Multi Channel Analogue vs. hdmi

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by Arcam_or_bust

Hello all;

I have a Samsung BDP-2550, I am running it through my Arcam AVR 350. I am using the 7 multi channel analogue out. The 350 doesn't have the new codec decoding therefore letting my player decode is my option.

I however have come deffinatley much more fond of the sound. I did find this also when i previously had an Onkyo 606. I switched between the analogue and HDMI for the sound and even liked it better when I used the analogue with it over letting the Onkyo decode it.

I have deffinatley become a huge fan of the multi channel analogue out over the reciever decoding. After reading an article that the Harmon Kardon engineers agreed this is the preferable way to enjoy theatre play back I dont miss the HDMI repeating.

I was a little scared when I first dumped a fist full of dollars into this reciever, thinking that I was loosing out with the new codecs, but I am even now recommending ito to you all to give it a try.

Definatley worth the fun of playing... and who hear doesn't enjoy having to add a few more interconnects to their collecting.

Peace.

How do you control the speaker settings? Does your receiver put it back in the digital domain or do you run it pure analog bypass and have the player provide bass management/speaker settings? Or are you just passing full signal through analog by-pass?

I almost bought your receiver a couple of years back, it often reviewed as one of the best out there...

[Arcam_or_bust]

jdc115

How do you control the speaker settings? Does your receiver put it back in the digital domain or do you run it pure analog bypass and have the player provide bass management/speaker settings? Or are you just passing full signal through analog by-pass?

I almost bought your receiver a couple of years back, it often reviewed as one of the best out there...

Hello, The speaker settings are done in the blu-ray player. I set all the speakers to small and let the cross-over on the sub itself control the frequencies. I set it to around 80.

I run the analogue out the back of the blu-ray and direct into the multichannel. The Acram runs it as direct audio so there is no processing options.

I have used an sound meter to set the proper volume adjustments, I am going to fine tune it through the blu-rays internal test tone. Then I will have the two sets of volume adjustments, one set for blu-ray multichannel and one for all others.

That's what turned out for the best aspect of this set up, everything is so clean. Straight from the player passing through untouched by the amps processor and out.

There is no doubt in my mind that this Arcam is arguably one of the best recievers for both home theater and stereo sound. Usually in a reciever one aspect usually lacks... I am completely happy witht the music, and actually constantly being inpressed with it and the theater is exciting everytime I turn it on. I highly recommend it.

[neos_peace]

I have done both my self actually. I have done the multichannel and the HDMI. Of course that was using 2 totoaly differnt setups as well. For me and the setups I have HDMI is better. "BUT" not by much. however they do say (I have read this somewhere i wish I could remember) they recomnd using HDMI, but if you don't have it the very next best thing to it is the multichannel.

OF COURSE!!! it is all up to personally taiste and to each persons ears. Peace out.

[js666]

I have done both myself also. Originally MCH with the Lexicon MC8, Krell S1000 and also the HTS 7.1. Up until that point, I didn't think hdmi would be that much better. Then I auditioned and bought the Arcam AVR600..... I would not have it any other way.

[btf1980]

It depends. If you have quality legacy gear without HDMI, then I understand why analog would be preferred. However, even the boutique brands now have HDMI offerings. So if you have old gear with analog options, do what you must, but going forward, anyone choosing analog over HDMI for home theater in a new purchase is just deluding themselves. This isn't hifi, who are you kidding?

[neos_peace]

Originally Posted by btf1980

It depends. If you have quality legacy gear without HDMI, then I understand why analog would be preferred. However, even the boutique brands now have HDMI offerings. So if you have old gear with analog options, do what you must, but going forward, anyone choosing analog over HDMI for home theater in a new purchase is just deluding themselves. This isn't hifi, who are you kidding?

nice point. well put

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by btf1980

It depends. If you have quality legacy gear without HDMI, then I understand why analog would be preferred. However, even the boutique brands now have HDMI offerings. So if you have old gear with analog options, do what you must, but going forward, anyone choosing analog over HDMI for home theater in a new purchase is just deluding themselves. This isn't hifi, who are you kidding?

