What's new

DVD-A playback (1 Viewer)

Phil*K

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
170
Maybe this should go into another forum if it should then move it. My question is about enhanced stereo from a DVD-A disc. I have some that will play a stereo tract sampled at 192/24. If I send this though my 6 channel input my DVD audio player will not use its bass management to send a sub signal. Now I can send it through the L/R analog connector and get an output to my sub, but the receiver re-digitalizes the signal.

My question is at what sample rate will it be re-digitalized and will I be losing any benifits of the original 192/24 signal. I have a RX-V1 which has 96/24 DACS. I don't know what kind of ADCs it has.


Thanks,


Phil
 

Mike Up

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
393
Try here. On 9-1 block diagram, the ADC is described as only 24 bit with no defined sampling frequency.

However, it most likely is not more than 96Khz since it's Burr Brown PCM 1704 DACs are only 96Khz/24 bit resolution. So the highest resolution you'd be able to achieve is 96/24, not 192/24. The 6 channel inputs are the only way to keep your 192/24 resolution. IMO, the gain in 2 channel bass management is a much higher priority in performance than the loss of inaudible frequencies.

Yamaha seems to be less concerned with analog signals then digital. They boast about their DACs but make absolutely no mention of the ADCs.

If the sampling frequency were only 48Khz, I think it would still be advantageous against having no bass management that could cause distortion and the lost of low frequencies. IMO, the low frequencies hold a high priority being they can create a convincing reality.

Not related to this post,

I went with the Infinity Entra Point5 speakers. For image testing purposes, I replaced my RS2000.4s with my RS1s to find how the imaging was. RS1s imaged the same as I remember. I then tried my Sterling 2001s which were serving back surround duty. Unfortunately, they had imaging on par with what I heard from the other Entras. So I decided I'd put the SS2001 back in the bedroom system and use the Point5s on the surround back channels. One main advantage was since my couch is only 8" from the back wall, I can use telescoping, adjustable speaker stands for the point5s and that will put them about a foot over our heads, as not to be blasting right in our ears. With the SS2001s, I had to put them on stands, sitting their backs on the stands and the front of the speakers, facing up toward the ceiling. It worked very well but if one was sitting on the edge of the seat, then the high frequencies got lost. You need to be sitting squarely. The small speakers and the tall stands look to be a good advantage and the speakers were on sale.

Have a good one.
 

Phil*K

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
170
Thanks Mike,

I think what I'll do is switch my speakers from line input to speaker input and use the low pass filter when listening to the 192/24 stereo and just live with the 150hz crossover. I'm not sure I like the idea of going through one set of DACs just to get re-digitalized so it can go through another set of DACs. I know that's what typically happens with an analog input on most receivers. It's too bad the DVD-A player doesn't address the issue, but I suppose I'll have to live with it.

Anyway,

Congragulations on the new speakers. I don't think that I"ve heard the point5 system. I'm sure they sound great.


Thanks, and have a good one

Phil
 

Mike Up

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
393
Phil,

I don't think that I"ve heard the point5 system.
Either have I.


Being I never compared the SS2001's image to the RS1 or RS2000.4s, or had a setup that didn't screw up imaging(speaker placed in convenient areas that kill soundstage and imaging), I may had realized that the Sterling Series speakers were the equivalent to the newer Entra series in terms of imaging.

The Sterling Series and Crescendo Series were Circuit City exclusive speaker lines. The Sterling Series wasn't carried by others and seemed to use the same drivers as the 'then' current RS series that was carried by other retailers.

I've even listening to the N and S series from JBL. As I expected the N series imaging was as the Polk R series and the Infinity Entra series. The S series had good imaging although I couldn't stand their bright character.

I accepted the fact that I'm not going to get a speaker that images as well as the RS series for much under $300. BTW, I did find a CC in my area(only about 5!)that still has brand new IL10s for $280(close out). I didn't realize how huge these bookshelves are. Way to big for my needs.

I went with the Entra Point5s(4" woofer & 3/4" tweeter)because they surely can't sound worse(I hope
) than the SS2001s plus they're updated in being an easier impedance with a higher power handling(funny these can handle up to 100watts yet the Alpha 10s can only handle up to 80 watts
). Being they're very small, that can be mounted on a very tall stand which is a huge plus and why I decided on them.

Have a good one.
 

Phil*K

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
170
Mike,

My speakers have a switch which selects the sub input to either comming from the sub pre-out called "line level" or though the speaker cables called "speaker level". The speaker level input has a low pass filter set at 150hz, which I can turn off or on. So I'd be letting the speakers do the bass management.

