For reasons I will describe below, I've spent the last couple of days searching around for info on AV tech/equipment. One of the questions to which I couldn't find a satisfactory answer is in the title. DD+ apparently offers a few technical benefits:
- Two extra channels, 7.1 vs 5.1
- Higher bitrate
- More data/bandwidth efficiency, which appears to be why major streaming services are switching over
Google remains curiously silent on the more subjective issue of sound quality, though, so I thought I'd ask you, the experts: all else being equal, given an
identical 5.1 setup, does DD+ offer a substantial qualitative advantage over vanilla Dolby Digital? I would assume so, but your opinions would be much appreciated.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now to the much duller personal details:
About a month ago, my TV died (a 1080p Sharp Aquos, circa 2013). To replace it, I picked up a
TCL 65R625, which isn't a high end television, but to my untrained eye the picture is a stunning upgrade even when it's playing normal 1080p content. The new TV's only flaw for my purposes is that it doesn't play nicely with my ancient receiver (a
Sony STR-DE985, bought in ~2002), which otherwise still works just fine.
Despite the spec sheet, the TV refuses to passthrough anything more than 2-channel sound over an optical connection. The TV is also incapable of converting DD+ to vanilla Dolby Digital without choking every 5-10 seconds, so using the built-in streaming OS (Roku) doesn't get me get consistent surround sound, either. Apparently the ability to downmix DD+ is extremely rare among new streaming devices. The only exceptions I've found that can reportedly do the job are the 2016 Roku Ultra (now discontinued) and the nVidia Shield TV.
My household watches streamed content almost exclusively, which is why I'm primarily concerned about DD+ and not the prettier lossless formats. I have no plans to buy a UHD Blu Ray player (and the discs to go with it), nor do I have any interest in installing an Atmos/3d-sound-capable speaker system, nor, for that matter, the extra two surround speakers to get up to 7.1. (There just isn't space.)
Anyway, as far as I can tell, I have three options. Well, maybe four:
- Stand pat and just enjoy Prologic,
- Buy a Shield TV Pro ($200) and a USB-to-optical dongle to bypass the tv entirely,
- Buy a new receiver that accepts HDMI inputs
- Buy both, because the Shield TV is pretty damn cool even leaving aside the sound thing.
Option #3 is the most obvious answer to the immediate problem. Money's a bit tight given the pandemic, but then again my current receiver is probably well past due to fail, anyway. It certainly doesn't owe me anything; I bought that thing and cobbled together 5.1 speakers for it just out of college, and pretty much haven't thought about sound systems since. Time flies.
This leads me to another, and hopefully final, question. For someone like me, it seems like there isn't much benefit to buying the second or third tier receivers available in the "budget line," for lack of a better term. In other words, if I only have 5.1 speakers, then I don't need a 7.1 receiver, and I don't need or even necessarily want extra bells and whistles like internet connectivity or app support. If I play music, it'll be through a device that streams from my Plex server. So my question is, "Am I wrong about that?" Is, say, the
Yamaha V585 considerably better than the V485, or even the
V385, for my use case? Will a marginally more expensive model be more reliable or have better sound quality, or are the upgrades confined to mostly superfluous (for me) functions?
Speaking of which, thank you all for showing me that accessories4less website. Everywhere else seems sold out of lower end receivers these days. The only exception I found was the
Sony STRDH590, which seems to have
a bit more power than the analogous Denons and Yamahas, but according to the handy
calculator you all showed me, that shouldn't make a practical difference.
Sorry for the novella. Appreciate your time.
