FAQ: Where Did My Multi-Channel Analog Inputs Go?

[TLS Guy]

Ok, so if my statement is wrong, where are the back channels defined in the SACD spec? Which specific SACDs have any signal output from the back channel outputs in either analog or HDMI?

It seems there might be some misunderstanding, because that is all I said in that statement. Still think the statement is false?

Sorry, if you do not like my style. But, what are you calling, exactly? You have not presented any facts yourself that in any way refute anything I said. You are essentially saying you don't like it and it is bull. But, show me where I am wrong.

Let me define your problem. Is it better to be more nearly correct than precisely wrong?

What I'm getting at is the object of audio is the closest approach to the original sound. That was Peter Walker's time honored slogan (Quad for the Closest Approach) during his ownership of Quad.

So which is the closer approach to the original sound in my two of my examples.

1). Having the rear Great Organ of Cologne Cathedral coming in correct perspective from the rear, or as you would have get it precisely wrong by adhering to a spec that puts the organ right behind my head or in front of me if I'm in the second row.

2). In Britten's War Requiem, which adheres to the composers intent and instructions? Having the chamber orchestra boys choir and the war poems come from the rear in correct perspective, or again have them right above my head, or in front of me. That latter making a farce of the performance and running roughshod over the composer's intentions for what you say is the correct spec, and getting it precisely wrong.

Now don't dodge it, please answer the question.

 

[sterling shoote]

You guys are arguing over semantics for what labels correctly describe left and right surround channels. Fitz is correct because multi-channel SACD is 5.1, there are no back channels unless you are referring to surround channels as back channels. Of course, surround speakers can be physically placed anywhere the listener perceives would be best for the desired effect, side, rear, back, whatever. Hey, being correct on this forum is moot- after all, it's a hobby, fun stuff so play nice.

 

[markw]

You do hav4 a point and I did bring this up earlier but since we all know SACD's do not have those 6th and 7th channels, what else could he be referring to except channels 4 and 5 on a CD. Again, I did offer this up earlier but fitz totally rejected that possibility.

 

[TLS Guy]

I have dug out the SACD spec and also looked at AES papers.

This is the official scarlet book image.

This is similar but not identical to movie 5.1. However it states that the speakers MUST be equidistant from the listener, and acknowledge that this is not usually the case in 5.1. The problem with SACD is that there is no channel delay like PCM based systems provide.

Their recommendations is that the speakers being equidistant is the most important.

So in my case and I suspect most peoples systems the 5.1 speaker surround position is too close to the listening position.

In my case the rear backs are equidistant to the main front row listening position as the front speakers. This is why using the rear backs gives the best balance for SACD multichannel.

 

[fitzcaraldo215]

I provided links to more than a few examples to illustrate my point. If you're too blind to see that, then you're beyond hope.

And, if you're trying to play semantic games by saying to allude the channels 6 & 7 on DD/DTS, give it up. We all know they don't exist on SACD.

Screw the spec. They are out there. Drop on the 5.1 version of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon and then tell me there's no information back there.

My cheapo Denon 1940 CI has no problem generating them. I don't see how your equipment can't. Go ahead.

If you can say they aren't there, then either your equipment is faulty or you're simply a liar and enjoying this game of mental masturbation. If that's what it is, I'm done playing with you. You can continue playing with yourself.

I have DOTSM on Mch SACD. The recording states that it is in 5.1. Yes, there is an enveloping "surround sound" effect, but there is no signal for the Back L or R channels, as I said. You seem to be insisting that there is. But, I have no idea what your player is doing. This is verifiable by my channel level meters, and it is consistent with the spec for the SACD disc, as provided by TLS Guy.

Whatever perceived sense of sound in the back behind you that is achieved is normally and by design via phantom imaging from the Surround channels in 5.1, unless your player or processor is synthesizing a derived signal for extra Back channels.

You seem to be saying something else and saying you hear something different. Again, we do not seem to be understanding one another.

 

[TLS Guy]

I have DOTSM on Mch SACD. The recording states that it is in 5.1. Yes, there is an enveloping "surround sound" effect, but there is no signal for the Back L or R channels, as I said. You seem to be insisting that there is. But, I have no idea what your player is doing. This is verifiable by my channel level meters, and it is consistent with the spec for the SACD disc, as provided by TLS Guy.

Whatever perceived sense of sound in the back behind you that is achieved is normally and by design via phantom imaging from the Surround channels in 5.1, unless your player or processor is synthesizing a derived signal for extra Back channels.

