or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › Ayre DX-5 bluray player
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ayre DX-5 bluray player - Page 15

post #421 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Hansen View Post

Dunno.

Since the spec hasn't been released, one can only speculate as to what it might be and what the incompatibilities with other hardware might be. The Oppo uses a very recent HDMI transmitter chip from Silicon Image, the SiI9134. If you can find out what the bandwidth requirements for 3D are, you can probably figure out if that is the bottleneck....

Should be very soon Charles ; full fledged hdmi 1.4 3d is 1080p/60 and 1080i/30 x 2 for 3d is fine bandwidth wise [the oppo manages 1080p/60 so interlaced is fine]; maybe a projector to deinterlace to progressive..

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s...71&newsLang=en

This link makes reference to bd live player compatability ; we'll see

http://dvice.com/archives/2009/12/no-new-blu-ray.php
post #422 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

All these codecs, even the lossless ones, once reduced to PCM from S/PDIF, tend to look the same.

I would assume that the player would send the original lossy multi-channel data across the S/PDIF connection. This is what Oppo told CGA. Then the sink (receiver) would decode it to multi-channel PCM.
post #423 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by robena View Post

If you made a processor, I'm sure that it would be useful for a long time. And that it would be pres-sold like your BR player already is.

I wouldn't rule it out, but it would take years of development time to make an SSP. We have to make the decision whether to make three or four other products or spend two years working on a product that will be extremely expensive, have questionable sales levels, and also have a questionable product life.

Like Oppo, Ayre waited for the whole HD-DVD/Blu-Ray battle to blow over before jumping into the game. It looked like the waters were safe. But just like in the movie "Jaws", there was a shark lurking beneath the surface -- 3D.

A small company like Ayre has to be very careful as to where we allocate our resources. Our business model is very different from a company like Sony's, who have achieved their goal if they can convince you that your current product is obsolete and must be replaced every year with the latest, greatest version. Just like Detroit. Tailfins, anyone???
post #424 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwt View Post

Should be very soon Charles ; full fledged hdmi 1.4 3d is 1080p/60 and 1080i/30 x 2 for 3d is fine bandwidth wise [the oppo manages 1080p/60 so interlaced is fine]; maybe a projector to deinterlace to progressive..

The linked article points out that 3D requires a different video codec -- MVC instead of AVC. It is quite possible that the problem lies there. I can't imagine that the video decoder chip in the Oppo can just be reprogrammed at will to include any imaginable change. So the restriction may have nothing whatsoever to do with the transmitter chip.

Really, it is useless for us to speculate. I'm sure that Oppo is doing everything possible to address this issue, and in the end it may be a non-issue in the real world. If there are only ten titles in 3D and you have to buy a new display or projector and eight of those titles are things like "Pirahna - 3D!", does anyone really plan on replacing their entire setup to watch these movies with those spiffy-looking glasses??? You can read more about the whole 3D issue here:

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...leID=222300678

I like the quote, "Everyone is going at breakneck speed because we believe 3-D will rejuvenate the consumer electronics business," said Eisuke Tsuyuzaki, chief technology officer of Panasonic North America. "...the first generation products may have some issues."

It's all about trying to save dying electronics giants. I like that part about the products that "may have some issues".... Sure, I just spent $3,000 for a plasma last year, but now it's obsolete so I'll buy a 3D version for $5,000. And I'm not supposed to care if it has "some issues"???

As far as HDMI 1.4, the main change was the addition of Ethernet. The idea is that HDMI eliminates all of those pesky cables. Put the audio and video into one cable, despite the fact that all of the people reading this forum don't want the audio and video in the same cable. They want to send the video to the display and the audio to the audio system.

