HDMI for stereo? -- part two
October 14, 2008
What you say makes sense in terms of not subjecting the
analog signal to digitization only to convert it back to analog again. I agree with that.
I also agree that the DACs in my Denon receiver might be better than what is in my DVD
player. So here is my other question: Is HDMI the best digital output to use for sound
quality?
Paul Reed
That’s a whole different can of worms. I don’t
think anyone would say that HDMI is the best method for transferring digital audio data.
My understanding is that HDMI, in terms of digital audio transmission, is equivalent to
S/PDIF. So in your case I’m not sure you’ll notice much difference between the
digital outputs you have available on your DVD player. You can certainly A/B both rather
easily and determine for yourself if you prefer one over the other, but my guess is that
it won’t be a night-and-day difference.
HDMI for stereo?
October 10, 2008
I hear a lot about HDMI for home theater, but is it
sufficient for high-end audio? I just plan to run a DVD player and a receiver anyway. Will
I get better sound by using regular plugs?
Paul Reed
I think you would likely be better off using HDMI --
for both better sound quality and more convenience. First, you’ll be transmitting a
digital signal from the player to the receiver, and then driving your speakers directly
from the receiver. That could potentially sound better than using the analog outputs of
the player because, in many cases, the receiver will convert the signal back to digital
once again to process the information anyway. Less signal manipulation usually sounds
better. Some receivers do have an analog bypass and that might level the playing field (it
is debatable whether or not an analog signal or a digital signal is the better mode of
signal transmission in this case).
The second reason I would go with HDMI is because the
DACs (digital-to-analog converters) in your receiver are probably better than what are
present in your DVD player. Unless you’re using a high-end DVD player my bet is on
the receiver; most home-theater processing these days is via a receiver or surround-sound
processor and therefore the digital sections of these components have gotten better and
better. In the end, you can always experiment and see if one method of signal transmission
sounds better to you than the other. Of course, if they’re equivalent you’ll
want to go with HDMI to keep the number of cables you have to deal with down to one.
SACD and DVD-A offer any improvement?
October 7, 2008
First of all, I think your e-zine is a great addition to
the audio scene. With the abysmal state of the economy, affordable audio that sounds great
is needed more than ever, and you do a great job of covering what's out there (especially
some of the lesser-known brands). I was an eager convert to the high-definition audio
formats, SACD and DVD-A. I bought a Pioneer DV-578A universal machine for the closeout
price of $105. I realize that this was an entry-level machine, but I thought the sound
improvement would be considerably more than what I usually hear. While each disc usually
sounds somewhat better than the CD, it's often a very subtle improvement. This seems to be
especially true with the Super Audio CD format; the only albums that I hear a substantial
improvement on are a Carpenters album and Alison Krauss & Union Station's album (the
latter compared to the video DVD). The DVD-A format fares a little better, but not much.
The best DVD-A for sound quality that I have is American Beauty by the Grateful
Dead. Have you or your other readers had this experience? I realize the quality of
remastering can vary widely from album to album, but if my experience is typical no wonder
the formats never really took off. The rest of my system is older but pretty decent: a
Yamaha A1000 integrated amp with 120Wpc and a pair of Polk SDA-2 tower speakers. Thanks
for any insight you can add on the subject.
William
Wow, I think you summed up the initial promise and then
eventual failure of DVD-A and SACD better than almost anyone -- and that in one paragraph!
Basically, you’ve summed up nicely why the two formats have both failed to supplant
CD as the physical music carrier of choice: the improvement offered was subtle and to most
people not worth the investment in new hardware or software. This is unlike
high-definition video, where the side-by-side comparisons of standard definition and HD
garnered instant converts and were easy sells (and sales). The good thing in your case is
that you can likely find some good deals on DVD-As and SACDs in music stores that have
discontinued or greatly reduced their stocks of the formats.
More bass of better soundstaging?
October 3, 2008
I have been taking your advice and repositioning my
speakers to increase the bass response. When I move them closer to the wall the bass gets
better but the soundstaging gets worse. Is there any way around that?
Paul
Yours is an example of the great balancing act of
placing speakers in real rooms and the very real advantage that a subwoofer/satellite
system has over a floorstanding loudspeaker. Subwoofers can be placed for the best bass
response while the satellites can be placed for the best imaging -- a huge advantage in
such a setup. In your case you have to balance the bass response with the better
soundstaging and find a compromise that you can live with. One suggestion is to keep the
speakers’ distances from the front walls to maximize your imaging and move the
speakers ever so slightly toward the side walls to reinforce the bass response. A bit more
toe-in than you are using now will help ameliorate the closer proximity to the side walls.
Give that a try and let me know how it works for you.
|
