S/PDIF Optical / Coaxial Digital Audio to 5.1 ?

[Christian_IA]

(09-03-2009 08:21 AM)Willem53 Wrote:  What receiver is that? brand/model

Euroline, a cheap simple one, but now the speakers are up and running, and it looks like the C-200 will take the lead in front of my DVD player, due to BD.
So it would be nice to get 5.1 sound from the C-200.

[Mental]

Ground doesn't have anything to do with shielded cables / connectors.
The shield isn't connected anywhere and serves only for blocking interference (usually caused by powerlines / magnetic devices).
Also, if the nic wasn't properly implemented and receives a lot of interference the packetloss should be substantial.. which it isn't. The coaxial output is a digital signal and it gets transfered just fine so no biggie there either.
High end connectors / cables are great.. but not with digital signals and short distances as the signal doesn't pickup enough interference to be needing any shielding whatsoever.

[linuxworks]

(09-03-2009 09:11 AM)vaxxi Wrote:  Very interesting information. I assume a shielded RJ45 jacks wouldn't help in this case, unless you have a properly grounded router/switch ?

no, grounding won't help. its about ground LIFTING; that's what the trafo does.

I do have a feeling that the incompats that people (minority) have seen is due to this. some coax-in's are not isolated (on other equip) and since the a100 isn't either, that's a problem.

ethernet is also causing people some failures. the nics die! I believe this could also be due to voltage on the wire with bad switches (cheap ones) or ground problems in the ac wiring and some devices having a ground and some floating.

the pch a100 got by 'sort of ok' by omitting these things but they ARE part of a proper design. you can put a nut and bolt together but its proper design to have a lock washer in there, too. its that kind of detail that they missed, here.

[Bazrah]

(09-02-2009 04:21 PM)daniel_owen_uk Wrote:  New receiver time me thinks.

Me thinks so too! I've got a Denon 2802 which doesn't do hi def audio only Dolby Digital and DTS. I got round that with my Blu ray player by using 5 channel analogue outs on the BD to the amp but seen as the blu ray is being replaced by the c-200 then that won't be an option anymore. For the meantime I'll make do with downmix to Dolby/DTS but IMO HD audio is just as important as HD picture for films.

Will have to go back cap-in-hand to the finance committee! Thinking of a Denon 1910 which is £450. What d'ya all reckon? I'll start an OT thread!

[vaxxi]

(09-04-2009 07:55 AM)Bazrah Wrote:  HD audio is just as important as HD picture for films.

To be honest, the difference between "classic" formats (DTS/DD) and their HD variants isn't significant, unless you have better than average ears and (much) better than average speakers. On a typical home setup (I said typical!) having HD audio formats is mostly ego stroking

Funny thing in life is that as we go older, our hearing gets worse (due to ageing) ... but also as we go older, we can afford all these expensive toys which become useless due to the previously mentioned cause. I'll stop being philosophical now

[Bazrah]

It might be coincidence but I've got a Sammy BD player and I can definitely tell the difference between SD and HD audio when I change the soundtrack on a BD disk using my Denon with Castle speakers - it seems richer and the sound steering it much better.

BUT.....I'm prepared to concede that I'll use any excuse for a new gadget !!

[Willem53]

(09-04-2009 07:48 PM)Bazrah Wrote:  It might be coincidence but I've got a Sammy BD player and I can definitely tell the difference between SD and HD audio when I change the soundtrack on a BD disk using my Denon with Castle speakers - it seems richer and the sound steering it much better.

BUT.....I'm prepared to concede that I'll use any excuse for a new gadget !!

Or they pimped up the specialFX on the HD track and beefed up the volume a notch or two.. yeah it sound different.....

just remembered this song goes like......

don't believe the Hype..... it's a sequel....

now who was that?

[Bazrah]

(09-04-2009 08:10 PM)Willem53 Wrote:  Or they pimped up the specialFX on the HD track and beefed up the volume a notch or two.. yeah it sound different.....

Quite possible they made the difference more notable on purpose!! I have noticed the difference on the 3 or 4 disks where I've forgotten to pick the HD track and swapped after a while.

[linuxworks]

(09-04-2009 07:48 PM)Bazrah Wrote:  It might be coincidence but I've got a Sammy BD player and I can definitely tell the difference between SD and HD audio when I change the soundtrack on a BD disk using my Denon with Castle speakers - it seems richer and the sound steering it much better.

its 'the mix'. its NOT the channel.

meaning, this is done as a con; to convince consumers that '24bit audio' makes sense at home.

it does not. from a math and engineering POV, it does not. unless you have very high end gear (and if your home stereo is in 'one box' (receiver) its not high end, by definition) then you won't ever hear any true benefit of higher bit depth audio. how can you hear 120db when your s/n ratio stops at 100? (to pick round numbers).

you have heard what we call 'loudness war' effects.

intentional misleading of consumers by making the sound mix better on 'higher end' audio formats.

same exact thing on LP/vinyl. vinyl is a HORRIBLE audio medium; but audiophiles are flocking to vinyl for THE MIX and not the scratchy poor dyn range, poor s/n and poor stereo separation. they want the better engineered mix. and they studios put their better efforts toward vinyl.

same with 'hd audio'.

you all are being taken for a ride on this HD audio sales thing.

if they ever get power supplies, amps, dacs, speakers to really resolve down to 24bit level, it will be a great day. but today, you spend $10k or more to not even truly do 24bit at analog circuit level. no way a $500 all-in-one a/v receiver is going to even do 16bit audio true justice.

sorry for the long venting but I hate to see people taken for a ride by the entertainment industry. I hate seeing people re-buy their stereos again on fake promises of 'better audio'.

when you buy a new receiver just for 'hd audio' you have ignored the facts and bought into the marketing lies. please don't be that way. don't be a lemming.

---

(09-04-2009 08:13 PM)Bazrah Wrote:  Quite possible they made the difference more notable on purpose!! I have noticed the difference on the 3 or 4 disks where I've forgotten to pick the HD track and swapped after a while.

on pure music tracks, getting the 'better mix' is worthwhile. BUT, it won't be too long before they have conversion software to GET you the better mix and transplant it on the (already fine enough) 5.1 audio channel.

no need to throw hardware at the problem if you want the better mix. just like you can transcode dts to other non-dts formats, the same will happen for HD audio formats. then you'll hear all the goodness of the 'better mix' and still not have to junk your existing hardware.

[vaxxi]

linuxworks detailed excellently. It's in the biological nature of the humans to think that what sounds "louder" is "better", but it's not the case. An interesting read is here on the same subject.