You may have noticed that the Oppo has an Ethernet connection on the back panel. HDMI 1.4 would allow you to combine that cable along with the audio and video into one HDMI cable. Again, I can't see where this makes any sense at all. Nobody has Ethernet in their display or audio system, so why send it there? Then there still has to be an HDMI 1.4 cable that goes to your internet router. So what exactly has been gained? You can read more about the silliness of HDMI 1.4 here:

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...leID=219400065

This article is several months old. But at that time there were no companies that had signed up for HDMI 1.4. Does anybody know if that has changed?
post #425 of 1423
Charles,

What processors have you listened to extensively to evaluate their sound? Did you find one particular unit that impressed you at all? What improvements would you make to them? Have you heard the Classe SSP-800. Sure it's no CJ or AR or Ayre for that matter but it's produced and on the market! If it were not for multi channel some manufacturers would have folded some time ago. I am a 2 channel advocate and will always listen to stereo music. But think about it for a minute, all of you out there living in the 2 channel realm. When you listen to music do you listen with several people in the same room or ALONE? And we wonder why 2 channel listening never caught on with more people in general. I can only listen to the same recording a certain number of times before it drives me crazy due to repetition. It seems that there are fewer choices for me personally in today music world than 30 years ago to use as an example. As Robena stated he still has his Mark Levinson No:40 and it's up to date. So is the No:40 also not up to standards for 2 channel listening? I just find it odd that some of you including Charles refuse to accept multi channel as a valid enjoyable format. I'm 51 years old so I'm no youngster but I have learned to adapt to the environment when necessary.
post #426 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

Charles, So is the No:40 also not up to standards for 2 channel listening?

The ML40 is dreadful with analog sources, just awful. It always converts analog to digital, and does not do it nicely.

With digital 2 channel sources, it's good but not topnotch.

As for the Classe, it's good in its price range, but that's all. I got tired of its sound after 2 days of using it, I just could not live with it after having used the ML so long.
post #427 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by robena View Post

As for the Classe, it's good in its price range, but that's all. I got tired of its sound after 2 days of using it, I just could not live with it after having used the ML so long.

Sometimes, we just don't appreciate something until it's gone.

>>The ML40 is dreadful with analog sources, just awful. It always converts analog to digital, and does not do it nicely.<<

>>With digital 2 channel sources, it's good but not topnotch.<<

Enjoy!
post #428 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Hansen View Post

Using the analog outputs of a high quality disc player will bypass the first limitation. But you will always be stuck with the second limitation unless you spend some money for a high-quality stereo preamp with a processor-passthrough feature.

I did this for several years, and it pretty much sucks. Extra wire, extra power, extra rack space, extra heat, extra hassle, and above all, extra cost. I abandoned that approach recently, and I don't ever see going back to it.

I thought I was your target market, but perhaps I was wrong. Seems like you're saying the DX-5 is way more player than those of us with multi-channel systems can actually use at this point. If that's the case, I suspect the market for this player will be quite small - perhaps smaller than you think.
post #429 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

Did you find one particular unit that impressed you at all?

For many years, the Theta Casablanca has been accepted as the best sounding processor. I largely attribute that to its volume control (and, I believe, discrete circuitry). 99% of all SSP's use nothing but op-amps in the analog signal chain and IC-based volume controls that simply don't sound very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

I can only listen to the same recording a certain number of times before it drives me crazy due to repetition.

I can listen to a good piece of music 100x more often than I can watch the same film repeatedly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

It seems that there are fewer choices for me personally in today music world than 30 years ago to use as an example.

Good music is still out there. But the record companies don't do a very good job of promoting it. You just have to look harder, that's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

So is the No:40 also not up to standards for 2 channel listening?

When they released the No.40 for $30,000 they admitted that it used the same analog audio circuitry as their $6,000 No.38 preamp. That preamp was one of their weakest products ever. The volume control used an MDAC and hobbled the design. Their later No.32 and No.326 used much better sounding volume controls that work like the Casablanca (and the Ayre K-5xeMP preamp and the Ayre CX-7e integrated amp), where the volume control comprises a bank of metal-film resistors that are selected by FET switches.

For $30,000, I would rather have good sound than a fancy display. Levinson obviously had different priorities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

I just find it odd that some of you including Charles refuse to accept multi channel as a valid enjoyable format.

I don't refuse it as a valid format. I just don't need it or want it personally. I don't have a dedicated movie room with seven speakers and two subwoofers. Even if I did, I doubt that I would install a surround-sound system. Most of the films I enjoy watching are based on captivating stories. Surround-sound can make for spectacular demos with certain spectacular movies. I enjoy those films, but they are only about 5% of the films I watch.

