Perfect AV Receiver

[Scryer_360]

For all the stuff about HDMI and TOSLink, I've always kinda wanted something different. Something more focused on quality than on features.

Perfect AV Receiver:
7.1 Channel analogue inputs, a digital coaxial input and a fiber optic input (with the best DAC you can). Give it 120 watts per channel at 8 ohms and the ability to reproduce all the sounds the human ear can hear (not to much to ask, no?).

And nothing else. If you have to add some video ports to it, give it three component video ports.

Then give me a BD player than can internally decode DTS-MA and Dolby TruHD with 7.1 channel analogue outputs. I'd hook it up to the receiver with (guess what) those analogue outputs, my Xbox 360 would use the coaxial input and my satellite or cable box would use the fiber optic input. All connect to the TV via component or to the receiver via component if it has it (doesn't really matter though).

Tie it altogether with a Harmony Universal Remote, don't need CEC when there is Harmony. Then sit back, relax, and enjoy.

Well thats a great trip down dreamsville lane. Anyone know of an AV receiver like the one I described above? I think that'd just about do it for me.

 

[Seth=L]

Any reason why you want the Blu-ray player to decode the format internally as well as handle the D/A conversion for output over the 7.1 analog outputs? There is only one player that can do this that is currently available, and it's a Panasonic (I am not sure of the model number at this time). I assume your television does not support HDMI? Does the TV have DVI at least?

 

[Scryer_360]

Any reason why you want the Blu-ray player to decode the format internally as well as handle the D/A conversion for output over the 7.1 analog outputs? There is only one player that can do this that is currently available, and it's a Panasonic (I am not sure of the model number at this time). I assume your television does not support HDMI? Does the TV have DVI at least?

One I have always thought that if any data was going to be lost, it's best not to lose it in a compressed state. If its compressed when a chunk goes out, than it gets much worse when its finally uncompressed.

Second my TV actually has three HDMI inputs thanks, but why would I use them? The lengths are terrible, and really, the video quality is just as good. I don't have to worry about any insane handshaking either this way.

Third, its a dream setup, not reality. In reality, I'll probably be crushed into using an HDMI out on each device right into a receiver, let the receiver do whatever shenanigans its going to do to the audio digitally, then use one output cord to the TV (again HDMI).

Not that that is particularly bad, I was just hoping to avoid all the little complications that arise from the crapware that usually comes loaded into HDMI like the handshaking (which seems to make things take longer to appear on the screen) or any video upconversion at the player or receiver level, when I find most every TV handles it better anyway (in fact, the Philips upconvert DVD players use the same internal upconverting processor as whats loaded into a Philips TV).

 

[fredk]

I don't have to worry about any insane handshaking either this way.

Don't be so sure about that. In fact, two or three years down the road, you may well not be able to send HD content out of a player via analog except at reduced resolution.

I just finished reading a whitepaper on drm in Vista. Everything in the chain does validation and handhakes regarless of whether or not you are playing drmed content. There is even some level of authentication on analog channels, though its not particularly strong.

The content provider sets a policy determining which outputs you can send your content through and which outputs are turned off! I would bet that the same drm capabilities are built into all the players and that this is one of the reasons they are so darn slow to start and buggy.

Fred

 

[TLS Guy]

One I have always thought that if any data was going to be lost, it's best not to lose it in a compressed state. If its compressed when a chunk goes out, than it gets much worse when its finally uncompressed.

Second my TV actually has three HDMI inputs thanks, but why would I use them? The lengths are terrible, and really, the video quality is just as good. I don't have to worry about any insane handshaking either this way.

Third, its a dream setup, not reality. In reality, I'll probably be crushed into using an HDMI out on each device right into a receiver, let the receiver do whatever shenanigans its going to do to the audio digitally, then use one output cord to the TV (again HDMI).

Not that that is particularly bad, I was just hoping to avoid all the little complications that arise from the crapware that usually comes loaded into HDMI like the handshaking (which seems to make things take longer to appear on the screen) or any video upconversion at the player or receiver level, when I find most every TV handles it better anyway (in fact, the Philips upconvert DVD players use the same internal upconverting processor as whats loaded into a Philips TV).

You will have to get used to HDMI unfortunately. The new rules require that devices outputting HD video must downgrade the signal to 480i at all analog outputs.

Now you misunderstand digital connections. It is actually best to have signals kept on the digital mode as long as possible. The reason: - they are less likely to degrade than analog signals. This is because of digital buffers and error correction. If you get sound or signal everything is uncorrupted. If there is so much error it exceeds the error correction, than you get nothing. So it is truly all or nothing.

