A truly upgradeproof pre/pro or receiver...

[abefroeman]

I have been waiting out the format wars, and as the prices drop, I have noticed somthing about many of the HD players. They have 5.1 outs. That means that the player is doing the decoding, not the receiver, correct?

So I was thinking why don't I just go ahead and pick up a receiver that has 5.1 inputs, and then no matter what new format comes out, I will be ready as long as the player has 5.1 outs and does the decoding.

Is this way off?

 

[Seth=L]

Not way off, as technology developes you will likely see less and less of the 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 preouts and inputs on electronics. HDMI is quite flexible, but isn't perfect because it is a new technology and it is complex within itself, but the concept is to be simple. The HD DVD players and Blu-ray players do decode Dolby TrueHD internally and convert it to multichannel LPCM, which is exactly what the receiver would do if it processed Dolby TrueHD. So if you use the Analog outputs on the player it does the conversion to multichannel LPCM and uses it's DACs to convert the signal to analog. If you get an HDMI receiver that processes multichannel LPCM you are using the DACs in the receiver or processor instead of the player. So you are just changing where some processes occur. If you get one of the new receivers from say Onkyo like the TX-SR605 it will decode Dolby TrueHD from a bitstream (no current players will output HD audio bitstream via HDMI, but future models will have this feature). So the receiver gets some zeros and ones (encryption) and converts it to Dolby TrueHD, then converts it to LPCM and then the DACs convert it to analog for output.

 

[jostenmeat]

Not way off.

However, there is no present way to obtain MA audio. Some of the "audio-first" guys are waiting this problem out (and I tip my hat to them, because Im getting impatient!). I am presently eyeing the Panasonic for its internal THD and HR decoding, but more importantly for the 8-ch analogs. Reasons I have read as far as the difficulty of MA decoding range from the lack of a mandatory hdmi 1.3a spec, to difficult algorithms due to "core+extension" design, to doubling of the sampling rate of THD at 192khz, to even licensing fees? Just regurgitating from my suspect memory. Its all greek to me.

If 5.1 is all you need, AND you have an hdmi receiver, I would seriously consider the PS3 for its upgradeability. If the information I have so far gathered is correct, it will never be able to bitstream MA, HOWEVER it does have the potential to decode it internally. I believe it is due to the version of the Silicon Image Vastline chip. The newest Samsungs should have a more advanced SIL chip that does indeed have the potential to bitsream. However, its anyone's guess as to when the firmware ever will be available. The cons I have perceived for the ps3 for some folks is noise and lack of IR control (though there should be inexpensive workarounds). For the Samsung, it seems to be more suspect to "buginess" from what I've read in consumer reviews.

To be truly future-proofed, I would get an hdmi 1.3 receiver with built-in decoders that ALSO has analog inputs (Im sure all of them must).

And even then, that is no guarantee that you won't have to change out players to get MA as soon as possible.

As for me, I've never owned an hdmi receiver, and perhaps never will. I've always preferred separate AV paths anyways. Soooo... I might spring for the BD player, with the knowldege that I'll get a new one a year or two or three, or however long it takes from now.

Some persons have bashed me for caring about MA. I will not get into the details of why we need the new lossless codecs as opposed to PCM, suffice it to say last time I checked FOX will only use MA exclusively. I have heard statements/opinions that range from that they are reconsidering their stance, to MA becoming more prevalant than we might suspect. There are also persons who think that even at double the sampling rate of THD, that we could not discern the difference at 24 bits. For better or worse, Im a semi-loyal DTS fanboi and have sometimes selected previous dvd's based on its audio, as opposed to DD. So shoot me. Oh ya, the "core+extension" might be beneficial to those who upgrade a piece at a time, fwiw.

Yikes!

 

[abefroeman]

Ok, that was a lot of info. I know I didn't understand all of it, but from what I gather, I am right as long as manufacturers keep putting 5.1 outs on thier players. I could upgrade the player when a new audio or video format comes out and it would plug right into a 5.1 input receiver. Basically, it would be the same as upgrading receivers to the new format.

 

[abefroeman]

To be truly future-proofed, I would get an hdmi 1.3 receiver with built-in decoders that ALSO has analog inputs (Im sure all of them must).

I guess my whole point is that next year they 'could' come out with HDMI 1.4 or whatever, and my receiver would not be compatable. This way I can leave the HDMI connection for video only and send the newest audio format to my receiver via analog. correct?

