Subwoofer inputs and home audio question. Mildly Technical

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Something nice about receivers when you get into this range is you start getting not only HDMI inputs, but also conversion of analog sources to HDMI. If that's an important feature to you, then by all means go for it.

Also in this range a popular option would be one of the Pioneer Elite units.

Just wanted to add some more info here...

The Pioneer Elites are quite nice, as I just bought one myself and love it to death. (Elite 81). However, while it does have analog conversion to HDMI, one thing that was not obvious at all is that certain analog sources cannot be converted to HDMI. My manual only included this blurb as a tiny footnote on page 51 or something. So despite any grand illusions of having only ONE cable running to your TV, you might yet end up with others, such as component cables, to get any unconvertable analog signals to the TV. I believe the footnote said that most of the time, it's video game video that cannot be converted, and sure enough... the NES, SNES, Saturn, Gamecube, PS2, and Wii will NOT convert. Don't know about the 360 or PS3 though.

So in short... analog to HDMI conversion is great.... if you're not using video game systems!

 

[spidey07]

And this begs the question - why is anybody trying to convert everything to HDMI for their display? Doesn't make sense.

Googer, I'm coming from a different perspective where music listening is the top priority. In this case you run your pre-amp/receiver to pass a purely analog signal from source to destination (you purchase your source based on the best digital/analog conversion).

You run you speakers to the sub, and then from the sub to your speakers. I didn't mean to confuse. For almost all using the crossover in your receiver is best for simplicity. But for quality you run your sub both ways and then switch.

Doing a music and hometheater system at the same time can be difficult at best.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer
Thanks, Jello.

I was aware that most of what I am looking for in a reciever is redundant. But I do like the thought of having room to grow with out having to change my reciever for at least 10+ years. The speakers (Quintet) I will probably use for 3-4 years and then give them to my parents when I decide to upgrade. Power certainly won't be needed now (50watts RMS) but like I said, I do see my self replacing these in the future.

I see what you mean, but I have a hard time thinking about keeping a receiver for 10+ years with how audio and video standards are changing with HDMI and such. I don't really know how long it's going to be until the "next new thing" is going to come out. It seems like a receiver is the component that's going to become obsolete the soonest while speakers and sub could last quite a while.

Nothing wrong with getting a nice receiver though knowing that you'll be able to keep it for a while and not have it bottleneck your performance except for possibly miss some newer input formats. I don't have HDMI on my preamp/processor right now and it's making me a bit worried about HD-DVD players (mainly the sound end of things), but I'm not losing any sleep over it

HDMI on a reciever is not necessary. There are always separate higher quality third party "breakout" solutions like HDMI switches.

I'm just worried about getting a multichannel PCM stream into my system somehow, not really worried about the video end of things.

Prehaps an external decoder?

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: spidey07
And this begs the question - why is anybody trying to convert everything to HDMI for their display? Doesn't make sense.

Googer, I'm coming from a different perspective where music listening is the top priority. In this case you run your pre-amp/receiver to pass a purely analog signal from source to destination (you purchase your source based on the best digital/analog conversion).

You run you speakers to the sub, and then from the sub to your speakers. I didn't mean to confuse. For almost all using the crossover in your receiver is best for simplicity. But for quality you run your sub both ways and then switch.

Doing a music and hometheater system at the same time can be difficult at best.

Because ALL FLAT PANEL dispalays are digital or a numerical MATRIX. The only time it does not make sence to convert analogue to HDMI is when you have a CRT. The CRT's HDMI digital signal will be reconverted back to analogue. In that (CRT) situation it is best to use component.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

In my case, I had hoped to convert everything to HDMI because the idea of just one single cable, carrying all video to my TV, was very appealing. As I run my wires through the wall, (TV is wall-mounted) having multiple cables to run would have been a pain. It ended up being so anyway, but that's them breaks.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Googer
Because ALL FLAT PANEL dispalays are digital. The only time it does not make sence to convert analogue to HDMI is when you have a CRT. The CRT's HDMI digital signal will be reconverted back to analogue. In that (CRT) situation it is best to use component.