My DVD-A player is the Yamaha DVD-C920 and it's suppose to have rudemetary bass management set at 100hz, but it doesn't seem to function on the 192/24 stereo. I wish it did.


Good price on the IL10s, but they are a big bookshelf. I'm still supprised on the power handling of the Alpha 10s. My IL25C has 4", 1" drivers and its rated at 150 watts. I'm not sure what's up with that, but go figure.

Take it easy,

Phil
 

David Judah

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 11, 1999
Messages
1,479
You are always going to lose something in the reconversion process, which IMO, defeats the purpose of having the higher resolution formats. I would stick with the L & R of the multichannel output and keep the signal path as clean as possible.

For years people used bookshelves to listen to two channel without the aid of a subwoofer. Now that everyone is used to bass management with DVD-V, it seems that we often feel the need to apply it to two channel music reproduction as well. DVD-A and DVD-V are two different animals, so in many cases, the sub is not absolutely necessary for stereo DVD-A. There are exceptions, of course, but for most types of music there's not alot of LF information like there is with an action movie on DVD-V.

You could always get an Outlaw ICBM if you feel you are really missing out on some bass, though.

Good Luck,

DJ
 

LanceJ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
3,168
Arrgh.


The use of higher sampling frequencies has much more to do with better signal RESOLUTION than reproducing higher (& usually inaudible) frequencies. Low resolution is why a CD's high frequencies don't sound totally proper, especially stringed instruments. Female voices can be affected too. In other words, these "tiny" details are what makes the difference between something sounding just "good" and something that sounds real.

Go to this animated dvd-audio explanation website, and after selecting a language, click on "About dvd-audio" then "How it works" then "sampling & quantization". That graph will illustrate exactly what I am talking about. FYI: that stepped wave that is pictured is not what comes out of a CD or dvd-audio player's RCA analog outputs--the digital-to-analog converter smooths those steps out first.

I sure hope this common misconception isn't what makes people think hi-res formats are just a consumer ripoff.

LJ
 

Phil*K

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
170
Thanks for everyones input. I'll keep the 192/24 signal going through the multichannel setting. I have powered towers and as I stated above all it takes is throwing a couple of switches in the back of my speakers to get the subs to kick in. So I guess I'm just wanting the bass management from my DVD-A player for the convience of not having to switch them back and forth.


Phil
 

KeithH

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2000
Messages
9,413
David said:

You are always going to lose something in the reconversion process, which IMO, defeats the purpose of having the higher resolution formats. I would stick with the L & R of the multichannel output and keep the signal path as clean as possible.
Exactly. I was going to tell Phil to avoid using the reconversion, even if his receiver could process at 192 kHz. Listen in analog direct mode, which will present the music as it is encoded on the disc. Don't mess with it.
 

Mike Up

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
393
The use of higher sampling frequencies has much more to do with better signal RESOLUTION than reproducing higher (& usually inaudible) frequencies.
Sampling frequency isn't resolution but what determines the frequency response. The bit count is what determines the resolution. IMO, the bit count is the main story to why these formats sound better.

I've seen the arguments, that the higher frequencies affect the lower frequencies. I have yet to see anyone explain just how.

Let's say that these higher frequencies "DO" affect the lower frequencies in a positive way. That affect would already be recorded to the lower frequencies. That affect would happen when the 'real' music was played. Then it would be captured when it was recorded. Those lower frequency affects would be caught on the master recording. Even if this recording was transferred to CD at 44.1Khz, the lower frequency affect would be captured in the lower, human audible frequencies, for which this sampling frequency supports. The CD format would capture these affects since the 44.1Khz sampling frequency allows up to 20khz of audible sound, which is the scientific threshold of human hearing.

Lets say this is an equipment induced affect, not happening until it's reproduced through someone's HT equipment. Now you have even a worse problem. Those inaudible frequencies won't affect the lower frequencies because most speakers can't reproduce them. Most speakers start rolling off around 20Khz, right before their resonance peak. Some go to higher, but at a level that's usually at -10db or worse.

If I ever find scientific evidence that supports, in a reasonable effort, that these higher frequencies can affect the lower frequencies in a positive way, AND can be shown through modern HT equipment, then maybe I could appreciate these arguments.
 

Mike Up

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
393
BTW,

What's wrong with this thread. It has an arrow and the views and replies has only a dash. Also, new replies are not being shown or even taking the thread back to the top of the list.

I've seen this before, is this a HT forum software corruption?

Take it easy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
346,015
Messages
4,763,691
Members
141,637
Latest member
avinrulez
Top