or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Integra DHC-80.3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Integra DHC-80.3 - Page 74

post #2191 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Do you have Network Control enabled? If so, that requires some circuits are left permanently active.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlknez View Post

Leaving zones 2 and 3 on will cause your heat symptom

Thanks for the responses, guys. Unfortunately, I am away from home for the next several days so I can't check either setting. But, how could the Zones be ON if the unit is on STANDBY? I know that no Zone lights are showing on the display.

As for Network Control, I will check that too. I do know that I see the 80.3 in the Windows 7 network map when looking on one of my networked computers. And the other networked computer (Vista) is displaying a Media Center message about being able to set up music files for play on the 80.3. Does that mean that Network Control on the 80.3 is ON and that is the likely reason for the heat being generated even though the unit is on STANDBY? Sounds plausible.

If you guys have both all Zones OFF and Network Control OFF, are your 80.3's cold when on STANDBY?
post #2192 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed1 View Post

As for Network Control, I will check that too. I do know that I see the 80.3 in the Windows 7 network map when looking on one of my networked computers. And the other networked computer (Vista) is displaying a Media Center message about being able to set up music files for play on the 80.3. Does that mean that Network Control on the 80.3 is ON and that is the likely reason for the heat being generated even though the unit is on STANDBY? Sounds plausible.

Can you see the 80.3 on your network even if it is in standby? If so, you have Network Control turned on. Unless you need to be able to switch on your 80.3 over the network, turn Network Control off and your unit will be cool again when it is in Standby.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ed1 View Post

If you guys have both all Zones OFF and Network Control OFF, are your 80.3's cold when on STANDBY?

I don't use Zones so can't comment on that. I have Network Control turned off and my unit is cool to the touch when it is in standby mode.
post #2193 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

As to both audio and video, there is no question that higher resolutions offer dimishing returns as to PQ or to SQ... But, my point on video is that I paid for deep color in my equipment purchases. I doubt it is going to offer anything other than a modest improvement, but why is it nowhere to be found?
OOPs, we are off and running on an off-topic tangent! I too was wondering what happened to that Deep Color feature, which sounds so-oo nice. Deeper colors, yeah! So now I try to focus on buying for features that are present and meaningful, not promises...

As to SQ, I am a classical music guy who is enraptured with hi Rez Mch. I have huge CD and vinyl collections I no longer listen to as a result. Hi Rez Mch trumps those easily in terms of approaching concert hall realism. Yes, there are many good CDs, but they do not, of course, offer discretely recorded Mch, which is a big difference maker.
I can understand your take, and completely agree that the surround channels, properly recorded, add a nice sense of being in the concert hall space. I've tried to enhance that with DSX wides, but so far I was pleased with the effect on only one recording. But my point is that the 192K issue is really quite a bit like the Deep Color hype. Basically, my point is that I'm unconvinced that 192K itself even matters to any practical purpose. Like SACD, one often finds material in 192K that sounds great, but that's because of the care taken all along the audio chain.

I am generally quite pleased with the sound of Mch Blu-ray, even at 48k/24, and especially in DTS HDMA, which generally offers better sound than LPCM.
Me too! k d laing Live in London, mmm!

See above. I apologize, 192K is a topic for another thread.
post #2194 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

But, my point on video is that I paid for deep color in my equipment purchases. I doubt it is going to offer anything other than a modest improvement, but why is it nowhere to be found?

Because it doesn't exist on the content creation side (at least for film and television based content...)

IMO, purely maketing hype.

Quote:


I am generally quite pleased with the sound of Mch Blu-ray, even at 48k/24, and especially in DTS HDMA, which generally offers better sound than LPCM. Dolby THD is almost non-existent on Blu-ray, but can also be quite good.

How can a compression codec sound better than the original master PCM that it was made from?

All digital audio (with the tiny, almost no existent recordings done directly to DSD (which in turn, unless no processing is done, is converted to PCM to mix, process, etc.) is recorded as PCM... it's the cornerstone of digital recording.

Quote:


As to SQ, I am a classical music guy who is enraptured with hi Rez Mch. I have huge CD and vinyl collections I no longer listen to as a result. Hi Rez Mch trumps those easily in terms of approaching concert hall realism. Yes, there are many good CDs, but they do not, of course, offer discretely recorded Mch, which is a big difference maker.