After reading several entries....... on this thread it makes me wonder how many people understand that listening and viewing media is an analog phenomena. We as human beings see things as various wave lengths of light and hear things as various wave lengths of frequency and amplitude (AKA Analog). When a musical instrument or voice or played/sung it is analog by nature.The same holds true for anything we see. It is only converted to a digital signal to try (TRY) and preserve the waveforms without distortion (and is has been yet to be perfected). No matter what chain of electronics your media goes through, it has to become analog again for us humans to hear/see it. ALL speakers are analog. That is why many audiophiles still consider vinyl as well as reel to reel tapes (Masters) as their preferred media of choice. They want the signals as close to how they were created (analog) as apposed to digitizing them to 0's and 1's (with the associated compression involved). Now with all of that being said...I use the analog inputs on both my pre/pro (in my living room) and my AVR in my Office theater. Heck if it wasn't for the fact that you can't pass a1080p signal through component cables (theoretically you could), I wouldn't use HDMI at all (Besides that's how big business controls what you watch and keep tabs on you )

Bottom line is...........

Analog is the true HIFI

That is until we get digital ear implants

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by DangeRuss

After reading several entries....... on this thread it makes me wonder how many people understand that listening and viewing media is an analog phenomena. We as human beings see things as various wave lengths of light and hear things as various wave lengths of frequency and amplitude (AKA Analog). When a musical instrument or voice or played/sung it is analog by nature.The same holds true for anything we see. It is only converted to a digital signal to try (TRY) and preserve the waveforms without distortion (and is has been yet to be perfected). No matter what chain of electronics your media goes through, it has to become analog again for us humans to hear/see it. ALL speakers are analog. That is why many audiophiles still consider vinyl as well as reel to reel tapes (Masters) as their preferred media of choice. They want the signals as close to how they were created (analog) as apposed to digitizing them to 0's and 1's (with the associated compression involved). Now with all of that being said...I use the analog inputs on both my pre/pro (in my living room) and my AVR in my Office theater. Heck if it wasn't for the fact that you can't pass a1080p signal through component cables (theoretically you could), I wouldn't use HDMI at all (Besides that's how big business controls what you watch and keep tabs on you )

Bottom line is...........

Analog is the true HIFI

That is until we get digital ear implants

But good luck finding 5.1 or 7.1 analog sources. Given that all source material for HT is digital (and probably 99% of music), it comes down to where to convert the signal to analog and what you are trying to do and the type of gear.

If you want to use room correction, then don't go analog out on your player. If you do not have a processor or receiver that can do pure analog pass-through, do not go analog on your player. I believe quite a few people bought or upgraded their Oppo BD83 to the SE edition to use the superior DACS and connected it via analog only to have the receiver convert it back to digital.

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by jdc115

But good luck finding 5.1 or 7.1 analog sources. Given that all source material for HT is digital (and probably 99% of music), it comes down to where to convert the signal to analog and what you are trying to do and the type of gear.

If you want to use room correction, then don't go analog out on your player. If you do not have a processor or receiver that can do pure analog pass-through, do not go analog on your player. I believe quite a few people bought or upgraded their Oppo BD83 to the SE edition to use the superior DACS and connected it via analog only to have the receiver convert it back to digital.

I don't know what you mean......... by convert it back to digital. The signal going from the reciever to the speakers has to be Analog and please..........

Don't get me wrong..... I do love the new digital formats and their expanded soundstages ( I mean LOVE). It's just that I don't think that computerized media is the end all be all. Heck, I plan on purchasing the SVS AS-EQ1 to correct my bass output. But for someone to just dismiss analog and claim it's not "HiFi" isn't getting the whole picture.

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by DangeRuss

I don't know what you mean......... by convert it back to digital. The signal going from the reciever to the speakers has to be Analog and please.........

Many receivers take the analog signal and convert them back to digital to do processing and then back to analog to the amps and speakers. So it sort of defeats the purpose to send an analog signal out of a CD player to a receiver just to add an additional ADC and DAC process in the chain.

Most 5.1 or 7.1 inputs on receivers that I know, stay in the analog domain. that can not be said for 2 channel analog inputs.

I do not dismiss analog, I wish I had a turntable except I do not want to go through the process of buying all new media again and the trouble of storing it in a very hot and humid environment. I run most of my audio out 2 channel analog to a tube preamp as well.

The point is that most people are all using digital media and so it comes down to where to convert it.

