Just Learned of Significant Drawback to DenonLink

[ronnie 1.8]

I see. Based on what I knew, and the fact an AVR has both DAC's and ADC's, I assumed there were two conversions taking place. Your reply is very helpful. Thanks.

 

[ronnie 1.8]

I was doing a little searching on multichannel analog vs digital outs for DVDA/SACD listening, and found an interesting bit in a review on the Denon AVR3805 (coincidence!) at Audiophile Audition (under component reviews).

The components are the Denon AVR3805 Denon and DVD3910.

"Listening, Part I – Multichannel Analog vs. Digital

Having a single connection to transmit multichannel digital audio has been a dream for many years. Companies like Meridian offered it on the transport to preamplifier connection for a long while, but they don’t do SACD, and much of their components are priced well out of the range of most people. In the past year or two a few mainstream audio products have addressed this issue. The Denon Link system is one of these. Via a CAT5 cable, a connection is made between a compatible DVD player (I used the DVD-3910) and receiver to transmit digital audio both stereo and multichannel.

Given the relative costs of the components involved (the DVD is $1500); I felt that perhaps it would be good to compare the quality of sound via both inputs (the analog 5.1 input and the digital Denon Link). I used Kelly Rowland’s Simply Deep SACD and switched back and forth on the amplifier and DVD player. I did my best to match levels in the receiver and in the multichannel analog outputs on the DVD player. I thought the audio was cleaner and clearer in both the high frequencies and the voice with the analog connection. I wasn’t using more than $50-75/pr interconnect cables either. It was enough of a difference that I chose to use the analog connections throughout the testing and would recommend others do so with this combination of equipment. With a higher model receiver (or lower model DVD player) it is possible that the digital connection would be the optimum choice."

Earlier in the review, the reviewer states he did not use the EQ for the auditioning. I wish he had said why. I had already believed multi ch analog was the optimum choice vs digital, but having read this review, for my system, I now feel I can put this to bed.

 

[MACCA350]

I had already believed multi ch analog was the optimum choice vs digital, but having read this review, for my system, I now feel I can put this to bed.

Would you say the same if you had a 5805CI?

Thats a very subjective review.
If you haven't already, compare for yourself and and see what tickles your ears, since your the one listening you'll find out for yourself what you prefer.

I didn't want to bring this up before, but since subjective reviews are on the table. A while ago I compared the analogue/digital connection between my 2200 and 3805 for 2.1 CD listening(and I tried all sorts of combinations along with EQ and pure direct). Since then I've always used the digital connection with EQ for CD's.


cheers

 

[Geno]

I, too, have spent a lot of time comparing analog & Denon Link with my system, both with music and test tones. If my life depended on it, I couldn't tell any difference. Theoretically, I've read that the "Pure" digital chain should be superior, but my actual listening experience didn't bear that out.

 

[ronnie 1.8]

macca350 and geno, well, I agree. If my life depended on it, I don't know if I could tell any difference. When I first installed my 3930CI, I used DL3. And I thought, wow, that sounds fantastic!!! Love the superior DACs in my 3930CI vs my previously owned Denon 2910. But then I learned that by using DL3, I was engaging the DACs in my AVR3805, which were identical to the DACs in the DVD2910. The AVR's EQ was/is off. So then I pulled out my stand (have to move the FL speaker out of the way first), removed the DL3, and connected 8 analogue interconnects (5.1 and 2 ch), and a digital coax for video DVD. I made some setup changes to both the AVR and player, then played a sample of my DVDA/SACD collection, and thought, wow, that sounds fantastic!! Glad I changed to analogue vs digital. But then a few days later I remembered I hadn't setup the speaker settings of the 3930CI. So I then defined speaker configurations, channel levels, delay times (distances), set both player and AVR to "pure direct", and thought, wow, that sounds fantastic!! So it seems that to me, the idea of using a superior component/interconnect was powerful enough for me to hear an "improvement". And yes, macca350, a great deal of info in home a/v is subjective. The only thing that matters, ultimately, is one's own experience. Since the 3930CI cannot output both DL3 and 5.1 ch at the same time, I don't know how I would conduct an A/B test. I'd have to play a portion of DVDA/SACD, make setup changes to both the AVR and player, and then play the same piece of music, and maybe remember if it sounds better or not, 5 minutes later, maybe a few minutes longer? I've already purchased 4 sets of great analogue interconnects and a a great digital coax cable, and from what I understand, all things being equal (they never are), analogue is the optimum choice over digital. Convenience is not a factor for me, nor is bass management, nor is EQ.