I agree that multichannel obviously makes a huge difference in creating realistic spatial details...

One of my colleagues sent me a great link about high resolution sample rates which is interesting food for thought..

Enjoy.

24/192 music downloads... and why they make no sense.
post #2195 of 4252
Good link filmmixer.
post #2196 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post




How can a compression codec sound better than the original master PCM that it was made from?


24/192 music downloads... and why they make no sense.

I believe that a Losslessly compressed codec can sound no better than the original uncompressed master. Ideally, it should sound the same, compressed or uncompressed. But, several of us, notably on classical music videos, have found the compressed codecs to sound somewhat better than uncompressed LPCM in playing the disk. It is obviously a subjective opinion, and there are exceptions. Also, there are few opportunities to compare compressed and uncompressed soundtracks side by side at home. I have not spent a lot of time listening to compressed sountracks with the player doing the decompression vs. the prepro, though.

But, here are a couple of theories as to why we think compressed sounds generally better. First, almost all more recent disks are using Losslessly compressed to save space on the disk. But, possibly the engineering and gear used on the recording side is more up to date and therefore better in many cases. Second, there is the controversial question of jitter in the playback chain. Potentially, compressed playback is lower in jitter because the decompression stage in the prepro is a buffered process that might lower playback jitter. The word clock is not recovered until after decompression of the data stream from the player, and HDMI is known to be a high jitter interface. I do believe in bits is bits, except for jitter.

Those are my theories, FWIW.

As to higher resolution, I did read that article awhile back. The only problem is that a good friend and I did some extensive listening to some disks and downloads from the Linn site. We had the SACD, an 88 or 96k download and Linn's premium 192k download, all of the same recordings mastered either in DSD or in 192K PCM. We listened in stereo,as Mch was not available in all the above formats. What we heard was a noticeable improvement at 192k over the other sources. I would not describe it as huge, but we both felt it was somewhat better and more "natural" sounding.

You could claim, but could not prove, placebo effect, anymore than we can claim there was none. However, we are both pretty experienced and skeptical listeners, and we heard the same thing. He is an ex-musician and notable recording critic for several prominent publications. His $100k system was used, including an Anthem D2V, Oppo 93 plus Wilson speakers and Pass Labs amps. We did not, incidentally, hear a significant difference between the SACD and the 96k download played back from a hard drive, but there was a slight, but insignificant, preference for the hard drive played either via the Oppo/HDMI or directly via a USB/coax bridge.

Off topic, I know, but some might be interested.
post #2197 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

I believe that a Losslessly compressed codec can sound no better than the original uncompressed master. Ideally, it should sound the same, compressed or uncompressed. But, several of us, notably on classical music videos, have found the compressed codecs to sound somewhat better than uncompressed LPCM in playing the disk. It is obviously a subjective opinion, and there are exceptions. Also, there are few opportunities to compare compressed and uncompressed soundtracks side by side at home. I have not spent a lot of time listening to compressed sountracks with the player doing the decompression vs. the prepro, though.

As I said, it's impossible for the lossless codec to sound better that what went into it...

While I think, as you did, many would like to think they can attribute that to jitter, outside of a studio environment, and being able to have a clock you can turn "off" (i.e. create jitter) I think it's a case of "golden ears" claiming to hear a difference when they in fact haven't been able to properly listen to the two side by side...

Placebo is a surprisingly powerful persuader.

Quote:


But, here are a couple of theories as to why we think compressed sounds generally better. First, almost all more recent disks are using Losslessly compressed to save space on the disk. But, possibly the engineering and gear used on the recording side is more up to date and therefore better in many cases.

That statement confuses me...

They are recording everything to PCM.. what does better gear have to do with the lossless encoding of the original master?

Quote:


Second, there is the controversial question of jitter in the playback chain. Potentially, compressed playback is lower in jitter because the decompression stage in the prepro is a buffered process that might lower playback jitter. The word clock is not recovered until after decompression of the data stream from the player, and HDMI is known to be a high jitter interface.

Those are my theories, FWIW.

