i.link

[pam]

<font color='#728FCE'>Hi

It seems everyone is having their own i.link solution. Everyone share the same IEEE1394 format but everyone seems to be encoding their own solution for multi-audio encoding. I read a few months ago that the Pioneer DV-47Ai is a universal i.link player: I understood that it could play on any i.link connection.
To my knowledge, all other connection are universal: RCA, TosLink, Coaxial, Digital Coaxial, DVI.
There are now at least three companies with i.link connections: Pioneer, Denon, Yamaha.

I have a few questions:
1) Did anyone sucessfully tried (sucessfully or not) to connect DVD from one company to Pre/Pro/Receiver of another company?
2) Do we know of and standardization body that are working toward a universal I.link?
3) What can we do, as a consumer and as Audioholics to solve this problem?

All receiver have DAC, then we pay again for a DAC in the DVD player. Every connection added to a DVD player involves an increased cost for us.
Why not have DAC only in the receiver. I even read something even more interesting where someone was writing about putting the DAC directly in the amplifier (or even in the speaker?). We are living a transition from analog to digital.
How many connections do you need between your DVD and your receiver?

Let's open this discussion, it should be interesting!!!

Ciaaooo!</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>Hi

I am totally surprised. I was expecting a lots of feedback to this post.</font>

 

[zipper]

<font color='#000000'>I don't know what an &quot;i.link&quot; is. I have a mitsub. dvd/cd player hooked to my Yamaha receiver &amp; it works great with the F.O. cable. If an &quot;i.link&quot; is something for video only it wouldn't apply to my setup as my video sources are directed straight to the tv.</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>Hi
In the context of this post, i.link referes to a inter-connect between a receiver and a DVD player.
i.link allows to send the multi-channel (SACD and DVD-A) via one wire (in digital format) instead of using 6 RCA connector (using DAC in the DVD player for all 6 channels). The i.link follows the IEEE1394 specification for plug format and electrical specifications. On the software side (format of the information), everybody is using their own encryption programs. To my knowledge, the following receiver are i.link enabled: Yamaha RX-Z9, Denon AVR-5803 and Pioneer VSX-49Txi.

So in essence, instead of paying for the DAC in the DVD and having another set of DAC in the receiver, you could theorically only use the DAC in &nbsp;the receiver. Also on the interconnect side, the IEEE 1394 cable is much less expensive (about 25$ or less) than a single interconnect (let's say 50$ for an average interconnect). So you could endup save all DAC on the DVD side plus 300$ of interconnect side.

The problem is that every supplier is making their own IEEE1394 implementation. So a Denon 5900 (DVD player) would only work on Denon receiver's. This is the only place where we are having this kind of problem. For mw, I am waiting to see this resolved before buying:
- next Receiver;
- next DVD player;
- Any SACD and DVD-A.

BTW, in all interconnections, the IEEE1394 is the only one that seems to be incompatible. Can you imagine that your Toslink/Digital Cable on your DVD cable just work with a receiver from the same company as your DVD player.

Hope this helps</font>

 

[zipper]

<font color='#000000'>Yes it does. Thank you. I am just starting to look into this equipment.</font>

 

[Chuck]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Pam,

iLink/firewire/IEEE-1394 has always had as many compatibility problems as it has names.  With camcorders it is usually just the control protocols that are unique to each manufacturer.  I know nothing about the firewire implementations in audio equipment, but suspect that ultimately our equipment interconnects will all use the home network, probably something wireless like Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.  IEEE-1394 has technical advantages but USB is easier to work with and apparently more of a standard  As a result, if firewire doesn't make it in home entertainment it will probably end up being an orphaned interface standard.  From what you say it doesn't sound like they're doing too well so far.  

</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Chuck

We can ask ourselves a few questions:
How significant is USB compared to i.link interface?
Is i.link the next big thing in multi-channel interconnect between DVD and Receivers?

To my knowledge, no DVD player has used USB to transmit the multi-channel to a receiver in digital format.