Have you seen the film "Captains Courageous"? It is one of the best films I have seen. It is black-and-white and was made in 1937. Subwoofers and surround sound would do nothing to enhance my enjoyment of that movie.

So my personal choice is to watch movies with 2.0 sound. There is nothing wrong with people that want to watch movies with surround sound. We make a multi-channel amplifier exactly for that purpose. We are one of the few high-end companies in the world that made DVD players. We are one of the few high-end companies in the world that will make a Blu-Ray player. It will offer the highest performance for surround sound of any Blu-Ray player in the world. And it will do the same for 2.0 audio as well.
post #430 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

I did this for several years, and it pretty much sucks. Extra wire, extra power, extra rack space, extra heat, extra hassle, and above all, extra cost. I abandoned that approach recently, and I don't ever see going back to it.

I would be curious to know what equipment you were using. Normally the improvement in sonics between a good SSP and a good two-channel preamp is marked.

But if you don't listen to two-channel music much, you are right not to mess around with an extra piece of equipment that you don't need. Just as I don't mess around with a bunch of equipment that I don't need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

I thought I was your target market, but perhaps I was wrong. Seems like you're saying the DX-5 is way more player than those of us with multi-channel systems can actually use at this point.

Only you can decide if the improved picture and sound quality of the DX-5 is worth it to you. When it is released, I'm sure that our dealers will be glad to arrange for demos to help you make that decision.

All I said was that nobody has made a surround-sound processor that sounds as good as a good two-channel preamp. You seem to have taken personal offense at that. I don't understand why you would. If you had designed the product, that attitude would be more understandable. But my statement has been corroborated by Robena. He said that his $30,000 processor "sounds dreadful with analog sources" and is "good, but not topnotch" with digital sources. Personally I would expect more for $30,000.
post #431 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Hansen View Post

I would be curious to know what equipment you were using. Normally the improvement in sonics between a good SSP and a good two-channel preamp is marked.

My 2ch preamp for the last four years was an ARC Ref 3. I went through several SSPs, and an analog multichannel preamp, slaved to the Ref 3.

The Ref 3 was hugely better than every SSP I tried, and much better than the analog MC preamp. Then I tried the Classe' SSP-800, and found that it stood head-and-shoulders above the SSPs and the analog MC preamp, and as a 2ch analog preamp it was pretty close to the Ref 3 - close enough that I don't feel I'm missing a whole lot.

Quote:


But if you don't listen to two-channel music much, you are right not to mess around with an extra piece of equipment that you don't need.

I have a very nice turntable setup - I think that qualifies as 2ch music If the SSP I have now didn't do a good job as a 2ch preamp, I never would have bought it.

Quote:


Only you can decide if the improved picture and sound quality of the DX-5 is worth it to you.

Normally I would agree; however, as I said, it seems as if the designer of that product is saying that there's no way the gear I currently own will allow me to appreciate those improvements. You've made a very convincing case - are you now saying otherwise?

Quote:


All I said was that nobody has made a surround-sound processor that sounds as good as a good two-channel preamp. You seem to have taken personal offense at that. I don't understand why you would.

I haven't taken any sort of personal offense at your remarks, and I don't understand why I would. What I interpreted from your comments is what I said - that you appeared to be stating that the gear I currently own is not of the caliber necessary to match your player. If that's what you meant, that is absolutely fine by me - you'll have saved me (and perhaps a bunch of other SSP-800 owners) a substantial amount of time, effort, and possibly some cash, because we won't be chasing after something we can't reach.


Quote:


But my statement has been corroborated by Robena. He said that his $30,000 processor "sounds dreadful with analog sources" and is "good, but not topnotch" with digital sources. Personally I would expect more for $30,000.

I passed on the Levinson No. 40 when it was introduced, because it did do a very bad job with analog sources. Price was not the deciding factor for me - I would have passed it up if it had cost $3000. But just because Levinson couldn't build a processor that suited my needs doesn't mean that another company couldn't either.