If you read the link I provided, and any others on testing codecs, or comparing gear, speakers, etc... I think you'd agree that jitter is a hard thing to subjectively measure...

PCM over HDMI has the benefit of the audio being tied to the video "clock.."

The clock signal is sent separately over HDMI... and since we're talking about a closed system of two pieces of gear (and not bidirectional) IMO it's a non issue that people look at to validate what they think they might be hearing, or want to hear...

Jitter can be a big issue in my studio environment (and obviously it isn't because everything gets sync from a master clock, and even when locking external DAW's with time code, our margin of error is usually within +/- 1 samples)..

I personally don't think you can chalk up an argument that lossless sounds better than the PCM it was made from due to jitter (without being able to actually measure jitter on a scale that would be audible, you're in the dark as to how much jitter, if any there is....)

If you are looking for a difference in the first place, you're bound to find one.

Just my .02.. FWIW.
post #2198 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

As I said, it's impossible for the lossless codec to sound better that what went into it...


While I think, as you did, many would like to think they can attribute that to jitter, outside of a studio environment, and being able to have a clock you can turn "off" (i.e. create jitter) I think it's a case of "golden ears" claiming to hear a difference when they in fact haven't been able to properly listen to the two side by side...

Placebo is a surprisingly powerful persuader.



That statement confuses me...

They are recording everything to PCM.. what does better gear have to do with the lossless encoding of the original master?



If you read the link I provided, and any others on testing codecs, or comparing gear, speakers, etc... I think you'd agree that jitter is a hard thing to subjectively measure...

PCM over HDMI has the benefit of the audio being tied to the video "clock.."

The clock signal is sent separately over HDMI... and since we're talking about a closed system of two pieces of gear (and not bidirectional) IMO it's a non issue that people look at to validate what they think they might be hearing, or want to hear...

Jitter can be a big issue in my studio environment (and obviously it isn't because everything gets sync from a master clock, and even when locking external DAW's with time code, our margin of error is usually within +/- 1 samples)..

I personally don't think you can chalk up an argument that lossless sounds better than the PCM it was made from due to jitter (without being able to actually measure jitter on a scale that would be audible, you're in the dark as to how much jitter, if any there is....)

If you are looking for a difference in the first place, you're bound to find one.

Just my .02.. FWIW.

Am I missing something? I agreed that compressed cannot sound better than the original, and I never said otherwise. Nothing can sound better than original. The question I raise is are there possible differences purely in the equipment on the playback side that can make one sound more like the original studio master that went onto the disc than the other, i.e., is one reproduced more faithfully than the other?

I only offered a speculative theory that jitter might account for a difference between the two on playback. But, note that it is only a theory. I also said it was controversial. Of course, I cannot measure it, which is why it is only a theory. But, let me ask you if jitter makes no difference, why is everything tied to a master clock in the studio? If it did not make a difference, there would be no need for one.

I was not looking for a sonic difference, but the overall trend has become apparent to me and others that newer, compressed BR's usually, not always, sound better than older uncompressed ones. I said that may have nothing to do with compression, but only to other improvements in the newer equipment used in the recording chain. Are you saying that recording/mixing/mastering and manufacturing equipment never improves or that PCM recorded, mixed and mastered over 5 years ago always sounds just as good as stuff done today, i.e., recorded sound never improves?


We could go on, but the trend is that I still am generally, there are always exceptions, more satisfied sonically with the compressed disks than I have been with the uncompressed ones, whatever the reasons might be. Others I know also share this view.
post #2199 of 4252
Hi newbie her.
When using an Integra DHC-80.3
As anyone experience when using THX Ultra 2 cinema and the input signal is a 7.1 and it defaults to just THX Cinema and it will not return to Thx Ultra 2. Now if the input signal is 5.1 you will be able to achieve the Thx Ultra 2. This is the only way it can be achieved on my unit. I called Integra I talked to one of the techs there on said the unit is defected. Also is anyone having any problems using 1080p/24 with the unit? The video looks like you're on a webcam.
post #2200 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Kenobi View Post

Hi newbie her.
When using an Integra DHC-80.3
As anyone experience when using THX Ultra 2 cinema and the input signal is a 7.1 and it defaults to just THX Cinema and it will not return to Thx Ultra 2. Now if the input signal is 5.1 you will be able to achieve the Thx Ultra 2. This is the only way it can be achieved on my unit. I called Integra I talked to one of the techs there on said the unit is defected. Also is anyone having any problems using 1080p/24 with the unit? The video looks like you're on a webcam.