Googer,

you have much to learn (not an insult). I'm not saying you're wrong, just that "it depends". HDMI is just another conection....doesn't make it "better" than others by any stretch. it's like anyting in audio/video.....there's a weak link in the chain somewhere.

It all depends on where the various conversions occurs and the quality of said scalers/de-interlacers and DACs.

Just keep this in mind.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Googer
Because ALL FLAT PANEL dispalays are digital. The only time it does not make sence to convert analogue to HDMI is when you have a CRT. The CRT's HDMI digital signal will be reconverted back to analogue. In that (CRT) situation it is best to use component.

Googer,

you have much to learn (not an insult). I'm not saying you're wrong, just that "it depends". HDMI is just another conection....doesn't make it "better" than others by any stretch. it's like anyting in audio/video.....there's a weak link in the chain somewhere.

It all depends on where the various conversions occurs and the quality of said scalers/de-interlacers and DACs.

Just keep this in mind.

I do know that. and No offence taken; It's just that I am not much of an amplfication expert.

My point was that you want to prevent the signal from being converted, reconverted, converted back, etc. Minimize that, because it leads to signal and/or data loss. Also it is best to feed the display it's native signal. What I mean by "native signal" is any matrix (or grid) display like LcOS, LCD, DLP, and Plasma (i know i forgot one) should be fed a digital signal when possible with minimal analogue to digital conversion, becuse ultimately any analogue going into a matrix monitor will have to be converted to digital by the display it's self. CRT's on the other hand are strictly analogue devices and when ever possible it should be fed a native analogue signal from a good quality DAC.

Summary:
When USING a CRT use component, S-Video, BNC, or any other quality analogue connection
When USING LcOS, DLP, Plasma, or LCD feed the screen a DIGITAL SIGNAL.

(I Hope I was able to convey this point well)

 

[spidey07]

Googer,

It does convey your point. Just wanted to make sure you understood the difference between analog and digital. Digital does NOT always = better. Especially when it comes to audio. I've had tons of receivers and pre-pros and it becomes very apparent. It all comes down to where and what is doing the analog/digital conversion. I tend to get the best source possible and pass that without any interferrence to the pre-amp or the display. The goal is still the same - KISS.

Especially when it comes to music. This original thread was about a subwoofer/analog signals.

-edit-
It all comes down to the source, after all else, the source is where you should concentrate.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Googer,

It does convey your point. Just wanted to make sure you understood the difference between analog and digital. Digital does NOT always = better. Especially when it comes to audio. I've had tons of receivers and pre-pros and it becomes very apparent. It all comes down to where and what is doing the analog/digital conversion. I tend to get the best source possible and pass that without any interferrence to the pre-amp or the display. The goal is still the same - KISS.

Especially when it comes to music. This original thread was about a subwoofer/analog signals.

-edit-
It all comes down to the source, after all else, the source is where you should concentrate.

I completely understand the differance between analogue and digital.

Digital is a series of numerical digits (hence the name digital) that must be converted to a sine wave that your speakers can use.

Digital audio is no differant than the computer data that we store on our hard drives and run through our cpus. When I explain the differance between analogue and digital to people I often say that "digital is simulated analogue" "Long Live Analogue"



"Life At 45RPMs"

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: Googer

All the recievers that I have looked at have only one Subwoofer output. When would I ever want to or need to use the right side input?

Also would it be better if I purchased a separate amplifier for the subwoofer. And if I did, wouldn't the sub-out from the reciever go directly in to the discrete amplifier then to the high level inputs?

Why would you do that and bypass the built-in amp that Klipsch worked on to configure for that sub? If you did use an external amp, then yes, that is how you would connect it; just as you described.

 

[Rubycon]

Wow this mildly technical discussion went over my head.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
In my case, I had hoped to convert everything to HDMI because the idea of just one single cable, carrying all video to my TV, was very appealing. As I run my wires through the wall, (TV is wall-mounted) having multiple cables to run would have been a pain. It ended up being so anyway, but that's them breaks.

