[sander99]

@ScareDe2: You seem to think that the role of an analog video signal can be compared to the role of an analog audio signal, in that an analog audio signal is "directly analogous" to the final output of an amplifier, or even the acoustic output of a loudspeaker. With video signals it is not like that at all. An analog video signal is a strange abstract representation of a video, that as explained to you maps well with how a CRT display works (what it was designed for of course). It is completely meaningless in a digital video chain. It is not as if the digital signal coming from the HDMI cable somewhere in the tv is converted to this kind of analog signal, and as if it would have some direct "analogy" to the optical output of the tv, this kind of analog signal doesn't exist anywhere in the tv, except when some nutter uses the analog inputs so it has to be converted again. You could say there is some kind of DA conversion in the TV, but that is per pixel. It has nothing to do with the video DA conversion in the blu-ray player. Using an analog component video signal doesn't help in any way to control those individual pixels. The blu-ray player isn't doing a part of the tv's work by converting the video to an analog component signal, it is only creating more work for the tv.
You can compare using analog component video signals in a modern video chain with using an FM signal between your CD player and your amplifier. The FM signal is a meaningless detour, can't be used for anything, and has to be converted back to a normal analog audio signal.

 

[ScareDe2]

I assure you that delivering a good analog blow to that huge fake processing is doing wonders.

 

[Davesrose]

Adding more DACs and ADCs to the chain with analog cabling adds even more processing (again)....we're still waiting for any technical explanation on your views rather than "I assure you" it looks "natural" to your eyes (that seem to have been programmed that digital video somehow looks "fake", and thinking any new technology is magical foolery). Again, if you think digital processing looks fake, you can't look to any current flat panel TV, movie theater, or consumer projector. Go back to laser disc and NTSC/PAL CRT TVs (the best spec analog system). Oh, and be prepared for buying used movies that have disc rot and/or tracking issues.

 

[ScareDe2]

The analog conversion works in synergy with the rest of the chain and helps simulate natural motion pictures.

 

[Davesrose]

I think it's evident for anyone else reading this thread that ScareDe2 thinks analog is more "natural" due to woo.

 

[ScareDe2]

Artists failed at transitioning to a constantly evolving and changing digital format.

 

[bfreedma]

The analog conversion works in synergy with the rest of the chain and helps simulate natural motion pictures.

Your trolling was better quality at the start of this exchange. This just feels lazy.

 

[bigshot]

If you focus on distortion with DACs that produce none, it is gonna sound the same. But sound characteristics go beyond the distortion, which is just one characteristic among others. If you look at the whole sound picture and how the music moves you, it should be easier to hear differences between DACs.

Which aspect sounds different then? Frequency response... no. Timing error... no. Dynamics... no. All of the aspects of fidelity are covered by the specs of digital audio in general. The only way for a DAC to present sound significantly differently is to be grossly defective, either by design or manufacture.

I'll ask again though... What do you base your opinion that DACs sound different on? Is it based on a controlled test, or just your subjective impression? If you have a good reason to believe that and evidence, I am very eager to hear about it.

HDMI is just a convenient cable allowing the TV to digitally enhance its picture. It's not lifelike or natural.

What the hell are you talking about? Standard definition analogue looks more natural than 4K? Are you just making this stuff up?

Welp! Shoulda seen this coming. I guess I can move on now. Nothing to gain from this one.

 

[castleofargh]

Everything is better with analog butter.
I propose to rename digital as "analog sampling". Placing the word analog next to something is instantly making it better in the mind of so many audiophiles. It's worth a try IMO.

 

[bigshot]

I spell it the European way because it just sounds more high class with the ue at the end.

The A in DAC stands for ANALOGUE!

 

[Davesrose]

I spell it the European way because it just sounds more high class with the ue at the end.

The A in DAC stands for ANALOGUE!

And if a color system is spelled colour, it's inherently better too!

 

[bigshot]

COLOUR est très bien! magnifique! superbe!

By the way, this "nugget of wisdom" made me think of something funny...

I don't use expensive new bluray player but logic tells me you must have an analog out that gives the best audio and video quality and that's what you should use.

I remember when I was first considering buying an Oppo blu-ray player, I was looking at the specs to see what the difference was between the 103 and 105 models (105 was the one with the "audiophile sound".) I was impressed because their spec sheet was very complete and didn't have as much prevarication as I'm normally used to on high end equipment sites. The difference in specs between the DACs in the 103 and 105 models was infinitesimally small- both were miles off into the magical land of the inaudible. But the thing that interested me was that they also listed specs for the analogue audio outputs. I had read all the hype about how you should use the internal DAC on the Oppo because it was better than the one you probably have in your AVR... but the irony of it was that the specs for the analogue outputs were a little worse than using HDMI and my AVR! It made me wonder what people were talking about. I scratched my head and set it aside for a while until I had time to research it more. A few weeks later, I decided to dig further and I went back to the Oppo site and they had deleted the specs for the analogue outputs. They just had the specs for the DAC itself. I guess I wasn't the only one asking questions about that.

 

[ScareDe2]

It must be related to some sort of Soap Opera Effects. The more the TV processes the pictures the worst it looks. Same with sound. Most of the great specs materials sound horrible. The $100k sound system at my nearest audio shop is unlistenable. But the guy looks at the numbers and spec, he is amazed, he takes a seat and he has a brain orgasm.

 

[castleofargh]

It must be related to some sort of opera soap effect. The more the TV processes the pictures the worst it looks. Same with sound. Most of the great specs materials sound horrible. The $100k sound system at my nearest audio shop is unlistenable. But the guy looks at the numbers and spec, he is amazed, he takes a seat and he has a brain orgasm.

You got it backward. When you send an analog video signal to a modern TV, that's when you add extra unnecessary processing. As the TV must now convert it back to digital before it can do anything with it. On the other hand, when you send a digital signal, the TV can output the right calibration and an image closer to what was made(if that is you choice). The caveat is that it happens only with a properly calibrated TV. I cannot attest to that for your TV in particular.

What's confusing to me is how all this started with you mentioning that HDMI was said to keep the signal intact. You get that HDMI is a digital interface right? So I don't understand how we ended up here with you defending the opposite?

 

[ScareDe2]

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.