[DangeRuss]

Originally Posted by jdc115

Many receivers take the analog signal and convert them back to digital to do processing and then back to analog to the amps and speakers. So it sort of defeats the purpose to send an analog signal out of a CD player to a receiver just to add an additional ADC and DAC process in the chain.

Most 5.1 or 7.1 inputs on receivers that I know, stay in the analog domain. that can not be said for 2 channel analog inputs.

I was not aware of any Pre/Pro's or Recievers that took the signal from the multi-channel analog inputs and converted them for processing. My pre/pre and the AVR I use in another system just take the signal, allow my volume adjustments and send the signals to my power amps.....

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by DangeRuss

I was not aware of any Pre/Pro's or Recievers that took the signal from the multi-channel analog inputs and converted them for processing. My pre/pre and the AVR I use in another system just take the signal, allow my volume adjustments and send the signals to my power amps.....

As I said, I am not aware of any Processor that digitizes the multi-channel inputs but many do for the 2 channel inputs. That being said, the bass management function on most processors is much better then on the DVD/BD players. As great as the Oppo is, it has limited base management functions which will not meet many people's needs. For 2 channel, I am happy going analog, for multi-channel, I would use HDMI if I have a capable processor.

[Big Daddy]

I have a feeling that some of you are a bit confused. Too many people associate the word analog (or anlogue) with LP's and record players and automatically (perhaps erroneously) assume that since LP's must sound better than CD's, then anything that has the word analog in it must be better than digital. Not surprisingly, the subject of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the LP versus CD debate or the fact that sound waves are analog and not digital. The real issue here is where we convert the digitally recorded information on the disc to analog. Is it better to do it in the player or in the processor?

There are several factors to consider if you have a choice about using digital (HDMI cable) or analog cables for lossless surround sound.

1. The first concerns digital signal processing, bass management, and equalization. HDMI connection permits the use of the bass management, DSP, and room equalization in the processor. When you use multi-channel analog cables, bass management has to be performed in the player. Generally, receivers have better digital signal processing tools than players. Although many new players can perform basic bass management, you won't find any equalization settings in players, except for the very expensive high-end players. The settings on most players are pretty rudimentary (only level adjustments and distance settings). So, if you have a room that needs lots of help to sound right, digital HDMI connection will give you better sound than multi-channel analog connection. In almost all pratical cases, analog connection will result in inferior sound.
2. The second factor is the quality of the Digital to Analog Converters (DACs). Most intermediate to high-end AVR's and processors have much better DAC's than average players. Again, there is no reason to believe the quality of analog connection will be better than HDMI.
3. If you use analog connections, you will not be able to use programs such as Dolby PLIIx to matrix the side surround information to the rear surround speakers. This means that you will have to kiss 7.1 audio goodbye and no chance of ever experiencing Dolby PLIIz or Audyssey Height/Wide speakers.
4. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you own an ultra high-end player that has good bass management and equalization. Even in such a situation, getting the sound of a multi-channel analog set-up to be just right can be a little tricky because everything is manual. Just adding the 10dB or 15dB of LFE boost can be a hassle. There will be no help from microphones and calibration programs such as Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO, or other auto-calibration software.

There is also another issue that I have to address. Unfortunately, too many people are under the impression that setting their processor to receive audio in Direct or Pure Direct results in superior sound. In most cases, these options bypass bass management and room equalization, two of the most important features available on modern processors. I have to strongly emphasize that in most likelihood, the benefits of Bass Management/Equalization tailored to your room will far outweigh any small advantage of a pure direct signal path.

[SeanMF]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy

I have a feeling that some of you are a bit confused. Too many people associate the word analog (or anlogue) with LP's and record players and automatically (perhaps erroneously) assume that since LP's must sound better than CD's, then anything that has the word analog in it must be better than digital. Not surprisingly, the subject of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the LP versus CD debate or the fact that sound waves are analog and not digital. The real issue here is where we convert the digitally recorded information on the disc to analog. Is it better to do it in the player or in the processor?

There are several factors to consider if you have a choice about using digital (HDMI cable) or analog cables for lossless surround sound.

