may not be the way. For others, its single cable convenience may outweigh any potential drawbacks. I think we can all have good debates over different controversies, but "To each his own" is probably the best attitude to have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzieAudiophile
I found a good indicator is try to pick up the component. If you cannot, it's worth the purchase hahaha. Well Xindak power amps, yes trust me, you really don't want to drop that on your foot.
I guess if the prices are similar, you could say that you got "more" for your money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzieAudiophile
I am going to find it a struggle to justify this Denon universal player over a dedicated CD player with a 384 upscaler such as the Cambridge Audio 840C. I know Apples vs Oranges, but I value my overall listening experience over convenience any time and every time. I will audition the Denon and if sounds just as good at the Cambridge, I will consider it.
If you use your "don't want to drop on foot" evaluation, then Denon should be a contender. It weighs ~41lbs (>18kg).
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzieAudiophile
Pity the Denon Universal Player release could not of been more badly timed when HDMI 1.4 will spawn it's first demonstrations at the end of this year. You can already purchase cables which support nearly 15.8 Gtz that in many cases 1.4 will demand.
If HDMI 1.4 becomes a "must have", then Denon will probably offer it as an upgrade in the future (hardware upgrade, possibly). Denon is known for providing firmware upgrades and this unit is no exception. Sometimes its free sometimes not.
I've been following the progress of the A1UD for some time now. I have their pre/pro and amp, so the universal would've been a great match, but for now I will pass and probably get the Oppo.
You should know that the Manufacturers are way ahead of you. You can wait for the next best thing, but they'll always have the "next best thing" that you will want to wait on. Probably the best thing to do is to keep what you have or give up the hobby altogether.
Good luck
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
I don't remember a brand but Denon's Universal player upsamples music, including Redbook CD to a 32 bit signal.
This is marketing hype. You cannot create bits that are not in the original source just like when a 1080p signal is unconverted to 2160p, it is still encoded at 1080p resolution. Now you can interpolate extra bits into the 16bit signal, but it would be a repeat of what is already there and simply smoothen the output. It is not creating a full 32bit signal no matter how you slice it. 32bits would have to be the original bitrate for full 32bit resolution to exist. You would be forced to use its analog outputs to gain any benefit, and unless it processes delay, bass management, and volume functions at 32bit precision, the signal would have to be truncated to 24bits to be processed. You could not pass a true 32bit audio signal through HDMI as it is limited to 24bits. Also most amps have a s/n levels much higher than -192db, they are more in the neighborhood of -110 or so.
Quote:
As stated they do use the Silicon Optix for video but also mentions additional algorithms, and dual HDMI, one for video and one for audio.
Another unnecessary option. Audio is already carried over different wire from the video within the HDMI standard. The better option in this case is what is done by Oppo, and that is to give the user the ability to shut off the video circuitry in a pure audio direct mode. My question would be what if during use each of these HDMI becomes out of sync with each other, how do they correct it?
Denon has added alot of unnecessary options to this player just to justify a $4500 price tag, and create a market distinction between its products and others. I guess if you have enough money to spend on these unnecessary option, you probably don't care. The funny thing is one of the best 32bit DAC's on the market has a dynamic range of 120db which is 20bit performance. There is another very good 32bit DAC, but it is limited to 132db dynamic range. This is less than true 24bit performance. Limitation in intergrated circuit designs in both players and receivers limits us to 120db performance which is equivalent to 20bit performance. Unless intergrated circuit design(and analog as well) improves, 32bit DAC's are a waste of time.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Another unnecessary option. Audio is already carried over different wire from the video within the HDMI standard. The better option in this case is what is done by Oppo, and that is to give the user the ability to shut off the video circuitry in a pure audio direct mode. My question would be what if during use each of these HDMI becomes out of sync with each other, how do they correct it?
I think that dual HDMI has another use for those with multiple monitors (plasma & front projector, etc.). This assumes that the pre/pro or receiver only has 1 hdmi output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
My question would be what if during use each of these HDMI becomes out of sync with each other, how do they correct it?
I remember reading that this is where Denon Link 4 becomes effective.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frahengeo
I think that dual HDMI has another use for those with multiple monitors (plasma & front projector, etc.). This assumes that the pre/pro or receiver only has 1 hdmi output.