That would certainly be a nice and easy way to configure your system. However, I want each of my TV's inputs to be calibrated to each of the individual sources. I don't care about my VCR's output, so it doesn't have a dedicated input on the TV; it gets upconverted to the component input on the TV.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer
Thanks, Jello.

I was aware that most of what I am looking for in a reciever is redundant. But I do like the thought of having room to grow with out having to change my reciever for at least 10+ years. The speakers (Quintet) I will probably use for 3-4 years and then give them to my parents when I decide to upgrade. Power certainly won't be needed now (50watts RMS) but like I said, I do see my self replacing these in the future.

I see what you mean, but I have a hard time thinking about keeping a receiver for 10+ years with how audio and video standards are changing with HDMI and such. I don't really know how long it's going to be until the "next new thing" is going to come out. It seems like a receiver is the component that's going to become obsolete the soonest while speakers and sub could last quite a while.

Nothing wrong with getting a nice receiver though knowing that you'll be able to keep it for a while and not have it bottleneck your performance except for possibly miss some newer input formats. I don't have HDMI on my preamp/processor right now and it's making me a bit worried about HD-DVD players (mainly the sound end of things), but I'm not losing any sleep over it

HDMI on a reciever is not necessary. There are always separate higher quality third party "breakout" solutions like HDMI switches.

I'm just worried about getting a multichannel PCM stream into my system somehow, not really worried about the video end of things.

Prehaps an external decoder?

Yeah, I might resort to that.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer
Thanks, Jello.

I was aware that most of what I am looking for in a reciever is redundant. But I do like the thought of having room to grow with out having to change my reciever for at least 10+ years. The speakers (Quintet) I will probably use for 3-4 years and then give them to my parents when I decide to upgrade. Power certainly won't be needed now (50watts RMS) but like I said, I do see my self replacing these in the future.

I see what you mean, but I have a hard time thinking about keeping a receiver for 10+ years with how audio and video standards are changing with HDMI and such. I don't really know how long it's going to be until the "next new thing" is going to come out. It seems like a receiver is the component that's going to become obsolete the soonest while speakers and sub could last quite a while.

Nothing wrong with getting a nice receiver though knowing that you'll be able to keep it for a while and not have it bottleneck your performance except for possibly miss some newer input formats. I don't have HDMI on my preamp/processor right now and it's making me a bit worried about HD-DVD players (mainly the sound end of things), but I'm not losing any sleep over it

HDMI on a reciever is not necessary. There are always separate higher quality third party "breakout" solutions like HDMI switches.

I'm just worried about getting a multichannel PCM stream into my system somehow, not really worried about the video end of things.

Prehaps an external decoder?

Yeah, I might resort to that.

No biggie. Just use the analog outs; assuming the HD DVD player you choose has them.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer
Thanks, Jello.

I was aware that most of what I am looking for in a reciever is redundant. But I do like the thought of having room to grow with out having to change my reciever for at least 10+ years. The speakers (Quintet) I will probably use for 3-4 years and then give them to my parents when I decide to upgrade. Power certainly won't be needed now (50watts RMS) but like I said, I do see my self replacing these in the future.

I see what you mean, but I have a hard time thinking about keeping a receiver for 10+ years with how audio and video standards are changing with HDMI and such. I don't really know how long it's going to be until the "next new thing" is going to come out. It seems like a receiver is the component that's going to become obsolete the soonest while speakers and sub could last quite a while.

Nothing wrong with getting a nice receiver though knowing that you'll be able to keep it for a while and not have it bottleneck your performance except for possibly miss some newer input formats. I don't have HDMI on my preamp/processor right now and it's making me a bit worried about HD-DVD players (mainly the sound end of things), but I'm not losing any sleep over it

HDMI on a reciever is not necessary. There are always separate higher quality third party "breakout" solutions like HDMI switches.

