[KredeDK]

Hi,


I'm planning to upgrade my HT setup in the nearby future, but I’m having some problems understanding the benefits of all these new connections.

Currently I’m using phono 5.1CH out, witch will carry the DVD-A signal in 192kHz/24 bit, but converted to analogue though. But what I don't understand is that, where is the difference from HDMI/i.Link? I know these formats are 100% digital, but a receiver needs to convert the signal to analogue anyway to amplify it?!?


I have understood the difference this way:


Phono out: DVD (digital > analogue) > Receiver (analogue > analogue)

HDMI/i.Link: (digital > analogue) > Receiver (digital > analogue)


= Same result?


Please help me out here...

 

[blgentry]

You understand the situation exactly as it is. In fact, many here seem to miss this same point in rallying for an all digital connection from DVD-A and SACD players to their receivers. The point of decision has very little to do with the cables involved (one digital versus six analog connections) and a WHOLE lot more to do with which sounds better.


I contend that in many circumstances, the DACs in the high res audio player (universal DVD player, DVD player with DVD-A, etc) are *better* than the DACs in the device they are connected to. Certainly the DACs in a $1000 player are better than the DACs in a $1500 receiver. How about a $1000 DVD player versus a $3500 preamp processor? In my estimation, the DVD player probably still wins. Of course, only listening will reveal the true winner.


My point is obvious: A single digital connection from a high res player to a receiver may actually *negatively* impact the sound quality. For me the tradeoff of worse sound quality, which gives me the convenience of one wire and centralized bass management is *not* worth it.


YMMV.


Brian.

 

[PooperScooper]

Brian, you make some good points. However, I don't believe the

"firewire" transports of some SACD/DVD-A players suffer the

same jitter issues, etc. of coax and optical digital connections which

can sometimes make a sonic difference. The "firewire" connection

should deliver the bits "exactly" as they were pulled from the disc

(encrypted of course) to the receiver/prepro. Until you mentioned

it, I never really thought about it.


larry

 

[avaholic]

Quote:

Originally posted by KredeDK I have understood the difference this way: Phono out: DVD (digital > analogue) > Receiver (analogue > analogue) HDMI/i.Link: (digital > analogue) > Receiver (digital > analogue) = Same result? Please help me out here...

Essentially correct. BUT.....


At least for me, it's more than just convienece of having central BM and fewer cables.


I have the Pioneer 55TXi receiver (retail: $1,700, I paid $1,100) and the 47Ai (retail: 1,200, I paid $700). I have compared the two DACs in listening tests, and with i.Link the 55TXi is way better to my ears than the 47Ai. With the Pioneers they have a rate control Quartz lock system, called PQLS. When this is activated using the i.Link connection it enables near jitterless digital-to-analog conversion. To the best of my knowledge (I may be wrong) no stand-alone DVD players have this ability, not even the mega-buck players. I listen to alot of music, and this makes a difference to me. Also, owning the 55TXi, the MCACC (EQ room correction) feature is VERY important to me, and the only way I can use it for DVD-A or SACD is if I use the i.Link connection (it does not work via the 5.1 inputs).


As the other poster mentions it does centralize the BM, which is a plus, especially since the 47Ai, like many players, only has a crossover setting of 100Hz. I personally use 80Hz and occasionally 50Hz in my 55TXi. I do not have that option with the 47Ai BM.


My .02, after having this i.Link combo, I would not even consider using a standard DVD player for DAC. If I had lots of $, then I would consider using it in some of the high end players. But I don't, to me there is just no comparison. I realize $1,800 for the combo is not cheap and there are not alot of other options (currently none) in "this" price range, but it sounds great to me, so I don't need any other options


Of course YMMV!

Good luck to all in thier pursuit of sonic Nirvana! (I've found mine, too bad it took me 7 years of buying and selling audio gear)


Best Regards,

Patrick

 

[William]

Quote:

Originally posted by PooperScooper ..However, I don't believe the "firewire" transports of some SACD/DVD-A players suffer the same jitter issues, etc. of coax and optical digital connections which can sometimes make a sonic difference....larry

This is correct. Firwire is packet based and not a timed stream so it can NOT be effected by jitter.

 

[PooperScooper]

avaholic, I'm with you. I have the 47ai/49txi combo and have been

extremely pleased with it. Athough I never bothered to try the analog

outs from the 47ai - don't have 6 decent interconnects.


William, great, thanks!.


Hopefully in the future DACs won't be needed in the players for

decoding digital streams and will all be "firewire" or HDMI based.

Then us consumers can spend the extra bucks for better prepros

or receivers.


larry

 

[sergiohm]

Quote:

Originally posted by avaholic ... only way I can use it for DVD-A or SACD is if I use the i.Link connection (it does not work via the 5.1 inputs).