I don't know what MA audio is but once it is converted to analog it could be sent to any receiver with 5.1 inputs. right?

 

[jostenmeat]

My audio dealer believes 1.4 is already in the works. Who knows. The formats are already here, there are no new ones on the horizon. Yes, once it is "decoded" internally by player, it can simply be sent out as analog. I have read there is no difference in "decoding quality" wherever its done. Some people talk about receivers having better DAC's, but from what I see practically every player and receiver out there uses the ubiquitous Burr-Browns anyways. However, take what I say with a grain of salt. Believe it or not, this stuff and HT video, audio, etc, is all pretty new to me.

my shorthand abbreviations explained
MA = DTS-HD MA = DTS-MA = Master Audio (lossless)
THD = TrueHD = lossless
HR = DTS-HD HR = lossy

for your reference, a wikipedia link. Scroll 2/3 down to bottom to see maximum bitrate of various formats on particular technologies (BD,HD,dvd,etc), "Dolby Technologies in packaged media formats". FYI, these new codecs are not always spitting out the max bitrate, but do so when called upon. After all, silence shouldn't be too hard to duplicate, eh?

(damn, need 5 posts to provide link, BaH!)

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

People go way overboard on technology and don't pay enough attention to obtaining quality sound. One could simply hook up their HD-DVD player directly to their flat screen via component, and run the audio directly to their AVR via coax. Few would be able to see/hear any difference

 

[jostenmeat]

You are not the first to state this opinion in a thread where I try to help someone understand the new technologies.

However, with all due respect, I would think it would be hard NOT to hear the diffference, outside of being deaf or using a clock radio as your speaker.

bitrates off the top of my head, that are available via coax/optical. Please correct me where I am wrong.

Dolby Digital 448 kbs
DTS 768 kbs
DTS-HR core (extension not available via coax) doubles to 1.5 mbs

New lossless format TrueHD? Try 18 mbs. or 40x the bitrate of DD.

I believe that precisely the persons that are curious about the new formats ARE among those persons who care about sound quality. And here, at an audiophile forum, some might take exception to not being one of the "few".

What is a typical ordering of importance in audio quality? From what I've gathered, it usually runs as such (with variations):
1. Recording (ie lossless audio) 2. Room 3. Speakers 4. Source 5.Preamp 6. Amp 7. Wires.

So, my argument would be that for the best possible "sound" in an HT situation would absolutely be inherent to the audio format used.

To each his own.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

All things being equal, I might agree with you. But when are all things equal?

Technology has brought the industry to compression - a sad state of affairs. Sure, lossless audio is great, but you know what? Before digital, there was no such thing as compressed audio.

I'll take it one step further. Many audiophiles will take an LP over a SACD because many say digital is "lifeless." I've got several Telarc CD master recordings and mirror LP's. The LP's have a better S/N ratio and "live" presence even though on paper the CD should win out. Did you read the latest Sound and Vision mag article about analog vs. digital? Any opinions?

Many will argue your bitrate argument won't hold water, because the way compressed audio is mixed and recorded, it's engineered to be inaudible. Do I disagree? Sure. But I'm a betting man the difference between DTS 6.1 ES Discrete and Dolby TrueHD will be extremely close to inaudible on similar flicks. It won't be like going from DVD (video) to HD-DVD/Blu ray.

 

[jostenmeat]

I think maybe you should create a new thread regarding your views and opinions, rather than hijacking a thread called "A truly upgradeproof pre/pro or receiver..."

Anyways, I will continue for now with you here. I have not read that article. I never bought a single vinyl recording. I have spent a good amount of time at the ML forum (electrostat owners), and many agree with you about analog, in addition to tubed everything, pre-amp, amp, cdp, etc. Still, there are plenty there that believe in SS and digital. Some heated discussions have ensued. I think sometimes simply the philosophical viewpoint sways opinion as much as anything.

I usually spend even more time on AVS. And lately on the BD forum. Having scoured quite a bit, there are those that disagree with you about "the difference between DTS 6.1 ES Discrete and Dolby TrueHD will be extremely close to inaudible on similar flicks. It won't be like going from DVD (video) to HD-DVD/Blu ray". In fact, some say quite the opposite, that the audio is the biggest difference. Perhaps some of this can be also attributed to some of the less than perfect video transfers out there, I don't know. But its what I've been reading. So, should I believe you? Or should I believe them? Who cares, leave this thread be?

