# The truth now....



## megageek (Oct 27, 2011)

Ok folks, let me start a bit of a debate here.
Is it really worth going out and buying a hdmi reciever for the sound benifits? 
I can understand the convenience of switching between multiple hdmi sources and not needing to run a separate audio cable, but is the difference in sound that good?
I can go into a shop and audition a home theater with little plastic speakers that utilise the uncompressed hdmi signal and be totally disapointed! Then go home and crank up my system with big floor standing beasts in every corner and two 12" subs pounding my soul through the now obsolete optical cable and be extremely happy with the SQ!! 
So, what comes first, the signal quality or the speaker quality??


----------



## Mike P. (Apr 6, 2007)

Little plastic speakers against big floor standing beasts is comparing apples to oranges. You should audition quality speakers with uncompressed hdmi and optical to see if there is a difference to your ears.


----------



## erwinbel (Mar 23, 2010)

I believe HDMI was never about SQ, but for doing both video and audio in one cable, as you point out. IMO, it doesn't matter a great deal which type of connection you use to transport the digital audio. Optical, coaxial, USB, HDMI, UPnP ethernet. Each has it's properties to deal with. HDMI has handshaking issues (my Yamaha AVR doesn't, but I read some other folks have troubles). The AVR will determine the SQ the speakers produce

The three most important things in audio are
* the recording
* the speakers
* the room (interaction with the speaker)

Little plastic speakers? Life's just to short to consider these... It was probably in one of those big shopping malls you Ozzies have, not? Avoid at all cost, even if you have to build your own wooden speaker cabinets.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

HDMI may not have been about the audio however the uncompressed audio on a good system sounds so much better than using Dolby digital. The other benafit using HDMI is that the receivers of today have far better processing and with the auto room EQ built in (MMAC, YAPO, Audessey) its making the sound even better.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

Optical only has the bandwidth ability for two channel lossless, in the age of blu ray that makes this type of connection useless in a surround sound set up.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
I agree with the above Posts and will add that much of the push for HDMI is far stricter Encryption and the inability to Copy, Record, Burn, etc.. In some ways, I do think HDMI is a Trojan Horse offering convenience while taking away Fair Use of Physical Media. Regardless, we are quickly reaching a point where HDMI will be required to access the highest Resolution in both Audio and Video.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

biach said:


> So, what comes first, the signal quality or the speaker quality??


That's a tricky question. 

a poor sounding master/signal is going to sound poor on any speaker.
a good sounding master/signal is going to sound poor on a poor speaker.

Now I do feel there is a tangible difference between lossless (DTS-HD & Dolby TrueHD) and lossy (DD5.1 / DTS ).

It's sometimes clearly audible, especially with superior speakers. If it's not audible at all it's a sign of lesser speakers. That said some DTS mixes have a pretty high bitrate.

That said, the difference between lossless and a good lossy mix is still small, just like the difference between a good pair of speakers and a great pair of speakers. It's tough to say conclusively, but I do advocate upgrading to an AVR capable of lossless codecs as it's relatively inexpensive in the grand scheme of things (getting great speakers on the other hand.. not quite as inexpensive


----------



## WooferHound (Dec 8, 2010)

There are many Blu-Ray movies that I rent that do not output sound on any connector but the HDMI connector. No sound will come out of the Coaxial or Analog connections. This is using a Sony BDP-380 player. So you will need sound from your HDMI connection to hear your Blu-Ray movies if they have been locked down with DRM.

Here is a story about the same problems with the analog video outputs . . .
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...o-out-being-discontinued-blu-ray-players.html


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

WooferHound said:


> There are many Blu-Ray movies that I rent that do not output sound on any connector but the HDMI connector. No sound will come out of the Coaxial or Analog connections. This is using a Sony BDP-380 player. So you will need sound from your HDMI connection to hear your Blu-Ray movies if they have been locked down with DRM.


This is not the BluRay movies fault, when you are at the main menu of the movie you must select the Dolby Digital audio feed in the "audio setup" otherwise it defaults to the uncompressed format of the movie.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> This is not the BluRay movies fault, when you are at the main menu of the movie you must select the Dolby Digital audio feed in the "audio setup" otherwise it defaults to the uncompressed format of the movie.


