Thread: The HDMI Myth Shredded.....sort of.......

Posts: 26
Page: prev 1 2 3 next

Post by Nagraboy January 27, 2011 (11 of 26)
AmonRa said:

But with re-clocking DACs in receivers or separate DAC units (for RBCD) jitter from transport to DAC does not matter... So cable is a cable is a cable

Well that sounds like problem solved, but if it were, why do manufacturers invent asynchronous USB to clock the data from the DAC-end, if they could just use standard USB and re-clock the data when it gets to the DAC? This has been heard to be a big improvement...

Why have Denon invented DenonLink to send a synchronising clock-signal from the AV receiver to the disc player as it sends the data?

I accept that I am not the world expert on digital audio (or much else either!) so may have misrepresented the above details, but are you saying that dCS and Denon are wrong and shouldn't bother? Or does it just look good for spec sheets and marketing? Your answer would be most appreciated...

Post by Polly Nomial January 27, 2011 (12 of 26)
Nagraboy

Different cable types have a different limitations on the size and amount of the data packets they can transmit; that's why only (to the best of my knowledge) iLink/Firewire, DenonLink and HDMI (v1.2 and up) can pass DSD as opposed to PCM. This might, as the source and receiving device would have different methods of decoding the signal, lead to differences in the sound.

Any two of the same type of digital cable, providing they are meeting the relevant specifications, though should make no difference as they have the same encoding/decoding process applied at each end. This would be especially true with a cabling system that incorporates an error correction technique ensuring that any defects in the signal are (to all practical purposes) eliminated.

I'm not clear where you're saying the source of the jitter is - transport, cable, intermediary steps (mix of all 3)?

Post by Nagraboy January 27, 2011 (13 of 26)
Polly Nomial said:

I'm not clear where you're saying the source of the jitter is - transport, cable, intermediary steps (mix of all 3)?

Thanks PN,

Jitter is induced by the transport, connectors and cables intrinsically. Even the power-supplies and other processes in a disc player can cause jitter.

It's been said that the Marantz UD9004 player has much higher jitter than Denon's DVDA1-UD because of Marantz' choice and implementation of power supply.

Post by Disbeliever January 27, 2011 (14 of 26)
Rammiepie the Sony XA5400ES is not HAT less it is always enabled. It is in the receiver where it can be turned on or off.Digital Jitter CD/SACD 121psec/34psec

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 January 27, 2011 (15 of 26)
Nagraboy said:

Well that sounds like problem solved, but if it were, why do manufacturers invent asynchronous USB to clock the data from the DAC-end, if they could just use standard USB and re-clock the data when it gets to the DAC? This has been heard to be a big improvement...

Why have Denon invented DenonLink to send a synchronising clock-signal from the AV receiver to the disc player as it sends the data?

I accept that I am not the world expert on digital audio (or much else either!) so may have misrepresented the above details, but are you saying that dCS and Denon are wrong and shouldn't bother? Or does it just look good for spec sheets and marketing? Your answer would be most appreciated...

Jitter, like almost anything in audio, is controversial. There was a time when Arcam publically bashed the high jitter of HDMI, saying it was impossible. But, that was some time ago, and now they include HDMI in many of their products. It is accurate to assume that there have been engineering and chipset improvements since then in the handling of jitter, particularly in jitter suppression at the receiving end, all that without HATS-style rate control, DenonLink, etc.

I think Denon Link is quite old, going back to the earliest days of HDMI, and I actually wonder whether it is still necessary given improvements in jitter suppression via plain HDMI. The need for it may have evaporated. I do not know about their other models, but it is interesting to note that their top model, the DVD-A1UDCI, will not transmit DSD via HDMI. It will only do that via Denon Link. So, it would be impossible to do any meaningful comparisons of hi rez SACD musical sound on DenonLink vs. HDMI. I think there may be more of a marketing reason for this than any technical consideration. I suspect that they do not want you to know that the audible difference is no big deal. And by the way, they will be happy to sell you a $5 piece of Cat 5 or 6 cable for $500. That's the MSRP of their DenonLink cable.

With Denon, as with Sony HATS, these "solutions" are all proprietary, locking you into their product at both ends. But, doing this to optimize jitter performance means tradeoffs in other aspects. I guess if you believe jitter is the elephant in the room, far and away transcending all other performance issues, you should buy in to these. But, I think jitter is only one factor among many in overall system performance. And, these days, it is a minor one at that.

In separates, Denon's top player is pricey and getting old by industry standards. Reviews have said it's very good via analog output. But, otherwise they say it's no better than an Oppo at 1/9th the price, except possibly, but we are not sure, via its DenonLink connection. Their prepro is good, but overpriced and also getting old. They make more up-to-date receivers, but do you want to be forced into a receiver solution to solve this jitter thing? Is a receiver used as a prepro just as good as a separate prepro? I don't think so.

