HDMI audio vs Multi Channel

[CIBartowski]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but is there a difference in using HDMI or multi channel for audio?

I have a Samsung BD-P3600 and a Pioneeer VSX-1019AH-K. Right now i'm just using HDMI for video and audio ( yes I can listen to DTS-HD MA and TrueHD) . Would I notice any difference hooking up the multi-channel sound?

[Zman2k2]

The only difference, if any, would be the sound produced by the DAC of the player. Some players, not sure about yours, have upgraded DAC's (Digital to Analog Converter) that would produce a little different sound, compared to the DAC's in the receiver, that produce the sound when bitstreaming. Only way to know if the sound is "better" or more pleasing, is to give it a try. Just remember when doing it, the you usually have to boost the LFE channel about +10 coming from the receiver, to compensate for the channel level coming from the player.

[ZIPPO]

The multi-channel option would give you lossless audio, but might not sound exactly like the HDMI option. "Using the player's analog outputs, the player has to do all of the digital processing for bass management, level adjustment and time delays."
It would also by-pass your receiver EQ & auto calibrate features.
Give it a try, see how you like it. The link below should help.
http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Ho..._And_Why.shtml

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by CIBartowski

Sorry if this has been asked before, but is there a difference in using HDMI or multi channel for audio?

I have a Samsung BD-P3600 and a Pioneeer VSX-1019AH-K. Right now i'm just using HDMI for video and audio ( yes I can listen to DTS-HD MA and TrueHD) . Would I notice any difference hooking up the multi-channel sound?

By multichannel, do you mean the 7.1 analog hookups? With digital, all audio processing (bass management, EQ, etc) and the digital-analog conversion happen in the receiver. With analog, they happen in the player. Generally, receivers have better processing tools and better DACs. So, a digital connection is likely to be better than analog. It's also considerably easier to set up. But, the answer to your question depends on the specific equipment and listening room.

[dg5150]

I used my 5.1 hookups on my old receiver with my sony bdp s550. When I got my pioneer 919ahk I tried the HDMI. Trust me, stick with the HDMI.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by CIBartowski

Sorry if this has been asked before, but is there a difference in using HDMI or multi channel for audio?

I have a Samsung BD-P3600 and a Pioneeer VSX-1019AH-K. Right now i'm just using HDMI for video and audio ( yes I can listen to DTS-HD MA and TrueHD) . Would I notice any difference hooking up the multi-channel sound?

The quick answer to that is....MAYBE! It depends on a lot of factors, but more than not it's a personal choice issue.

When watching BD/DVD using my PS3 I use HDMI. (The PS3 doesn't have analog outs).

When listening to music CD/SA-CD on my Oppo DV980H I use multi-channel analog, and the sound is VERY different from its HDMI option. It is NOT better NOR worse, but it is more pleasing to my ears.

So if you have the ability to use both types of input, I'd say experiment and see which method you prefer.

John

[jerwin]

Originally Posted by CIBartowski

Sorry if this has been asked before, but is there a difference in using HDMI or multi channel for audio?

I have a Samsung BD-P3600 and a Pioneeer VSX-1019AH-K. Right now i'm just using HDMI for video and audio ( yes I can listen to DTS-HD MA and TrueHD) . Would I notice any difference hooking up the multi-channel sound?

on a related note, the samsung bdp-3600 can transcode truehd and dts-master audio into ordinary dts. How much difference is there between the uncompressed and recompressed sound tracks?

[sptrout]

Originally Posted by jerwin

on a related note, the samsung bdp-3600 can transcode truehd and dts-master audio into ordinary dts. How much difference is there between the uncompressed and recompressed sound tracks?

I am not familiar with the 3600, but I do not know why it would transcode DTS-HD MA since it already contains a 1.5mbps "core" and it is very good. As for TrueHD, there is a standard DD track that is always available to make TrueHD backwards compatible with older DD-only decoders.

As mentioned, the DTS-HD MA "core" is very good at nearly twice the standard DTS bitrate (the low bitrate version, remember that even back with old DTS there were a few 1.5mbps encoded DVD's around, which is why the "core" is backwards compatible with any DTS decoder).