Bingo. And something we do not bring up enough for those with pre HDMI AVR/SSP's and are using Optical or Coaxial as opposed to MCH In.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

Jungle Jack said:


> Bingo. And something we do not bring up enough for those with pre HDMI AVR/SSP's and are using Optical or Coaxial as opposed to MCH In.
> Cheers,
> JJ


Woofer said analog not coaxial. I use two channel analog audio in zone 2 and six channel hdmi audio in zone 1 from the same player, though never at the same time, and I never have to make any audio changes in the player or disk menus, I just hit play. Makes me wonder what receiver he's using, the Onkyo didnt always like that but the Marantz has never has an issue (both hdmi receivers)


----------



## WooferHound (Dec 8, 2010)

I am using an RCA RT-2906 piece of Junk AVR that has been back to RCA Repair Service 3 times and still don't work as advertised.

But the Sony Blu-Ray player will output the audio for the previews on all the sound outputs, but as soon as the Featured Movie starts, the audio will only be available on the HDMI outs.

As for the audio selections being on the Top Menu of the movie . . . I don't think I have ever seen that ?


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

I suppose its open to debate if my zone 1 is getting lossless or some digital downgrade but I still dont have to make any adjustments in either the audio menu of the player or disk to get both hdmi and analog out at the same time. 

Got me curious enough to do a test, just played Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back on blu ray and the receiver indicates digital (hdmi) in zone 1 for audio and zone 2 2 channel analog audio works fine also, and yep both at the same time. If it is DRM disabling analog outs it seems to be Sony's doing. Im not using anything special, $60 used on amazon all day long but it is a Samsung and their audio processor set-up might be different...

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-BD-P1...3D4A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320379284&sr=8-1

Hope that helps.


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

I never understood how an optical cable could move less information then a thin wire.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Its a limitation put on by the industry, It can handle a lot of information and so can coaxial.


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

Yup, thats what I figured. Sooooo, next is HDMIS (SmellOvision)

I wonder if Faberge will want HDCP protection for Brut 33


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

Andre said:


> I never understood how an optical cable could move less information then a thin wire.


I don't think it's the toslink cable itself, but rather the technology sending / receiving the optical information and converting it to an electrical signal.


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

Considering the properties of light transmission, I would have thought they would have figured out a way to make HDMI that way vice ity bity wires. HOWEVER, I have faith that this will be so in the future and we will all need to change again...


----------



## HionHiFi (Feb 18, 2007)

As some have alluded to, HDMI has several advantages over component video cables and toslink, coax connections. They can be easily separated into two columns; Audio and Video. 

Video 

HDMI is better because it transmits a cleaner HDTV signal
less cumbersome connection than component video (which requires 3 video cables per device)

Audio

Can transmit Dolby TruHD, DTS MA, and Uncompressed PCM

The above benefits would be worth the price of admission for me. All three audio formats offer higher bit rates which can be heard on the common home theater system. Large speakers or small. 

The HDMI connection for has been a widely well received because, finally :T, the “equipment manufacturer gods lddude:” have shined their light upon us by consolidating audio and video into one high bit rate capable cable.

These benefits are by no means a panacea but from a a legacy standpoint, HDMI is a great choice connection choice, and worthy of an upgrade.


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

Well I am not a Phisics professor but it seems to me they can/could have an even higher bandwidth to transmit even Higher then HDTV signals, plus lossless audio, plus internet and a phone line to order pizza while watching the game from 1 fiber optic cable.


----------



## HionHiFi (Feb 18, 2007)

My thoughts exactly. How can companies transmit massive amounts of data under the ocean across continents and such on fiber, but can't transmit orders of magnitude smaller amounts of data from an HT Receiver to an HDTV? What gives? Is my sentiment exactly. 

The reality is different however, mass market receivers do not transmit high resolution video and audio over TOSLINK. For now, HDMI and analog cables are the primary data transmission mediums that are widely available.