MCACC works in the analogue inputs as well (at least for the 49TXi, I believe it also applies to the 55Txi). In the 49Txi you can use Multi-channel Direct (no MCACC) or Multi-Channel Adjust (where you can use MCACC).

I think PQLS is part of the firewire specification for audio. Pioneer calls it PQLS, Sony calls it something else. The SONY XA900ES SACD/CD player also has it (under a different name).

 

[avaholic]

Quote:

Originally posted by sergiohm MCACC works in the analogue inputs as well (at least for the 49TXi, I believe it also applies to the 55Txi). In the 49Txi you can use Multi-channel Direct (no MCACC) or Multi-Channel Adjust (where you can use MCACC). I think PQLS is part of the firewire specification for audio. Pioneer calls it PQLS, Sony calls it something else. The SONY XA900ES SACD/CD player also has it (under a different name).

Actually, I know for a fact MCACC does not work for the 5.1 inputs on the 55TXi. I know it works for the 49TXi, but it does not for the 55TXi. It says so in the manual, and I have confirmed as well.


Yes, I know PQLS is needed for Pioneers implementation of firewire, and that Sony has thier own flavor of it. But since I have no experience with it, so I did'nt mention it. I know there was a member here that connected a 49TXi to the XA9000ES but could not get verification that the PQLS or Sony's flavor of it was working. Supposedly the Sony has an indicator that was not showing that it was "on". Though he said it was playing the audio. Go figure!


Best Regards,

Patrick

 

[jflegert]

Quote:

Originally posted by blgentry ... My point is obvious: A single digital connection from a high res player to a receiver may actually *negatively* impact the sound quality. ...

I see the glass as half full.


If you attribute the quality to the DACS how would you rather spend your money:


$700 for SACD/DVD-A player ($500 which is the cost of the dacs)

$700 for an HD-DVD player ($500 which is the cost of the DACS)

$500 for the receiver ($100 of which is the DACS)

--------

$1900


or


$300 for the SACD/DVD-A player

$300 for the HD-DVD player

$900 for the receiver ($500 of which is the dacs)

--------

$1600


Please note that I have no idea what DACs cost, or if you can tell a manufacturer how much you wanted to spend on DACS.


Regards,

John Flegert

 

[yubyub]

jflegert,


The cost is probably not accurate, but your concept is sound [sic]. Why spend dollars on excellent DACs for multiple components when you can spend less dollars on excellent "centralized" DACs?


This, of course, assumes that there is no impact to the sound quality, which is kind of hard to make a general statement about...

 

[yubyub]

Slightly off topic:
Quote:

I know these formats are 100% digital, but a receiver needs to convert the signal to analogue anyway to amplify it?!?

Not necessarily. This is really splitting hairs, but it would be possible to amplify it without converting to analog. Take, for example, the Bel Canto digital amplifiers (which sound fantastic, BTW). They are essentially a rather advanced high power PWM if you look at it in a basic way. In this case, you could feed the digital signal directly to the amp, which uses the signal to create an analog power signal (not converting to analog then amplifying, but using the digital signal to create the loudspeaker-level output).


I don't know of anything which does this currently, but I just wanted to point out the potential...

 

[sergiohm]

Quote:

Originally posted by avaholic I know there was a member here that connected a 49TXi to the XA9000ES but could not get verification that the PQLS or Sony's flavor of it was working. Supposedly the Sony has an indicator that was not showing that it was "on". Though he said it was playing the audio. Go figure! Best Regards, Patrick

That someone was me The XA9000ES should show its flavor of PQLS was on but it did not. The fact the 55TXi does not allow MCACC through the 5.1 analogue inputs is new to me but the 49Txi is more expensive ... you get what you pay for

 

[avaholic]

Quote:

Originally posted by sergiohm That someone was me The XA9000ES should show its flavor of PQLS was on but it did not.

Small Forum

Quote:

Originally posted by sergiohm The fact the 55TXi does not allow MCACC through the 5.1 analogue inputs is new to me but the 49Txi is more expensive ... you get what you pay for

I, like many, can't afford something like the 49TXi. BUT... for less than half of what the 49TXi costs, I can enjoy the jitterless benefits of the firewire connection, as well as MCACC with HiRez material. Based on the jitterless DAC alone, I would not even consider using the 5.1 inputs, regardless if MCACC worked with it or not.


So True, you get what you pay for, then again if your not going to use it, what's the point .


Although, if I had the money I would DEFINATELY go for the 49TXi. But, my point was that i.Link Does make a difference over using the 5.1 inputs (Main benefits being: jitterless DAC, and use of MCACC in the case of the 55TXi), and can be had for a reasonable price.


Best Regards,

Patrick

 

[KredeDK]

Hi again,


Thank you all for your posts! This really helped me understand the benefits of i.Link/HDMI although they seem to be quite small. But thanks for the reply!