So, please, keep your overall system in perspective. I think clearly some isolated issues have a distorted and disproportionate position in some posters mindsets. Optimize that one thing, and your system will sound great. Jitter may be one of them.

Post by Nagraboy January 27, 2011 (16 of 26)
In reply to Fitzcaraldo215:

I certainly don't see banashing jitter as the over-riding concern in my system. My Nagra CD player has over 1200ps of the stuff at 44.3Hz and yet sounds simply stunning in it's limited capacity as a RBCD player.

Denon Link is old inasmuch as it's original version goes back to early HDMI. But it is now in it's 4th version in the DVDA1-UD. Their processor only has DenonLink 3. Paul Miller (HFN) showed that DL gave MUCH lower jitter than the HDMI output from the DVDA1-UD.

I was not aware that the above player will not output DSD via HDMI. I'd read that the Marantz UD9004 would not, but I will investigate further. I am considering the Denon for my system, HDMI for MCH, analog for STAX energiser and Leben integrated. But that's off-topic...

Incidentally, Paul Miller, who has tested both above players preffered the Marantz even with it's MUCH higher jitter. And he's known as a real measurements-led guy. I certainly don't think jitter is always a make-or-break issue, but it does affect digital cables and transports etc. so when people suggest all cables sound the same, I feel I must bring up the jitter issue.

Post by Disbeliever January 27, 2011 (17 of 26)
Whilst Paul Miller is a expert measurement technician, I am not so keen on all of his subjective views, always try before you buy is the answer.

Post by rammiepie January 27, 2011 (18 of 26)
Disbeliever said:

Rammiepie the Sony XA5400ES is not HAT less it is always enabled. It is in the receiver where it can be turned on or off.Digital Jitter CD/SACD 121psec/34psec

Disbeliever, I have NO idea how the H.A.T. system works but my Meridian 621 is a dejitter processor, as well, so I'm sure that's why it sounds so good. So when are you going to supply Chord HDMI interconnects to us Yankees across the pond?

Post by off the grid January 27, 2011 (19 of 26)
Hi All, Just a maybe not so quick synopsis on cables in general and HDMI in particular. There is no more of a contentious issue in the AV world than "performance differences" in cables whatever their intended use.

One example demystiying these differences I like to toss at my non audiophile associates( many of whom work in the broadcasting arena...tough nuts to crack!) is that of an automotive tire. Acquire a spectacular sports car or a mid performance vehicle but who cares what tires to put on the vehicle ..all tires are the same, right? Rubber & round just get the right rim size and pay as little as possible? Oh no, absolutely not they sputter, hi performance tires will make a huge performance difference which may impact their enjoyment of the new vehicle. What does auto tires have to do with AV cabling whether analog or digital? Non corrupted max efficiency energy transfer from point A to point B be it from an automobile's tires and how they transfer energy at the point of contact on the road, maintaining their structural integrity under various operating conditions and therefore providing stable reliable response, or an audio/video signal travelling down a cable, same deal. If the tires suck the overall performance suffers, if the AV cables suck, the signal travelling from one AV device to another will suffer. Energy transfer!Somewhat simplistic but the correlation holds true I believe and opened some non audiophiles eyes...and ears I hope;)

As far as HDMI cable performance differences it appears the short runs of under a couple of meters are mostly impacted by the quality of the connector unless you live in an EMI/RFI saturated environment ( Wi Fi?) where shielding will come into play. Furutech makes an excellent connector keeping in line with their obsession with build quality. Long HDMI runs are, as with ANY other cable type, susceptible to EMI/RFI issues and should have sufficient shielding and adequate gauge to accomodate the extended length AND should have a decent connector. I use Cardas, Furutech for short runs and , at the time I acquired my front projector, Tributaries offered the only 5 meter, well shielded, Series 9 HDMI cable that didn't require a repeater. All are wonderful HDMI cables. Would cheapo HDMI cables provide the same results? I place my bets on any sufficiently shielded, proper gauge, quality constructed HDMI cable from a respectable established manufacturer! PS: You do not have to pay exhorbitant prices just don't go ultra cheap.

Post by Polly Nomial January 27, 2011 (20 of 26)
off the grid, it might be helpful if, when choosing an analogy, it was, well, analogous.

Why do I think that the tyre is not a good analogy? Well for a start, all digital cables must be made to their respective standards; including those relating to their physical/chemical make-up. There are very real differences in the chemical composition of high-performance tyres to those that are used on vehicles and the treads are different, as are the profiles etc.

There is nothing in digital cables, providing they meet the specification, to suggest that the laws of physics will suddenly and magically throw themselves out of the window and start behaving in a comparable way to demonstrably different car tyres.

Page: prev 1 2 3 next

Closed