But to get back to my point - most people who are looking to buy "high end" Blu-ray players are interested in multi-channel audio as well as an exceptional picture. I believe that people like you, who are satisfied with 2ch only from a medium that can deliver 8 channels of high resolution digital audio, are a rarity - possibly more rare than you think. I believe that SPECIFICALLY WITH THIS PRODUCT if your focus is primarily on 2ch, the market for your player will be very, very small. I could be wrong, but I doubt it
post #432 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

But to get back to my point - most people who are looking to buy "high end" Blu-ray players are interested in multi-channel audio as well as an exceptional picture. I believe that people like you, who are satisfied with 2ch only from a medium that can deliver 8 channels of high resolution digital audio, are a rarity - possibly more rare than you think. I believe that SPECIFICALLY WITH THIS PRODUCT if your focus is primarily on 2ch, the market for your player will be very, very small. I could be wrong, but I doubt it

I don't think you're right about the DX-5. It was designed to provide the best possible HDMI based multi-channel audio. That's why there is a separately clocked audio only HDMI output. If your point is that it should have multi-channel analog outputs, that is valid, but I would guess it would require a major jump in the price of the unit and the availability of a surround unit good enough to justify that expense.

What is true, is that if you don't have both a stereo preamp and a surround unit you can't get both the best 2 channel and best multichannel sound without having to constantly plug and unplug the audio Hdmi cable. I think Charlie's point here is that if you are really dedicated to optimizing both formats, you should have two preamps.
post #433 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottsol View Post

I don't think you're right about the DX-5. It was designed to provide the best possible HDMI based multi-channel audio.

Yes, but the only way to playback HDMI-based multichannel audio is with a digital SSP that has HDMI input capability, and Charles is saying that in his opinion all of the SSPs on the market are, by his standards, inferior. If that's true, then what is the point of trying to maximize the HDMI capabilities of the player?

Quote:


If your point is that it should have multi-channel analog outputs, that is valid, but I would guess it would require a major jump in the price of the unit and the availability of a surround unit good enough to justify that expense.

Sure, if there isn't a multichannel preamp good enough to match up to the player, why bother? Same point as above.

Quote:


What is true, is that if you don't have both a stereo preamp and a surround unit you can't get both the best 2 channel and best multichannel sound without having to constantly plug and unplug the audio Hdmi cable. I think Charlie's point here is that if you are really dedicated to optimizing both formats, you should have two preamps.

Agreed. Been there. Done that. "Optimizing both formats," as you put it, comes with its own set of compromises. Pick your poison. I've made my choice. If Charles doesn't think his player will match up well with my gear, I accept that. At the moment, there's probably not any other digital multichannel processor on the market that's better, but if if it is not capable of excelling with the Ayre player, then there really doesn't seem to be much point to buying the Ayre based on its improved HDMI interface. Right? That says to me the Ayre is geared primarily to 2ch analog users, which is also what Charles seems to be saying. That market is small, and getting smaller every day.
post #434 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

The Ref 3 was hugely better than every SSP I tried, and much better than the analog MC preamp. Then I tried the Classe' SSP-800, and found that it stood head-and-shoulders above the SSPs and the analog MC preamp, and as a 2ch analog preamp it was pretty close to the Ref 3 - close enough that I don't feel I'm missing a whole lot.

That's saying a lot -- the Ref 3 is a great preamp, as you yourself found out. If the SSP-800 provides the performance you are looking for, then you should be a happy man. I have never heard the SSP-800. Perhaps this is the product that breaks the mold. I know that Alan Clark is Classe's Chief Technology Officer. He was the main designer behind the Linn CD-12, which was widely regarded as the best CD player of its time. So it is conceivable that it offers outstanding performance beyond its product category. But that is not what Robena thinks....

Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

Normally I would agree; however, as I said, it seems as if the designer of that product is saying that there's no way the gear I currently own will allow me to appreciate those improvements. You've made a very convincing case - are you now saying otherwise?

What I said was that connecting an active sink (receiver) to the HDMI audio-only output will de-activate the analog outputs. For 99% of the market, this does not present a problem. However, you seem to feel that it does present a problem for your system.

Please clarify this for me so that I can make sure that I understand what you are saying. On the one hand you are saying that you would be dissatisfied with the HDMI audio-only connection for playing back CD's (for example) presumably because the D/A converters in the SSP-800 aren't as good as those found in a good CD player. But on the other hand, the analog inputs on the SSP-800 are world class and close enough to the Audio Research Ref 3 that the difference doesn't matter.