1. The first concerns digital signal processing, bass management, and equalization. HDMI connection permits the use of the bass management, DSP, and room equalization in the processor. When you use multi-channel analog cables, bass management has to be performed in the player. Generally, receivers have better digital signal processing tools than players. Although many new players can perform basic bass management, you won't find any equalization settings in players, except for the very expensive high-end players. The settings on most players are pretty rudimentary (only level adjustments and distance settings). So, if you have a room that needs lots of help to sound right, digital HDMI connection will give you better sound than multi-channel analog connection. In almost all pratical cases, analog connection will result in inferior sound.
2. The second factor is the quality of the Digital to Analog Converters (DACs). Most intermediate to high-end AVR's and processors have much better DAC's than average players. Again, there is no reason to believe the quality of analog connection will be better than HDMI.
3. If you use analog connections, you will not be able to use programs such as Dolby PLIIx to matrix the side surround information to the rear surround speakers. This means that you will have to kiss 7.1 audio goodbye and no chance of ever experiencing Dolby PLIIz or Audyssey Height/Wide speakers.
4. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you own an ultra high-end player that has good bass management and equalization. Even in such a situation, getting the sound of a multi-channel analog set-up to be just right can be a little tricky because everything is manual. Just adding the 10dB or 15dB of LFE boost can be a hassle. There will be no help from microphones and calibration programs such as Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO, or other auto-calibration software.

There is also another issue that I have to address. Unfortunately, too many people are under the impression that setting their processor to receive audio in Direct or Pure Direct results in superior sound. In most cases, these options bypass bass management and room equalization, two of the most important features available on modern processors. I have to strongly emphasize that in most likelihood, the benefits of Bass Management/Equalization tailored to your room will far outweigh any small advantage of a pure direct signal path.

One of these days I need to mess with hdmi and analog on my receiver. I also need to figure out how to tweak the settings on my receiver (won't be hard I just actually need to make the effort). I do have an issue with audio dropout by hdmi off my receiver. I need to see if there is a firmware update for it. If not I'll probably be going the analog route.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy

I have a feeling that some of you are a bit confused. Too many people associate the word analog (or anlogue) with LP's and record players and automatically (perhaps erroneously) assume that since LP's must sound better than CD's, then anything that has the word analog in it must be better than digital. Not surprisingly, the subject of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the LP versus CD debate or the fact that sound is analog and not digital. The real issue here is where we convert the digitally recorded information on the disc to analog. Is it better to do it in the player or in the processor?

There are several factors to consider if you have a choice about using digital (HDMI cable) or analog cables for lossless surround sound.

1. The first concerns digital signal processing, bass management, and equalization. HDMI connection permits the use of the bass management, DSP, and room equalization in the processor. When you use multi-channel analog cables, bass management has to be performed in the player. Generally, receivers have better digital signal processing tools than players. Although many new players can perform basic bass management, you won't find any equalization settings in players, except for the very expensive high-end players. The settings on most players are pretty rudimentary (only level adjustments and distance settings). So, if you have a room that needs lots of help to sound right, digital HDMI connection will give you better sound than multi-channel analog connection. In almost all pratical cases, analog connection will result in inferior sound.
2. The second factor is the quality of the Digital to Analog Converters (DACs). Most intermediate to high-end AVR's and processors have much better DAC's than average players. Again, there is no reason to believe the quality of analog connection will be better than HDMI.
3. If you use analog connections, you will not be able to use programs such as Dolby PLIIx to matrix the side surround information to the rear surround speakers. This means that you will have to kiss 7.1 audio goodbye and no chance of ever experiencing Dolby PLIIz or Audyssey Height/Wide speakers.
4. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you own an ultra high-end player that has good bass management and equalization. Even in such a situation, getting the sound of a multi-channel analog set-up to be just right can be a little tricky because everything is manual. Just adding the 10dB or 15dB of LFE boost can be a hassle. There will be no help from microphones and calibration programs such as Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO, or other auto-calibration software.

There is also another issue that I have to address. Unfortunately, too many people are under the impression that setting their processor to receive audio in Direct or Pure Direct results in superior sound. In most cases, these options bypass bass management and room equalization, two of the most important features available on modern processors. I have to strongly emphasize that in most likelihood, the benefits of Bass Management/Equalization tailored to your room will far outweigh any small advantage of a pure direct signal path.