Therefore, the best DAC belongs in the receiver or pre amp processor. The peripherals I expect will eventually not have them. If you have a really good A/V processor, all devices that output digital connection should interface digitally.

HDMI is actually a good interface. It is the DRM in the form of HDCP compliance that is the problem, demanded by the unsatisfactory Hollywood crowd.

So your conceived receiver would be a lot less than desired.

 

[Seth=L]

Ok, well the audio being sent over HDMI is not ever compressed, it's the full bandwidth audio, no loss. The connection ease not withstanding, the cabling cost could go down by using HDMI as well as a reduction in possible fidelity loss through some kind of analogous interference. Using HDMI for the audio also provides you the option to use the receiver's bass management system, which are typically better than those found in the players.

Add that to all the above mentioned things, and I think your argument against HDMI is down the tube.

I also can't say much for Philips' upconverting, or more correctly called upscaling, on their DVD players are televisions. I would venture to say that most of the Blu-ray players out right now will scale far better than any upscaling on Philips TV or DVD players.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I say a perfect receiver has six HDMI inputs and six 7.1 analog inputs.

It would have a completely discrete mono-block design for both the preamp and amp sections - each channel gets it's own power supply/toroidal transformer.

It would not have a tuner, phono, EQ, tone control, balance control, etc. Bass management would be limited to only speaker size and distance setting.

It would have a FR of 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.00dB, THD of < 0.0001%, SNR > 140dB, Crosstalk < -140dB, Output Impedance of 0.01 ohms, Input Impedance of 100K ohms, Damping Factor of > 1,000, & Slew Rate of > 100 V/micro-sec.

It would produce 200 watts RMS x 7 into 8 ohms, 400 watts RMS into 4 ohms, and 800 watts RMS into 2 ohms.

But a perfect receiver will be different for everyone, so it will never be made.

It will never exist.

 

[Midcow2]

Marantz 8002 is pretty close

For all the stuff about HDMI and TOSLink, I've always kinda wanted something different. Something more focused on quality than on features.

Perfect AV Receiver:
7.1 Channel analogue inputs, a digital coaxial input and a fiber optic input (with the best DAC you can). Give it 120 watts per channel at 8 ohms and the ability to reproduce all the sounds the human ear can hear (not to much to ask, no?).

And nothing else. If you have to add some video ports to it, give it three component video ports.

Then give me a BD player than can internally decode DTS-MA and Dolby TruHD with 7.1 channel analogue outputs. I'd hook it up to the receiver with (guess what) those analogue outputs, my Xbox 360 would use the coaxial input and my satellite or cable box would use the fiber optic input. All connect to the TV via component or to the receiver via component if it has it (doesn't really matter though).

Tie it altogether with a Harmony Universal Remote, don't need CEC when there is Harmony. Then sit back, relax, and enjoy.

Well thats a great trip down dreamsville lane. Anyone know of an AV receiver like the one I described above? I think that'd just about do it for me.

Depends on how much you have to spend and what you like. I just recently bought a Marantz 8002 and had a PS3 connected to it until I lost the PS3; so then I replaced it with a Panasonic DMP-BD30 Pretty awesome with either satellite or Blue Ray.

Of course you can spend more and possibly get a little better


Good Luck!

PS- iIhad a really nice univeral remote before and have for the most part gone back to the separate remotes and the some macros and learning on the Marantz remote.

 

[darien87]

I say a perfect receiver has six HDMI inputs and six 7.1 analog inputs.

It would have a completely discrete mono-block design for both the preamp and amp sections - each channel gets it's own power supply/toroidal transformer.

It would not have a tuner, phono, EQ, tone control, balance control, etc. Bass management would be limited to only speaker size and distance setting.

It would have a FR of 20Hz-20kHz +/- 0.00dB, THD of < 0.0001%, SNR > 140dB, Crosstalk < -140dB, Output Impedance of 0.01 ohms, Input Impedance of 100K ohms, Damping Factor of > 1,000, & Slew Rate of > 100 V/micro-sec.

It would produce 200 watts RMS x 7 into 8 ohms, 400 watts RMS into 4 ohms, and 800 watts RMS into 2 ohms.

But a perfect receiver will be different for everyone, so it will never be made.

It will never exist.

I'd buy that receiver. Though I might want an EQ.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Eq

I'd buy that receiver. Though I might want an EQ.