So for a system like this, you would like to be able to choose between using the HDMI audio-only output for multi-channel use and the analog audio output for stereo use, correct?

Assuming that I have understood the situation correctly, then it is not clear that there is an easy solution. It is actually possible that the solution is trivial and is already incorporated into the SSP-800. Rather than make this post excessively long and technical, please let me know if I understand the problem. If I do, I will have ScottSol (a Classe dealer) perform some measurements on the SSP-800 to see how it behaves when changing inputs. If that doesn't work, I'm not sure that there will be any easy way to address this in the DX-5, but I can scratch my head some more and see if there might be some way.
post #435 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

Charles is saying that in his opinion all of the SSPs on the market are, by his standards, inferior. If that's true, then what is the point of trying to maximize the HDMI capabilities of the player?

First of all, you yourself admitted that the SSP-800 didn't sound as good as the Ref 3, but it was "close enough" that you didn't care about the shortfall. So I am not the only one who finds that the best two-channel preamps outperform the best SSP's.

Second of all, it is quite obvious that any system will benefit from a higher quality source. "A rising tide raises all boats."

Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

Sure, if there isn't a multichannel preamp good enough to match up to the player, why bother?

Yes, exactly. There was no point to put eight channels of the best analog audio outs on the unit, as there are very few people who could take advantage of them. Most SSP's digitize the analog inputs so as to provide bass management, time delays, et cetera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

If Charles doesn't think his player will match up well with my gear, I accept that. At the moment, there's probably not any other digital multichannel processor on the market that's better, but if if it is not capable of excelling with the Ayre player, then there really doesn't seem to be much point to buying the Ayre based on its improved HDMI interface.

I'm not sure why you are so bent on twisting my words. You make it sound as though there is some inherent incompatibility between the Ayre and the SSP-800. There is not. It will provide a higher level of both video and audio quality than any other Blu-Ray player. When it is released try it for yourself and let us know.

But apparently you have found that the analog inputs on the SSP-800 provide better sound than the HDMI inputs. But did it ever occur to you that the reason for the disparity may be because the average HDMI source has extremely high levels of jitter that degrades the audio performance?

So it is certainly possible that you would prefer the sound of the HDMI connection (using the ultra-low jitter HDMI audio-only output) and the D/A converters in the SSP-800 to the analog inputs using the D/A converters in the DX-5. You will just need to try it and see.
post #436 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Hansen View Post

Just to clarify, the analog audio outputs will only be disabled if an SSP is connected to the HDMI Audio-Only output and it is powered on.

So will the analog outputs also be disabled if used simultaneously with the A/V HDMI output?

Also, will both HDMI outputs be active simultaneously?

Thanks!
post #437 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Hansen View Post

But that is not what Robena thinks....

LOL

If you were to read robena's entry into the Classe' thread elsewhere on this site, you would find that he was sure he wouldn't like it before he ever heard it. So...consider the source, as it were.


Quote:
What I said was that connecting an active sink (receiver) to the HDMI audio-only output will de-activate the analog outputs. For 99% of the market, this does not present a problem. However, you seem to feel that it does present a problem for your system.

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to.

Quote:
On the one hand you are saying that you would be dissatisfied with the HDMI audio-only connection for playing back CD's (for example)

Again, I don't know when or where I ever said that.


Quote:
So for a system like this, you would like to be able to choose between using the HDMI audio-only output for multi-channel use and the analog audio output for stereo use, correct?

Actually, no. I would prefer to use HDMI for everything but my turntable. I actually mentioned earlier in this thread that if you made an HDMI-only digital player (a DX-5t, as you called it), I would strongly consider such a device.


