I have not followed the technology of home theater and my Pioneer DV-37 Elite is still pretty competent. But I purchased a 1080P the size of a picture window and I would like to purchase a Blu-Ray to enjoy the 3D eye candy.
My history with the DV-37 predates external DAC's. But in time I got an external DAC that was incrementally better sounding than the internal DV-37 for the better produced music CD's. But not sufficiently better that I was concerned for movie DVD's. This is all before the advent of AV receivers.
So, basically, there seems to be a lot of redundancy in these home theater products. I have an AV receiver that has wi-fi, the TV monitor has wi-fi, the Mac-mini feeding content to the receiver has wi-fi. All these Blu-Ray players have wi-fi.
And, all these components have built in DAC's.
I am unsure why someone with a competent AV receiver would spend the money on an expensive Blu-Ray player with only a 1080p monitor. But I am mostly wondering what a sophisticated Blu-Ray player contributes in terms of routine CD music play. I have talked to sales people in the stores and in the online retail chats and I am not satisfied they have understood my question.
I respect that there may be some incremental difference relative to the screen image. But so far as audio goes it looks like it is just acting as a transport and regardless of the quality of the DAC internal to the Blu-Ray player, audio is processed by the AV receiver's DAC. One can spend $100 on a Blu-Ray player or $1000 on a Blu-Ray player. While I respect the difference between a rock solid transport and one that is not, what does the audio of a Blu-Ray player contribute to audio quality in an AV receiver HDMI connected system?
My history with the DV-37 predates external DAC's. But in time I got an external DAC that was incrementally better sounding than the internal DV-37 for the better produced music CD's. But not sufficiently better that I was concerned for movie DVD's. This is all before the advent of AV receivers.
So, basically, there seems to be a lot of redundancy in these home theater products. I have an AV receiver that has wi-fi, the TV monitor has wi-fi, the Mac-mini feeding content to the receiver has wi-fi. All these Blu-Ray players have wi-fi.
And, all these components have built in DAC's.
I am unsure why someone with a competent AV receiver would spend the money on an expensive Blu-Ray player with only a 1080p monitor. But I am mostly wondering what a sophisticated Blu-Ray player contributes in terms of routine CD music play. I have talked to sales people in the stores and in the online retail chats and I am not satisfied they have understood my question.
I respect that there may be some incremental difference relative to the screen image. But so far as audio goes it looks like it is just acting as a transport and regardless of the quality of the DAC internal to the Blu-Ray player, audio is processed by the AV receiver's DAC. One can spend $100 on a Blu-Ray player or $1000 on a Blu-Ray player. While I respect the difference between a rock solid transport and one that is not, what does the audio of a Blu-Ray player contribute to audio quality in an AV receiver HDMI connected system?
As far as audio, if you're actually happy with the sound of your AV receiver's dac, then the quality of a given BD player will make virtually zero difference. So, the concerns then become video quality & reliability. Sadly, any BD player new enough to have internal WiFi is a complete piece of junk, including those, more sadly, from Pioneer. The last reliable BD players ever made were, IMO, the Pioneer BDP-23FD & the Sony BDP-S5000ES. The Sony, to my eyes, via a superb 1080p plasma set, edges out the BDP-23FD(and even the actually-not-reliable, but beautiful BDP-09FD) on video quality. The Sony DVD video quality actually matched the Pioneer's bluray playback, with the Sony's bluray playback having more detail in the darks & more texture in, e.g., human faces, which the Pioneer made look kinda flat by comparison. Either way, by far the most valuable thing about moving to a BD player, for me at least, was that both players(23FD & 5000ES) made DVD look HUGELY better than with the best DVD player.
One thing I have not tested at all is whether running the BD's hdmi output first to an AV receiver & then to the monitor would have any negative impact on video, which I certainly can see as a possibility. I wouldn't touch any AV receiver with a ten foot pole, so I won't ever being testing that one.
One thing I have not tested at all is whether running the BD's hdmi output first to an AV receiver & then to the monitor would have any negative impact on video, which I certainly can see as a possibility. I wouldn't touch any AV receiver with a ten foot pole, so I won't ever being testing that one.
This is hugely helpful and I thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I have not really enjoyed movies at home until this 60" 1080P monitor. I would rather go to a theater for anything where scale mattered. Otherwise I was more interested in the "story" and the scale of the movie did not matter. So, while I am not especially happy with my AV receiver, the availability of competent AV pre-amps has been out of reach until now. I am very particular about my "critical listening" systems that I build and cobble together myself. The AV receiver is convenient. But the handwriting is on the wall to find a good AV pre-amp and then use my assortment of amps to replace this receiver. I am in the process of addressing the speakers at present.
Take care
I woke up smiling about the strong opinions you expressed about AV receivers and how you would not touch one with a ten foot pole.