You know the one THEME I keep on picking up when reading Receiver reviews is that the EQ is always turned off/defeated/bypassed.

Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo, Pioneer, HK, etc. It's always the same. The reviewers (Audioholics included) seem to always turn off the EQ after playing with it.

In his review of the Yamaha Z11, Gene also emphasized that the DSP caused increased distortion.

So in my book, EQ, DSP, and Tone Controls are the root of all receiver evil.

Since practically all amps and preamps sound the same (receivers, pre-pros, preamps), I think the part that is causing all the negative differences is the DSP/EQ/Tones.

It is also a fact that Tone Controls and Balance Controls may induce distortion.

 

[Hi Ho]

I'd have to say that the Yamaha RX-Z11 is about at perfect as it would get for me. Sure, it has five too many composite/S-Video connections for me but that's no big deal. It would do everything I want it to and it measured exceptionally well in the recent Audioholics review.

I don't need to spend that kind of money though. My RX-V2700 is pretty damn close to perfect as far as I'm concerned.

 

[croseiv]

Denon 3808 or Yamaha 3800.

 

[fredk]

... at the price of an RX-V663.

AcuDefTechGuy. I'm with you. Less buttons and fiddly bits that add distortion. Take the savings on that and put it into a better power supply/amp.

Fred

 

[James 7]

Take a look at Classe SSP-800

If you want the best sound reproduction go audition the SSP-600.

Soon to be release SSP-800 will take the market by storm may be

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

... at the price of an RX-V663.

AcuDefTechGuy. I'm with you. Less buttons and fiddly bits that add distortion. Take the savings on that and put it into a better power supply/amp.

Fred

Quality over Quantity, right?

I figured all audiophiles agree on that statement vector.

I guess we all may agree on the direction.

But it's the magnitude that we differ.

I'm willing to go all out for the most purest sound quality, even if it means to give up all the conviniences.

I suppose most audiophiles are in the middle, balancing between convinience and performance.

Well, let's wait and see how the new Denon separates perform when Gene gets back from his vacation. Hopefully, Denon will also send Gene the 4308 and especially the 5308 receiver to review.

The Denon 3930 DVD/SACD/DVD-Audio player scored a PERFECT score on the Video side, and practically a perfect score on the audio side. I'm hoping the flagship Denon receivers will also get the perfect video and audio scores.

The Yamaha Z11 pretty much scored extremely high on the audio side, but not as high on the video side. So I can't agree that the Z11 is the perfect receiver just yet.

 

[Scryer_360]

Wow I should've been here more often, so far we have a guy who doesn't really understand DRM but read that two year old white paper so thinks he gots it down, and doesn't seem to understand compression.

DRM in Vista is only on Vista. By that, I mean that just because HDMI using HDCP will downsample content if no HDCP handshake can be found when using Vista on your computer (hint: get Linux for your media duties), doesn't mean that it shows up in consumer devices. I've used a Blu-Ray player with Component output and got 1080p resolution, it did not downsample. The reason being that downsampling in HDCP only happens right now under Vista. Its probably going to be scrapped to, considering so much is being done even at the manufacturer level to circumvent HDCP. Monitor manufacturers are having such a hard time of it that they are actually building into their DVI specs a support to remove HDCP.

Second, DTS MA and Dolby TruHD are (in a manner of speaking) compressed. They have to be decoded to be "uncompressed." When the HDMI consortium says HDMI handles uncompressed signals, it means the signal is uncompressed, not the data. The data is still in a file format, that will either be decoded in the receiver so it can be played or in the player before heading to the receiver.

The advantage of decoding at the player is that when the signals go out, the data are ready for sound reproduction. But if it goes out without being decoded, than any data loss could have a tremendous effect on reproduction.

It is true however, like someone here said, that already the signal starts digital in the BD player, so converting it to analogue before it goes to the receiver (where its likely to become digital again before going out to the speakers)(sound reproduction still being an analogue process) that it may be better to use a digital link.

However, the only true digital links are fiber optic and HDMI. Digital Coax connections are actually just the same as a component cord: when in a pinch I've used a component cord in the place of a digital coax cable and all worked just fine.

 

[Seth=L]

Second, DTS MA and Dolby TruHD are (in a manner of speaking) compressed. They have to be decoded to be "uncompressed." When the HDMI consortium says HDMI handles uncompressed signals, it means the signal is uncompressed, not the data. The data is still in a file format, that will either be decoded in the receiver so it can be played or in the player before heading to the receiver.

