eARC implementation and SQ question.

[Cecala]

I'm not sure if I'm posting in the correct thread although if not, please place accordingly.
I am planning to purchase a headphone/Dac setup to listen to movies via headphones. I naturally want the best audio quality I can achieve.
My understanding thus far is that out of the three options being optical/coaxial and arc, arc provides the best SQ. Correct so far?
Now, while some DACS do provide an Arc input my question is why don't manufacturers provide an eArc input?
Is it because there needs to be some further processing in the Dac for the digital signal to be decoded and therefore some sought of license is now
mandated from Dolby/THX for this to happen?
What is known: Arc only allows compressed 5.1/7.1 etc to pass while eArc allows due to it's increased bandwidth uncompressed like formats to pass.
While the surround multi-channels enter compressed or uncompressed are all these channels converted to plain stereo for headphone use?

 

[bigshot]

I always thought eARC was primarily so the soundbar and TV would share video and sound, and operate with the same controls and power button. I can’t imagine it has any better sound quality than plain old HDMI. For two channel, it really doesn’t matter what connection you use. Only for multichannel. ARC and eARC can be a bit of a hoodoo to get working properly if your player and TV and soundbar don’t want to play together nicely.

 

[uncletim]

it's confusing, I always used a receiver for audio, using the TV doesn't seem to matter much if it's optical or ARC.

what would your source be? the TV? streaming is all DD+ and compressed audio, or Blu-ray maybe?

starting to see eARC appear on the new small Denon and Marantz 2-channel amps (not positive on model numbers)

then I started reading the eARC was copy protected on my Sony TV, and on another breath they say using eARC everything will pass through, I am not sure yet.

https://www.sony-asia.com/electronics/support/articles/00206001#

https://www.sony-asia.com/electronics/support/articles/00206406

I am using a Wiim Ultra and will use an external DAC, nothing too high-end since it's still TV, maybe $300 USD SMSL DAC. I see 24/48 LPCM or AC3 using the wiim ultra and ARC.

The way I figure is, it's better to run the audio into a receiver and use that for audio, rather than the TV. can probably use and external DAC on some receivers. If only 2.0, I have seen some Stereo receivers with HDMI input. I don't have the room here for a receiver.

 

[Cecala]

According to the chart above Toslink and ARC are identical in SQ although ARC provides up to 1Mbits/sec better bandwidth. What does this extra bandwidth provide?
I would be using a portable drive (only, no streaming) with film content on it feeding through the TV and then outputting either through ARC or Optical, whichever is superior.
I have read that for two channel only, PCM is better as it is not 'touched' by the TVs internal processing and simply passed through allowing the DAC to take over providing in theory better results. It would seem to me that the extra bandwidth is simply for the additional controls that ARC can provide such as CEC.
The two Sony links provided are somewhat contradictory to each other. It's funny as there is no concrete info on this subject.

 

[bigshot]

Why isn’t plain HDMI in that chart? What kind of signal are you playing? If it’s stereo, it probably doesn’t matter. If it’s a high data rate multichannel, it might. Although I think you’re right about the additional data for eARC. It carries video and data as well as audio.

In my 5.1 system, I set the player for PCM. It’s a good player and more recent than my receiver. Plain vanilla is dependable.

 

[Cecala]

Why isn’t plain HDMI in that chart? What kind of signal are you playing? If it’s stereo, it probably doesn’t matter. If it’s a high data rate multichannel, it might. Although I think you’re right about the additional data for eARC. It carries video and data as well as audio.

In my 5.1 system, I set the player for PCM. It’s a good player and more recent than my receiver. Plain vanilla is dependable.

ARC is plain HDMI or HDMI is ARC if you like.......................to my understanding.

 

[uncletim]

According to the chart above Toslink and ARC are identical in SQ although ARC provides up to 1Mbits/sec better bandwidth. What does this extra bandwidth provide?
I would be using a portable drive (only, no streaming) with film content on it feeding through the TV and then outputting either through ARC or Optical, whichever is superior.
I have read that for two channel only, PCM is better as it is not 'touched' by the TVs internal processing and simply passed through allowing the DAC to take over providing in theory better results. It would seem to me that the extra bandwidth is simply for the additional controls that ARC can provide such as CEC.
The two Sony links provided are somewhat contradictory to each other. It's funny as there is no concrete info on this subject.