Standard DD is a serious reduction in audio capabilites vs. either TrueHD or the DTS core. However, if you can hear the difference really depends (IMO) on your entire system not just the bitrate of the audio. The "weakest link in the chain" rule really applies when it come to audio quality differences.

[CIBartowski]

Thanks to all for your responses. I am glad to know I'm not missing something big by not hooking to the multi-channel. I'll do some more research on my components and dig out some cables and give it try.

Thanks again

[jerwin]

Originally Posted by sptrout

I am not familiar with the 3600, but I do not know why it would transcode DTS-HD MA since it already contains a 1.5mbps "core" and it is very good. As for TrueHD, there is a standard DD track that is always available to make TrueHD backwards compatible with older DD-only decoders.

And yet, this particular series of players can and does produce dts on the fly. I realize that the poster does not need this feature, but as long he's comparing analog to digital, it might be interesting to add in a dts comparison.

[sptrout]

Originally Posted by jerwin

And yet, this particular series of players can and does produce dts on the fly. I realize that the poster does not need this feature, but as long he's comparing analog to digital, it might be interesting to add in a dts comparison.

I downloaded the 3600 Manual to see what you are talking about and I see that it does transcode the Primary, Secondary, and Effect Audio into one DTS output for non-HDMI AVR's. I would have to assume that, as the manual says, this will degrade the audio slightly since it has to steal some bits from the 1.5mbps core to mix in the other two sources. I expect that most folks would not tell the difference, but who knows. Just curious, how many people use the Secondary and Effect audio anyway? (I have no idea since I am still stuck with a 1.0 player.)

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by sptrout

I am not familiar with the 3600, but I do not know why it would transcode DTS-HD MA since it already contains a 1.5mbps "core" and it is very good. As for TrueHD, there is a standard DD track that is always available to make TrueHD backwards compatible with older DD-only decoders.

As you discovered, that's how it does secondary audio for S/PDIF connections - decodes, mixes, and re-encodes as DTS. I suppose DTS fans could use this approach to turn a TrueHD output into DTS rather than getting the companion DD 5.1 track over S/PDIF.

Standard DD is a serious reduction in audio capabilites vs. either TrueHD or the DTS core. However, if you can hear the difference really depends (IMO) on your entire system not just the bitrate of the audio. The "weakest link in the chain" rule really applies when it come to audio quality differences.

That's more than mildly overstated. DD 5.1 at 640 kbps sounds very good and many find it rivals lossless much the same as the DTS core. The difference in bitrates is not a good measure since Dolby and DTS use different techniques. For example, DTS has fixed rates per channel, even when the channel is silent, while Dolby uses variable channel rates.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Like most threads...this one is starting to get derailed as well.

John

[sptrout]

Originally Posted by BIslander

That's more than mildly overstated. DD 5.1 at 640 kbps sounds very good and many find it rivals lossless much the same as the DTS core.

Agreed. This is one of those subjects where you can ask 50 people and get 50 different answers, all correct. With my hearing, sometimes I think that I may as well stay with AM......well it is not that bad

[jerwin]

Check to see whether your receiver can properly bass manage an analog multichannel input. Some can, some can't. If not, you'll have to use the bass management in the player-- which is rather limited.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by CIBartowski

Thanks to all for your responses. I am glad to know I'm not missing something big by not hooking to the multi-channel. I'll do some more research on my components and dig out some cables and give it try.

Here's an article explaining the steps involved in setting up analog.

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Ho..._And_Why.shtml

Your AVR does not do any processing of the multichannel analog inputs. So, you'll need to do bass management (fixed crossover at 100Hz) in the player. As I recall, Samsung players don't offer distance or timing adjustments.

[jerwin]

On the other hand, Oppo bdp-83 vs samsung bd-p3600

slightly full of woo, but you might prefer the results.

[donaldsonjune]

hello all,

has anyone done an a/b comparison with hdmi vs. multi-channel? i use 6-channel in / outputs and love it