Quote:
Assuming that I have understood the situation correctly

I think you're talking about something completely different than I was talking about.
post #438 of 1423
That's the part that confuses me. If you are building the DX-5 with exceptional audio and video capabilities. If I'm listening to 2 channel only and would never want to own a multi-channel system because it's different and cost more,etc,etc! Why in the world would I even buy the DX-5? You already have a top of the line CD player in production that could have been revised? Dave Nauber was at Madrigal at one time correct? He's jumped ship and now over at Classe and is headed in the right direction, or so it seems? It's like the proverbial line in the sand being drawn in regards to which is better 2 channel or multi channel. They both have their place in the audio/video world. I still have not heard from the die hard 2 channel fans on the question of listening to the new codecs of DTS-HD MA or Dolby Tru HD? It's this same "I'm not going to change my way of thinking" that almost killed 2 channel awhile back. Snobbery still lives amongst us sometimes. Remember the first time you walked into a high end store? How were you treated initially?

Captains Corageous was a great film. I watch movies also Charles Have you seen Mildred Pierce. I was turned on to that one years ago. There is more to multi-channel than"watching the same movie" over and over again. I'm pretty sure most of the "audiophiles" on here either refuse to listen to M/C or just don't want to admit it sounds great. There are more and more concert videos being released every month. I was really hoping to buy a DX-5 from Sunny now since Brooks is no longer an Ayre dealer it seems. Since my SSP-800 isn't up to the task, I'd better call him up and tell him to not order one. Is my CX-7e okay or should I sell that also?

Theta!! I owned Theta gear in the past and loved it What are they producing presently? How's their customer support today? Their products sound great but at what financial cost. By the time you added the upgraded DAC's and configured it my god, just go buy a movie theater. I HAD a dedicated 2 channel preamp,the Audio Research LS25 MKII. It's been sold and I don't miss it at all.
post #439 of 1423
Robert Harley,


Robert Harley -- Mon, 05/18/2009 - 12:50
I have just finished reviewing the SSP-800; my review will appear in TAS Issue 194 (August cover date, June 23 mail date).

"I can say that the SSP-800 is the best-sounding, most feature-laden, and friendliest (in terms of user interface) controller I've ever used. The sound quality of its preamplifier section (in pure analog mode) is equal to that of many $5k stereo preamps. In the review I also compare the DAC stage to that of the Classe CDP-502 CD/DVD player. The sound of the two is very close, despite the fact that the CDP-502 sells for more than the SSP-800".
post #440 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Hansen View Post

First of all, you yourself admitted that the SSP-800 didn't sound as good as the Ref 3, but it was "close enough" that you didn't care about the shortfall. So I am not the only one who finds that the best two-channel preamps outperform the best SSP's.

Speaking of twisting words, Charles....

I knew before I ever bought the SSP-800 that it was not as good at 2ch analog as my Ref 3, and I even mentioned that here on AVS before I placed the order for the SSP-800. It's not something I "admitted."


Quote:
Second of all, it is quite obvious that any system will benefit from a higher quality source. "A rising tide raises all boats."

Yes, but only up to a point, if the SSP has the limitations you've described. If those limitations exist, then wouldn't something like a $5000 Denon player be good enough?

Quote:
Yes, exactly. There was no point to put eight channels of the best analog audio outs on the unit, as there are very few people who could take advantage of them. Most SSP's digitize the analog inputs so as to provide bass management, time delays, et cetera.

Most? I know of a handful that always digitize analog inputs. The majority that I have seen only digitize inputs if the user decides to do so, and there are some (such as the Classe') that do not digitize analog inputs at all. But, it probably doesn't matter for most because even if they don't digitize the inputs, the input stage sucks anyway.

Quote:
I'm not sure why you are so bent on twisting my words. You make it sound as though there is some inherent incompatibility between the Ayre and the SSP-800. There is not.

Seems to me that it is YOU who is twisting MY words. I never said anything about "compatibility," as in "this won't work with that." You made several points about the inferiority of digital SSPs as opposed to 2ch analog preamps, and I've made it quite clear that I do not disagree with that portion of your statements. My question has been, and still is: if digital SSPs are so limited due to D/A conversion issues and inferior volume controls, as you have stated, why would there be a need for someone like me to buy your player, when a lesser player would probably be good enough? I am ASKING you this, because you have claimed authoritative knowledge. Instead of answering my question, you've become all combative for some reason. You act like I called your baby ugly or something.