The advantage of decoding at the player is that when the signals go out, the data are ready for sound reproduction. But if it goes out without being decoded, than any data loss could have a tremendous effect on reproduction.

It is true however, like someone here said, that already the signal starts digital in the BD player, so converting it to analogue before it goes to the receiver (where its likely to become digital again before going out to the speakers)(sound reproduction still being an analogue process) that it may be better to use a digital link.

However, the only true digital links are fiber optic and HDMI. Digital Coax connections are actually just the same as a component cord: when in a pinch I've used a component cord in the place of a digital coax cable and all worked just fine.

Um, what?

Let me try to explain this again. Take Dolby TrueHD for example. You have it decoded inside the Blu-ray player (fine) and then it becomes multichannel uncompressed LPCM. You allow the Blu-ray player to use it's internal DACs to convert the PCM to analog for output over 5.1 or 7.1 outputs in the case of that one particular Panasonic model. Ok, that's all fine and well. The downside of course is that you have to use whatever bass management that is available on the Blu-ray player, as the receiver will not allow you to access bass management or any other digitally based post processing that should occur. As a general rule the bass management offered on receivers is better than that found on Blu-ray players. Going this route also increases your cabling cost and you may still need to use HDMI for video in the future as new DRM coding comes out HD content may not be viewed over component.

The alternative, the Blu-ray player decodes Dolby TrueHD internally and converts it to multichannel uncompressed PCM. Instead of using the analog outputs you opt to use HDMI. The uncompressed PCM is sent over HDMI to the receiver. At the receiver the DACs convert the PCM to analog for output. The advantage is that now the receiver has control of the bass management and other post processing such as THX if you so desire.

The only possible difference in audio quality would be if the DACs in the player or receiver where significantly better than the other. This is not likely in any case, and it's most likely there would be no noticeable difference in audio quality (excluding bass management and other post processing factors).

Toslink and Coaxial do the same exact thing, they both operate using SPDIF and are digital connections. I believe you meant to say composite cord (component being the RBG and composite being the single yellow cable). Composite video, digital coaxial, and subwoofer cables are all 75 ohms, they will all work for digital coaxial.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Bass Management

...The downside of course is that you have to use whatever bass management that is available on the Blu-ray player, as the receiver will not allow you to access bass management or any other digitally based post processing that should occur. As a general rule the bass management offered on receivers is better than that found on Blu-ray players...

I keep on reading about Bass Management all day.

-- Setting speakers to Large/Full Range vs Small vs No speaker
-- Setting speaker Levels from -10 dB to 0 dB
-- Setting Subwoofer Levels from -10 dB t +10 dB vs No Subwoofer.
-- Crossover 40, 60, 80, 100 Hz

So what happens if you DON'T use BASS MANAGEMENT at all? What happens if you BYPASS Bass management altogether? What happens if you set the Denon DVD player to SOURCE DIRECT and set the Denon receiver to PURE DIRECT?

For DD, DD+, TrueHD, DTS, & DTS-HD, if you don't use bass management, then you just get whatever information that is coming out from the decoding, right? So it basically means that all 5 speakers (5.1) are assumed to be Large/Full Range and the Subwoofer is present, and that all speakers + sub are set to 0 dB, right?

So if all I need is for each speaker (& sub) to be 0dB and full range, do I need bass management?

Also, I don't understand why the bass management in most receivers are better?

 

[Seth=L]

Bass management in receivers tends to be more flexible. I don't recommend not using bass management, because it does help. If you had a pre/pro and used bass management correctly you would likely have more correct sound.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Bass management in receivers tends to be more flexible. I don't recommend not using bass management, because it does help. If you had a pre/pro and used bass management correctly you would likely have more correct sound.

So give me an example of bass management in a receiver that can't be done in a Denon BD or DVD player:

Crossover options: 40, 60, 80, 100 Hz
Speaker Size: Large, Small, None
Channel Trim: -10 dB to 0 dB
Time Delay (speaker distance): 0 ft to 20 ft
Subwoofer: On, Off, Bass Enhancement +10dB.

But what is correct sound?
Frequency response graph? Or just great perceived sound?

Does the original soundtrack need adjustment to sound correct?

I noticed that for SACD (DSD), Denon recommends using Source Direct to BYPASS all Bass Management.

And for "purer" sound, Denon recommends using Pure Direct mode to BYPASS all Bass Management.