AVS Forum banner

Does Denon Link Really Matter?

33K views 80 replies 23 participants last post by  arnyk 
#1 ·

If you don't want to read the whole thread, skip to some of my later posts like here and   here . Hint: the answer to my question is "Yes", DenonLink3rd matters in that it improves music SQ.  AnyDenonLink4th player/AVR is backwards compatible to DL3rd.

The following Denon players have DenonLink3rd (which adds MC SACD capability) are often available used at reasonable prices:
DVD-3910CI

DVD-3930CI


DVD-2930CI-not recommended as it has poroblems reading the SACD layer of hybrid SACDs

 

Hey guys, if I've missed a thread on this elsewhere please let me know. I have an AVR A100, which is DL4 capable. Currently I spin my shiny discs on an OppoBDP83SE connected via HDMI. I must say the system sounds great for BR (bitstreamed), SACD (DSD sent to A100 for decoding) and DVDA. Most redbook CDs reveal a big step down for SQ, though exceptionaly well-recorded ones are listenable. I've done some reading in the DBP-4010UDCI thread and elsewhere on this topic and would specifically like to hear from those with experience.


I do not care about DACs or video processing in the player, I'm just looking for the best digital transport/transmission to my AVR.

Questions:

1. Would Denon Link offer audibly better SQ than what I have?

2. If so, does that apply to some media (such as RBCDs) more than others (BR)? If so, could you recommend a DL3 capable player that would fit the bill?

3. If not, are there less expensive DL4 capable players than the DBP-4010UDCI? IOW how cheap is the buy-in?


I would love to hear from those who have done the A/B test of DL4 ON vs OFF for BR.


Same for those who have done the A/B test of DL3 vs HDMI and SPDIF for SACD, DVDA and RBCD.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I have a 4310 receiver and a 3910 player. I use DL 3 because it's a single wire solution for playing SACDs. I have no problems with the sound quality, and it works fine with an inexpensive Ethernet cable.
 
#3 ·
I don't have considerable experience on the topic but from reading Denon's stuff on DL3 and DL4 I'd guess that the use of it would make less sense with SQ material than with HQ (=high bandwidth) material.

Does the Oppo do any processing to audio material (e.g. upping sample frequency)? If so, can you turn it off? It might well be that "double" treatment gets applied, thus worsening sound quality.
 
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbarach
I have a 4310 receiver and a 3910 player. I use DL 3 because it's a single wire solution for playing SACDs. I have no problems with the sound quality, and it works fine with an inexpensive Ethernet cable.
Hi. I can't sort out the connection options on that player as described here . Are you able to A/B compare HDMI vs DL3 for SACD/redbook?
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyespy39
...Does the Oppo do any processing to audio material (e.g. upping sample frequency)?
Hi. No such processing is taking place in the Oppo.
 
#7 ·
^The 4310 and 4311 have the latest, DL 4, which adds BR capability. BTW, you use both HDMI and DL4 cables for BR. But pbarach's 3910 player is DL3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: avkiller
#9 ·
^Hi Jeff. I believe that's correct. And there is debate as to whether that can or should make a difference, despite Denon's claims. My intent is not to spark theoretical and technical debate so much as elicit real-world listening reports to guide purchase decisions.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind
^Hi Jeff. I believe that's correct. And there is debate as to whether that can or should make a difference, despite Denon's claims. My intent is not to spark theoretical and technical debate so much as elicit real-world listening reports to guide purchase decisions.
Hi SofM ;cant speak in real world terms sorry but theoretically [if you think jitter -and that is what denon purports its for- is a factor] there is considerably more jitter in lpcm than a compressed bitstream that the 83se can supply



I note also 2 of the new pioneer bd players[if released;plenty of speculation] makes note of pqls bitstream clocking. Probably proprietary as usual though like the last gen
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwt
... theoretically [if you think jitter -and that is what denon purports its for- is a factor] there is considerably more jitter in lpcm than a compressed bitstream that the 83se can supply...
Hi. Interesting point. A few times in the past, I've switched BR ouput from bitstream to LPCM and seen no difference at all, and heard no difference at all once level-matched. That has been reported on lots of equipment by lots of folks as well, but I've never seen a report of DL4 vs bitstream vs LPCM.


Sending SACD DSD vs PCM to the DSD-decode -capable AVRs I've had (2809, 4310 and A100) there is a distinct improvement.
 
#14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind /forum/post/20730975


Hi. I can't sort out the connection options on that player as described here . Are you able to A/B compare HDMI vs DL3 for SACD/redbook?

The 3910 player cannot send SACD over HDMI (it's only v1.1). The sound from RBCD sounds exactly the same whether the connection is DL3, HDMI, or digital coax. BTW I have two BluRay players, and RBCD over HDMI or coax sounds exactly the same as the 3910 does over any of its digital connections. One of these players also does DVD-A over HDMI, and this sounds exactly the same as the DVD-A does from the 3910 over DL3.