On the i.link side, although it does not seems to go fast enough, a few high-end receiver have i.link interface:
- Denon has done it in his 5803 and their upcomming 3805 (right in the middle of their line of receivers) will also have it ('Denon also included an RS232 serial port and the backwards compatible Denon Link 3, which enables access to high-resolution, multi-channel digital audio data directly from the Denon DVD-5900 and DVD-9000 DVD players.'). Marantz (sister company of Denon) will probably jump in the wagon in a few months;
- Pioneer has already two receivers: VSX-55TXI and VSX-49TXI and two DVD players which has the i.link;
- Yamaha new flagship receiver RX-Z9 has it;
- Onkyo with it's TX-NR1000E has also i.link;
- Sony STRDA9000ES also has it (but of course their DVD player only support SACD not DVD-A).

I am not talking about esoteric companies here but mainstream electronics putting this connection in their flagship and mid-line products.

This is a lot of weight behind a technology. Remember that i.Link is also the favorite way to digital camera to a computer.

What was incorporated into flagship receiver is now available for less than a 1000$ (Street price). We can expect to see more in the following few months.

For me, I am waiting for a universal standard that would allow interconnect of components between suppliers. If this link stays proprietary, it will die. Of course, this is only me hoping!

I can also dream of a Denon combo: 2200 and 3805 for 1200$ street price. This will be available in less than three months. Just on the interconnect price we can save 300$ (roughly 50$ per wire). So the real price is now $900.

Take care</font>

 

[Chuck]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

pam : For me, I am waiting for a universal standard that would allow interconnect of components between suppliers. If this link stays proprietary, it will die. Of course, this is only me hoping!

Hi Pat,

I'm waiting too.  

 Firewire certainly wouldn't be my first choice for reaching that goal.

The biggest source of problems with 1394 is that it is a communications protocol, not a control protocol.  That's why we have problems when we try to connect a Sony camcorder to a Canon camcorder, and why there will (probably) always be problems when connecting audio or video gear from different manufacturers using 1394.  We are moving toward an era when many of the electronics in our home will be interconnected and Internet enabled.  At the current time Ethernet T100 seems to be the most popular standard for the home network, and some of the set-top boxes already interface to the home network using USB to Wi-Fi wireless (or any other USB to network adapter).  I was actually an early adopter of 1394, due to my interest in videography, but if we look at the convergence (rather than just what the audio and camcorder companies are doing) 1394 simply isn’t a good way to go, at least without some major additions to the standard (to cover control protocols).  Right now Wi-Fi is probably the easiest way to interconnect components, and Wi-Fi enabled devices from different manufacturers work together quite well.  I don't know of any audio gear using USB, but USB is a common and well sorted out way to interface to a wired or wireless network, so in the long-run I think we'll see a lot more USB ports than 1394 ports.  Of course predicting the future is always risky, but for now USB really has major some advantages over 1394.  Some of the set top boxes already provide a USB port which allows easy connection to the home network, after which you can transfer music, video, and image data to any other device that is connected to the network, or from any device on the network to the AV system in which the set top box is installed.  It is likely that set top boxes are going to lead the convergence, simply because they’re always connected to both a display device and to some external high-bandwidth data source.  They seem to be betting on USB as the path of least resistance.

We use separates in both our HT and audio systems, so I don't keep up with receivers and had no idea that 1394 had become so common.  Now I understand why you were surprised that this wasn't a hot topic here.  People tend to be unhappy when they learn that their camcorder won't operate with other 1394 enabled devices and I'm surprised you didn't hear from a host of people who are having interoperability problems.  The reason you're having the problems you're having is because the 1394 protocol is a poor choice for the application, so others have to be having the same kinds of problems.  Perhaps no one who posts here has gear with 1394, or perhaps some have it but none are using it.  Now I understand your surprise at the lack of responses to your original post, so I'm smarter now than I was yesterday.  

See ya,

Chuck</font>

 

[pam]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

Chuck : <font color='#000000'>Right now Wi-Fi is probably the easiest way to interconnect components, and Wi-Fi enabled devices from different manufacturers work together quite well.  I don't know of any audio gear using USB, but USB is a common and well sorted out way to interface to a wired or wireless network, so in the long-run I think we'll see a lot more USB ports than 1394 ports.</font>

<font color='#000000'>Good points Chuck

But I have a few reserves.

