Denon AVC-A1H, special request for Gene to review and bench test this new beast!

[ryanosaur]

There is almost no content requiring this bandwidth.

This will likely change in the lifetime of these devices though. Perhaps only for gaming... only time will tell.

 

[Trell]

This will likely change in the lifetime of these devices though. Perhaps only for gaming... only time will tell.

Gaming and some PC usage are the only things that could benefit from 48 Gbps, and that for many years to come. Streaming services won’t ever support it as they compress everything to death, and an 8K disc format or a very high frame-rate UHD isn’t close by either.

 

[Trebdp83]

The XBOX can output uncompressed RGB 4:4:4 HDR10 @120Hz with the 40Gbps limit but 12 bit color uncompressed would require 48Gbps and there are no 12 bit panel TVs at the moment though a few new 10 bit panel TVs support 48Gbps.

It is a shame that there are still no receivers supporting 48Gbps. While many support 40Gbps, they may only do so on one or a few ports and the other ports could be limited to 24Gbps or even 18 Gbps. Some Yamaha receivers are capped at 24Gbps and only support 40Gbps starting at the A4A.

The 40Gbps and even the 24Gbps limit would not be an issue if every device in the chain supported DSC. Then, the RGB 4:4:4 12 bit color @120Hz signal could be compressed to fit within the system’s limits

Besides the 40Gbps limit concerns, there are supported resolution concerns. Some gamers may prefer 1440p to 4K output but their receiver may not support 1440p at all. Some TVs do support 1440p with some limitations.

While some will never connect a PC or gaming console to their systems, there are still some things lost while others are gained in new AVRs concerning audio. For those with receivers just a few years old, check the applicable sound modes to specific input signals against those in a new model. The Dolby cross upmixing lockdown and DTS signal gimping continue.

 

[gene]

The article reads: "Next-gen gamers, take note". I am sorry to be a party-breaker, but this super expensive machine still hosts HDMI 2.1 chips with 40 Gbps inputs and outputs. After four years of developments in labs, we are not seeing full speed chips with 48 Gbps. Why is this? Are experimental chips running too hot? Are they unstable?

We have ever increasing number of sources and sink devices that can handle 48 Gbps signals, from graphics cards in PCs to TVs and monitors. New AVRs should be able to handle the same bandwidth. It would be great to know when full speed HDMI ports would be introduced, so that all AVRs are more future-proof regarding video connectivity. If there is any expert in these matters, please share your thoughts, so that consumers are aware of what to expect in next couple of years.

You will not see 48Gbps thru put on any gear in the foreseeable future. No 12-bit HDTV supports full 48Gbps, there are no commercial source devices capable of 48 Gbps, so your concern is a nothingburger.

 

[dlaloum]

The big difference with 48Gbps is that it allows uncompressed 4:4:4 chroma for 4K120 & 8K60 resolutions, assuming you have a 12-bit panel and source. The PS5 is capped at 32 Gbps and the Xbox Series X is 40 Gbps, so those sources can only do 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 at best while outputting 4K120.

Long story short, I'm not too worried about 40 Gbps ports on current-gen AVRs, because it will require another generation of game consoles and the proliferation of high-framerate 8K displays for these ports to become a bottleneck. By the time that happens, there will be 40 channel "Super Atmos" and you'll want to upgrade anyway.

And one has to ask, at what screen size does 8K make sense?

At what screen distance / screen size / visual acuity - is any further resolution pointless?

Much like CD quality sound - the vast majority of the market has decided that 44/16 is more than enough - most listening is via streaming services, which provide lower resolution than available on uncompressed 44/16.
Sure there are audiophile market segments where much higher resolutions are "de rigeur" - but double blind testing have almost always shown no discernible difference between 44/16 and higher resolutions.

Will manufacturers release 8K technology (screens, chipsets, etc...) sure they will - but will it come to the mass market segment? Will the average lounge/living room move their 55" or 65" screen to 8K? (and pay the additional cost?).