There are quite a few receivers and pre/pro that double as switching devices with two HDMI outputs which make including that in a players a wasteful option. I have a 60" kuros plasma and a projector in my reference system, and my pre/pro does the switching for the system. My player does not need two HDMI outputs to accommodate this. Anyone buying a $4500 players would probably already have switching facilities included in their system which makes this option redundant and unnecessary.
If you send one HDMI output to your television and another to your receiver it makes snyc'ing your signals via the HDMI TDMS encoding impossible. This will increase the chances of your audio and video being out of snyc. Then you have to create another option designed to sync them up. This is unnecessary, and requires even more processing than is needed on your audio and video signals.
Quote:
I remember reading that this is where Denon Link 4 becomes effective.
Denon Link 4 is for connecting an all Denon system. I would be curious how effective this approach would be using a downstream components for multiple manufacturers. Few people assemble entire systems from just one manufacturer.
Another issue I have with this approach is it assumes that high resolution audio will come in the form of PCM encoding. As the music reviewer at Blu-ray.com and some film industry publications I have reviewed quite a few music only titles on Blu-ray disc. The largest producer is Surround Records which has exclusively used Dts-HD master audio for their audio presentations . Since the this audio format transfers its data in packet form, it is not prone to jitter like PCM is as a bitstream. 2L which is another audio only producer does use PCM at 24/192khz, but also utilizes Dts-HD Master audio at 24/192khz on all their titles as well. Since the Dts option is bit for bit identical to the PCM option, I would choose it since there is no chance for jitter to contaminate the signal. This would make Link 4 unnecessary and a wasteful option.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
There are quite a few receivers and pre/pro that double as switching devices with two HDMI outputs which make including that in a players a wasteful option.
This so-called useless feature is apparently being pushed by their parent company and will likely be featured in the Marantz, and McIntosh Universals. Hey Man, if you can't think of a use for it, then it must not be necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Denon Link 4 is for connecting an all Denon system. I would be curious how effective this approach would be using a downstream components for multiple manufacturers. Few people assemble entire systems from just one manufacturer.
I realize that its their proprietary technology. Back to the jitter discussion; it supposedly works in parallel with HDMI and reduces/eliminates potential jitter.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frahengeo
This so-called useless feature is apparently being pushed by their parent company and will likely be featured in the Marantz, and McIntosh Universals. Hey Man, if you can't think of a use for it, then it must not be necessary.
A lot of things are pushed by parent companies, that does not make them useful(see Sony and the minidisc for example)
Quote:
I realize that its their proprietary technology. Back to the jitter discussion; it supposedly works in parallel with HDMI and reduces/eliminates potential jitter.
That is if one is to assume PCM audio would be the preferred format for audio only applications. That does not seem to be the case though, it looks like Dts-HD Master audio is taking up that mantel.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
A lot of things are pushed by parent companies, that does not make them useful(see Sony and the minidisc for example)
True, but pushed into a Marantz, McIntosh, and Denon unit!? Come on, despite being under one umbrella, these guys must have some influence over features. Assuming dual hdmi out will be offered by those guys, you still believe all three went along with it for no reason other than hype?
Ah minidisc!! Could've been useful, but combination of bad marketing, pricing, and timing put it to sleep. It definitely left the consumer confused, initially.
-
Minidisc did gain some traction but mp3 players really put the nail in the cauffen.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frahengeo
True, but pushed into a Marantz, McIntosh, and Denon unit!? Come on, despite being under one umbrella, these guys must have some influence over features. Assuming dual hdmi out will be offered by those guys, you still believe all three went along with it for no reason other than hype?
Yes. All of these companies are high end manufacturers looking to distinguish their products for those from Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic and the others. None of the others offer 2 HDMI outputs because they are unnecessary, and it increases the price of manufacturing the player. The idea of sending the video and sound differently than the other players may appeal to installers, who can pitch this unnecessary option to their high end costumers. I was once an installer(and still design and calibrate systems for a couple of companies) and I know this practice well.
Quote:
Ah minidisc!! Could've been useful, but combination of bad marketing, pricing, and timing put it to sleep. It definitely left the consumer confused, initially.
I don't think costumers were as confused as they were uninterested.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I don't think costumers were as confused as they were uninterested.