Anyways, for a long time now, and what I think will still be quite a while more, our movies we watch at home will be digitally encoded (outside of VHS and BETA). I am not the analog guy anyhow, but its not like I have a choice.

Im sure you would agree that the level of mastering is paramount no matter the format, or capabilities thereof. A well done Dolby track sounds better than a poorly done DTS track. I have never been a professional recording engineer, etc, so I don't have a clue to as why most DTS-ES tracks sound so much better than almost any Dolby track. I happened to attribute some of this to the higher bitrate. (I was pretty disappointed with the ES track on "Open Water", but its a rare disappointment). Well, many of the ES tracks I find on the bigger blockbusters, which I imagine is somewhat attributed to larger funds for mastering, and of course the additional channel.

Still, I will try to take your opinions as a positive. Kind of like when a friend tells you such-and-such movie sucks, and yet it comes out as a very pleasant surprise due to lower expectations. Its better than the opposite in any case.

My efforts to understand as much as I can in this arena is largely fueled by a fear of cutting myself short. Just want to know as much as I can before pulling any triggers, because pulling the trigger is what I shall do. When I first entered this world of AV less than a year ago, I knew absolutely nothing, not even what the difference between an HDMI cable or component was. Through my vast ignorance, my first receiver didn't have analog outputs, so I couldn't simply couldn't add an outboard amp. My present upscaling dvd player cannot handle SACD or DVD-A, formats I had no idea existed (ya, ya, ya, you say analog is better, but they are still formats I would have loved to try at home for just a slightly increased initial cost). I just thought I owed it to myself to research better since. I kind of took that idea and ran with it, a propensity I am guilty of time to time, and I hope by sharing my research others just might benefit.

The last reason I came to this thread for was to argue about analog vs digital. I came here simply to help the OP understand as much I did about the "future-proofed receiver"...

I think, in a nutshell, you are just trying to say "keep yer panties on". Well, if the case, I think there's nothing wrong with being excited about new acquisitions.

 

[abefroeman]

People go way overboard on technology and don't pay enough attention to obtaining quality sound.

Alright, how would you best obtain quality sound with a receiver/prepro?

If I get one that has 5.1 inputs then I feel I will at least be keeping the door open to new technology just in case MA audio is the best thing since sliced bread.

Here is the question, what does a receiver/prepro do to the sound if you are using 5.1 inputs? the processing is done, it would need to convert to analog and adjust the volume of each channel, do the crossover and bass management (if applicable), what else?

 

[cfrizz]

Hi Abe.

I don't think it's possible to get an upgrade proof receiver or prepro. I think these companies have thier enhancements planned 10 years in advance just to keep us buying.

All you can do is buy something that has all the features that you want and you think you will need for the forseeable future. Taking into account other changes to your gear, like a new tv, dvd player, etc.

Make sure you have enough amplifier power to drive any speaker you have now or in the future with speakers you will be content with for years to come.

So (in my opinion) if you want it all in a receiver get the one that has all the features you want, and make sure it has preamp outputs so that you can get separate amplification.

For separate amps I always recommend 200wpc since that much power will drive any speakers you have now or in the future And you will know that your speakers are running to thier full potential.

Good luck & happy hunting!

 

[Leprkon]

Alright, how would you best obtain quality sound with a receiver/prepro?

If I get one that has 5.1 inputs then I feel I will at least be keeping the door open to new technology just in case MA audio is the best thing since sliced bread.

Here is the question, what does a receiver/prepro do to the sound if you are using 5.1 inputs? the processing is done, it would need to convert to analog and adjust the volume of each channel, do the crossover and bass management (if applicable), what else?

I can't speak for all all brands, but Denon and Yamaha pass the sound through on 5.1/7.1 inputs. There is no processing.

Your approach is sound. Get a solid amp. You can use that piece forever, even if you pick a receiver somewhere down the road, you can still use the amp.

I also can't speak for BluRay, but the Toshiba HD DVD players can do some pretty significant upgrades through software updates. I got the latest DTS's and Dolbies on a CD, without having to buy anything new.

If you are counting on HDMI, you will probably have to buy a new receiver AND a new player for each new technology. If you use the 5.1/7.1 output, then worst case is you have to buy one or the other, but not both.