There are much greater benefits to be gained in improving contrast, colour gamut, full array dimming etc...

For those looking to purchase 100"+ screens - yep, there may well be a role for it - but will this ever be a serious option for most homes?

 

[lovinthehd]

And one has to ask, at what screen size does 8K make sense?

At what screen distance / screen size / visual acuity - is any further resolution pointless?

Much like CD quality sound - the vast majority of the market has decided that 44/16 is more than enough - most listening is via streaming services, which provide lower resolution than available on uncompressed 44/16.
Sure there are audiophile market segments where much higher resolutions are "de rigeur" - but double blind testing have almost always shown no discernible difference between 44/16 and higher resolutions.

Will manufacturers release 8K technology (screens, chipsets, etc...) sure they will - but will it come to the mass market segment? Will the average lounge/living room move their 55" or 65" screen to 8K? (and pay the additional cost?).

There are much greater benefits to be gained in improving contrast, colour gamut, full array dimming etc...

For those looking to purchase 100"+ screens - yep, there may well be a role for it - but will this ever be a serious option for most homes?

On my somewhat paranoid tangent....what if they stop being backward compatible in a variety of ways to keep churning new product demand?

 

[AVR Enthu]

One other note, in a recent interview Hobie from Monolith-Monoprice said that their big obstacle with their updating the HDMI of the HTP-1 is that the 2.1 chipsets have higher power requirements and would complicate the issue by needing to update the power supply in the AVP to accommodate.

How complex is this process?

 

[AVR Enthu]

The big difference with 48Gbps is that it allows uncompressed 4:4:4 chroma for 4K120 & 8K60 resolutions, assuming you have a 12-bit panel and source. The PS5 is capped at 32 Gbps and the Xbox Series X is 40 Gbps, so those sources can only do 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 at best while outputting 4K120.

Long story short, I'm not too worried about 40 Gbps ports on current-gen AVRs, because it will require another generation of game consoles and the proliferation of high-framerate 8K displays for these ports to become a bottleneck. By the time that happens, there will be 40 channel "Super Atmos" and you'll want to upgrade anyway.

Xbox Series X can output 4K/120 10-bit RGB/444 image (40 Gbps)

There is increasing number of TVs and monitors that can receive full 48 Gbps signal for 4K/144Hz 10-bit image. All new graphics cards from Nvidia and AMD have full speed HDMI port to output the said image to those display. Are AVR manufacturers following the developments in gaming entertainment outside of console world?

 

[AVR Enthu]

Interesting... I hadn't heard this before.

It's not correct for Xbox Series X. It can do 4K/120 10-bit RGB/444.

 

[AVR Enthu]

No 12bit panels I know about so seems like 40g is ok.

12-bit panel is not necessary for full speed HDMI ports. Mopre bandwidth is negotiated between bit depth, resolution, refresh rate and colour scheme.

Modern graphics cards can output 48 Gbps image which is 4K/144Hz 10-bit RGB/444 to increasing number of TVs and monitors. So, sources and sink devices already handle this signal, but not AVRs.

 

[AVR Enthu]

So, for gamers the 48 Gbps could be useful as well as some PC usage. For everyone else: not at all. There is almost no content requiring this bandwidth.

True that. Gamers would benefit for sure.

 

[AVR Enthu]

You will not see 48Gbps thru put on any gear in the foreseeable future. No 12-bit HDTV supports full 48Gbps, there are no commercial source devices capable of 48 Gbps, so your concern is a nothingburger.

Gene, this is not correct. 12-bit processing or 8K image are not my concerns at all. Let's forget about those two and not use them at all to make a point about current and future AVRs. Focus is on 4K 10-bit image only.