Quote:
It will provide a higher level of both video and audio quality than any other Blu-Ray player. When it is released try it for yourself and let us know.

That's what I had been planning to do before you started talking about the limitations of current SSPs. If they are so limited, what specifically does the Ayre player do that overcomes the limitations? I want to know!

Quote:
But apparently you have found that the analog inputs on the SSP-800 provide better sound than the HDMI inputs.

Where did I ever say that? I said I found the analog inputs good enough for my turntable. Can you show me where I ever said what you are claiming I said?


Quote:
So it is certainly possible that you would prefer the sound of the HDMI connection (using the ultra-low jitter HDMI audio-only output) and the D/A converters in the SSP-800 to the analog inputs using the D/A converters in the DX-5. You will just need to try it and see.

I am quite sure that I would prefer the sound of the HDMI connection FOR MULTICHANNEL MATERIAL over the D/A converters of the DX-5 since they are limited to 2ch. But again - given you have strongly stated that SSPs have limitations due to inferior D/A conversion, and inferior volume controls, why exactly would the Ayre do a better job over HDMI than a $5000 Denon, or even a $2200 Pioneer? What does it do differently that can overcome the limitations of the SSP relative to these lesser players?
post #441 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

LOL

If you were to read robena's entry into the Classe' thread elsewhere on this site, you would find that he was sure he wouldn't like it before he ever heard it. So...consider the source, as it were.

That's completely untrue.

I could not get a loaner here, so I actually bought the SSP to be able to test it, taking a loss when I resold it.

If I had been sure that it would sound bad, I certainly would not had taken the decision to lose money by buying it.

The fact is that some SSP owners cannot accept my findings, and try to rationalize them by saying that I was prejudiced against it.

I had some misgivings due to it using a cheap control volume, but I gave it a fair try, comparing it to my N40 and also to my Goldmund processor that I use for audio only. I would have loved to be able to ditch the M40, ML service has been a shame.
post #442 of 1423
On November 13, 2009, you wrote, "I ordered a Classe...But I'm afraid that I'm going to be sorely disappointed "

Forgive me for assuming that you actually meant what you said.
post #443 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

On November 13, 2009, you wrote, "I ordered a Classe...But I'm afraid that I'm going to be sorely disappointed "

Forgive me for assuming that you actually meant what you said.

That's exactly what I just said, I had misgivings. That does not change the fact that I risked (and lost) money to give it a fair test.
post #444 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicey View Post

So will the analog outputs also be disabled if used simultaneously with the A/V HDMI output?

Also, will both HDMI outputs be active simultaneously?

The short answers are that the analog outputs will be active when the main A/V HDMI output is used. Also, both HDMI outputs can be active simultaneously, but using the audio-only HDMI output will disable the analog audio outputs. Following is the long answer:

There can only be one master clock. Everything else must slave to that single master clock.

Jitter on a clock is only important at two places -- at an A/D converter or at a D/A converter. If you have a digital display, then there is no conversion to analog and jitter on the clock does not affect the picture quality. Therefore the critical clock is the audio clock that controls the D/A conversion.

When you are using the analog audio outputs on the DX-5, the audio master clock is in charge. It is 1/2" away from the DAC chip and provides the lowest possible jitter for the best audio quality. Everything else in the player is slaved to that clock. The main HDMI (audio + video) is active in this case, but the audio-only HDMI is turned off.

When the audio-only HDMI is connected to an SSP and the SSP is turned on, the DX-5 will sense this condition and automatically turn on the master clock on the audio-only HDMI board. This is an ultra-low jitter clock running at 74.25 MHz, which is the frequency required for 720p. (With HDMI, the main signal is the video signal and the audio data is stuffed into the normally-empty blanking intervals between lines and between frames. The audio-only HDMI turns this around and just sends a fixed gray video signal, but fills the blanking intervals with audio data.)

We have to use a video clock to transmit the audio data across the HDMI connection. Since only one clock can be in charge, the audio clock for the analog circuitry is turned off and the analog outputs are muted.

With HDMI, the SSP recreates its audio clock from the video clock that it receives. Therefore the lower jitter from the video clock transmitted by the player, the lower the jitter will be at the SSP. That is why the ultra-low jitter video clock on the audio-only HDMI output will give higher sound quality than the main A/V HDMI output.