I would agree with you on Wireless. Is is the easyist but it does not always work! I have a local Wireless network but every time I use my 2.4 Ghz phone: my wireless connection goes down. I could manage that if only my neigbourgh's cordless phone would not do the same. BTW, The solution I have found was to use the powerline adapter from asokausa.com (I plug the adapter in wall and I plug an ethernet cable into it - they won a price in the innovation category at cesweb.org). This allows me to avoid having a twisted pair cable accross the appartment (only 14Mbs though).
My point here: until we have a way to isolate yourself from interference, I am not sure that Wireless is going to have such a good success in the Audio/Video world. Maybe 802.11A will solve this problem...

I agree with the usage of home network. The Net-tune feature of Onkyo/Integra is very interesting indeed. Also, this concept can be eventually applied to DVD signals. A 9 GB DVD that runs in two hours is around 10Mb/sec (Data is measured in Bytes, transmission is measured in bits). This would mean that a 100 Mb home network could use the PC in your office could serve same quality as DVD (and even HD-DVD). It cost actually 10$US &nbsp;to put a DVD on a hard disk (Cost of 9 GB of hard disk - BTW, a CD can be stored for 0.85c). In a year, the price will have gone down by 50%. There is no choice but to go there. Net-tune is the solution but not only for Audio but also for Video.

The USB is a interesting solution espcially since USB 2.0 allows 480 Mbs but I think that ethernet network will be the solution for the AV backbone. Between components, I have not seen USB used for that. It is mainly used for connecting a component to a computer (for upgrades) as a replacement for the RS-232C. Again here, I would like to see your prediction come true but nothing points in that direction.

IEEE1394 (i.link or firewire) is the only solution offered by the industry for multi-channel audio. As they have already move in that direction, I doubt they will offer USB. It seems that the Audio have decided not to go with USB. The problem is exactly as you said: There is no interoperability between companies.

About Bluetooth, I am not sure about it but it seems to have a slow speed: something like a DSL (so let's say: 1.5 Mbs), that is not enough fast for AV especially Video.

So this bring us back to two solutions available:
Ethernet for the backbone and IEEE1394 (i.link) for interconnect and digital signal.

Good discussion, in six months we will all know the answer!!!

Take care</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>Hey GDS

What do you think of IEEE-1394 future?

Another High-End audio receiver joins the band with IEEE-1394:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All Integra DTR-10.5s include four modules -- digital audio, analog audio, composite and S-video, and an AM/FM tuner -- as standard equipment. These too could be easily replaced at later dates with future technology.

Two of the initial optional modules incorporate important new technologies. The first of these is an iLink (IEEE-1394) module that provides direct digital audio inputs from compatible SACD and DVD-Audio players such as the Integra DPS-10.5. This allows the user to bypass the conventional analog multichannel inputs without violating copy-protection controls. It also facilitates a more sophisticated bass management system for all sources. The second option is for an HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) module that is used for digital connections to HDMI and DVI (Digital Video Interface) components. The module has two HDMI inputs and one output.</td></tr></table>

Note that i.link is part of the DTR-10.5 base. It is not an option.
IEEE-1394 is the answer offfered by the industry.

Back to my original question:
When will it be compatible with DVD players of other companies?
Another way to put it: Are you tired to pay 10%-20% for buying twice the number of DAC?.
This is money that we have (most of us) to work hard to earn.

Thanks</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>Pam,

Thanks for the education on 1394 usage in the HT market. I am currently shopping around for ~$1K receiver and have come across different features that will revolutionize the HT Receiver marketplace. NetTune and video signal up-conversion are a few. Considering NetTune to access remote audio and Video files will ultimately become a huge market.

And now the use of 1394 to transfer signals beteween HT devices. We can reduce our Monster or other mid-range cable expenses not to mention the headache and mess of correctly connecting multiple cables transfer signals from each channel. As I start o spec out my HT system I realize that their will be significant costs in cabling so anything that can bring down the costs is welcomed.

- Che!</font>