You seem to be saying something else and saying you hear something different. Again, we do not seem to be understanding one another.

SACD does not say that discs have to be mastered to Dolby 5.1 specs. I would bet a lot of classical ones are not. As I suspected a lot of classical European SACDs are mastered with single sound field microphones with lightly used spots for soloists. That means that with SACD to work properly the speakers must all be the same distance form the listener, as you can not delay DSD. The bottom line is that distance of speaker placement is much more important than the angle and trumps that by a mile. So that is why I use my potent rear backs, as the distance is correct, but it is not for the side surrounds, although the angle would be.

I have long thought that it is past time to retire SACD and DSD. I think we would be much better served with BD audio only, and for that matter AV. It never does any harm to add a pictures and that confers benefit. For some repertory 7.1 would confer great benefit.

 

[fitzcaraldo215]

I have dug out the SACD spec and also looked at AES papers.

This is the official scarlet book image.

This is similar but not identical to movie 5.1. However it states that the speakers MUST be equidistant from the listener, and acknowledge that this is not usually the case in 5.1. The problem with SACD is that there is no channel delay like PCM based systems provide.

Their recommendations is that the speakers being equidistant is the most important.

So in my case and I suspect most peoples systems the 5.1 speaker surround position is too close to the listening position.

In my case the rear backs are equidistant to the main front row listening position as the front speakers. This is why using the rear backs gives the best balance for SACD multichannel.

Thanks, TLS Guy for looking that up. I tried to cover this in my first post. But, yes, it is the same ITU speaker layout I described.

The equidistant speaker requirement is an important part of the idealized setup for Mch, both for movies as well as SACD. Some people insist on doing that physically in their speaker setup, but it is usually difficult and it takes a lot of space. However, the exact same result is achieved by speaker distance correction (interchannel delays) in DSP in your player or processor and channel level trims for equal volume in all channels on test tones.

If you play back an SACD disc in pure DSD Mch, however, DSP cannot be used unless the DSD is converted to PCM on the fly by the player or processor for DSP. DSD and DSP are incompatible (except for a few very rare exceptions not worth getting into). So, for pure DSD playback, the speakers should be physically equidistant and level trimmed for equal volume.

My own system uses DSP distance correction, so I convert my SACDs to 88k or 176k PCM on the fly and I have the channel-by-channel speaker distances in my setup. And, the system is, of course, calibrated for equal channel volumes (all as part of DSP Room Correction with Dirac Live).

The ITU setup is congruent, as I said before, with Dolby and DTS recommendations for 5.1 movies. They may have some ranges of angular displacement, particularly for the surround channels. But, they all overlap for 5.1. I favor the ITU 110 degree angle for surrounds, and I am quite happy with it for movies, too.

Again, though, this is what the specs say and what most all recording engineers do. I do not believe they intended that you reconnect your channel hookups for specific recordings. If they did, they would say so explicitly on the jacket. However, it is your choice as to whether or not you want to adhere to that yourself. I am quite happy myself sticking to the spec and leaving it that way for all Mch recordings.

 

[fitzcaraldo215]

SACD does not say that discs have to be mastered to Dolby 5.1 specs. I would bet a lot of classical ones are not. As I suspected a lot of classical European SACDs are mastered with single sound field microphones with lightly used spots for soloists. That means that with SACD to work properly the speakers must all be the same distance form the listener, as you can not delay DSD. The bottom line is that distance of speaker placement is much more important than the angle and trumps that by a mile. So that is why I use my potent rear backs, as the distance is correct, but it is not for the side surrounds, although the angle would be.

I have long thought that it is past time to retire SACD and DSD. I think we would be much better served with BD audio only, and for that matter AV. It never does any harm to add a pictures and that confers benefit. For some repertory 7.1 would confer great benefit.

Classical music is my main thing. I would be more than happy to accept your bet about what most classical Mch engineers do. But, I disclosed earlier that I have inside information from a classical engineer who knows the industry and who has made recordings for a number of different labels, mostly European. You can contact as many labels as you wish to verify this. They pretty much all have a contact email address on their website.

We do not disagree about the importance of equal speaker channel distances, physically or via DSP. We do disagree on the importance of speaker angular placement, and I think all classical labels will bear me out on the standard they use.

 

[markw]

I have thousands of SACDs, mostly in Mch. There is no difference between US, European, Japanese, etc. discs or between channel assignments in processors and players. They never use the back channels for SACD.