Not sure that chart makes sense, where is this posted? I was able to get 24/192khz from optical, works fine for 2-channel music and basic TV, I have not heard any difference with ARC so far (using 2.0 system)

using the optical out on the TV is not best for music, will always be 16/48. ARC gives me 24/48, and I guess eARC is supposed to be higher if you have support, haven't heard much about that yet

I know if I enable eARC to my Wiim Ultra I get no sound at all.

what sort of budget are we looking at? using a portable drive with Blu-ray quality audio, or compressed AC3/DD?

Probably a slight advantage to using ARC. A few things starting to appear, new Fosi device with ARC input, I think maybe ZD3?

 

[bigshot]

ARC is plain HDMI or HDMI is ARC if you like.......................to my understanding.

Then I think that chart is wrong. I can put uncompressed 5.1 and high data rate Dolby and dts through regular HDMI.

The “good, better, best” makes no sense either because all of them should be the same for two channel. The HDMI formats are for multichannel- different purpose.

Where did you get this chart?

 

[The Jester]

Depends on the source device and its options ….
Dunno about modern TV’s But BluRay players often have options on spdif output … Toslink or coax digital out … setting that to “stereo” instead of something like “surround” is all you’d need to connect to a DAC / headphone amp …
eARC cables etc with their higher bandwidth only come into their own when used with a 4K video and or Atmos source and components …

 

[uncletim]

Depends on the source device and its options ….
Dunno about modern TV’s But BluRay players often have options on spdif output … Toslink or coax digital out … setting that to “stereo” instead of something like “surround” is all you’d need to connect to a DAC / headphone amp …
eARC cables etc with their higher bandwidth only come into their own when used with a 4K video and or Atmos source and components …

Right, OP is using files on a drive. no info on the files so far. I am playing high bitrate 4k files with Plex and works well. Starting to see eARC on small 2-channel amps now. I prefer to not use the TV at all; in my case more or less have to, unless I figure something else out! lol

 

[sander99]

ARC is plain HDMI or HDMI is ARC if you like.......................to my understanding.

No no, plain HDMI means audio going in the normal direction (same as the video), where with ARC (and eARC) the audio goes the opposite direction. And plain HDMI has the the full hdmi audio capabilities while ARC is limited (and eARC was introduced to overcome those limitations, but in reality it sometimes disappoints because for example many tv's don't support both the Dolby and DTS formats with eARC).

 

[Cecala]

..............Where did you get this chart?

From Sony themselves.
https://www.sony.com.au/electronics/support/articles/00227116

 

[Cecala]

Right, OP is using files on a drive. no info on the files so far. I am playing high bitrate 4k files with Plex and works well. Starting to see eARC on small 2-channel amps now. I prefer to not use the TV at all; in my case more or less have to, unless I figure something else out! lol

Files are high bitrate rips of Bluray/4K discs with original audio. The chain is as follows: Sony TV with eARC/ARC or Optical output then to a separate DAC then to Headphone-amp..................Headphones.

 

[Cecala]

gives me 24/48,

Not sure that chart makes sense, where is this posted? I was able to get 24/192khz from optical, works fine for 2-channel music and basic TV, I have not heard any difference with ARC so far (using 2.0 system)

using the optical out on the TV is not best for music, will always be 16/48. ARC gives me 24/48, and I guess eARC is supposed to be higher if you have support, haven't heard much about that yet

I know if I enable eARC to my Wiim Ultra I get no sound at all.

what sort of budget are we looking at? using a portable drive with Blu-ray quality audio, or compressed AC3/DD?

Probably a slight advantage to using ARC. A few things starting to appear, new Fosi device with ARC input, I think maybe ZD3?

No budget, want the best quality I can get. I know S.M.S.L. have quite a few DACs with an ARC input although someone has suggested to me that this input could be a simple conversion from the optical input within the unit. I would have no way to verify that comment. Should contact S.M.S.L. for confirmation. Is it known definitively that ARC is superior to optical?
The info I have read online is somewhat contradictory.

 

[bigshot]

The difference between optical and HDMI is the kinds of audio formats supported, not audible sound quality.