----------



## Andre (Feb 15, 2010)

"for now" being the operative. They (evil monkeys) are probably saving optical UDMI for when UHDTV comes out :gah: 

Someone just make a holosuite already I want to go to Risa...arty:


----------



## HionHiFi (Feb 18, 2007)

Andre said:


> "for now" being the operative. They (evil monkeys) are probably saving optical UDMI for when UHDTV comes out :gah:
> 
> Someone just make a holosuite already I want to go to Risa...arty:


Maybe in the the future when we're able to transport. :sn:


----------



## megageek (Oct 27, 2011)

Well lets say i have a toslink (non hdmi) reciever and some pretty average speakers. Should i spend the money an an amp to get better sound or upgrade the speakers? I say you'd get a bigger SQ difference with a speaker change than with a toslink- hdmi upgrade....


----------



## KalaniP (Dec 17, 2008)

HionHiFi said:


> My thoughts exactly. How can companies transmit massive amounts of data under the ocean across continents and such on fiber, but can't orders of magnitude smaller amounts of data from an HT Receiver to an HDTV?What gives? Is my sentiment exactly.
> 
> The reality is different however, mass market receivers do not transmit high resolution video and audio over TOSLINK. For now, HDMI and analog cables are the primary data transmission mediums that are widely available.


The send/receive transmitters, not to mention the optical quality of real glass fiber optic cable suitable for such long distance runs, are VERY different from run of the mill toslink cables. The optical converters are incredibly cheap compared to those used in high end networking components (and I'm only referring to those used for local optical networking runs, not overseas-capable gear). They're just not up to the task of handling bandwidth higher than that they already carry.

They COULD make send/receive emitters that carry full bandwidth info on higher-quality toslink cables, but the casual treatment your average home stereo cables receive would make them far too fragile for use by the general public... and price would be a LOT higher than the cheap components they use now. Also, without changing the spec completely and perhaps losing backwards compatibility, it would still require multiple cables to carry both audio and video files.

Instead, the industry designed the HDMI spec specifically as a next-gen cable that accomplished both goals (plus their added DRM overlays, which made converting worth the hassle to the content providers). Two steps forward, one step back.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

biach said:


> Well lets say i have a toslink (non hdmi) reciever and some pretty average speakers. Should i spend the money an an amp to get better sound or upgrade the speakers? I say you'd get a bigger SQ difference with a speaker change than with a toslink- hdmi upgrade....


Very true, if your speakers are not up to the task of delivering true uncompressed audio switching to HDMI is less important than upgrading speakers.
Speakers should be able to handle reference level (75db continuious) 60Hz-20kHz and a sub to match that can go down to at least 25Hz at reference.


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

biach said:


> Well lets say i have a toslink (non hdmi) reciever and some pretty average speakers. Should i spend the money an an amp to get better sound or upgrade the speakers? I say you'd get a bigger SQ difference with a speaker change than with a toslink- hdmi upgrade....


Within the last year I've upgraded my entire setup. In my personal opinion the upgrade from my old JBL speakers to my current Klipsch reference series speakers was the most dramatic change. There has been a noticeable improvement from an AVR standpoint also. I switched from a Yamaha rx-v567 to the Onkyo tx-nr809. I would still personally start with speakers.


----------



## HionHiFi (Feb 18, 2007)

KalaniP said:


> The send/receive transmitters, not to mention the optical quality of real glass fiber optic cable suitable for such long distance runs, are VERY different from run of the mill toslink cables. The optical converters are incredibly cheap compared to those used in high end networking components (and I'm only referring to those used for local optical networking runs, not overseas-capable gear). They're just not up to the task of handling bandwidth higher than that they already carry.
> 
> They COULD make send/receive emitters that carry full bandwidth info on higher-quality toslink cables, but the casual treatment your average home stereo cables receive would make them far too fragile for use by the general public... and price would be a LOT higher than the cheap components they use now. Also, without changing the spec completely and perhaps losing backwards compatibility, it would still require multiple cables to carry both audio and video files.
> 
> Instead, the industry designed the HDMI spec specifically as a next-gen cable that accomplished both goals (plus their added DRM overlays, which made converting worth the hassle to the content providers). Two steps forward, one step back.


I figured it had something to do with technicalities, but not sure enough to comment on it. Thanks for clearing it up. :T


----------



## HionHiFi (Feb 18, 2007)

biach said:


> Well lets say i have a toslink (non hdmi) reciever and some pretty average speakers. Should i spend the money an an amp to get better sound or upgrade the speakers? I say you'd get a bigger SQ difference with a speaker change than with a toslink- hdmi upgrade....