The issue appears to be a question of the sound you prefer vs. standards used in recording. Almost all, that is >> 95% of Mch SACDs, BD-A music discs too, are recorded, mixed and mastered assuming the ITU speaker layout with speakers at 0, +- 30 and +- 110 degrees. Feel free to google the ITU 5.0/5.1 layout. I have been to Mch recording studios, seen this in action and discussed this with recording engineers.

There are a few other caveats assumed by ITU. It assumes equidistant, identical monopole speakers. The equidistant requirement is handled by distance correction in DSP in the processor or player if your speakers are not physically equidistant.

The identical requirement may be more difficult, but you can get a close approximation by using similarly voiced speakers from the same manufacturer. Bass management to a sub or subs also helps when smaller surrounds are used. DSP EQ is a great help by voicing all channels similarly, in addition to applying room correction.

The monopole speaker issue might be a problem for some who have bought into side surrounds using the common angled dipole or bipole speakers sold as "surrounds". Those are intended for THX (normally at 90 degrees) and are not ideal for imaging in the ITU setup. They tend to provide a more vague, fuzzy wuzzy sound. I never liked THX as a playback idea, especially not for Mch music, but also for movies.

So, in my 7.1 system, there is never a problem playing all my SACDs with my speakers in ITU configuration. The back channels are silent, of course. The sound is terrific, coming consistently much closer than stereo recordings to the sound at live classical concerts, which I frequently attend. If I wanted to, I could use processing like Dolby PL IIz to provide a synthetic fill via the back channels, but I definitely do not prefer that.

The system also works fine for me with movies, using the back channels only if they are in 7.1. But, my experience with 7.1 tells me it was a waste of money. Relatively few BDs are in 7.1, and my feeling is the back channels do not usually add very much vs. 5.1 playback. My back channels, incidentally, are at +- 150 degrees.

But, if you prefer having surround come at you from the back as opposed to the side surrounds, that is your choice, even though that is not what the recording/editing/mastering engineers intended or heard themselves. You would have to reconnect the side surround outputs to the back speakers. However, in doing so, any DSP distance correction, sub crossovers and/or EQ set up in the processor would be applied to the wrong speakers. It is possible in some PC software, like JRiver which I use for music/movie playback, to reconfigure the channel assignments without these complications. But, I do not need or want that. I want my surround channels at +- 110 degrees as per ITU.

I have DOTSM on Mch SACD. The recording states that it is in 5.1. Yes, there is an enveloping "surround sound" effect, but there is no signal for the Back L or R channels, as I said. You seem to be insisting that there is. But, I have no idea what your player is doing. This is verifiable by my channel level meters, and it is consistent with the spec for the SACD disc, as provided by TLS Guy.

Whatever perceived sense of sound in the back behind you that is achieved is normally and by design via phantom imaging from the Surround channels in 5.1, unless your player or processor is synthesizing a derived signal for extra Back channels.

You seem to be saying something else and saying you hear something different. Again, we do not seem to be understanding one another.

Perhaps this is a matter of semantic. Here's a suggestion:

SACD and DD/DTS are similar but different. not counting the LFE channel, one has five channels and the other has seven

When referring to SACD, those two channels not assigned to the front three are referred to as the "rear channels". There ain't no more and that has generally been accepted as the common terminology, at least among us muggles.

If you want to refer to channels 6 & 7 of DD/DTS video media, these last two channels are referred to as the "rear surround" channels to differentiate them from channels 3 & 4 which, in this case, now become the "side surrounds".

Now, had you correctly referred to them as "rear surrounds" then this BS would not have been needed.

 

[TLS Guy]

Classical music is my main thing. I would be more than happy to accept your bet about what most classical Mch engineers do. But, I disclosed earlier that I have inside information from a classical engineer who knows the industry and who has made recordings for a number of different labels, mostly European. You can contact as many labels as you wish to verify this. They pretty much all have a contact email address on their website.

We do not disagree about the importance of equal speaker channel distances, physically or via DSP. We do disagree on the importance of speaker angular placement, and I think all classical labels will bear me out on the standard they use.

There are serious drawbacks to the SACD Scarlet book lay out. Most domestic situations are not big enough for that lay out. If the angles are correct, then the front speakers are far too close together, which is a terrible quality issue.