Confused about the purpose of Minidisc, yes. At the time, it wasn't marketed as a replacement for the cassette when it should have been. Having pre-recorded minidisc titles available only made matters worse. It became CDs vs. Minidisc, instead of Tapes vs. Minidisc. An entry price of $500 ~ $800 for a player and high priced blanks also didn't help.
In other parts of the world (Europe, Japan) Minidisc gained popularity. Any idea why?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frahengeo
Confused about the purpose of Minidisc, yes. At the time, it wasn't marketed as a replacement for the cassette when it should have been. Having pre-recorded minidisc titles available only made matters worse. It became CDs vs. Minidisc, instead of Tapes vs. Minidisc. An entry price of $500 ~ $800 for a player and high priced blanks also didn't help.
In other parts of the world (Europe, Japan) Minidisc gained popularity. Any idea why?
I know the Japanese and Asia in general have a love for gadgetry, and will basically embrace new formats and electronics easier than almost anywhere in the world. I guess that is why most new electronic products originate from there.
I do not think minidisc was a success in Europe. It was never popular outside Asia, except among audio engineers to store temporary mixes for their clients.
Surprisingly Sony upgraded the minidisc format in 2004 and renamed it Hi-MD. They made lots of worthwhile improvements, but it could not really compete with lossy codecs such as MP-3, AAC, or WMA
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frahengeo
Confused about the purpose of Minidisc, yes. At the time, it wasn't marketed as a replacement for the cassette when it should have been. Having pre-recorded minidisc titles available only made matters worse. It became CDs vs. Minidisc, instead of Tapes vs. Minidisc. An entry price of $500 ~ $800 for a player and high priced blanks also didn't help.
In other parts of the world (Europe, Japan) Minidisc gained popularity. Any idea why?
Later versions of minidisc had the ATRAC codec, which was quite good.
I liked my minidisc, but it hit at the wrong time, like CD you had to carry a bunch of discs
around, no reason for that anymore with portable servers like IPOD.
There are a lot of different ways to do one thing, but you only need one and the best usually
surrvives.
Like plasma and LCD, and DLP.:1:
-
Sometimes it's not "the best" that wins, sometimes it's the most convenient and the most hyped.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
Later versions of minidisc had the ATRAC codec, which was quite good.
I liked my minidisc, but it hit at the wrong time, like CD you had to carry a bunch of discs
around, no reason for that anymore with portable servers like IPOD.
There are a lot of different ways to do one thing, but you only need one and the best usually
surrvives.
Like plasma and LCD, and DLP.:1:
Pix, once again you have your facts twisted. The EARLIER models of the minidisc used the ATRAC codec. The later models used PCM.
-
Diversing again...
It's very hard not to diverse onto a slightly different topic.
Going back a several conversations... it did get me thinking, one HDMI out for video, one for Audio, out of sync is a pure destruction of video/audio experience. It's like watching a foreign film, lipsync not quite right lol. Watching Stallone laugh, then hearing him 2 seconds later.
At the moment I have my PS3 HDMI cable connected to my 40 inch LCD, and an optical out to my receiver. The receiver connects to my Xindak power amps. I've enjoyed the sound through the PS3 playback in comparison to any other source.
I guess I've always wrestled not to import too many sources, and/or components, and cable too many of them together. The more formulas I add to the final equation, the more places where the signal quality can degrade and the more places I'd have to patch up when I upgrade. It would be better to get as little number of components from source to speakers as possible. It simply costs too much money (at least for Me) to add too much more.
Problem is I personally have too many formats :
1. PC
2. TV to cable/satellite to DVR
3. PS3
4. DVD-disc changer but a universal player nonetheless
I have that many cables connecting all my components, it's cost me quite a bit of money.
I know I'm still playing this same old record, but I do find the option rather appealing of the Cambridge Audio 840C, which has a build in dac, I can connect up to two components to that.
I simply don't like the idea of DAC and source as separate, that's at least 1 extra pair of cables I'd have to invest, and sooner or later either the DAC or the source as the eventual weakest component to upgrade next.
No who in their right mind would believe there's an all one 1 box solution ?
Since I'm more of a 2-channel fan than multi, the ultimate home theater experience is far from a priority.
