AVS Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I have been ridiculously torn on what receiver to buy to compliment my Klipsch Ref Series Speakers. First I started with the Yamaha V661, then thought I should look into getting a receiver that can support the new forms of DD TrueHD and DTS-HD. I looked at the Denon 2308CI, but found that it doesn't even support these formats and only has 2 HDMI inputs. Then there's the 2808, which supports the new formats, but only 2 HDMI's again. What about the 3808; supports the new formats, 4 HDMI's, and Network capable!!! But looking to be out of my price point.


My questions:

I have read that as long as you have a receiver that can receive multichannel PCM, which I think all the Denon's can do, then you can let your Next Gen player take care of decoding the new formats, as long as you use HDMI...any thoughts? Also, how good are these new formats and is it worth its salt to buy now to be capable later? If not, maybe i should just stick with the Yammy V661, although I have read amazing reviews of the Audyssey setup, the 1080p Upconversion, and audio fixing for mp3's, etc.

Edit: Would it be worth getting one of the higher end Denons to take advantage of pre outs for another amplifier later down the line?


Ahhhhh, so much to consider and as a noob, I could def use some help!!


Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

Quote:
Originally Posted by interpol /forum/post/12914740


The most important question: what is your budget?

Well, that's kind of a relative question, because I am willing to pay for the features that I would need and are important, but it is also skewed, because where I work, I get a nice little accommodation
. So to put it into real numbers, I guess between $800-$1300, but that even depends on the accommodation on certain receivers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
If you're already looking at Yamaha, why not the RX-V1800? 4 HDMI inputs, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA decoding. Can be found for the lower end of your price range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
FSU


You are correct in your statement that the newer receivers are compatible with the new codecs if the player decodes them and you use HDMI for the transfer. There is no advantage to having the AVR do it as far as SQ. In my opinion people are paying way too much attention to this situation. Let the player decode and you will get the new formats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,234 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by iolmaster /forum/post/12915954


FSU


You are correct in your statement that the newer receivers are compatible with the new codecs if the player decodes them and you use HDMI for the transfer. There is no advantage to having the AVR do it as far as SQ. In my opinion people are paying way too much attention to this situation. Let the player decode and you will get the new formats.

That thinking works fine..

If..

The HD source product has on-board all of the anticipated HD codecs..

However as already shown by presently available HD source products they do not include all of these...

So having an AVR with HDMI 1.3 and all of the released HD audio codecs on-board is the only way one can be sure to handle all of these..


Just my $0.02..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Once the 2.0 Blueray players come out I do not see much use in the reciever having a decoder for the new formats since some of the new features require the player to do the decoding.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
235 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by FSUguy /forum/post/12914841


Well, that's kind of a relative question, because I am willing to pay for the features that I would need and are important, but it is also skewed, because where I work, I get a nice little accommodation
. So to put it into real numbers, I guess between $800-$1300, but that even depends on the accommodation on certain receivers.

With this price range, you can get


Denon 3808,

Yamaha 1800

Yamaha 3800.

Pioneer Elite models

Onkyo 805


Since you mentioned that you don't want Denon 2808 due to the less number of HDMI inputs, I didn't include them in this list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,234 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaniix /forum/post/12916614


Once the 2.0 Blueray players come out I do not see much use in the reciever having a decoder for the new formats since some of the new features require the player to do the decoding.

But what does one do when the HD source product is not an optical based...

For example..

Lets say an HD satellite tuner but the tuner component does not include the required HD audio decoder...

Short term there are workarounds but..

IMHO..

Long term..

The audio decoders for both SD & HD will reside in the AVR..

This is what happened for SD audio decoders..

1st generation of SD DVD players, sat tuners and cable boxes included the SD audio decoders.. Then to save $ & setup redundancies the audio decoders ended up in the AVR..


Just my $0.02..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
362 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code /forum/post/12917463


But what does one do when the HD source product is not an optical based...

For example..

Lets say an HD satellite tuner but the tuner component does not include the required HD audio decoder...

There is no way you will see HD audio on broadcast or satellite TV transmissions anytime in the next 20+ years. The bandwidth requirement is way too high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
I'm kind of in the same boat, but maybe 1 or 2 steps ahead. I have a pair of RF-52s with an RC-52 center and have been trying to find a matching amp since Christmas. I started with my trusty Pioneer VSX-510 circa 2001. It sounded good, but I just got tired of using 3 remotes to switch from my cable box to the PS3, so I figured I'd get an AV receiver to do that for me. I figured I'd also get better sound for "free" seeing how I'd get a new receiver. Or so I thought.


As it turns out, it's not that easy. My boss at work is a bit of a Denon fan, so at fist I tried a cheap Denon (1708). It went back to the store the very next day. The sound was awfull, it didn't do component to HDMI upconversion and at 75watts per channel I felt it was underdriving the Klipsch.


Next I tried the 2308CI for about double the price. This one was rated at 100watts and I no longer had to have the sound set at -15db. It also upconverted my analog inputs to HDMI so I had just the one cable running to the TV and both the sound and the picture would switch at the push of the button. The problem is that now I was $1000 poorer and the sound quality was marginally better than my 7 year old pio.


