Off Topic Thread: Off Topic Is On Topic Here

[old tech]

Why are you all feeding the troll? He had obviously come here to troll with that gibberish, hook, line and sinker.

 

[Davesrose]

There is good and bad processing. Some picture and sound aspects of the source conversion will survive the toxic processing of the TV, hence why the picture will look more cinematic. The processing happening inside the TV is aimed at enhancing the picture : more crisp, more clear, more detailed, etc. Giving it a good analog signal (that was converted from digital to analog by a bluray player designed for the cinematic experience) will help the TV produce a more cinematic picture.

But it seems that some movies look better with HDMI. I think X-Mens looks good with HDMI maybe this is partly due to the movie being shot at high frame rate, or because it was ready to be processed by modern TVs.

The soap opera effect is when you have a fast frame rate. Movies have been filmed at 24 frames per second (most everyone, few exceptions have been higher frame rate). Part of it is that people are used to seeing 24fps (where especially if there's motion, there's perceptual burr). It's very funny that you claim current TVs aren't "cinematic" even though they natively support 24fps (you just disable "true motion" or other term depending on manufacturer)!!! CRTs, on the other hand, operate at either 50fields/25frames (PAL) or 60fields/30fps. It's nothing like a static movie frame (which used to be a film positive, and now is a digital projector). Instead, you have interleave and frame rate artifacts (and this is true with component cable going from blu-ray player to digital TV: where the DAC is outputting up to 1080i/60). Really, you're just doing more word salad about how you think inferior technology that couldn't reproduce 35mm cinema film and is incompatible with the latest home standards, that closely matches cinema standards, is more "natural" or now "cinematic".

 

[ScareDe2]

It's very unclear if a modern TV can work at 24p with the exact refreshing rate. Very unclear that the analog inputs and digital inputs do the same processing. And I suspect there is more "soap effects" created by more toxic processings. And I am sure with the sound there is similar problems. Artists work is trashed by all these fake digital transformations.

 

[bigshot]

There is no practical reason to use analogue inputs when the source is digital. Let the DAC conversion happen at the last step before amplification. It's cleaner that way.

 

[ScareDe2]

There is no practical reason to use analogue inputs when the source is digital. Let the DAC conversion happen at the last step before amplification. It's cleaner that way.

For audio there are no questions you must use the analog outputs of your more expensive player, unless your TV weights a ton, is loaded with quality components and outperforms your player. For video, it is doubtful that HDMI only offers benefits without any drawbacks. What is sure is some movies don't play well with HDMI, the story-telling and the pictures simply don't match. It might have to do with the final editing, or how the creators have adapted (or not) to evolving digital format.

 

[bigshot]

Just about all audio components contain DACs that are audibly transparent. It's extremely unlikely that there would be an audible difference between the DAC in a player and the DAC in an AVR. I know common knowledge is that you should use the most expensive DAC, but that is pure theory and doesn't hold up in practice. Do a controlled test like I did and you'll find out for yourself.

As for story telling not being able to be represented properly via digital cables... Well... you are straying into the realm of the absurd now. You are just making stuff up as you go along. Not worth my time. I offered you a clue. One sentence dismissals from here on out.

 

[ScareDe2]

Well, enjoy your HDMI and technically faulty TV that adds frames and processing to the original work. And enjoy your DACs that all sound the same. Stay out of the absurd !

 

[pfzar]

HDMI is not the issue in the case of a film being correct. The problem is the TV and its ability to reproduce the colors and dynamic range correctly.
The image has to do with the panel, its technology (LED, OLED, Plasma, etc.) panel yield, and controllers for the said choice of technology.

EDIT:: Your run of the mill Costco TVs are nowhere close to being calibrated, the colors you see on a retail TV are skewed to make them look different from the one next to them.

 

[bigshot]

Dunning Kruger.

 

[ScareDe2]

 

[pfzar]

What's the point that you are trying to make? Yes, a Bessel filter vs Sallen-Key Filter will do different things. But as stated. 1s and 0s are the same.

 

[ScareDe2]

Me? I am just saying DACs sound different. Their analog output stage works similar to a preamplifier. If you are capable to hear difference between preamps you should hear difference between DACs, even if it uses the same DAC chip, as explained in the above PS Audio video.

As for the source conversion with the component video cables, it produces a more theater-like experience. Who wants to see a movie with sport-like feel in the pictures? It simply doesn't match the creator intent.

 

[pfzar]

No. You are not comparing a DAC to a DAC you are comparing the sum of all the parts to another.

In simplified terms. Both DAC's have a power supply and an analog output section. The power supply is a source of noise for both the Digital and Analog sections of a PCB. The Analog output section also has an impact on sound and how it measures.

For your claim that DAC A and DAC B sound different, you need to compare both using the same power supply and analog sections into the same acoustic system. Blindly.

 

[ScareDe2]

I don't care if you consider the DAC to be the sum of all its parts or not. You seem to agree with me that they sound different.

Next.

 

[pfzar]

Now I remember why I never post on here. There is no agreement stated in my post or implied.