EDIT: Per Kal Rubinson, contributing editor of Stereophile, re: DL3 vs 5.1 ch, "There may be differences in quality due to other factors but both analog 5.1 and DL3 are, essentially, lossless since they do not compress and they do convey the full data without any loss of bits. That's the definition."

I'm sticking w/ analogue (caveat - for my current system). The DACs in my player are better vs my AVR (whether I can hear it or not, I know they are better), I already have the required interconnects, I have bass management, speaker config, channel levels, AL24 processing, disinterested in EQ (at this time), a programmed Harmony 880, I'm set. And that's a primary reason I bought the 3930CI, to experience the great DACs. Macca350, to answer your question, if I had a Denon receiver with DAC's equal to or better than my 3930CI (such as your suggested 5805CI), I would use whatever interconnect would engage the superior DACs of the AVR, probably digital. I'm not partial towards one interconnect over another, only towards the optimum sound quality (and PQ, of course) for my system.

 

[tbewick]

macca350 and geno, well, I agree. If my life depended on it, I don't know if I could tell any difference. When I first installed my 3930CI, I used DL3. And I thought, wow, that sounds fantastic!!! Love the superior DACs in my 3930CI vs my previously owned Denon 2910. But then I learned that by using DL3, I was engaging the DACs in my AVR3805, which were identical to the DACs in the DVD2910. The AVR's EQ was/is off. So then I pulled out my stand (have to move the FL speaker out of the way first), removed the DL3, and connected 8 analogue interconnects (5.1 and 2 ch), and a digital coax for video DVD. I made some setup changes to both the AVR and player, then played a sample of my DVDA/SACD collection, and thought, wow, that sounds fantastic!! Glad I changed to analogue vs digital. But then a few days later I remembered I hadn't setup the speaker settings of the 3930CI. So I then defined speaker configurations, channel levels, delay times (distances), set both player and AVR to "pure direct", and thought, wow, that sounds fantastic!! So it seems that to me, the idea of using a superior component/interconnect was powerful enough for me to hear an "improvement". And yes, macca350, a great deal of info in home a/v is subjective. The only thing that matters, ultimately, is one's own experience. Since the 3930CI cannot output both DL3 and 5.1 ch at the same time, I don't know how I would conduct an A/B test. I'd have to play a portion of DVDA/SACD, make setup changes to both the AVR and player, and then play the same piece of music, and maybe remember if it sounds better or not, 5 minutes later, maybe a few minutes longer? I've already purchased 4 sets of great analogue interconnects and a a great digital coax cable, and from what I understand, all things being equal (they never are), analogue is the optimum choice over digital. Convenience is not a factor for me, nor is bass management, nor is EQ.

EDIT: Per Kal Rubinson, contributing editor of Stereophile, re: DL3 vs 5.1 ch, "There may be differences in quality due to other factors but both analog 5.1 and DL3 are, essentially, lossless since they do not compress and they do convey the full data without any loss of bits. That's the definition."

I'm sticking w/ analogue (caveat - for my current system). The DACs in my player are better vs my AVR (whether I can hear it or not, I know they are better), I already have the required interconnects, I have bass management, speaker config, channel levels, AL24 processing, disinterested in EQ (at this time), a programmed Harmony 880, I'm set. And that's a primary reason I bought the 3930CI, to experience the great DACs. Macca350, to answer your question, if I had a Denon receiver with DAC's equal to or better than my 3930CI (such as your suggested 5805CI), I would use whatever interconnect would engage the superior DACs of the AVR, probably digital. I'm not partial towards one interconnect over another, only towards the optimum sound quality (and PQ, of course) for my system.

