2. home-theater
  3. 1200951509

HDMI 1.3 Audio Signal - Good Enough, or no?

I own an Arcam AVR350. As many know, this AVR, among a few others, eschews the HDMI connection for audio (providing switching for video only), citing it as a path largely inferior to other alternatives for truly quality audio reporoduction. Even with the introduction of HDMI 1.3, Arcam stands by the decision they made with respect to HDMI 1.1 and appears to have no plans to accommodate the HDMI audio path in the near future.

My question is whether most folks think that audio quality considerations in a home theater environment are important enough such that the HDMI 1.3 audio route would be "good enough" for HDTV and HD/Blue-Ray DVD. Or, is it really only a factor if you are using the AVR with both an HD cable/satellite receiver AND a high-quality audio source like SACD or DVD-A?
4yanx

Showing 2 responses by snofun3

snofun3
601 posts
 
Another Wes Phillips vote. A'philes always try to find reasons why the old way is the best way, but said reasons are often nonsense.

Are "audio quality considerations in a home theater environment are important enough", well, I wath mainly concerts in 5.1, and can't wait to 1.3 is fully implemented to be able to watch these concerts in surround (as they should be), and in ultra high resolution, both audio and video.
snofun3
601 posts
 
"Personally, I think anything more than mid-fi is a real waste for movies and I am not sure that surround sound is how concerts "should" be reproduced (since it ain't surround sound or ultra high resolution at the venue)."

Every concert is in surround sound - typically just for the ambiance of the hall, which is enough to make it mandatory. Can you imagine a concert withour hall reverb?

After that you have DVD's like Pnk Floyd where sounds come from everywhere (as in the real show) which are always attention getter's.
More to discover