Blu-ray hardware question

Dec 21, 2009 at 2:07 AM Post #31 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by SiBurning /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Way too complicated.

Last time I checked, there are very few choices for serious high end sound out of these a/v receivers, and all of them have annoying defects. One thing that was obvious is videophiles have tin ears compared to what we might like on head-fi, so while I look to some of those sites for help and ideas, I don't believe anything there about how great something sounds.



I wouldn't say tin ears. You're talking two very different applications and that really is a sweeping generalization anyway. I've been active in home theater for over 15 years and believe me, most "videophiles" are every bit as concerned with quality audio reproduction as they are with video. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are absolutely intertwined. I'll tell you this - uncompressed 5.1 channel linear PCM audio from a well mastered Blu-ray soundtrack sounds effing phenomenal through my Onkyo TX-SR805 receiver being fed by a PS3. Uncompressed DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD are no slouches either.
 
Dec 21, 2009 at 2:16 AM Post #32 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by SiBurning /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If the hdmi cable carries both audio and video it creates a dilemma. You might want the hdmi to go to the tv to do the separate calibrations, but you might also want an audio format sent to the receiver that your source can only send over the hdmi cable. I think a splitter would work here, but they're an expense, and you might end up needing to use several remotes to get things done.


A universal remote solves the issue of multiples nicely, but you do indeed have a point about the audio issue and HDMI. Most players either send high resolution audio codecs as a bitstream over HDMI to the receiver for decoding, or the player decodes and then sends the multichannel PCM result to the receiver for playback via HDMI. The dilemma you describe is truly a PITA. Of course if your player supports it you could send a downrezzed DTS-HD Master or Dolby TrueHD bitstream over TOSLINK to the receiver as DTS or Dolby Digital, but then you lose the advanatages of high resolution audio. My solution to this problem was to calibrate my display and audio for Blu-ray playback, then I configured a separate video mode setting for regular TV viewing. Not perfect, but it works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiBurning /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is one way things get complicated when you're trying to put a system together or upgrade some part of it. I can't figure out a good upgrade path to take, so I initially just bought an outdated 5.1 system hoping to gain a bit of hands-on experience and get an idea whether it was worth bothering with. It did point out some issues. The main thing I got out of that exercise is that I just don't trust the a/v receivers to give audiophile sound, and it's expensive and complicated to work around it. Two separate systems, including two sets of speakers solves the problem neatly, and is kind of impractical, but the more I go through the exercise, the more I'm leaning that way. There are alternatives, and it's possible to hook up a stereo system as the front speakers of a surrond system, but it adds complications. In my case, I couldn't calibrate the outputs on the av receiver to balance the output volume for the fronts and rears. Might try it again.


Trying to find a system that gives you great multichannel home theater performance AND audiophile-level 2 channel performance is not easy and not cheap. Most people settle on two completley different audio setups. IMO that's the best way to go. All it takes is money.
wink.gif
 
Dec 21, 2009 at 2:16 AM Post #33 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by dpippel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I wouldn't say tin ears. You're talking two very different applications and that really is a sweeping generalization anyway. I've been active in home theater for over 15 years and believe me, most "videophiles" are every bit as concerned with quality audio reproduction as they are with video. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are absolutely intertwined. I'll tell you this - uncompressed 5.1 channel linear PCM audio from a well mastered Blu-ray soundtrack sounds effing phenomenal through my Onkyo SR-TX805 receiver being fed by a PS3. Uncompressed DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD are no slouches either.


I'm more concerned about redbook, sacd, dvda, and vinyl.

And, yes, it's an unfair, sweeping generalization, but I don't trust anything I read over there about audio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpippel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Trying to find a system that gives you great multichannel home theater performance AND audiophile-level 2 channel performance is not easy and not cheap. Most people settle on two completley different audio setups. IMO that's the best way to go. All it takes is money.
wink.gif



Good to know, because I don't care that much how the movies sound. Maybe I'm just a pair of speakers away from a perfect setup.

And a second audio rack to hold all this junk.
smily_headphones1.gif


Come to think of it. I have all of that... Be back in a few hours.

...

Okay... Now I remember why I disconnected the cheap av receiver in the first place. This is gonna take money.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Dec 21, 2009 at 6:08 AM Post #34 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by SiBurning /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Way too complicated.

Last time I checked, there are very few choices for serious high end sound out of these a/v receivers, and all of them have annoying defects. One thing that was obvious is videophiles have tin ears compared to what we might like on head-fi, so while I look to some of those sites for help and ideas, I don't believe anything there about how great something sounds.



If you want serious sound [ if you can call a heap of special effect noises serious ] then use the AVR as a preamp for your power amps,or switch to active speakers.
 
Dec 21, 2009 at 6:25 AM Post #35 of 86
The main problem with home theater audio is the multichannel sound. It's very difficult to balance all of those channels, and even harder to do in the constantly changing environment in a person's home. I am of the opinion that a lot of high end audio and video is designed to be installed in empty basements by high functioning autistics with a passion for noodling their setups.
 
Dec 21, 2009 at 6:29 AM Post #36 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wsh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
In terms of video quality, no, a blu-ray player is made to output 1080P. Your only bottleneck here is your television.. anything under 48-50" will not benefit from 1080 vs 720.


FWIR, it was closer to 36".
 