How does PLIIx do with 5.1 etc?
post #2201 of 4252
Very well even with PLIIz I got THX Ultra 2 cinema with 5.1 but not 7.1 like if I watch transformers dark of the moon it switch is back to THX cinema and not Ultra 2 cinema
post #2202 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by "fitzcaraldo215 View Post

But, let me ask you if jitter makes no difference, why is everything tied to a master clock in the studio?

It should be fairly obvious why it's important in a production environment.

Jitter and synchronization are two different things.

Typically we are syncing multiple sources together to a time code track.

7 or 8 digital audio workstation running 300-400 tracks of 24/48 PCM into a digital console.. all synchronized within one sample.

Plus outboard effects processors, etc.

If they aren't on the same clock, you will get snaps, static, etc

My understanding is that jitter has to be so high to become audible, and magnitudes in order more present that what is found in home theater equipment..

I came across an older post where Kal Rubinsone replied to you the following years ago:

"Jitter is a major bugaboo in audio but I think it is more often invoked as a possible cause rather than a proven correlate of an effect."

In a home theater, you have one source that is then transmitted to another device which reclocks the incoming signal, without any need to synchronize with anything else but itself.
post #2203 of 4252
Its a fascinating subject -jitter- so just so people could make there minds up thought I would put a link up to a 1974 BBC pdf of the subjective threshold of jitter

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1974-11.pdf

Note the low 40/50 picosecond threshold listed was before the incomparable hdmi interface was foisted on us

http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.c...MI_connect.htm

Came across this from Amir showing how hard it is to design proper circuitry for jitter timings

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showth...982&viewfull=1

Anyway totally ot just giving some context hopefully ..
post #2204 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwt View Post

Its a fascinating subject -jitter- so just so people could make there minds up thought I would put a link up to a 1974 BBC pdf of the subjective threshold of jitter

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1974-11.pdf

Note the low 40/50 picosecond threshold listed was before the incomparable hdmi interface was foisted on us

http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.c...MI_connect.htm

Came across this from Amir showing how hard it is to design proper circuitry for jitter timings

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showth...982&viewfull=1

Anyway totally ot just giving some context hopefully ..

So what are the numbers for the newer units e.g. 80.3 ?
post #2205 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

So what are the numbers for the newer units e.g. 80.3 ?

As demonstrated in the above discussion, jitter is controversial. I think measurements, particularly of single components, fail to tell the whole story anyway. It is really the overall system jitter that is important, including player, interfaces like cables plus the processor. Also, jitter occurs in a spectrum, so single jitter numbers are almost meaningless.

Going back a number of years, Arcam went ballistic publically, as did several other manufacturers, about the high jitter via HDMI. As a result, Arcam did not for awhile include HDMI in their HT processors, though they do now.

I think what has happened is that better engineering techniques and better chipsets have managed to reduce it over time. The industry has become more aware of it and has refined their handling of it with each new generation of gear. That may be just as true on the recording side as it is on the playback side.

I was listening last night to an older, early Blu-ray of Mozart's Magic Flute - Colin Davis/Royal Opera, which has an LPCM soundtrack. It was once again typical of what I have been talking about, mainly that many uncompressed LPCM tracks of older disks just do not sound as good in general as newer Losslessly compressed ones. There was a slight, but very noticeable stridency in the highs I just do not hear with most newer disks. If it were just this one disk, I would not have much to say other than that the soundtrack was not as good as many others. But, it strikes me as a fairly consistent pattern, with some exceptions.

Could it be jitter or something else? I cannot prove that it is jitter. But, the circumstantial evidence seems to suggest that it might be a part of what I am hearing. As I explained in a previous post, there seems to be a good theoretical basis that Losslessly compressed transmission reduces jitter vs. uncompressed LPCM.