There are several ways of thinking about system building and upgrading, but I subscribe to the speakers first methodology. The folsk that believe in either amplifiers or sources have convincing arguments as to why there method is best to start from. For me, in the end, you can't hear 0's & 1's (digital) nor can you hear electrical signals (at least not as something you would call music.) Speakers are the last and only step in an audio system that converts the technicalities of music to the real thing.

If you peruse the Nuforce Audio website, they not surprisingly endorse an amplifier centric approach to system building and upgrading.


----------



## megageek (Oct 27, 2011)

Speakers are where the rubber hits the road. Lets face it, we were all content with toslink sound a few years ago but now we all must have the new upgraded format that promises uncompressed sound and all the other bells and whistles. Mean while all the old timers are still rattling on about records and valve amps that cost a bomb!! I like the idea of hdmi being an all in one cable so i would get one for convenience sake, but when looking for an amp, i check 4 ohms stable and the power figures! I got big speakers and then need juice!!


----------



## Jeebee (Jan 13, 2011)

I get DTS on an optical cable... Only running direct from a BD player to the receiver though. Opti from a TV, asides from being a pointless hookup is governed by the processing of the TV which usually only outputs in PCM. Was this not corrected or did I just repeat someone? 

As for digital coax, the big difference I see is it only outputs DD 5.1 and can't accommodate any DTS or higher. I've seen far too many BD players that can't down convert BD audio from it's DTS-HD signal and send it through Coax. The end result is you're left with 2 channel unless you update the player.


----------



## HionHiFi (Feb 18, 2007)

Jeebee said:


> I get DTS on an optical cable... Only running direct from a BD player to the receiver though. Opti from a TV, asides from being a pointless hookup is governed by the processing of the TV which usually only outputs in PCM. Was this not corrected or did I just repeat someone?
> 
> As for digital coax, the big difference I see is it only outputs DD 5.1 and can't accommodate any DTS or higher. I've seen far too many BD players that can't down convert BD audio from it's DTS-HD signal and send it through Coax. The end result is you're left with 2 channel unless you update the player.


Are you saying you only get DTS on an optical cable and DD 5.1 on digital coax. If so, that isn't correct. Something in your settings is incorrect. For this conversation it's good to distinguish Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA from old school Dolby Digital and DTS. Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA are both transmitted via HDMI OR several analog cables (not coax digital).

Old school Dolby Digital and DTS are both transmitted over any of the above mentioned cables, ie HDMI, several analog cables, TOSLINK, and Coax Digital. Both coax and TOSLINK as it pertains to a HT have enough bandwidth to carry Dolby Digital and DTS. Maybe a component in your system doesn't decode DTS, or something is down converting the format, but without further info I can't say for sure.


----------



## KalaniP (Dec 17, 2008)

HionHiFi said:


> Are you saying you only get DTS on an optical cable and DD 5.1 on digital coax. If so, that isn't correct. Something in your settings is incorrect. For this conversation it's good to distinguish Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA from old school Dolby Digital and DTS. Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA are both transmitted via HDMI OR several analog cables (not coax digital).
> 
> Old school Dolby Digital and DTS are both transmitted over any of the above mentioned cables, ie HDMI, several analog cables, TOSLINK, and Coax Digital. Both coax and TOSLINK as it pertains to a HT have enough bandwidth to carry Dolby Digital and DTS. Maybe a component in your system doesn't decode DTS, or something is down converting the format, but without further info I can't say for sure.


This is correct... both Coax and Toslink are fully capable of carrying DTS and DD. I have seen a couple of older receivers, however, have difficulty dealing with the higher bitrates of blu ray's toslink output (and I assume the same applies to coax but have not tested that). I've never seen them have a problem with DVD bitrate DD/DTS, but have seen it with Blu ray. That's the exception to the rule, however... most have no problem with the high bitrate DTS and DD signal via toslink or coax, and the higher bit rate stuff is still a distinct improvement over the lower bitrate audio you get from DVDs over the same connection.

To reiterate what HionHiFi said, though, there is a difference between high bitrate (but still lossy) DD/DTS from a blu ray and the true uncompressed audio from Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA, which cannot be transmitted over toslink or coax.


----------

