Thread: DSD passthrough HDMI - No need for a quality player?

Posts: 371
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 38 next

Post by Fidelity November 12, 2010 (1 of 371)
We all know that HDMI cables are just as good at any price, digital and whatnot - Gold cables don't improve anything.

DSD, the sound format of SACD - With older players outputting trough analog the players quality could differ.

But with modern players outputting the digital DSD signal straight to the receiver over HDMI...In theory shouldn't the quality of the SACD be irrelevant?
I mean its all up to the DAC in the reciever then...

Don't support your expensive hardware, if all its doing is lifting a digital signal and sending it straight to the receiver without converting to PCM one could buy a Blu Ray player and get the same digital stream as with those overpriced Marantz players - The sound is either there, or its not.

Just a question for fellow Audiophiles like myself, don't take me as harsh - I respect your hardware, but with a digital transfer...music is either there or not.

Best Wishes,
Martin.

Post by Kal Rubinson November 12, 2010 (2 of 371)
Fidelity said:

We all know that HDMI cables are just as good at any price, digital and whatnot - Gold cables don't improve anything.

DSD, the sound format of SACD - With older players outputting trough analog the players quality could differ.

But with modern players outputting the digital DSD signal straight to the receiver over HDMI...In theory shouldn't the quality of the SACD be irrelevant?
I mean its all up to the DAC in the reciever then...

Don't support your expensive hardware, if all its doing is lifting a digital signal and sending it straight to the receiver without converting to PCM one could buy a Blu Ray player and get the same digital stream as with those overpriced Marantz players - The sound is either there, or its not.

Just a question for fellow Audiophiles like myself, don't take me as harsh - I respect your hardware, but with a digital transfer...music is either there or not.

Best Wishes,
Martin.

Sure. The differences are minor, imho. OTOH, I have heard consistent differences between some players with SACD/HDMI. See my comments on the Ayre/Oppo/Sony players in my January column.

Kal

Post by Disbeliever November 12, 2010 (3 of 371)
Fidelity said:

We all know that HDMI cables are just as good at any price, digital and whatnot - Gold cables don't improve anything.

DSD, the sound format of SACD - With older players outputting trough analog the players quality could differ.

But with modern players outputting the digital DSD signal straight to the receiver over HDMI...In theory shouldn't the quality of the SACD be irrelevant?
I mean its all up to the DAC in the reciever then...

Don't support your expensive hardware, if all its doing is lifting a digital signal and sending it straight to the receiver without converting to PCM one could buy a Blu Ray player and get the same digital stream as with those overpriced Marantz players - The sound is either there, or its not.

Just a question for fellow Audiophiles like myself, don't take me as harsh - I respect your hardware, but with a digital transfer...music is either there or not.

Best Wishes,
Martin.

Not true & misleading, Whilst I agree with Kal the differences are small they can be significant if you want the best perfomance (due to the good review ) I bought the expensive Chord active HDMI cable 10 times the price of the cheap HDMI cable I was using, Soprano voice with the cheap HDMI cable I could not hear the words clearly but on the Chord cable I can hear every every word and the sound is more articulate & musical. definate improvement. same way MCH is better than Stereo.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 November 12, 2010 (4 of 371)
Being an ardent Kal fan, it is also fair to say that he heard and reported on audible improvements via HDMI even on newer Oppo players vs. older ones, as well as other brands. I heard the same differences. Were they huge? No, but they were clearly there. Jitter emanating from the transport is the probable cause, and it is the only known scientific reason this could be the case

I also hear a slight difference on bitstreaming DSD vs. transmitting PCM via HDMI, even though the signal is converted to PCM in the AVP/AVR. I prefer the bitstreamed DSD. DSD transmission is theoretically less prone to jitter than uncompressed PCM over HDMI.

As to cables, I have done no significant experimentation and I am highly skeptical of differences with HDMI cables under a few meters. I would, however, try Disbeliever's Chord recommendation if it were available in the US, which it is not.

