Post by mbash April 16, 2010 (21 of 99)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Epsilon April 16, 2010 (22 of 99)
|
|
AmonRa said:
I ordered mine from CRT Projectors in Britain and will be getting it today (BDP-80).
Did you receive it all right? I am considering ordering one myself (they seem to be out of stock right now).
|
|
|
Post by Epsilon April 16, 2010 (23 of 99)
|
|
mbash said:
List of AV Receivers & Pre/Pros with Pure DSD to Analog Processing
A long list assembled with good research. Though it may be hard to find one in there for my budget :(
|
|
|
|
|
|
More interesting, to me, because of things Fitzcaraldo has said, would be which prepros and receivers take in either a DSD stream or PCM stream from an SACD player and use digital processing to provide Audyssey room correction?
I bought my dad an NAD receiver which has Audyssey, it has HDMI inputs but NOT for audio! What a lost opportunity! What a tragedy! What fools!
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa April 16, 2010 (25 of 99)
|
|
Epsilon said:
Did you receive it all right? I am considering ordering one myself (they seem to be out of stock right now).
Got it finally today, works perfect.
Even DVD video looks better than with our old Sony player even though this model has only basic video processors, and BR is super! Even though we have gotten used to HD video straight from Canon XH-A1 semi-pro cam and now EOS 5DMkII full HD video (90 GB/h with ProRes422 codek).
Maybe my wife wants to keep this and I have to get another one for my music studio...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fitzcaraldo215 said:
[...]
The DSP, which is the costly heart and soul of the unit, is not used in this mode. That, like all AVP's and AVR's only works in PCM mode. So, with no DSP processing, there is no speaker distance correction, no bass management and no Audyssey EQ. In my system, that sounds dreadful in Mch. Note that these corrections also cannot be done in the player without the same issue, i.e., PCM conversion is required.
[...]
Those DSP functions are extremely important to me. I have listened to other "pure" DSD setups and tested my own in that mode, and I have yet to hear the great sonic Nirvana that is supposed to be "pure" DSD. Conversely, I have yet to hear the big sonic downside of conversion to PCM.
[...]
"Keep in mind that Audyssey can do a lot, but it is not panacea for all sonic shortcomings. The Audyssey system will correct for phase and frequency response errors introduced into playback by room acoustics and speaker coloration, but it cannot create recording detail lost by limits in audio system resolution and dynamic range. In a manner analogous to a video scalar, which can fill in the missing video lines, but can not recreate lost detail, Audyssey is simply another way to get the most out of the source material and electronics. Because THERE ARE COMPROMISES IN USING A DIGITAL FILTER [emphasis mine] to correct multiple listening positions, it is still good advice to make as much physical correction to the room as possible, leaving as much computational headroom for Audyssey in making the final touches." - EDITOR Audioholics.com
DYODD, YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Clark said:
"Keep in mind that Audyssey can do a lot, but it is not panacea for all sonic shortcomings. The Audyssey system will correct for phase and frequency response errors introduced into playback by room acoustics and speaker coloration, but it cannot create recording detail lost by limits in audio system resolution and dynamic range. In a manner analogous to a video scalar, which can fill in the missing video lines, but can not recreate lost detail, Audyssey is simply another way to get the most out of the source material and electronics. Because THERE ARE COMPROMISES IN USING A DIGITAL FILTER [emphasis mine] to correct multiple listening positions, it is still good advice to make as much physical correction to the room as possible, leaving as much computational headroom for Audyssey in making the final touches." - EDITOR Audioholics.com
DYODD, YMMV.
There are very few compromises in using a digital filter as long as the signal does not need to be additionally converted to/from digital. Filters are already ubiquitous in the recording and playback chain and, while doing nothing imposes no noise or distortion, using digital filters to correct an error is an improvement not a compromise.
Concerns about computational headroom are for the designer as either there is enough DSP capability to run Audyssey (and/or other DSP functions) or there isn't. Processors with inadequate horsepower to do multiple complex tasks simply do those it can properly and will not do others/more. In other words, you do not have to be concerned with making any accommodations for Audyssey.
As for "THERE ARE COMPROMISES IN USING A DIGITAL FILTER [emphasis mine] to correct multiple listening positions..": That has nothing to do with the inherent properties or operations of a digital filter but with the application of filter mathematics to complex acoustics. The compromises are really limitations of what can be done and not so much the imposition of distortion and noise into the signal.
That said, no one (and that includes me) argues that DSP corrections are superior to fixing room acoustics and no one (and that includes me) believes that Audyssey is a panacea. Don't be scared by the nay-sayers.
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Clark said:
"Keep in mind that Audyssey can do a lot, but it is not panacea for all sonic shortcomings. The Audyssey system will correct for phase and frequency response errors introduced into playback by room acoustics and speaker coloration, but it cannot create recording detail lost by limits in audio system resolution and dynamic range. In a manner analogous to a video scalar, which can fill in the missing video lines, but can not recreate lost detail, Audyssey is simply another way to get the most out of the source material and electronics. Because THERE ARE COMPROMISES IN USING A DIGITAL FILTER [emphasis mine] to correct multiple listening positions, it is still good advice to make as much physical correction to the room as possible, leaving as much computational headroom for Audyssey in making the final touches." - EDITOR Audioholics.com
DYODD, YMMV.
As usual, Kal's response is on the money, and there is nothing to disagree about with in the quote cited. But, the final proof is in the listening. In the case of Audyssey, all one need do is turn it on, listen, turn it off, and listen. Go back and forth as many times as you want. I cannot speak for others, but the difference is both substantial and a clear improvement on my system in my room. It's a slam dunk. I have also heard Audyssey or the comparable Anthem ARC system in other rooms, and with friends in a variety of room/system situations. All the systems used are of very high quality. No one I know who has heard it does not hugely prefer it. And, all the people I am talking about in my circle who have heard it, including me, go to large numbers of live concerts.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa April 17, 2010 (30 of 99)
|
|
Even thought I am a "digital belivever" I am also a minimalist at heart. I prefer natural methods first: proper acoustic treatment of the room, then the best possible speaker choice and placement, and listening position placement. If something needs to be corrected after that, DPS may be used in discretion.
|
|