Personally I think the angle issue comes from the fact that a lot of studio monitor speakers are just awful. I would say most are in that category, and I have been in a lot of studios. The situation in Europe is quite a bit better. One of the big issues with these terrible studio speakers is they are real beamers, with a narrow angle of distribution. So I think the angle issue with speakers like I have is a non issue, as they have a good dispersion pattern. I think for my rig the only issue is distance and the angle is irrelevant in this studio. What I do know is that it sounds very good indeed with good perspective all around.

The other issue with SACD is that most do not have a sub channel, a few do. This means you have to create bass management for the SACDs that do not have a sub channel. I have this and I can change it instantly.

I used to have a switch to change from the surrounds to rear backs. But I never used the side surrounds for SACD, it was always better with the rear backs. Part of this is they are more potent speakers, but I think the major reason is distance.

If I want to use the side surrounds I can be using PCM over HDMI from the Oppo player. Normally I play SACD from my Marrantz player over the analog inputs.

I think SACD is a troublesome medium and I'm not surprised it has not been popular and is on the wane.

The BPO have done it right and issue BD with video and BD audio only discs.

 

[fitzcaraldo215]

Perhaps this is a matter of semantic. Here's a suggestion:

SACD and DD/DTS are similar but different. not counting the LFE channel, one has five channels and the other has seven

When referring to SACD, those two channels not assigned to the front three are referred to as the "rear channels". There ain't no more and that has generally been accepted as the common terminology, at least among us muggles.

If you want to refer to channels 6 & 7 of DD/DTS video media, these last two channels are referred to as the "rear surround" channels to differentiate them from channels 3 & 4 which, in this case, now become the "side surrounds".

Now, had you correctly referred to them as "rear surrounds" then this BS would not have been needed.

Right, it may be more semantics than anything else. I suggested that earlier when I alluded to the "squirrelly" nomenclature. And, the evolving standards have not been strict as to labels. Many manufacturers are inconsistent in labels when referring to the same thing.

I think you will find, though, that many have evolved to calling speakers at the sides (90-120 degrees) "surrounds" and the speakers at the rear in 7.1 "backs". A key reason for not calling them "rears" is to avoid the conflict with "right", since both have the same first letter. That way they can be abbreviated, such as BR or RB without causing confusion. But, everyone is still not on board with that.

Happy listening!

 

[fitzcaraldo215]

There are serious drawbacks to the SACD Scarlet book lay out. Most domestic situations are not big enough for that lay out. If the angles are correct, then the front speakers are far too close together, which is a terrible quality issue.

Personally I think the angle issue comes from the fact that a lot of studio monitor speakers are just awful. I would say most are in that category, and I have been in a lot of studios. The situation in Europe is quite a bit better. One of the big issues with these terrible studio speakers is they are real beamers, with a narrow angle of distribution. So I think the angle issue with speakers like I have is a non issue, as they have a good dispersion pattern. I think for my rig the only issue is distance and the angle is irrelevant in this studio. What I do know is that it sounds very good indeed with good perspective all around.

The other issue with SACD is that most do not have a sub channel, a few do. This means you have to create bass management for the SACDs that do not have a sub channel. I have this and I can change it instantly.

I used to have a switch to change from the surrounds to rear backs. But I never used the side surrounds for SACD, it was always better with the rear backs. Part of this is they are more potent speakers, but I think the major reason is distance.

If I want to use the side surrounds I can be using PCM over HDMI from the Oppo player. Normally I play SACD from my Marrantz player over the analog inputs.

I think SACD is a troublesome medium and I'm not surprised it has not been popular and is on the wane.

The BPO have done it right and issue BD with video and BD audio only discs.

As I explained previously, DSP distance correction is a perfect solution to the space problem, unless you wish to play in pure DSD. I am guessing that >> 90% of Mch systems out there use it, as do I.

I do not think +- 30 degrees at the front is too narrow at all. Many systems are set up much closer than that. It also corresponds to the equilateral triangle idea which is the most often recommended stereo layout.

I think you will also find that classical engineers do not use garbage monitors. B&W is probably the most widely used, unless you also consider them sub par. But, again, you could find out by emailing the labels, although it is often stated in the booklets with the disc. Classical engineers as a group, a small fraternity, are keenly aware of their competitive sound quality, and they they know that is not possible unless they use quality monitors. It might be a very different story with pop/rock.