Post by Fugue November 12, 2010 (5 of 371)
Disbeliever said:

Not true & misleading, Whilst I agree with Kal the differences are small they can be significant if you want the best perfomance (due to the good review ) I bought the expensive Chord active HDMI cable 10 times the price of the cheap HDMI cable I was using, Soprano voice with the cheap HDMI cable I could not hear the words clearly but on the Chord cable I can hear every every word and the sound is more articulate & musical. definate improvement. same way MCH is better than Stereo.

Did you do a blind listening test? If I paid a huge sum of money for a cable (and I have in the past), I would certainly tell myself that it sounded better! :-)

Post by rammiepie November 12, 2010 (6 of 371)
I heard a significant difference between the stock OPPO BDP~83 and the NuForce OPPO in every parameter via HDMI.

I just read Fremer's review of the new Ayre DX~5 Universal Engine in which he stated that DVD~Audio sounded better than SACD playback (a rebuttal in the manufacturer's comments in the back of the issue questioned whether Michael had inadvertently failed to use the proper output {DSD vs PCM} from the Ayre)

BTW, the $10,000 Ayre uses the basic OPPO BDP~83 disc drive and controller but everything else is proprietary to the Ayre engineers.

I'm sure Michael will do a follow up review because in essence, this puppy should sound significantly better (as Ayre claims) than their Stereophile Class A+ C~5xe Universal player which this unit replaces.

As far as HDMI cables, I am using a stock RAM electronics $10 cheapie. The picture and sound from the NuForce into my Meridian Projector is breathtaking. But I'm sure, over time, some enterprising company will come up with a better cable and I wish some enterprising reviewer (like our very own KAL Rubinson) will do a "shootout!"

Post by DSD November 12, 2010 (7 of 371)
I don't trust Receivers, I think preamps and power amps sound considerably better. Now you are asking a Receiver to do even MORE by decoding digital. To me it seems more logical that a great sounding DAC would be put in an SACD player rather than an all purpose Receiver.

I listen in 2 channel stereo and prefer EVERYTHING that way, including movies. I'm an audio dinosaur I guess.

Post by Kal Rubinson November 12, 2010 (8 of 371)
rammiepie said: cable and I wish some enterprising reviewer (like our very own KAL Rubinson) will do a "shootout!"
That way lies madness.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 November 12, 2010 (9 of 371)
DSD said:

I listen in 2 channel stereo and prefer EVERYTHING that way, including movies. I'm an audio dinosaur I guess.

Correct!

Post by Fidelity November 12, 2010 (10 of 371)
Thanks for the lovely responses, i wanna stress my HDMI fact.
Look it up, its very true.

There can't be any difference with the new HDMI cable and the old HDMI cable.
They are the same thing, with a digital transfer the feed is going trough at 100% or 0%.
The only variables were your player and your receiver.

Now on to DSD
I do believe skipping/jittering is up to the player, if the only thing the player does is lifting a DSD signal from a disc and feeding it directly through to the receiver and the Burr Brown DACs i should get proper audio.
I mean, if you are copying a word document from a burnt CD or DVD - You get the file, not some low grade document with words taken out :P

On to the PCM complain,
I love PCM, its a great format.
The reason i don't want any PCM conversion in my SACD process is the lack of bit-rate and quality....mostly the thought of a high density format like DSD being converted to the age old PCM on the fly.
No need to encode to PCM, wich i'm aware some players do - It produces lossy audio in a sense, throw out your player if it does that.

Remember, if you activate any bass management etc, the sound get converted to PCM in the player.
Run the pure stream and don't mess with it, the only place i'd allow any messing about is the receiver itself.
Thats unless you got a analogue system, in which i salute you!

In the end then it looks like as long as your SACD player can feed the signal properly. its as good as everyone else's.

But if your receivers audio management/DACs suck - Consider going analogue...

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 38 next

Closed