So my conclusion is that you should expect exactly the same sound quality over any digital connection from any player you choose, since the same DAC in your AVR will do the conversion regardless of what connection method you use. (some people say HDMI audio is high in jitter. Even if this is true, I have never seen any jitter measurements for DL3 or DL4, so there is no way to compare these with the jitter via HDMI).
 
#15 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbarach /forum/post/20731949


So my conclusion is that you should expect exactly the same sound quality over any digital connection from any player you choose, since the same DAC in your AVR will do the conversion regardless of what connection method you use. (some people say HDMI audio is high in jitter. Even if this is true, I have never seen any jitter measurements for DL3 or DL4, so there is no way to compare these with the jitter via HDMI).

Have a look here: http://www.avforums.com/forums/blu-r...l#post10199775


Written by user "Welwynnick"

Re: Denon's DVD-A1UD: Universal (SACD/DVD-A/DVD/CD) Blu-ray player

I thought it might be time to update my list of HFN jitter measurements, as the results for the A1UD are very interesting, and Paul Miller has done us proud.


Jitter over analogue:
30ps Denon A1UD


Jitter over SPDIF:

10ps Classe SSP800

15ps DCS Scarlatti

37ps Pioneer SC-LX81

40ps Cambridge DACMagic

50ps Arcam AVR600

121ps Sony SCD-XA5400ES

183ps Yamaha RX-V3900

250ps Denon 2500/AVP-A1

430ps Onkyo PR-SC886

470ps Onkyo TX-NR906

485ps Audiolab 8000AP

560ps Denon 3808A


Jitter over HDMI:

5ps Arcam AVR600

21ps Classe SSP800

50ps Pioneer SC-LX81
125ps Denon A1UD over DL4

200ps Sony XA5400ES HATS on
1360ps Denon A1UD over HDMI

2200ps Denon 2500/AVP-A1

3700ps Denon 3808A

3860ps Onkyo TX-NR906

3920ps Onkyo PR-SC886

7660ps Yamaha RX-V3900

8000ps Sony XA5400ES HATS off

8490ps Audiolab 8000AP


Presumably, the A1UD was measured in conjunction with an AVP-A1HD. The HDMI result is reasonably good, but DL4 shows an order of magnitude improvement. Thats because the audio clock isn't being carried from the transport to the DAC over HDMI (just as I've been saying all along). In this case, the jitter is essentially that of the processor only. Its not the jitter of the player + connection + processor.

However, the analogue measurement is better still, and very good indeed. In this case, it shows the level of jitter from the player only, which is performing better than the processor in this respect. Notwithstanding the contribution of the D to A conversion, this slightly points towards the A1UD performing best in the top-drawer Denon system with an analogue, rather than any digital connection. I was hoping that Zepherman might be able to confirm this for us....
 
#16 ·
^Hi deckarep. Thnx for the link, very interesting stuff.


As for comparing jitter and SQ to analog, MC analog, with its tangle of cables, does provide good SQ for many but does not interest me. If I wanted that, I'd get an Oppo BDP95. But with my untreated and acoustically challenged room, room correction DSP always beats a pure analog path so I end up with an extra ADC/DAC in the AVR to apply Audyssey anyway. That was the point in buying up to XT32.


So I'm trying to optimize the digital path.
 
#17 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbarach /forum/post/20731949


The 3910 player cannot send SACD over HDMI (it's only v1.1). The sound from RBCD sounds exactly the same whether the connection is DL3, HDMI, or digital coax...

Thnx, very interesting.


I would like to hear from those who have done the A/B test of DL4 ON vs OFF for BR.


Same for others who have done the A/B test of DL3 vs HDMI and SPDIF for SACD, DVDA and RBCD.
 
#18 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind /forum/post/20730707


3. If not, are there less expensive DL4 capable players than the DBP-4010UDCI? IOW how cheap is the buy-in?

When I spoke with Jeff Talmadge last fall, he indicated that Denon would revisit the BD transport concept it tried a few years ago. Presumably, a new universal BD transport would have HDMI 1.4 and Denon Link 4 outputs. Considering what the competition (read: Oppo) offers for $500-$1000, I would expect the Denon to come in well under $1000. But Denon Link is a closed ecosystem; if you want it, you have to go Denon all the way. And D&M Holdings may see that as an opportunity to charge a premium.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength /forum/post/19519581


*Blu-ray transport: A few model years ago, Denon intro'd the 2500BTCI, a Blu-ray "transport" -- no DACs or analog audio out, no component video out, just HDMI out. Jeff agreed w/ me that the idea was ahead of its time and said that Denon will produce a universal (i.e. SACD & DVD-A) Blu-ray transport again in the near future.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3839


AJ
 
#19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind /forum/post/20732349


Thnx, very interesting.


I would like to hear from those who have done the A/B test of DL4 ON vs OFF for BR.


Same for others who have done the A/B test of DL3 vs HDMI and SPDIF for SACD, DVDA and RBCD.