Dec 21, 2009 at 6:42 AM Post #37 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by ford2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you want serious sound [ if you can call a heap of special effect noises serious ] then use the AVR as a preamp for your power amps,or switch to active speakers.


There's still the need for 8 channels of DAC and whatever other sound processors. One of my problems is my subwoofer's built-in amp sucks, and it sounds much better powered off my stereo amp, but you can't really do that with surround systems. Maybe if I get a decent surround system... I do want separates. I bought a Marantz 4002 for under $300 just to test things out, and it's not very good at all.

Listening to the spaceship exploding at the beginning of Lost In Space... with the Marantz or the subwoofer amp, it sounds like digital sound effects, but with my stereo amp powering the subwoofer and a pair of monitors, I can clearly hear a booming, resonating bass drum. So I'm definitely thinking modular and separates.
 
Dec 21, 2009 at 8:25 AM Post #38 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The main problem with home theater audio is the multichannel sound. It's very difficult to balance all of those channels, and even harder to do in the constantly changing environment in a person's home. I am of the opinion that a lot of high end audio and video is designed to be installed in empty basements by high functioning autistics with a passion for noodling their setups.


It's not that bad.
wink.gif
With a sound pressure meter and a tape messure even I can easily calibrate all the speakers.
 
Dec 22, 2009 at 1:09 AM Post #39 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by pcf /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It's not that bad.
wink.gif
With a sound pressure meter and a tape messure even I can easily calibrate all the speakers.



You don't even have to go that far most of the time. Many newer A/V receivers, even inexpensive ones, come with Audyssey or similar software and a setup microphone. Calibrating home theater audio with such a system is as simple as moving the microphone around to 3 or 4 different listening positions and letting the receiver do its thing.
 
Dec 22, 2009 at 2:09 AM Post #40 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by dpippel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You don't even have to go that far most of the time. Many newer A/V receivers, even inexpensive ones, come with Audyssey or similar software and a setup microphone. Calibrating home theater audio with such a system is as simple as moving the microphone around to 3 or 4 different listening positions and letting the receiver do its thing.


Yeah. Maybe it is time for me to upgrade my Meridian. It is one of the best processors I have heard for music as well as movies (it still is I think) but is dated and doesn't have HDMI. Setting and calibrating involve downloading setting software and connecting your laptop to the unit- a complete pain.
I was going to upgrade to a full Meridian digital system but it doesn't seem like a good idea now.
I have heard some newer AV amps and processors and were very impressed- Denon; Onkyo and Integra..All did a good job on music as well as movies.
 
Dec 22, 2009 at 4:29 AM Post #41 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by pcf /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yeah. Maybe it is time for me to upgrade my Meridian. It is one of the best processors I have heard for music as well as movies (it still is I think) but is dated and doesn't have HDMI. Setting and calibrating involve downloading setting software and connecting your laptop to the unit- a complete pain.
I was going to upgrade to a full Meridian digital system but it doesn't seem like a good idea now.
I have heard some newer AV amps and processors and were very impressed- Denon; Onkyo and Integra..All did a good job on music as well as movies.



Try the top end pioneer AVR's they are brilliant.The only problems with some is they have to many features and the user friendliness has gone out the door.
 
Dec 22, 2009 at 4:38 PM Post #42 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by pcf /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yeah. Maybe it is time for me to upgrade my Meridian. It is one of the best processors I have heard for music as well as movies (it still is I think) but is dated and doesn't have HDMI. Setting and calibrating involve downloading setting software and connecting your laptop to the unit- a complete pain.
I was going to upgrade to a full Meridian digital system but it doesn't seem like a good idea now.
I have heard some newer AV amps and processors and were very impressed- Denon; Onkyo and Integra..All did a good job on music as well as movies.



I hear you. The centerpiece of my HT setup used to be an Aragon Soundstage. Even though it sounded very good it was dated and clunky to use. Earlier this year I downsized to an Onkyo TX-SR805 A/V receiver and have been extremely pleased with its performance.
 
Dec 22, 2009 at 10:49 PM Post #43 of 86
I love my Denon but the rest of my family can't use it -_- (other than the 3 preprogrammed buttons i established for them).. maybe that's a good thing.. sorta like my car, manual ftw
 
Dec 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM Post #44 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by pcf /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It's not that bad.
wink.gif
With a sound pressure meter and a tape messure even I can easily calibrate all the speakers.



With every speaker you add to a system, the focus of the optimal listening point becomes tighter. I've found that it's easy to balance for a specific spot, but sit on the other end of the couch or any other part of the room and it all falls apart. I think there is a reason that people who are into multichannel sound seem to always have their setup in the basement or spare room. It doesn't work in a normal living room where traffic patterns and furniture placement can't be dictated by the acoustic requirements.

This is typical for a lot of technology. It seems that many engineers seem to think that people should alter their living patterns to make it easy for the product, rather than design products to fit within real life situations.
 
Dec 29, 2009 at 12:54 AM Post #45 of 86
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
With every speaker you add to a system, the focus of the optimal listening point becomes tighter. I've found that it's easy to balance for a specific spot, but sit on the other end of the couch or any other part of the room and it all falls apart.


That might not always be the case. I found that with the center channel added, you can sit off axis and it still sounds okay.
It is next to impossible to set up multi channel sound in a normal living room without making it look really ugly. Maybe that's why people put them in the basement.
smile.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top