I'm just worried about getting a multichannel PCM stream into my system somehow, not really worried about the video end of things.

Prehaps an external decoder?

Yeah, I might resort to that.

No biggie. Just use the analog outs; assuming the HD DVD player you choose has them.

Unfortunately I think the next gen players are all getting rid of this feature. I'm not ready to get a player yet which I think means I might have to look for an old first gen player down the road

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer
Thanks, Jello.

I was aware that most of what I am looking for in a reciever is redundant. But I do like the thought of having room to grow with out having to change my reciever for at least 10+ years. The speakers (Quintet) I will probably use for 3-4 years and then give them to my parents when I decide to upgrade. Power certainly won't be needed now (50watts RMS) but like I said, I do see my self replacing these in the future.

I see what you mean, but I have a hard time thinking about keeping a receiver for 10+ years with how audio and video standards are changing with HDMI and such. I don't really know how long it's going to be until the "next new thing" is going to come out. It seems like a receiver is the component that's going to become obsolete the soonest while speakers and sub could last quite a while.

Nothing wrong with getting a nice receiver though knowing that you'll be able to keep it for a while and not have it bottleneck your performance except for possibly miss some newer input formats. I don't have HDMI on my preamp/processor right now and it's making me a bit worried about HD-DVD players (mainly the sound end of things), but I'm not losing any sleep over it

HDMI on a reciever is not necessary. There are always separate higher quality third party "breakout" solutions like HDMI switches.

I'm just worried about getting a multichannel PCM stream into my system somehow, not really worried about the video end of things.

Prehaps an external decoder?

Yeah, I might resort to that.

No biggie. Just use the analog outs; assuming the HD DVD player you choose has them.

Unfortunately I think the next gen players are all getting rid of this feature. I'm not ready to get a player yet which I think means I might have to look for an old first gen player down the road

The base models are, but not the higher quality version.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer
Thanks, Jello.

I'm just worried about getting a multichannel PCM stream into my system somehow, not really worried about the video end of things.

Prehaps an external decoder?

Yeah, I might resort to that.

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en...Dorg.mozilla:en-US:unofficial%26sa%3DG

http://www.taelektroakustik.de/eng/index.htm

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer
Thanks, Jello.

I'm just worried about getting a multichannel PCM stream into my system somehow, not really worried about the video end of things.

Prehaps an external decoder?

Yeah, I might resort to that.

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en...Dorg.mozilla:en-US:unofficial%26sa%3DG

http://www.taelektroakustik.de/eng/index.htm

Does that have multichannel analog audio output? I basically need something to decode the new HD audio info and give me analog so I can plug into my multichannel analog audio input.

Plus... looks like that's about $4800?

 

[Googer]

I am not 100% certain (maybe 75%) but I think it is strictly an analogue video and audio encoder with high definition output. What is the source of this HD Audio you are trying to use, DVD, SACD, or other source?


Specifications

Video inputs
4 x HDMI with HDCP up to 1080p
1 x YUV
1 x RGB (Scart)
1 x S-Video
1 x Composite

Audio inputs

4 x HDMI (routed to SP/DIF Audo Out and HDMI)
1 x SP/DIF digital audio

Video outputs
1 x HDMI incl. Audio
1 x DVI with HDCP support

Audio outputs

5 x SP/DIF digital audio (coax)
1 x SP/DIF digital audio (optical)
1 x HDMI

Reselution
XGA
WXGA
4 x SMPTE
maximum HDTV 1920x1080p with 50 / 60 Hz

Picture optimiser
flexible line multiplier
adaptive motion control
sharpness control
TV - mode
Adjustable picture parameters / source
brightness, contrast
color saturation
huge
Control
T+A RLink
Remote control F6 and FB-VSP
RS 232 input
RS 232 monitor-control

Dimensions

7,5 x 44 x 39 cm (H x W x D)

Weight

8 kg

Finishes
silver, black

 

[Googer]

Acording to DTS, if you buy a new Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player it should come standard with HD Audio decoding.
http://www.dts.com/dts-hd/dtshd-master-audio-with-existing-receiver.php

The solution: Get a Playstation 3.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Googer
Acording to DTS, if you buy a new Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player it should come standard with HD Audio decoding.
http://www.dts.com/dts-hd/dtshd-master-audio-with-existing-receiver.php

The solution: Get a Playstation 3.