I was so distraught that I was considering driving 45min to the closest Marantz dealer. The only things stopping me was the fact that I knew I'd be sacrificing features for sound quality and that there was no way at all they'd have my Klipsch so I could listen to them at the store. Basically, I'd be out 3hrs of my time with all the driving I'd be doing if I had to return them.


At lunch today I bit the bullet and got the Pioneer VSX-91. It was comfortably heavy (18kg), had the right stickers on the box like trueHD and DTSHD and I got it for a song. $800 on sale.


I set her up at lunch and run a couple of mp3s through. Not bad, about the same as the 2308 actually, but I thought I could hear some scratching on the sound track. Then I fired up the PS3 and played the opening to Pirates of the Caribbean using trueHD.


Damn. Even without the surround speakers hooked up, the front 3 filled the whole room with sound. I could actually feel the music when the Black Pearl was on screen for the first time. I just could not believe how much of a difference the amp made. It was not too bright like the pios have been accused of in the past. It was not too warm like the Denons were. It was very, very good.


Obviously this is not very scientific, but after almost a month of searching and coming full circle back to the Pioneer, I think I may have finally found what I was looking for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,234 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by interpol /forum/post/12917886


There is no way you will see HD audio on broadcast or satellite TV transmissions anytime in the next 20+ years. The bandwidth requirement is way too high.

Duh..

Oh really...

Then I wonder why Dolby has the following info on their website..



Broadcast Applications


"Dolby Digital Plus is ideal for limited bandwidth environments such as broadcast television. As highly efficient video coding systems like H.264 are adopted, broadcasters can deliver increased capability and capacity through new set-top boxes in the same spectrum they are using today, while retaining playback compatibility with existing Dolby Digital A/V receivers. The Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) approved a revision to the A/52A Standard (A/52B) that incorporates Dolby Digital Plus as the high-efficiency audio coding system for robust mode transmission of E-VSB. Dolby Digital Plus is also included in the Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) specifications as an option for HD and other digital TV services. Devices equipped with Dolby Digital Plus are capable of decoding Dolby Digital broadcast bitstreams for compatibility with existing broadcast services."



Next question..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
He was probably referring to TrueHD or some of the lossless formats. I don't think DD+ is lossless. I don't consider DD+ a high definition format. I know that some HD DVDs do use it. I just didn't think it was lossless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
DD+ is definitely not a lossless compression scheme. It's high bitrate though, up to 6Mbs. That's almost 1Mbs for each 7.1 channel. And it's probably a more efficient scheme than DD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,234 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by iolmaster /forum/post/12922617


He was probably referring to TrueHD or some of the lossless formats. I don't think DD+ is lossless. I don't consider DD+ a high definition format. I know that some HD DVDs do use it. I just didn't think it was lossless.


Dolby True Audio is loss-less..

Dolby Digital Plus is lossy..

Some may not consider Dolby Digital Plus as applicable for HD..

But..

This directly contradicts Dolby's corporate position..

See the below info a direct lift from the Dolby website..

Dolby Digital Plus

Audio that completes the high-definition picture.

"Dolby® Digital Plus is the next-generation audio technology for all high-definition programming and media. It combines the efficiency to meet future broadcast demands with the power and flexibility to realize the full audio potential of the upcoming high-definition experience. Built on Dolby Digital, the multichannel audio standard for DVD and HD broadcasts worldwide, Dolby Digital Plus was designed for the delivery formats of the future, but remains fully compatible with all current A/V receivers. With Dolby Digital Plus, you get even higher quality audio, more channels, and greater flexibility. Amaze your ears."



IMHO..

There are multiple levels of various surround audio formats available including..


PCM, Multi-Channel (loss-less)

Dolby True Audio (loss-less)

Dolby Digital Plus (lossy)

Dolby Digital (lossy)

DTS Master Audio (loss-less)

DTS HD (lossy)

DTS (lossy)


All are capable of delivering multi-channel surround, which one is used really depends upon several factors including the available native source content, studio, target market segment as well as the other components within the signal chain both transmitting & receiving & costs..


Just my $0.02..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
422 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by cansp6 /forum/post/12922347


....at 75watts per channel I felt it was underdriving the Klipsch.

Funny, Klipsch are known for their extremely high sensitivity ratings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,987 Posts
If you want dts-MA, for now, at least, you have to have a receiver that can do the decoding because there aren't any dts-MA players. (Of course, that's already changing with the new Panasonic BDP-50.)


If you want to avoid the bugs that many current players exhibit in how they handle multichannel PCM over HDMI, you need a player and receiver that can bitstream the new codecs.


The one drawback to moving the decoding to the AVR is the loss of some advanced content features such as PIP commentary. I personally don't much care about that and you can still get those features with a DD transcode.


So, it seems to me that AVR decoding covers you better in the short run and doesn't have any drawbacks except, perhaps, for cost. I also feel that decoding is likely to migrate back toward receivers in the future. But, that's just a gut feeling.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top