Thank You for the Post Big Daddy . I am glad I did not try it for many reasons now , Especially for the simple fact I matrix all my 5.1 to 7.1

Another reason is that it already sounds correct & vary good ~ Why mess with it . Unless I add something

[Funky54]

Interesting read. I PM’d Big Daddy with some questions about dipole / bipole surrounds.. Really that was due to my system lacking. I may have been barking up the wrong tree.

All this reading begs the question, If you don't have HDMI in your decoder (Outlaw 950) you wind up using the player's (LG BD-390) DAC, how do I get around these issues raised in Big Daddy’s post? I have an issue with my surrounds and my Bass. I know my speakers are good (Alon IV mains and Alon centris center& surrounds) my sub is decent, but my sound is lacking. The surrounds are "too" subtle, and the bass is just ok. I now think after reading Big Daddy's post, that my problem is using the LG player to do the decoding and bypassing the outlaw.

I would also like to take advantage of the Outlaws ability to create fake 5.1 with Netflix. So what are my options? I’m analog out true bypassed and HDMI from the player to the TV.

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by Funky54

Interesting read. I PM’d Big Daddy with some questions about dipole / bipole surrounds.. Really that was due to my system lacking. I may have been barking up the wrong tree.

All this reading begs the question, If you don't have HDMI in your decoder (Outlaw 950) you wind up using the player's (LG BD-390) DAC, how do I get around these issues raised in Big Daddy’s post? I have an issue with my surrounds and my Bass. I know my speakers are good (Alon IV mains and Alon centris center& surrounds) my sub is decent, but my sound is lacking. The surrounds are "too" subtle, and the bass is just ok. I now think after reading Big Daddy's post, that my problem is using the LG player to do the decoding and bypassing the outlaw.

I would also like to take advantage of the Outlaws ability to create fake 5.1 with Netflix. So what are my options? I’m analog out true bypassed and HDMI from the player to the TV.

You have some nice speakers with the Alons. Welcome to the forum.

I don't use my Alon Centris Center channel anymore or my Dahlquist DQ-10s. I do however use my Nola LCR Reference Center Channel speaker with my Nola Viper IIA speakers as side surrounds, Dahlquist DQ-6 speakers as my rear channel speakers in my system. My front L and R main speakers are Oswalds Mill Audio OMA New Yorker Prototype horns though that blend well with the Nolas and Dahlquists.

Rich

[Funky54]

Originally Posted by naturephoto1

You have some nice speakers with the Alons. Welcome to the forum.

I don't use my Alon Centris Center channel anymore or my Dahlquist DQ-10s. I do however use my Nola LCR Reference Center Channel speaker with my Nola Viper IIA speakers as side surrounds, Dahlquist DQ-6 speakers as my rear channel speakers in my system. My front L and R main speakers are Oswalds Mill Audio OMA New Yorker Prototype horns though that blend well with the Nolas and Dahlquists.

Rich

Yeah Nola or Alon really make some good stuff. I couldn't be happier about the mains. I use my system for two channel music much more often than watching movies.

[rockyjazzyblues]

Has anyone tried the latest Philips BDP9500 analogue multi-channel?

According to spec., each of the channel has dedicated BB DACs for audio decoding. Anybody ever tried the comparison of audio quality between the HMDI and the analogue out?

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by Funky54

Interesting read. I PM’d Big Daddy with some questions about dipole / bipole surrounds.. Really that was due to my system lacking. I may have been barking up the wrong tree.

All this reading begs the question, If you don't have HDMI in your decoder (Outlaw 950) you wind up using the player's (LG BD-390) DAC, how do I get around these issues raised in Big Daddy’s post? I have an issue with my surrounds and my Bass. I know my speakers are good (Alon IV mains and Alon centris center& surrounds) my sub is decent, but my sound is lacking. The surrounds are "too" subtle, and the bass is just ok. I now think after reading Big Daddy's post, that my problem is using the LG player to do the decoding and bypassing the outlaw.

I would also like to take advantage of the Outlaws ability to create fake 5.1 with Netflix. So what are my options? I’m analog out true bypassed and HDMI from the player to the TV.

You can try optical or digital coaxial connection. Although you will only get DTS Surround and Dolby Digital, both DTS and DD are encoded at higher bit rates on blu-ray discs and it is almost impossible to distinguish between them and DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD. The advantage is that since the connection is digital, many of the processor's DSP modes and calibration will be available to you.