The PS3 would have to have 5.1 analog output to get to my AVP-7 which lacks HDMI input.
Plus I'm not doing blueray.

The first gen HD-DVD players have analog output, but I'm afraid that feature will be dropped for newer products.

Thanks for the links though Googer. I think I'm just going to have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Googer
Acording to DTS, if you buy a new Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player it should come standard with HD Audio decoding.
http://www.dts.com/dts-hd/dtshd-master-audio-with-existing-receiver.php

The solution: Get a Playstation 3.

The PS3 would have to have 5.1 analog output to get to my AVP-7 which lacks HDMI input.
Plus I'm not doing blueray.

The first gen HD-DVD players have analog output, but I'm afraid that feature will be dropped for newer products.

Thanks for the links though Googer. I think I'm just going to have to wait and see what happens.

I really doubt that analogue will disappear from audio sources and I fairly comfortable in saying that on the high end Analogue is not going anywhere. Also HD-DVD/Blu-Ray (from my reading) supports high bitrate/samplerate 7.1 audio.

However I am hoping in the future that it will support 7.2 or 10.1 channel. 7.2, because Wouldn't it be cool to hear a pair of Jazz Bass players playing separate chords coming from two stereo subwoofers?

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Googer


However I am hoping in the future that it will support 7.2 or 10.1 channel. 7.2, because Wouldn't it be cool to hear a pair of Jazz Bass players playing separate chords coming from two stereo subwoofers?

Woofers perhaps.

This troubles me as today's systems depend heavily on the so-called subwoofer and the separates handle way too much of the program. The bass needing tightest control in the 90Hz region just becomes undefined.

Then again people are satisfied with itunes and 128kbps mp3's and cheap three piece systems - and (shudder) think Bose is the epitome of audio.

But us audiophiles and musicians do know the truth about Bose. :laugh:

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: Googer


However I am hoping in the future that it will support 7.2 or 10.1 channel. 7.2, because Wouldn't it be cool to hear a pair of Jazz Bass players playing separate chords coming from two stereo subwoofers?

Woofers perhaps.

This troubles me as today's systems depend heavily on the so-called subwoofer and the separates handle way too much of the program. The bass needing tightest control in the 90Hz region just becomes undefined.

Then again people are satisfied with itunes and 128kbps mp3's and cheap three piece systems - and (shudder) think Bose is the epitome of audio.

But us audiophiles and musicians do know the truth about Bose. :laugh:

Well, I mean both; stereo bass sources (woofer,subwoofer) would be awesome and it's not that the equipment could handle it, but hearing two Bass (intruments) coming from two differant places in the same room playing differnt notes. Stereo separation of musicians. Eric Clapton's Layla is a possible example of this. If I remember it takes two bass guitars to play it.

Just a temporary link to a Bass-y Jazz Standard. (will be delted soon)
http://media.putfile.com/-95-77

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Googer

Well, I mean both; stereo bass sources (woofer,subwoofer) would be awesome and it's not that the equipment could handle it, but hearing two Bass (intruments) coming from two differant places in the same room playing differnt notes. Stereo separation of musicians. Eric Clapton's Layla is a possible example of this. If I remember it takes two bass guitars to play it.

Just a temporary link to a Bass-y Jazz Standard. (will be delted soon)
http://media.putfile.com/-95-77

Yes but not really possible with 2.1 setups with tiny 3" drivers.

Granted the midrange *may* trick you into hearing both sides with the "subwoofer" blending in but we definitely prefer the sound of two channels with full 20-20k response and let the subwoofer handle the true sub-bass.