I had a denon 4010 that I sold in error, and posted few times now the main thing I miss dropping back to first the sony 5000es and then the oppo 95 is DL4.


the denon 4010 is EOL but if denon brought out a replacement with DL4 I would reconsider getting back on the wagon.


It was worth it for both audio and video with my denon avp I believe it a step forward from the oppo 95
 
#20 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength /forum/post/20732856


When I spoke with Jeff Talmadge last fall, he indicated that Denon would revisit the BD transport concept it tried a few years ago. Presumably, a new universal BD transport would have HDMI 1.4 and Denon Link 4 outputs. Considering what the competition (read: Oppo) offers for $500-$1000, I would expect the Denon to come in well under $1000. But Denon Link is a closed ecosystem; if you want it, you have to go Denon all the way. And D&M Holdings may see that as an opportunity to charge a premium.


AJ

Maybe charge denon fanboys a premium, but everyone else is happy with their Oppos and not about to switch.


And does Oppo offer anything for $1k?


Jeff
 
#21 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength /forum/post/20732856


When I spoke with Jeff Talmadge last fall, ...
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3839


AJ

Hi AJ. Thnx for reminding me of that quote from JT (DenonJeff). I bought the A100 partly based on that as well as upon the recommendation of that model by someone at Audyssey. And the fact I found one for the price of a discounted 4311, $1.5K.
I love the SQ, it is a BIG step up from the 4310.


I wonder whether the DL system would translate into audible improvement, how much improvement and in what media. Then there's the question of cost.

So far I'm into this HT upgrade about $10K for about $22K MSRP worth of equipment.
 
#22 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar /forum/post/20732944


...does Oppo offer anything for $1k? Jeff

Yes, Oppo's "top of the line" model BDP95 which I mentioned above. The added cost is all aimed at optimization for analog output. My BDP83SE was its predecessor at $899 MSRP. I am still considering a new Oppo BDP93, at $500, as I would not need all the hi-end analog capability but would like the streaming capability in a fast, "poor man's reference" universal/BRP.
 
#23 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by alebonau /forum/post/20732873


I had a denon 4010 that I sold in error, and posted few times now the main thing I miss dropping back to first the sony 5000es and then the oppo 95 is DL4.

Hi! I read one of your posts lamenting your lost 4010 and that is part of the reason for this thread. When you had it, did you happen to do any of the A/B comparisons I listed at the bottom of the first post of this thread?
 
#24 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind /forum/post/20733185


Yes, Oppo's "top of the line" model BDP95 which I mentioned above. The added cost is all aimed at optimization for analog output. My BDP83SE was its predecessor at $899 MSRP. I am still considering a new Oppo BDP93, at $500, as I would not need all the hi-end analog capability but would like the streaming capability in a fast, "poor man's reference" universal/BRP.

Ah yes, the SE. Paired with a newer high-end Onk or Denon receiver/processor, the upgraded analog circuits are not needed. So $500 is the number, and for that the Oppo 93 measures and performs flawlessly. I use the original screaming bargain, the BDP-80, with my 5508. For Blu-ray, SACD and DVD-Audio, the 80 does everything I need and it was $300.


Jeff
 
#25 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind /forum/post/20730707


I must say the system sounds great for BR (bitstreamed), SACD (DSD sent to A100 for decoding) and DVDA. Most redbook CDs reveal a big step down for SQ, though exceptionaly well-recorded ones are listenable.

The Oppo 83SE has jitter from 7 to 10ps according to hometheaterhifi review , which beats all the figures in the SPDIF category quoted earlier, and especially the DL4 jitter which is an order of magnitude higher.



Based on the above statements, you're only unhappy about CD SQ over HDMI so it looks using digital coaxial gives the lowest jitter. I'm not saying jitter difference is audible here, but the preceding discussion of jitter seems to be the only reason for using DL at all.


As you are already bitstreaming over HDMI for BR and SACD, jitter should not really matter.
 
#26 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilian.ca /forum/post/0



The Oppo 83SE has jitter from 7 to 10ps according to hometheaterhifi review , which beats all the figures in the SPDIF category quoted earlier, and especially the DL4 jitter which is an order of magnitude higher.



Based on the above statements, you're only unhappy about CD SQ over HDMI so it looks using digital coaxial gives the lowest jitter. I'm not saying jitter difference is audible here, but the preceding discussion of jitter seems to be the only reason for using DL at all.


As you are already bitstreaming over HDMI for BR and SACD, jitter should not really matter.

What people obviously don't realize is dac jitter ie in a player is only one side of the coin. Dac jitter is only relevant when using the players analog outputs. If using the player as a digital transport, the jitter due to timing errors between transport and dac clocks improbably the largest source of error. Sure some dacs will try to re clock. But that's really like yelling at the horse after it's bolted.


Quoting individual item jitter is irrelevant unless going off analog outputs off a player. If after some in-depth discussion on jitter and effects seek out amir's thread here on this forum. It's quite enlightening
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top