Question for Home theatre geeks.

2009-09-29 04:55:35

#1

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6483|Brisneyland

I am in the process of getting a replacement for a broken DVD player. Blu ray looks like the way to go.

My question is : is it better to connect the Bluray player to the Amp using 7.1 analogue connection, or a digital connection ( co-ax, or optical). In other words, which is better sound quality.
Maybe this is not the forum for this, but I know there are some audiophiles out there.

Karma for a helpul answer.

2009-09-29 04:59:17

#2

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6880|Mhz

FREEZER!!! (actually kmarion is a bit godly with home theatres iirc)

I know little but I'd say for clarity, optical, ignore me tho I know nothing

2009-09-29 05:00:41

#3

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6457|Winland

Depends on the player and the amplifier.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-09-29 05:08:17

#4

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6483|Brisneyland

Assume its a pretty good quality Amp (Harmon /Kardon 4550 in this case) so its a few years old, but still sounds great. I checked the manual and its looks like it supports 8 channel analogue . I have used a co ax cable and digital up to this point .

2009-09-29 05:24:58

#5

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6760|so randum

Burwhale wrote:
Question for Home theatre geeks.

inb4kmar

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-09-29 07:49:40

#6

TSI: Cholera in the time of love; +247|6241|Toronto

Analogue will always be better than digital. Go for it if you can.
Of course, it's personal preference. By definition, though, you'll get more sound from analogue than digital. So if you want the fullest sound, which would complement your bluray nicely, go with the 7.1

/inb4analoguevsdigital

I like pie.

2009-09-29 07:57:21

#7

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6457|Winland

TSI wrote:
Analogue will always be better than digital. Go for it if you can.
Of course, it's personal preference. By definition, though, you'll get more sound from analogue than digital. So if you want the fullest sound, which would complement your bluray nicely, go with the 7.1

/inb4analoguevsdigital

Since Blu-ray isn't analogue, that's a moot point. This only has to do with where you make the conversion from digital to analogue.

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2009-09-29 07:57:42)

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-09-29 10:22:49

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6861|132 and Bush

What model Blu-ray player?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-29 12:15:31

#9

TSI: Cholera in the time of love; +247|6241|Toronto

Freezer7Pro wrote:
TSI wrote:
Analogue will always be better than digital. Go for it if you can.
Of course, it's personal preference. By definition, though, you'll get more sound from analogue than digital. So if you want the fullest sound, which would complement your bluray nicely, go with the 7.1

/inb4analoguevsdigital
Since Blu-ray isn't analogue, that's a moot point. This only has to do with where you make the conversion from digital to analogue.

Right. I forgot that tapes went out of fashion. My bad. ><

I like pie.

2009-10-01 04:30:05

#10

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6483|Brisneyland

Kmarion wrote:
What model Blu-ray player?

Sorry to not get back to you. ( sleepless baby etc)

I havent bought the Blu ray player yet. It kinda depends on which output is better. The players that have 7.1 analogue seem to cost more, which may mean they are a bit better. Looking for a mid range player ( better than playstation , but not top end.) I would like it to play CD's well. Do DVD upscaling. I dont need SACD or DVDA.

Thanks again for any help.

Last edited by Burwhale (2009-10-01 04:30:32)

2009-10-01 04:40:34

#11

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7070|Nårvei

A mid range player better than PS3?

That is a contradiction tbh ... the PS3 has got a very decent Blu ray unit ...

Anyways ... HDMI and optical for sound if you don't have a HD receiver ...

Analogue always was the better option but that is simply not true anymore ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-10-01 04:47:51

#12

baggs: Member; +732|6465

Varegg wrote:
A mid range player better than PS3?

That is a contradiction tbh ... the PS3 has got a very decent Blu ray unit ...

Exactly, they subsidised the cost of PS3 for that reason.

2009-10-01 12:14:56

#13

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6842|SE London

Burwhale wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
What model Blu-ray player?
Sorry to not get back to you. ( sleepless baby etc)

I havent bought the Blu ray player yet. It kinda depends on which output is better. The players that have 7.1 analogue seem to cost more, which may mean they are a bit better. Looking for a mid range player ( better than playstation , but not top end.) I would like it to play CD's well. Do DVD upscaling. I dont need SACD or DVDA.

Thanks again for any help.

What that means is that doing 7.1 analogue costs more than doing it digitally. The less converting of audio you're doing the better usually and since you have a digital source with any sort of optical drive, you'll be better off with digital.

For analogue you need to run the audio from the Blu Ray through a DAC, then as it goes over cables and components you will get drops in quality. With digital you don't need to convert until after the amp has processed the audio and you don't get any loss of quality in transit to the amp.

Whether you use optical or coax makes no difference with digital and the quality of cables makes no difference (so no more splashing out on really pricey high quality cables needed) - if you have a really terrible cable you might get a bit of stuttering/distortion/funny noises or something, but it'd have to be really bad.

2009-10-01 13:28:34

#14

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6457|Winland

Bertster7 wrote:
Burwhale wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
What model Blu-ray player?
Sorry to not get back to you. ( sleepless baby etc)

I havent bought the Blu ray player yet. It kinda depends on which output is better. The players that have 7.1 analogue seem to cost more, which may mean they are a bit better. Looking for a mid range player ( better than playstation , but not top end.) I would like it to play CD's well. Do DVD upscaling. I dont need SACD or DVDA.

Thanks again for any help.
For analogue you need to run the audio from the Blu Ray through a DAC, then as it goes over cables and components you will get drops in quality. With digital you don't need to convert until after the amp has processed the audio and you don't get any loss of quality in transit to the amp.

With digital signalling between the receiver and the player, you just move the place of conversion one step later in the chain. Depending on the player and receiver in question, this could be either a good or a bad move as one of them will have a better DAC section. Using the DAC in the player makes the amplifier run all analogue, and thus doesn't do any "processing" other than to amplify the signal.

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2009-10-01 13:30:53)

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-10-02 04:12:12

#15

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6483|Brisneyland

Cool, thats all pretty good info. I am thinking that it may be best to use the DAC of the Blu Ray, as it probably has a pretty new system, while the Amp, which is quite good, but about 5 years old ( before blu rays were sold in oz i think) may work best if it was just running all analogue.

Also sorry if I seemed to put down the PS3. Not really my intention as reveiws I have read said they are actually quite good. I was avoiding them based on the "PS3 slim reveiws" I have read, which say they arent as good as previous, and that they dont use a IR remote control ( I hate having 5 remotes, we have one universal remote which is great).

Thanks again for the help.

2009-10-02 13:59:32

#16

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6861|132 and Bush

The PS3 is generally considered good because of its power. It is faster than most.

Freezer is right. You really are just juggling where the conversion is done. Once it's digital... it's digital.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

BF2S Forums Question for Home theatre geeks.

Burwhale wrote:

TSI wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

TSI wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Board footer