It's more about new trends in high refresh rates on 4K 10-bit displays that can take advantage of full 48 Gbps signal from modern graphics cards. There are a lot of commercial source devices capable of 48 Gbps - millions of graphics cards shipped by Nvidia and AMD can output 4K/144Hz 10-bit RGB/444 image to capable TVs, projectors and monitors over HDMI 2.1. Right now, not tomorrow.

As I said, we have ever increasing number of sources and sink devices that can handle 48 Gbps signals, from graphics cards in PCs, to TVs and monitors. You will notice this trend in TVs more often this and next year.
Several TCL and Samsung TVs (QN95B and QN90B) already support 4K/144Hz 10-bit image via 48 Gbps port.

TCL TV C735K - 75 inch 4K QLED Google TV Game Master Pro - TCL UK

Chat with Google, play your favorite games – all with the magic of Android TCL TV C735K. Plus, 4K QLED delivers incredible contrast and color detail. Click now!

www.tcl.com

Samsung Gaming TV | 144Hz to 240Hz | Samsung Singapore

Elevate your gaming experience with Samsung Gaming TVs, featuring the top 7 features like 4 Ports of HDMI 2.1, AI Auto Game Mode, and more.

www.samsung.com

We still do not have a middle-man, AVR, that can handle 48 Gbps. In this small community of AV enthusiasts, we only have you to challenge AVR manufacturers and ask questions about video connectivity innovations. You remember very well what happened with initial new gen of AVRs in 2020/2021 that had faulty 24 and 40 Gbps HDMI chips, to the point that Yamaha had to offer free board exchange and Sound United had to offer HDMI adapter box. Now that AVRs can finally handle 40 Gbps signals in a stable way, the next question is whether they are working in their labs on 48 Gbps chips. It's a legitimate question on innovation and leadership in video connectivity, as we do not buy AVR every other year, but keep it 5 and more years, and so future-proofing on video bandwidth is important.

They need to tell us what exactly is holding them from installing full speed HDMI ports on video boards. Is it heat? Is it again stability and signal integrity? We need engineers to come out on your program and tell us about those challenges. The most honest answer I have heard was from Trinnov engineer a year ago or so, when he mentioned that video boards were not ready for "prime time". That was a good answer - more appreciated than hearing that "nobody" needs 48 Gbps ports.

In conclusion, growing numbers of sources and sinks can handle 48 Gbps, so transmitting and receiving HDMI chips are fine. We are curious to find out what is going on with development of switch and repeater chips, as those have been experiencing more challenges in recent years. Analog Devices have released two 48 Gbps transceiver chips that can be used by soundbars, switches and AVRs. Let's not be anxious to ask questions, even if answers are not coming easily.

 

[AVR Enthu]

Will manufacturers release 8K technology (screens, chipsets, etc...) sure they will - but will it come to the mass market segment? Will the average lounge/living room move their 55" or 65" screen to 8K? (and pay the additional cost?).

Let's focus. The question was about 48 Gbps chips in AVRs. You do not need 12-bit displays or 8K resolution to take advantage of full speed HDMI port. The answer why is in the post above.

Taking advantage of 48 Gbps ports has nothing to do with either 12-bit processing or 8K resolution. It's all about perfecting and improving the offer on current 4K 10-bit displays, for example increasing refresh rates, which is already happening on source and sink devices, but not on a middle man - AVR.

 

[Danzilla31]

Let's focus. The question was about 48 Gbps chips in AVRs. You do not need 12-bit displays or 8K resolution to take advantage of full speed HDMI port. The answer why is in the post above.

Taking advantage of 48 Gbps ports has nothing to do with either 12-bit processing or 8K resolution. It's all about perfecting and improving the offer on current 4K 10-bit displays, for example increasing refresh rates, which is already happening on source and sink devices, but not on a middle man - AVR.

I'm curious how much would those improvements in AVR's even be noticeable? It's like measurements in AVR's that aren't even audible anymore. Would we be able to notice these improvements in 4k 10bit displays? I've always wondered is there a limit to what the eye can notice?