While I agree with that sentiment when it comes to music, I have not considered DVD movies "worthy" of that same concern. I don't listen to music on this consumer level AV system and thought the receiver was scaled to the same resolution as the content it was playing. Putting poorly recorded and poorly produced music on a audiophile system only makes these recording sound worse. There is CD content that sounds fine in the car audio system that is unlistenable on my main home system. It is acceptable on the AV system. And that has been my thought about the AV system playing movie DVD.
Because these new Blu-Ray players are obviously junk and under a hundred bucks, and because I do sometimes play music CD's on this system I was concerned about the DAC in the Blu-Ray player. Not now.
But I am curious what a critical AV system would look like. I understand amplifiers and loudspeakers. I have a block diagram understanding of what DAC's do. I have an appliance level understanding of this AV stuff that I approach as one does a toaster oven.
Are you going directly from a top quality Blu-Ray player to conventional pre-amp/amplifiers? What would a critical AV system look like?
I totally get what you say about movie sound. I frankly extremely rarely play dvd or bluray discs with more than just the Panasonic plasma's internal speakers going. And I'm a high end audio professional, here. A bit embarassing to admit my movie-watching audio habits.
Further, I have had no interest in surround sound since getting bored with it back in the dolby prologic days, so I have not kept up with what's out there in a/v preamp/procs AT ALL in the last dozen years, at least.
What I can say, though, is that the Sony BDP-S5000ES's onboard sound is almost certainly superior to any av receiver & probably the majority of av preamps made in the last ten years. Uses excellent PCM1796 dac chips all around, and enhances that greatly by having a proper linear power supply for the dacs & analog stages. So, if I were building a surround system again, I'd take the 5000's analog multi-channel outputs to the simplest possible 5.1ch preamp or even passive pre(i.e., a 6ch volume control in a box), then to good amps. The hdmi would be used ONLY to go straight to the plasma screen.
Further, I have had no interest in surround sound since getting bored with it back in the dolby prologic days, so I have not kept up with what's out there in a/v preamp/procs AT ALL in the last dozen years, at least.
What I can say, though, is that the Sony BDP-S5000ES's onboard sound is almost certainly superior to any av receiver & probably the majority of av preamps made in the last ten years. Uses excellent PCM1796 dac chips all around, and enhances that greatly by having a proper linear power supply for the dacs & analog stages. So, if I were building a surround system again, I'd take the 5000's analog multi-channel outputs to the simplest possible 5.1ch preamp or even passive pre(i.e., a 6ch volume control in a box), then to good amps. The hdmi would be used ONLY to go straight to the plasma screen.
AV amps have improved tremendously in the past few years. They are a completely suitable substitute for a traditional amp, and they are MUCH more convenient. I find the DAC in my Yamaha AV amp perfectly capable of producing high end sound from both blu-ray movies and CD music. I have an Oppo BDP 103D and an Oppo HA-1, both of which have very good DACs, but they don't sound any better than the Yamaha for 2 channel listening. That's a good thing, because just going from HDMI out is much more convenient than having different outputs for different purposes.
Most modern electronics are made from the same off the shelf parts, including the DACs. If there is a difference in sound between a Walmart South Korean player that costs $65 and a high end one, it isn't likely to be because of the DAC. The biggest difference between high end systems and low end ones is the speakers/room treatment/EQ calibration or the headphones, not the electronics. Getting that right can involve a lot of money and time.
When you are playing multichannel movies, you need to remember that the LFE channel is 10dB lower on a blu-ray disk than it is normally. It took me some time to reach a happy compromise on my sub levels.
Most modern electronics are made from the same off the shelf parts, including the DACs. If there is a difference in sound between a Walmart South Korean player that costs $65 and a high end one, it isn't likely to be because of the DAC. The biggest difference between high end systems and low end ones is the speakers/room treatment/EQ calibration or the headphones, not the electronics. Getting that right can involve a lot of money and time.
When you are playing multichannel movies, you need to remember that the LFE channel is 10dB lower on a blu-ray disk than it is normally. It took me some time to reach a happy compromise on my sub levels.
Last edited:
I think you are absolutely right about the relative contributions of components and room to the "sound." I am trying to figure out whats in the box and this is very helpful. Thanks.
Are you running a 5.1 system? That is the biggest key to getting the best sound with blu-rays. The problem with a very large screen is that you need to set your main speakers more than six or eight feet apart. When you do that, the middle completely drops out and you end up with sound coming from two sides, not a proper soundstage.
That center speaker is vital. It's what makes the sound as large as the image. Sub is next in importance and then the rears. The advantage is that when you get a properly calibrated 5.1 system for movies, the right DSP can make your CDs will sound better too.
