Good. Just eavesdropping.
Kal
Kal
How can you utilize EQ/DSP Room Correction w/ SACD
HDMI, it is and I do it every day. There are several players that will convey SACD (as well as other formats) as digital by HDMI to prepros/AVRs that will accept/decode these formats and (via a PCM conversion) permit DSP/RoomEQ. And, yes, you can use Audyssey (or ARC or Trinnov or MCACC.....) for two channel as well as multichannel. (To do this with analog signals, superimposes additional A/D/A conversions but is doable, if one insists.) All the options? Too many to list and I'd miss a few anyway but I have detailed the idea and discussed some of them in my column over the past year or two. http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround Kal |
I'm pressuming from your response above here that there has to be a "down-covnversion" or some sort of compression of the original SACD source material (transmitted via HDMI/Coax digital) to a lesser rez output, when processing these EQ circuits?First, I was talking about HDMI in which case there is conversion to PCM but no compression or loss in the process. Second, you cannot get SACD via coax/digital at all. And in the case of analog connections, as you said, a digital to analog to digital to analog conversion chain?Yes. Many believe that the advantages of room EQ entirely justify those additional conversion, if they are done well. This is something that can be easily tested with a bypass switch and only you can determine if a particular A/D-EQ-D/A device is transparent enough for you. I think what you are missing is that there is no compromise (loss of purity) in converting SACD to PCM, imho, and that the advantages of room EQ are so significant that they would outweigh any compromise, if such existed. In fact, the conversion is done (and almost always necessary) even to effect bass management, interchannel level and interchannel delay setups. You should go out and hear these things rather than prejudging them from the opinions of others (including mine) or from archaic presumptions. Kal |
Sure but I do not see a question unanswered. You want to know, a priori, what will sound best in your system and to your ears. No one can answer that. On paper, and in my opinion, using Audyssey (or other room EQ) as well as bass/channel management is superior for multichannel audio despite the need for conversion to PCM. That conversion is inevitable for all formats other than SACD, anyway. I am certain that Audyssey will tell you the same story. Moreover, any decent equipment you purchase will afford you all the options to try for yourself. There is a very lively Audyssey thread on AVS [url]http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9598968#post9598968[/url] and there is, also, a lively thread on using an all-analog chain. [url]http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17481521#post17481521[/url] All the possible arguments on all sides have been discussed ad nauseam there. People will disagree for their own reasons, some good ones and some not. It is impossible to predict what camp you will fall into after you make your own evaluation of the options based on personal experience. Kal |
HOWEVER! Am I to understand that there are some potential issues that might need to be adressed by using HDMI to tranport SACD/ converted PCM material? I think I read that there are some "jitter" issues in separating the signal and recontructing it, whatever?Not that anyone has demonstrated objectively. In fact, Charles Hanson of Ayre addressed this recently at AVSforum. Is it better to use someother digital connection, like Coax, or can you even use coax, for connecting and playing SACD to my reciever/pre?First, coax is not possible for SACD. Second, analog would either prevent any DSP/EQ or, alternatively, require redigitization of the signals (and, of course, another DAC process). Kal |