I think you'd be better off looking at objective measures of performance if you really wanted to know which system was better, like those outlined here:

http://www.ee.usyd.edu.au/~jimr/pubs/papers/aes97.pdf

Chris has mentioned this on previous posts, but intermodulation distortion tests are good for assessing digital-to-analogue/analogue-to-digital converter performance. I think that Stereophile may do these kind of tests but they usually only review more pricey equipment. I'd say, however, that their attributions of objective to subjective performance are a bit questionable, to say the least.

 

[Audioholics]

I'm sticking w/ analogue (caveat - for my current system). The DACs in my player are better vs my AVR (whether I can hear it or not, I know they are better)

Yes, but are you happy with the level of bass management your DVD player provides (and don't get me wrong, Denon does a GREAT job). The AVR-3805, however, provides more control and options over this and may far outweigh whatever differences exist in the DACs.

Bottom line is the discussion seems to be immaterial unless you have the room and resolution to hear the difference. Perhaps a fun topic to discuss and ponder, but in terms of practical application we'd recommend DL3 simply to allow the receiver to handle bass management. Toss this if you have full range speakers all around.

 

[ronnie 1.8]

Yes, but are you happy with the level of bass management your DVD player provides (and don't get me wrong, Denon does a GREAT job). The AVR-3805, however, provides more control and options over this and may far outweigh whatever differences exist in the DACs.

Bottom line is the discussion seems to be immaterial unless you have the room and resolution to hear the difference. Perhaps a fun topic to discuss and ponder, but in terms of practical application we'd recommend DL3 simply to allow the receiver to handle bass management. Toss this if you have full range speakers all around.

I do have full range speakers all around (see my signature) I'm very pleased with the level of bass management my 3930CI provides. All I need is in "audio setup". Hear a difference in my system between DL3 and 5.1? Who knows? I've said I wouldn't wager I can hear a difference. I believe I can hear a difference, but it is 100% subjective; no supporting data. I may hear a difference because I want to hear a difference. I want to use 5.1 because I absolutely know it gives me the best sound possible for my current system (engages the 3930CI DACs). And knowing that I've properly set my 3930CI's "audio setup" settings, and listening to a great AIX DVDA, gives me considerable listening pleasure. Side note, Clint. You must like the 3930CI for reasons other than it's DACs, as you suggest not using them because the AVR3805 bass management **may** far outweight whatever differences exist in the DACs. Please be specific. Other than EQ (I'm not using EQ), what benefits do you believe the 3805 has over the 3930CI in bass management?

 

[Audioholics]

Please be specific. Other than EQ (I'm not using EQ), what benefits does the 3805 have over the 3930CI in bass management?

The best way to learn is to experiment. You have both units, do some poking around and you'll see the differences easily enough.

 

[Geno]

Boy, this "hobby" (maybe mental illness) sure bring out the obsessive/compulsive heebie jeebies in al of us, don't it? I'm just as crazy as the rest of you: I might not be able to actually hear it, but BY GAWD, it's better just because it should be!

 

[ronnie 1.8]

Boy, this "hobby" (maybe mental illness) sure bring out the obsessive/compulsive heebie jeebies in al of us, don't it? I'm just as crazy as the rest of you: I might not be able to actually hear it, but BY GAWD, it's better just because it should be!

Thanks for stepping out, Geno! I'm glad I'm not the only one with that OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder)

 

[ronnie 1.8]

The best way to learn is to experiment. You have both units, do some poking around and you'll see the differences easily enough.

I have, and easily see the differences. Interesting that you, as an authority, didn't share them for the benefit of the forum...

 

[Audioholics]

I have, and easily see the differences.

Other than EQ (I'm not using EQ), what benefits do you believe the 3805 has over the 3930CI in bass management?

. .