It also gives extra flexibility when connecting things. The video signal can be connected directly to the display while the audio signal can be connected directly to your audio system. You will then want to also use a remote with a macro to change the inputs on both the display and the SSP, or do the same thing with a system controller (eg, Crestron). Or you can just use two remotes and press two buttons.
post #445 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

I think you're talking about something completely different than I was talking about.

Clearly I am confused. Could you kindly repeat your original question?
post #446 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

That's the part that confuses me. If you are building the DX-5 with exceptional audio and video capabilities. If I'm listening to 2 channel only and would never want to own a multi-channel system because it's different and cost more,etc,etc! Why in the world would I even buy the DX-5?

Could you please clarify your question? We are building the DX-5 to cover all of the bases -- top quality video, top quality multi-channel audio (via HDMI), and top quality two-channel audio (via analog). Are you looking for a player that omits one of those features?
post #447 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

But again - given you have strongly stated that SSPs have limitations due to inferior D/A conversion, and inferior volume controls, why exactly would the Ayre do a better job over HDMI than a $5000 Denon, or even a $2200 Pioneer? What does it do differently that can overcome the limitations of the SSP relative to these lesser players?

There is no such thing as any perfect component. The Ref 3 was a great preamp. It has been replaced by the Ref 5, which is better. But even the Ref 5 is not perfect. There will always be a better preamp at some point in time and for at some price (that may be significantly higher).

Therefore, nobody will ever have a perfect system. I don't have a perfect system. Yet when I improve one part of that system, the overall sound improves. I may improve the speakers, or the preamp, or the source, or the cabling, or the AC power, and I can hear the improvement in sound in all of these cases.

Your system is not perfect either. Yet you will be able to hear the improvement in sound when you upgrade one of the components. If the DX-5 is in your price range, and you are interested in achieving the best picture quality and audio performance, then I would recommend that you try it out and see what improvements it makes in your system. Then you can decide if it is worth the cost to you.
post #448 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by robena View Post

That's exactly what I just said, I had misgivings.

OK, so you're saying that you didn't know you wouldn't like it, but you had strong feelings of doubt about the unit, and an expectation that you wouldn't like it. Thanks for clearing that up.


Quote:


That does not change the fact that I risked (and lost) money to give it a fair test.

Why on earth would you do something like that with an item over which you had "misgivings?" That doesn't seem very smart. Any reputable retailer, even the mail-order variety, offers no-questions-asked return privileges.
post #449 of 1423
I'm pretty sure I knew all that already, but thanks anyway for your reply. I wish you success with the DX-5.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Hansen View Post

There is no such thing as any perfect component. The Ref 3 was a great preamp. It has been replaced by the Ref 5, which is better. But even the Ref 5 is not perfect. There will always be a better preamp at some point in time and for at some price (that may be significantly higher).

Therefore, nobody will ever have a perfect system. I don't have a perfect system. Yet when I improve one part of that system, the overall sound improves. I may improve the speakers, or the preamp, or the source, or the cabling, or the AC power, and I can hear the improvement in sound in all of these cases.

Your system is not perfect either. Yet you will be able to hear the improvement in sound when you upgrade one of the components. If the DX-5 is in your price range, and you are interested in achieving the best picture quality and audio performance, then I would recommend that you try it out and see what improvements it makes in your system. Then you can decide if it is worth the cost to you.
post #450 of 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerguy View Post

Why on earth would you do something like that with an item over which you had "misgivings?"

I had misgivings because I know that op-amp products don't work very well. But technology advances, and maybe sometime this will change.

I was just open-minded, testing how things had changed since I got the ML40.

It turned out not much unfortunately.

Quote:


That doesn't seem very smart. Any reputable retailer, even the mail-order variety, offers no-questions-asked return privileges.

In the US certainly, but here in France, I just could not get a loan. The product is not available, it sells by itself so we don't loan it, blah blah blah..

I finally bought it from Germany, with a nice discount, and my loss was acceptable.

I paid a few Euros to make my own opinion about a very hyped product. It's not the first time, and won't be the last.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › Ayre DX-5 bluray player