A lot of times, people think that home theater setups aren't good for stereo recordings. That's because they refuse to use DSPs and play 2 channel back in only the two mains. No center, no soundstage. If your mains are more than 8 feet across, you have to use a DSP or 2 channel will sound lousy.
5.1 is as big an improvement over 2 channel stereo as stereo was over mono... even for 2 channel recordings. You just need to implement it right. Speaker placement, room treatment where necessary, balancing levels of the channels so they mesh into a proper sound field, EQ fine tuning.
That center speaker is vital. It's what makes the sound as large as the image. Sub is next in importance and then the rears. The advantage is that when you get a properly calibrated 5.1 system for movies, the right DSP can make your CDs will sound better too.
A lot of times, people think that home theater setups aren't good for stereo recordings. That's because they refuse to use DSPs and play 2 channel back in only the two mains. No center, no soundstage. If your mains are more than 8 feet across, you have to use a DSP or 2 channel will sound lousy.
5.1 is as big an improvement over 2 channel stereo as stereo was over mono... even for 2 channel recordings. You just need to implement it right. Speaker placement, room treatment where necessary, balancing levels of the channels so they mesh into a proper sound field, EQ fine tuning.
You have taken the words out of my mouth. It's funny, and true, that disaster equals opportunity. I am in the middle of a big shift in my main system. It is the "critical listening" system and I am moving from tubes/full range to a classic Altec 2-way. And in the middle of it all my trusty nice sounding Onkyo HT box from the late 90's dies. It's likely some power supply issue but I was impatient and picked up a used Yamaha RX-V567 receiver for less than a C-note to hold things for the time being. It sounds terrible. Totally transistor radio tin can terrible. I was surprised. I have a Yamaha M-45 that is sweet and neutral as can be and it is tough as nails able to drive a space heater without complaint. But this Yamaha Ht reciever is 7.1 and I have been playing with using the rear outs as helper woofers for the mains.
A light bulb went off over my head and even though it really is a thin and shrill sounding amp one can adjust it seven ways to Sunday and I am beginning to take this DSP potential seriously. Live recordings of a string quartet that are minimally produced with 2 mikes are different than studio produced music. The 2 speaker system and the content that sounds best on it are likely different from the multi-speaker studio music that I am beginning to have fun with. I am having to learn some new tricks but having 8 speakers to play with and having control over is great sport.
My sense is that it depends on the content and how it was produced. It is like asking whether I think Indian food is better than French food. They are both great, and they are both different. Different ingredients makes for different experiences. But I am beginning to take the HT experience more seriously and definitely see, or rather, hear its potential.
Because I have a number of amps and speakers I will be on the hunt for a good quality HT preamp. In the meantime I am trying to figure out how to use a Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 to work as a crossover under JRiver Media Center. If I can hone my chops on this puppy I may continue the plunge in full DSP to integrate this hodge podge of amplifiers and drivers one collects in this hobby over the years.
One thing that may be obvious, but I figured it out late in the game... The power ratings on AV amps are rated in watts for one or two channels only. If you stack up 5 more channels, that pie gets cut up into a lot of tiny slivers.
Power matters. I have old style box speakers, and I have two sets of mains using the two zones, along with a center and bookshelf rears. I have a Yamaha RX-V671 and it can just handle it. It's rated at 125W, but that is one channel at 1kHz. The rating drops to 90W at 20Hz-20kHz 2 channels. My old 2 channel amp was 50 watts and it was overkill. But 5.1 is a whole different ball game.
Your Yamaha amp is rated for 90W at 1kHz with 1 channel driven. I would bet if you got a more powerful Yamaha, it would sound a LOT better. The main difference in sound quality in amps is when one can handle the load and another can't.
There is one thing you can do until you can afford a more powerful AV receiver. Make sure your speakers are all set to small, not large. That will put the bulk of the load on the subwoofer which is self powered. You also might experiment with setting your crossover to the sub at 90Hz instead of 80. The bass is where the power goes.
Power matters. I have old style box speakers, and I have two sets of mains using the two zones, along with a center and bookshelf rears. I have a Yamaha RX-V671 and it can just handle it. It's rated at 125W, but that is one channel at 1kHz. The rating drops to 90W at 20Hz-20kHz 2 channels. My old 2 channel amp was 50 watts and it was overkill. But 5.1 is a whole different ball game.
Your Yamaha amp is rated for 90W at 1kHz with 1 channel driven. I would bet if you got a more powerful Yamaha, it would sound a LOT better. The main difference in sound quality in amps is when one can handle the load and another can't.
There is one thing you can do until you can afford a more powerful AV receiver. Make sure your speakers are all set to small, not large. That will put the bulk of the load on the subwoofer which is self powered. You also might experiment with setting your crossover to the sub at 90Hz instead of 80. The bass is where the power goes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.