Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Are all DVD players equal in the department of putting digital sound to a receiver??


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
21 replies to this topic

#1 of 22 OFFLINE   kurt_fire

kurt_fire

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 183 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 29 2002

Posted April 14 2003 - 08:59 AM

For example, would a DVD sound just as good playing on a $79 DVD player vs. a $299 one? Thanks guys.

#2 of 22 OFFLINE   Brian L

Brian L

    Screenwriter



  • 2,882 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1998

Posted April 14 2003 - 09:33 AM

At the outset, I predict this thread will take off into a lengthy debate...not that that is a bad thing, but this is likely to be a pretty polarizing question.

So, to get it started, in my opinion, there should be no difference. But, in the high-end, you will find outrageous claims of sound quality differences between various players used as transports. Most of that refers to PCM only, but there are those that claim that DD or DTS data streams are affected as well. I seem to recall that Audio Advisor sold a magic box that was supposed to reduce jitter in DD and DTS bit streams, and somehow improve the sound.

I am of the school that thinks thats a lot of hokum, but if someone says they can hear a difference, who can argue?

BGL

#3 of 22 OFFLINE   Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Studio Mogul



  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted April 14 2003 - 11:43 AM

The key phrase is "in the high end". I doubt that even the most determined audiophile would be able to hear a difference between a $79 player and a $299 one, with both feeding the same external decoder.

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#4 of 22 OFFLINE   ChrisWiggles

ChrisWiggles

    Producer



  • 4,791 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted April 14 2003 - 12:24 PM

Agreed. Maybe between a 79 player and a VERY-High end player/transport, but there probably will be a significant difference in terms of features, and far more important: video. The 299 player may be progressive, probably has better guts all around, which may help the audio a tad, but the difference in video and options will probably be more significant, what with better video dacs and all. THAT's where the difference will be.

#5 of 22 OFFLINE   John Sully

John Sully

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 200 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 25 1999

Posted April 14 2003 - 02:48 PM

There should be no differences between players as long as you are talking about a DD/DTS bitstream. I am of the opinion that there really is no difference when handling a PCM stream either, but there are many who will argue that there are "huge" differences between different players used as transports.
--John

Isn't Theory a great place? Everything works there.

#6 of 22 OFFLINE   Craig_Kg

Craig_Kg

    Supporting Actor



  • 768 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2002

Posted April 14 2003 - 06:00 PM

You could say that most receivers are poor external DACs so the PCM quality won't differ much between a $79 and a $299 transport. Since DD and dts are compressed, the whole clocking effect would be overwhelmed by the loss of quality due to the compression.
"Are you ready, Jack?"
"I was BORN ready!"

#7 of 22 OFFLINE   NicholasL

NicholasL

    Second Unit



  • 298 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 03 2003

Posted April 14 2003 - 08:51 PM

Well what about all the Burr Brown talk with Denon, or SHARC chips with Pioneer, or all that buzz? Surely sound of a >$100 player is not equal to that which uses high end, not to mention several converter chips.

#8 of 22 OFFLINE   Brian L

Brian L

    Screenwriter



  • 2,882 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1998

Posted April 15 2003 - 06:28 AM

I think the question relates only to players used as transports.

I would agree that there can be differences in D/A, but when talking transports, you are just passing a bit stream for processing elsewhere.

BGL

#9 of 22 OFFLINE   Cliff Olson

Cliff Olson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 167 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 2002

Posted April 15 2003 - 03:39 PM

I can tell you that I've noticed a BIG difference between my two DVD Players. I have an ultra cheapo (Mintek) player, and a Sony DVP-NS999ES. I compared them with a (high quality) Kimber Illuminations D-60 Coax. The Sony has more dynamic headroom, *incredibly* more channel separation (5.1), and overall cleaner dialog. It was like going from my old AR Optical cable to the Kimber D-60 Coax - and then some! Just don't ask me WHY the Sony sounds better... I'd just say "because it cost a heck-of-a-lot more."

Cliff

#10 of 22 OFFLINE   John Royster

John Royster

    Screenwriter



  • 1,089 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2001

Posted April 15 2003 - 04:50 PM

No, All DVD players on not created equal for video or audio.

#11 of 22 OFFLINE   Craig_Kg

Craig_Kg

    Supporting Actor



  • 768 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2002

Posted April 15 2003 - 06:26 PM

Quote:
what about all the Burr Brown talk with Denon,

That takes a $$$ receiver up to the level of a reasonable (yeah >> $100) CD player. You wouldn't be like to use a receiver like that with a $79 (or even a $279) DVD player.