There is absolutely no need for the .1 channel on the disc! It is an old vestige from an earlier era when bass management in processors was nonexistent or poor. But, it does not handle bass any deeper or better than any of the other channels. So, what is the difference today between the studio applying an 80 Hz crossover to put the deep bass into the LFE channel vs. you doing it on your processor? We may disagree, but I see none. The result in playback is exactly the same for 5.0 vs. 5.1 or 7.0/7.1 source material. Nonetheless, the .1 issue has continued. I think you will find that most classical Mch is 5.0, not 5.1, which is no big deal at all in terms of playback quality for most people who have bass management in their processor, or sometimes in their player.

I think I might see part of your problem. I suspect you are using your Marantz player without using its built in DSP functions with analog output possibly in pure DSD mode. If that is true, then I can see why you are not able to apply distance correction or bass management. That would require physically equidistant speakers. Also, you have no sub, so actually a .1 channel on a SACD would go nowhere, since there is no analog bass management.

My suggestion would be to try HDMI into your Marantz 8003 instead. That is a fine prepro. Then, you could use DSP in the prepro for all the goodies it provides, including Audyssey if you want. But, distance correction and bass management would then be available to you. Conversion to PCM could take place in the player or in the prepro, as you prefer. DSP in the prepro is usually more flexible and better than it is in a player.

I do not think SACD is that troublesome, unless you insist on pure DSD playback. It has not become a world beater for other reasons. But, it is easy to use, if you understand it. Ripping it to a PC, on the other hand, is tough.

 

[sterling shoote]

All,

I'm interested in what SACD player multi-channel output you are using, HDMI or analog. I understand you can get bitstream or PCM output from HDMI. So, what do you prefer? When playing BD multi-channel audio I use bitstream since PCM output does not provide up to date codex with my 16 year old pre/pro. I also send analog out from my BD player to a multi-channel preamp, which usually sounds better than listening to bitstream from the other amp. With the analog amp I can control each channel's volume. and a few other things. My analog amp was Sony's answer to playback of multi-channel SACD before multi-channel HDMI was created. It is ideal with the OPPO 105D.

 

[TLS Guy]

As I explained previously, DSP distance correction is a perfect solution to the space problem, unless you wish to play in pure DSD. I am guessing that >> 90% of Mch systems out there use it, as do I.

I do not think +- 30 degrees at the front is too narrow at all. Many systems are set up much closer than that. It also corresponds to the equilateral triangle idea which is the most often recommended stereo layout.

I think you will also find that classical engineers do not use garbage monitors. B&W is probably the most widely used, unless you also consider them sub par. But, again, you could find out by emailing the labels, although it is often stated in the booklets with the disc. Classical engineers as a group, a small fraternity, are keenly aware of their competitive sound quality, and they they know that is not possible unless they use quality monitors. It might be a very different story with pop/rock.

There is absolutely no need for the .1 channel on the disc! It is an old vestige from an earlier era when bass management in processors was nonexistent or poor. But, it does not handle bass any deeper or better than any of the other channels. So, what is the difference today between the studio applying an 80 Hz crossover to put the deep bass into the LFE channel vs. you doing it on your processor? We may disagree, but I see none. The result in playback is exactly the same for 5.0 vs. 5.1 or 7.0/7.1 source material. Nonetheless, the .1 issue has continued. I think you will find that most classical Mch is 5.0, not 5.1, which is no big deal at all in terms of playback quality for most people who have bass management in their processor, or sometimes in their player.

I think I might see part of your problem. I suspect you are using your Marantz player without using its built in DSP functions with analog output possibly in pure DSD mode. If that is true, then I can see why you are not able to apply distance correction or bass management. That would require physically equidistant speakers. Also, you have no sub, so actually a .1 channel on a SACD would go nowhere, since there is no analog bass management.

My suggestion would be to try HDMI into your Marantz 8003 instead. That is a fine prepro. Then, you could use DSP in the prepro for all the goodies it provides, including Audyssey if you want. But, distance correction and bass management would then be available to you. Conversion to PCM could take place in the player or in the prepro, as you prefer. DSP in the prepro is usually more flexible and better than it is in a player.

I do not think SACD is that troublesome, unless you insist on pure DSD playback. It has not become a world beater for other reasons. But, it is easy to use, if you understand it. Ripping it to a PC, on the other hand, is tough.

I can play both ways. I can send the SACD via PCM from my Oppo player to my pre/pro and then yes, I do have bass management and distance etc. I usually play from my Marantz via analog. It sounds better that way, mainly because the surrounds are plugged into the rear backs.