Anyway, I always set my player such that the Integra does all the decompression and codec conversion. I think that is the optimal way to go. Ditto for DSD from SACDs. I just think it sounds considerably better that way. Many others in other forums have said the same thing with other gear. And, the Oppo 93 I am using is no slouch when it comes to good jitter numbers.
post #2206 of 4252
My DHC 80.3 is now connected to a rock-solid B&K 200.7 amp. I need this amp for another system in my new house.

Any suggstions based on your actual experiences?

Thanks

Jim
post #2207 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxerboy View Post

My DHC 80.3 is now connected to a rock-solid B&K 200.7 amp. I need this amp for another system in my new house.

Any suggstions based on your actual experiences?

Very happy with my Emotiva MPS-1 for the money, and I've read good things about their newer amps. One risk is that it seems to have a bit more gain than other amp brands, so if you are running very efficient speakers, there may not be enough range in the trims to calibrate properly.

I think my mains were set to -5.5db by Audyssey.
post #2208 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxerboy View Post

My DHC 80.3 is now connected to a rock-solid B&K 200.7 amp. I need this amp for another system in my new house.

Any suggstions based on your actual experiences?

Thanks

Jim

Outlaw audio has very good 5 and 7 channel amps. My 7500 has performed flawlessly for several years.

If you want go up a number of notches Bryston sst2 amps are truly great. I have a 4b sst in my living room for my B&W 801 matrix.
post #2209 of 4252
What are my options for reducing treble output with Audyssey engaged? My speakers (Rocket 850sig) have a fairly aggressive HF roll-off - giving them a smooth sound which I like for music. When I turn on Audyssey, there is a noticeable boost in the treble (some in Audyssey Movie mode, a lot in Audyssey Music mode).

I read in the manual that the equalizer settings are overridden by Audyssey, but I have noticed some more general bass/treble settings in some of the menus. What would be the best option for toning things down a bit, and would it apply to all sources or could I do it just for music?

Thanks. -james
post #2210 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Kenobi View Post

Hi newbie her.
When using an Integra DHC-80.3
As anyone experience when using THX Ultra 2 cinema and the input signal is a 7.1 and it defaults to just THX Cinema and it will not return to Thx Ultra 2. Now if the input signal is 5.1 you will be able to achieve the Thx Ultra 2. This is the only way it can be achieved on my unit. I called Integra I talked to one of the techs there on said the unit is defected. Also is anyone having any problems using 1080p/24 with the unit? The video looks like you're on a webcam.

The reason why Ultra 2 in not available for 7.1 sources is that Ultra matrixes soundtracks to 7.1, since the Integra already receiving a 7.1 source it will default to just THX Cinema.
post #2211 of 4252
not according to Integra the dhc-80.3 they have was able to output thx ultra2 with a 7.1 input signal. my friend as an onkyo 3007 and he gets thx ultra2 with a 7.1 input signal. if you have a integra 80.3 and your not get thx ultra2 your unit is defected.................. call integra they will confirm this.
post #2212 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Kenobi View Post

not according to Integra the dhc-80.3 they have was able to output thx ultra2 with a 7.1 input signal. my friend as an onkyo 3007 and he gets thx ultra2 with a 7.1 input signal. if you have a integra 80.3 and your not get thx ultra2 your unit is defected.................. call integra they will confirm this.

I suggest you read page 40 on your manual then.

THX Ultra2 Cinema
This mode expands 5.1-channel sources for 7.1- channel playback. It does
this by analyzing the composition of the surround source, optimizing the
ambient and directional sounds to produce the surround back channel
output.
• THX Ultra2 Music
This mode is designed for use with music. It expands 5.1-channel sources
for 7.1-channel playback.
• THX Ultra2 Games
This mode is designed for use with video games. It can expand 5.1-channel
sources for 6.1/7.1-channel playback.
• THX Surround EX
This mode expands 5.1-channel sources for 6.1/7.1- channel playback. It’s
especially suited to Dolby Digital EX sources. THX Surround EX, also
known as Dolby Digital Surround EX, is a joint development between
Dolby Laboratories and THX Ltd.


• Dolby Pro Logic II Game + THX Ultra2 Games
The combination of Dolby Pro Logic II Game and THX Ultra2 Games
modes can be used. The PLII indicator lights on the display.