Quote:
or SHARC chips with Pioneer, or all that buzz? Surely sound of a >$100 player is not equal to that which uses high end, not to mention several converter chips.

The SHARC chips (and RISC chips of some other receivers) are used for bass management, DSPs etc - they aren't the DACs.
"Are you ready, Jack?"
"I was BORN ready!"

#12 of 22 OFFLINE   Josh Pounds

Josh Pounds

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 89 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1999

Posted April 16 2003 - 09:52 AM

I don't buy it. Bits is bits, you know? I have very good ears for these things, and I cannot notice a difference. I've listened VERY HARD. Unless there is something egregiously wrong with the hardware AFTER the digital info is read from the disc, it should be the same signal...minus jitter of course. And jitter has been proven to be imperceptible by the human ear. Posted Image

#13 of 22 OFFLINE   DerrickW

DerrickW

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 177 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2003

Posted April 17 2003 - 07:51 PM

Cliff:
The Sony has more dynamic headroom, *incredibly* more channel separation (5.1), and overall cleaner dialog. It was like going from my old AR Optical cable to the Kimber D-60 Coax


Cliff, I don't want to come off as rude, but I just want to find out if you are being serious or not.

#14 of 22 OFFLINE   Cliff Olson

Cliff Olson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 167 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 2002

Posted April 18 2003 - 08:35 AM

I wouldn't call you rude unless you get personal Posted Image Everyone has their own opinion, thankfully. If you are not a believer of what high-end cables/internal components can do for your signal - be it analog OR digital, there is no arguement I might give, to change your opinion. I can only speak from my own experience. I am not an engineer or a scientist, just an A/V enthusiast, so I couldn't even begin to tell you why it sounds better. It just does (to ME). Always remember that sound quality is a subjective measure. That said, I am always open for an audition if anyone is in the North Bay Area (CA), as long as you bring the beer Posted Image

#15 of 22 OFFLINE   DerrickW

DerrickW

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 177 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2003

Posted April 18 2003 - 08:56 AM

Cliff, glad you're enjoying your gear. Wanna give me the horrible AR optical cable? Posted Image I'd stop by to check the stuff out, but the beer wouldn't be cold anymore by the time I get to California from the midwest.

#16 of 22 OFFLINE   Cliff Olson

Cliff Olson

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 167 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 2002

Posted April 18 2003 - 09:34 AM

If I hadn't already given it away... Sorry, Derrick. Thanks for the response.

#17 of 22 OFFLINE   DerrickW

DerrickW

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 177 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2003

Posted April 18 2003 - 10:14 AM

Thanks Cliff, I've come to realize that I'd like to be the garbage can for all you audio nuts constantly upgrading!

#18 of 22 OFFLINE   Craig_Kg

Craig_Kg

    Supporting Actor



  • 768 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2002

Posted April 19 2003 - 04:15 AM

Quote:
And jitter has been proven to be imperceptible by the human ear.

Jitter is what I was talking about. When was that proven, Josh?

Damn. Where's Lee Scoggins when he's needed?
"Are you ready, Jack?"
"I was BORN ready!"

#19 of 22 OFFLINE   David Coleman

David Coleman

    Supporting Actor



  • 762 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 05 2000

Posted April 19 2003 - 09:44 AM

I can state that I've always connected via a digital cable to the receiver. I had a Toshiba 2109 and JVC that sound very similar running through the digital cable. I had a Panasonic RP82 and the sound was extra bassy and very boomy! The sound was also shrill through the Panasonic!

Hope this helps!

#20 of 22 OFFLINE   Mauricio_BR

Mauricio_BR

    Agent



  • 43 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 2002

Posted April 20 2003 - 03:32 AM

Guys, let me throw in my 2 cents.

Some friends and I have been making some tests (just for the fun of it) on using a PC CDROM as a Transport. Since this new units are capable of read, write and rewrite at speeds of 52x, we thought it might have some very good accuracy just to read a cd and drive it to an external DAC.

So far, we found the sound of this cheap units (such LG, Sony) is very nice indeed when compared to a dvd player or a (not hi-end) cd player used as transport.

Has anyone ever tried something like that ?
Power means NOTHING without control.





Forum Nav Content I Follow