The number one priority for me is to maximize my listening experience to music. I've taken a huge step forward by getting the Xindak Power Amps. I just know the CA-840 will be the next worthy step, and a step up from the PS3 for CD playback. I am yet to be convinced of justifying a 4-6K SACD player, it's a matter of diminishing returns. My PS3 won't become a redundant component for the next 3 to 5 years at least.
I am a believer of making a list of which components will be the least redundant then work on components which will compliment that, plus be ready for the upcoming or current new(er) technologies. I think I can live without the HDMI 1.4 experience. It sounds rather way too costly, and all new technologies always are when they first come out.
The blu-ray options for me are purely for a visual upgrade as they definately kick butt over DVD. However make no mistake, many transfers to Blu Ray have been very ordinary, not even worth buying. I was very dissappointed with Resevoir Dogs. However the James Bond movies, they did a pristine suburb job !!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzieAudiophile
It's very hard not to diverse onto a slightly different topic.
Going back a several conversations... it did get me thinking, one HDMI out for video, one for Audio, out of sync is a pure destruction of video/audio experience. It's like watching a foreign film, lipsync not quite right lol. Watching Stallone laugh, then hearing him 2 seconds later.
I do not think I would have a problem with two HDMI outputs if your intention was to send the signal to two display devices, or straight to a display device, and one to a video processor to power a front projection system. Even then, there is a cheaper way to do this. But to market it as a way to isolate the audio signal from the video plays to the uneducated wealthy person, when the audio and video signals are already seperated via the HDMI link. They are using the two HDMI outputs as a way to steer folks to their proprietary connection, and that is marketing hype if I ever saw it.
Quote:
At the moment I have my PS3 HDMI cable connected to my 40 inch LCD, and an optical out to my receiver. The receiver connects to my Xindak power amps. I've enjoyed the sound through the PS3 playback in comparison to any other source.
While we all can attest to the fact the PS3 is not a "audiophile" product, I continually find myself completely impressed with it's sound and video quality. The same folks that designed the CD and SACD format are the same folks that worked on its CD decoding software, and gave it a great upsampling software as well. Jitter is very low, and the transport is clamp as not to induce vibration. The DSD stream is trancoded to PCM (which it would have been anyway) at 24bit 176.4khz which is better performance than the SACD format allows (SACD would be the equivalent of 20bit performance at a 100khz sample rate because of noise shaping)
Quote:
I am a believer of making a list of which components will be the least redundant then work on components which will compliment that, plus be ready for the upcoming or current new(er) technologies. I think I can live without the HDMI 1.4 experience. It sounds rather way too costly, and all new technologies always are when they first come out.
It is waaay to early to tell what the cost of components the utilize HDMI 1.4 will be. I'll take a wait and see attitude on some aspects, and jump right in on others. Personally, I am more interested in 3D than I am in 4K.
Quote:
The blu-ray options for me are purely for a visual upgrade as they definately kick butt over DVD. However make no mistake, many transfers to Blu Ray have been very ordinary, not even worth buying. I was very dissappointed with Resevoir Dogs. However the James Bond movies, they did a pristine suburb job !!!
The thing you have to understand is the Blu-ray format has brought us much closer to the film element than DVD ever could. A lot of things blamed on a Blu-ray transfer were actually problems associated with the film elements themselves. Also consider the fact that there are more film "analysts" who present screenshots full of actifacts on Bluray films that would never be seen when the video is actually moving. Printmasters that are dirty, scratched or full of film pops, editorial and artistic decisions on lights and effects all come out and are easily seen on Blu-ray, but are masked completely by heavy compression on DVD.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
While we all can attest to the fact the PS3 is not a "audiophile" product, I continually find myself completely impressed with it's sound and video quality. The same folks that designed the CD and SACD format are the same folks that worked on its CD decoding software, and gave it a great upsampling software as well. Jitter is very low, and the transport is clamp as not to induce vibration. The DSD stream is trancoded to PCM (which it would have been anyway) at 24bit 176.4khz which is better performance than the SACD format allows (SACD would be the equivalent of 20bit performance at a 100khz sample rate because of noise shaping).
Yes.
Try the Cary. Try the Esoteric. Try the Krell...
Differences?..yes...subtle nuances?...I suppose...you tell me...
The PS3 is a fantastic, otherworldly product...
|