• Dolby Pro Logic IIz Height + THX Ultra2 Cinema
• Dolby Pro Logic IIz Height + THX Ultra2 Music
• Dolby Pro Logic IIz Height + THX Ultra2 Games
The combination of Dolby Pro Logic IIz Height and THX Ultra2 Cinema/
Music/Games modes can be used.



As you can see THX U2 is used to expand 5.1 to 7.1, so if your source is 7.1 why would there be a need to matrix it since you have discrete 7.1 already. I rarely use any THX mode, however it works the same with Dolby sources. I have my receiver to default to PIIx so that any dolby TrueHD 5.1 disc will matrix to 7.1, however if it sees a Dolby TrueHD 7.1 source it will only show Dolby TrueHD 7.1 as there is no need to matrix it.
post #2213 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Kenobi View Post

not according to Integra the dhc-80.3 they have was able to output thx ultra2 with a 7.1 input signal. my friend as an onkyo 3007 and he gets thx ultra2 with a 7.1 input signal. if you have a integra 80.3 and your not get thx ultra2 your unit is defected.................. call integra they will confirm this.

No, that is wrong. THX U2 takes a 5.1 input and expands it to 7.1. Here is the relevant section of my manual:



If you input a 7.1 source then you will get THX Cinema. Also confirmed in the manual. May the Force be with you.
post #2214 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by nismo604 View Post

I suggest you read page 40 on your manual then.


As you can see THX U2 is used to expand 5.1 to 7.1, so if your source is 7.1 why would there be a need to matrix it since you have discrete 7.1 already. I rarely use any THX mode, however it works the same with Dolby sources. I have my receiver to default to PIIx so that any dolby TrueHD 5.1 disc will matrix to 7.1, however if it sees a Dolby TrueHD 7.1 source it will only show Dolby TrueHD 7.1 as there is no need to matrix it.

I hadn't spotted your post when I sent mine, with the screen shot of the manual page you refer to. It's quite clear in the manual, as you say, that THX U2 takes only a 5.1 input signal - which of course is why it shows 5.1 in the right column and not 5.1/7.1 as it does for DSPs which accept either.
post #2215 of 4252
I’m somewhat confused according to integra, the Movie they used to archive thx ultra2 was Pan's Labyrinth Audio Spanish: DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1if anyone as this move please try it. I was on the phone with integra when they performed this test for me. And they confirmed it was a 7.1 input single and output was THX ULTRA2 + FH 9.1
post #2216 of 4252
Sorry typo. I’m somewhat confused according to integra, the Movie they used to achieve thx ultra2 was Pan's Labyrinth Audio Spanish: DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1if anyone as this move please try it. I was on the phone with integra when they performed this test for me. And they confirmed it was a 7.1 input single and output was THX ULTRA2 + FH 9.1
post #2217 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Can you see the 80.3 on your network even if it is in standby? If so, you have Network Control turned on. Unless you need to be able to switch on your 80.3 over the network, turn Network Control off and your unit will be cool again when it is in Standby.

I am a bit confused, as my unit does not seem to be acting as you describe.

In the Network menu, I have disabled both DHCP and Network Control. Yet the 80.3 has remained slightly warm (especially at the bottom front, under the display) when on Standby, and it remains visible on my Win7 computer's network map when on Standby.

I have the HDMI set to pass through the cable TV signal to the TV when the 80.3 is on Standby. Could that signal pass-through be the cause of the heat?
post #2218 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed1 View Post


I have the HDMI set to pass through the cable TV signal to the TV when the 80.3 is on Standby. Could that signal pass-through be the cause of the heat?

Yes!

Cheers,
SB
post #2219 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotcheckBilly View Post

Yes!

Cheers,
SB

Even if the cable box and TV are both off?
post #2220 of 4252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Kenobi View Post

Sorry typo. I'm somewhat confused according to integra, the Movie they used to achieve thx ultra2 was Pan's Labyrinth Audio Spanish: DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1if anyone as this move please try it. I was on the phone with integra when they performed this test for me. And they confirmed it was a 7.1 input single and output was THX ULTRA2 + FH 9.1

do you have a 9.1 setup? If you look at the chart in the manual they are correct you can have ultra 2 + PIIz for a 7.1 input.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Integra DHC-80.3