Who should decode the sound??

[lotharamious]

Hey all,

Let's say I have a ASUS Xonar HDMI sound card hooked up via HDMI to a decent pre/pro, like the Marantz AV8003. Okay, now let's say I'm playing a movie that uses DTS-HD MA, should the sound card or the pre/pro be doing the decoding?

What about with much cheaper pre/pros?

Basically, I'm trying to figure out whether there would be benefit of purchasing a pre/pro if I already have a soundcard that is more than capable of sound decoding.

The key is which is BETTER at doing it, e.g. sound quality...

 

[spidey07]

The pre-pro SHOULD have better DACs and give you better sound quality. Emphasis on "should".

 

[cheesehead]

Yep. There's also something to be said for transferring something digitally - the further the audio gets before it's turned to analog, the less noise it will pick up.

That said, there are some really excellent soundcards on the market.

 

[spidey07]

Cheesehead, it shouldn't pick up any noise if it's analog either. The decision on where to do the digital to analog conversion really is dependant on which device does it the best. This is why you spend good money on a CD player and then use the analog out of that CD player into your pre-amp. Asking a 1000 dollar pre-pro to do a better job than a 1000 dollar CD player is asking for compromises.

 

[lotharamious]

so which does it better?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: lotharamious
so which does it better?

"It depends".

In your case the pre-pro has a high likelyhood of doing it better.

 

[Rubycon]

AES/BU (digital) to DAC with balanced outputs to analog post processing/crossover/gain management to amplifiers. That's the ideal way. 😉

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
AES/BU (digital) to DAC with balanced outputs to analog post processing/crossover/gain management to amplifiers. That's the ideal way. 😉

Don't confuse them. 😉

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Rubycon
AES/BU (digital) to DAC with balanced outputs to analog post processing/crossover/gain management to amplifiers. That's the ideal way. 😉

Don't confuse them. 😉

Balanced Digital.

 

[thomsbrain]

There are some folks who appear to be unclear on the question in this thread.

It's hooked up digitally. He's asking whether he should process with the soundcard and send via PCM over HDMI or send bitstream over HDMI and process with the pre/pro. Debating the merits of analog vs. digital is completely irrelevant because either way the signal will be DIGITAL.

As for the OP's actual question: in theory, it shouldn't make any difference. The sound should be identical. Either way, you're decoding using a standard set of algorithms, and using the DAC's in the pre/pro to turn the result into analog output. This is like asking whether a JPG image would look better on an Intel or AMD processor. It would look exactly the same because the processed result is exactly the same, even if the chip is a little different. So if both your soundcard and your pre/pro can decode the audio stream in question, choose whatever floats your boat.

The only reason you might need to choose one over the other is if your soundcard somehow had better DACs than your pre/pro (not likely for any remotely consumer-oriented sound card). Then you'd want to use the better DACs in the soundcard and send via analog.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
There are some folks who appear to be unclear on the question in this thread.

It's hooked up digitally. He's asking whether he should process with the soundcard and send via PCM over HDMI or send bitstream over HDMI and process with the pre/pro. Debating the merits of analog vs. digital is completely irrelevant because either way the signal will be DIGITAL.

As for the OP's actual question: in theory, it shouldn't make any difference. The sound should be identical. Either way, you're decoding using a standard set of algorithms, and using the DAC's in the pre/pro to turn the result into analog output. This is like asking whether a JPG image would look better on an Intel or AMD processor. It would look exactly the same because the processed result is exactly the same, even if the chip is a little different. So if both your soundcard and your pre/pro can decode the audio stream in question, choose whatever floats your boat.

The only reason you might need to choose one over the other is if your soundcard somehow had better DACs than your pre/pro (not likely for any remotely consumer-oriented sound card). Then you'd want to use the better DACs in the soundcard and send via analog.

Agree.

The situation depends completely on the equipment.

With my Integra-DTR 5.5 connected to my DPC-8.5, there was no difference but when I got my DTR-7.6 and kept everything else the same, the DTR-7.6's digital input sounded way better than the analogue output from the DPC-8.5 (Universal Disc Player).

Analogue has the advantage of universal compatibility and many digital output's are downsampled from 24bit (what ever), to 16bit CD-PCM. Your player may support a format that your reciever cannot deocde.

Also Some DVD-a Discs specify that the player only output 24/192or96 is via analogue and to downsample the digital to 16bit/44khz PCM. The only way to hear the high resolution is to use the analogue input/outpus on your equipment. (this applies to SACD and non SACD stuff).

At some point in the system the signal must become analogue, after all natural un-recorded live sound is an analogue signal.

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
AES/BU (digital) to DAC with balanced outputs to analog post processing/crossover/gain management to amplifiers. That's the ideal way. 😉

Nah.

AES/EBU -> six (parallel) channels of DSP equalization and phase control -> six gain controls -> six power amps -> two three-way speakers.

In other words....

DCX2496 + six-channel preamp -> six power amps.

Yes, I'm shooting high with my planned stereo setup.

 

[Googer]

WHO should decode the sound: You and your brain.
WHAT Should decode the signal: That's whole debate on to it's self