 

[AVR Enthu]

It is a shame that there are still no receivers supporting 48Gbps. While many support 40Gbps, they may only do so on one or a few ports and the other ports could be limited to 24Gbps or even 18 Gbps. Some Yamaha receivers are capped at 24Gbps and only support 40Gbps starting at the A4A.

It is a shame, I agree. I'd like to hear proper and accurate reasons why, from more engineers. I don't want to hear about 12-bit and 8K. Those are not relevant reasons as to why not have 48 Gbps ports on AVRs.

Most high-end AVRs do support 40 Gbps on all ports. Some have three of those and three 24 Gbps, which is fine because having all high-speed ports is most often than not a total overkill. But having one or two 48 Gbps is not an overkill.

 

[ryanosaur]

How complex is this process?

According to that interview, it is more about maintaining the price of the HTP-1 rather than buying a more expensive HDMI Chipset which in turn requires added cost of modifying the power supply.

Mind, I'm not defending Hobie or Monolith-Monoprice on this choice.

Personally, I think they are borderline sticking their head in the sand over something that is potentially going to leave them the last one in the stag line at the school dance.

It's way too early to write them off, and maybe they will find a solution that works for them by years end. *shrugs.

Time will tell.

 

[AVR Enthu]

I'm curious how much would those improvements in AVR's even be noticeable? It's like measurements in AVR's that aren't even audible anymore. Would we be able to notice these improvements in 4k 10bit displays? I've always wondered is there a limit to what the eye can notice?

You can notice improvements in the smoothness of moving images. Especially in fast shooter games, gamers can take advantage of high refresh rate. That's the main reason why monitor vendors design 144Hz, 175hz, 240Hz and higher monitors.

 

[AVR Enthu]

According to that interview, it is more about maintaining the price of the HTP-1 rather than buying a more expensive HDMI Chipset which in turn requires added cost of modifying the power supply.

Well, innovation requires R&D and costs are passed to consumers, who can decide what to buy. Not all AVRs in a line-up need to have expensive boards. There are variations of older and newer ports.

 

[dlaloum]

Let's focus. The question was about 48 Gbps chips in AVRs. You do not need 12-bit displays or 8K resolution to take advantage of full speed HDMI port. The answer why is in the post above.

Taking advantage of 48 Gbps ports has nothing to do with either 12-bit processing or 8K resolution. It's all about perfecting and improving the offer on current 4K 10-bit displays, for example increasing refresh rates, which is already happening on source and sink devices, but not on a middle man - AVR.

Same question applies.... at what refresh rate are you past the human ability to discern a difference?

120Hz is already an incredibly high refresh rate, in terms of our vision and vision processing .... Human vision processing is relatively slow ... our auditory processing is much much faster.... we live perpetually in a made up virtual reality world, as the feed from our eyes, is delayed, so we "imagine" what is going on and use subsequent feedback to correct after the fact.... all of which we do subconsciously.

60Hz is worthwhile... there are studies that put the limit of human awareness at around 75Hz. US military flight simulators set their bar at 120Hz on the grounds that a) Pilots are selected for high visual acuity and rapid reflexes/response, and b) it should provide ample margin to the maximum likely visual acuity/response.

So now that we have 4k/120Hz... where and why the big push for more?

 

[dlaloum]

You can notice improvements in the smoothness of moving images. Especially in fast shooter games, gamers can take advantage of high refresh rate. That's the main reason why monitor vendors design 144Hz, 175hz, 240Hz and higher monitors.

Those anecdotal comments from gamers, are inconsistent with actual research.

Many of the anecdotal comments from gamers talk about improved responsiveness at higher frame rates - that is to say, the integration between the input mechanisms mouse/keyboard/game controllers and the feedback from the screen.... many of these primarily relate to GPU processing lag, and not to visual acuity.

There are a bunch of things involved there that have nothing to do with our ability to process visual input and the maximum rate that we can do it at.