Effectively I do have a sub. The speaker system is complex. The mains are dual TL speakers tuned half an octave apart. The bass drivers have and Fs of 20 Hz. The speakers are flat to 20 Hz. There are three amps to each speaker, the upper 10" driver handles the BSC for the 7" drivers in the upper line, to off load them. The sub output signal from the pre/pro is sent to the lower 10" driver and blended with the BSC compensation to the upper driver. It is a low Q system and the reproduction totally non resonant. The system is quite capable of delivering intense floor shaking bass. The addition of a sub would be totally redundant.

The center speaker is also a TL. The rear backs are also dual TLs, but the smaller pipe is non speaking in that the pipe totally damped. It is biamped at 180 Hz, so you would not want any port output. The surrounds are 2.5 way sealed units using Dynaudio drivers.

The whole system is very well balanced. Not a trace of boom or chestiness.

 

[sterling shoote]

I did not know Marantz made an SACD player with multi- channel analog output. I think all current models are stereo only. Is that right?

 

[TLS Guy]

I did not know Marantz made an SACD player with multi- channel analog output. I think all current models are stereo only. Is that right?

Its a Marantz DV 9600. It was installed here in April of 2006 when this studio was under construction. There were no BD players then. It palls all digital laser discs except Blu Ray.

With the advent of BD I bought an Oppo player. There is also a BD drive in the HTPC.

I don't know what players Marantz have now. I only start looking for gear when there is something I need. I try to keep my gear for the long haul. My gear has accumulated over 50 years and more.

 

[Alex2507]

I can play both ways.

Sounds like a something I heard Doug say to Rick.

 

[TLS Guy]

Sounds like a something I heard Doug say to Rick.

Now there you naughty boy!

By the way while I have your attention, a while back you wanted a part for your AR turntable. I have been going though my parts, and have the AR parts located. What was it you wanted?

 

[Alex2507]

Now there you naughty boy!

By the way while I have your attention, a while back you wanted a part for your AR turntable. I have been going though my parts, and have the AR parts located. What was it you wanted?

The collar on the tone arm that locks the headshell in place is somehow loose so the headshell is easily moved out of alignment.



I think I need a headshell. I've just been careful with it and check frequently to make sure the headshell is lined up to the platter. The turntable has been functional all along though so I've been listening happily away.

 

[fitzcaraldo215]

All,

I'm interested in what SACD player multi-channel output you are using, HDMI or analog. I understand you can get bitstream or PCM output from HDMI. So, what do you prefer? When playing BD multi-channel audio I use bitstream since PCM output does not provide up to date codex with my 16 year old pre/pro. I also send analog out from my BD player to a multi-channel preamp, which usually sounds better than listening to bitstream from the other amp. With the analog amp I can control each channel's volume. and a few other things. My analog amp was Sony's answer to playback of multi-channel SACD before multi-channel HDMI was created. It is ideal with the OPPO 105D.

You would appear to have little choice now. But, the Oppo 105D is a very good unit to use with analog to your Sony prepro. And, the Oppo can apply DSP for speaker distance and bass management in PCM playback mode, though not in pure DSD. I could not guarantee a better result using HDMI into a more modern processor, unless you liked what DSP Room EQ could do, like Audyssey.

I did prefer HDMI from an Oppo 93 to an Integra prepro using Audyssey MultEQ XT/32 with an Audyssey Pro calibration for awhile. I now use a DIY HTPC with JRiver's library/media player and Dirac Live EQ software into an Exasound E28 DAC via USB. That all sounds really, really outstanding. But, I cannot play SACD discs directly. I must rip them to my library using a Sony PS3. Downloads, CDs and BDs are no problem.

I have a number of friends who are happy with HDMI into either Anthem D2V or Marantz 8801 prepros, with which they play all media, including CD, SACD and BD from Oppo players and library PCs, including downloads on the PC, via HDMI. Their systems average in the $40-$100k MSRP range and they all sound quite good. Their setups are more flexible than my own due to the prepro, which I now lack, but I think my system sounds even better. They agree, but they are unwilling to give up the flexibility, such as for vinyl playback, which I do not need or want to do.

So, being able to use a PC for library playback of Mch to a prepro is another reason to use HDMI. There is no other easy way from a PC for Mch.

Of course, I did not mention video, and there HDMI is the current standard for quality. So, that is another reason in favor of HDMI. But, it need not carry your audio. I use HDMI to my TV monitor for video and USB for audio. It works fine.