Well, it would be nice if they sold the high/midrange AVRs with the option to opt out of the "HD" decoding for cheaper, but alas, if you want the other features, you'll need to "pay" for the whole package.
-
AnyStream is having some DRM issues currently, Netflix is not available in HD for the time being.
Situations like this will always happen with AnyStream: streaming providers are continuously improving their countermeasures while we try to catch up, it's an ongoing cat-and-mouse game. Please be patient and don't flood our support or forum with requests, we are working on it 24/7 to get it resolved. Thank you.
AVR discussion
- Thread starter andy o
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 21,802
- Likes
- 3,787
Both Dolby & DTS appreciate that.
I have an Onkyo Pro 885 that does a great job decoding HD formats. I think you all have it backwards. It is better to have the AVR do the decoding and then you do not have to buy components that decode.
At this point, my personal preference is to have everything bitstream. As much as I like my PC's. I do not trust the mixer, audio drivers, etc to pass the signal (digital though it may be) unmolested.
- Rich
At this point, my personal preference is to have everything bitstream. As much as I like my PC's. I do not trust the mixer, audio drivers, etc to pass the signal (digital though it may be) unmolested.
- Rich
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 21,802
- Likes
- 3,787
You're quite right - unfortunately they don't. But not the concept "let the player decode" is flawed - the current PC implementations are flawed.
Hehe yeah they really screw the customer with the catch-22 options they put forward.
Another annoyance is that in order to get more inputs (say 4 HDMI, 3 component) you have to pay for receivers with massive power ratings. I don't want a 300w/channel receiver - I just want more inputs - but you can't have one without the other!
On the subject of logical responsibility.. it shouldn't be the receivers job to amplify either
It should merely route inputs/outputs from sources to display and speakers.. the speaker system should decide what frequency cutoffs and amplification to apply based on a digital input.
Right now we all have a situation where the amp has no control over the subwoofer crossover which is incorrect, and speakers just get what they are given and rely on simple analog crossovers.
But then.. people already have a hard enough time running 1 cable to their speakers, let alone power AND data lines
Okay so I'm ranting totally off topic now.. Bring on SlyPlayer to shut me up! :agree:
Hehe yeah they really screw the customer with the catch-22 options they put forward.
Another annoyance is that in order to get more inputs (say 4 HDMI, 3 component) you have to pay for receivers with massive power ratings. I don't want a 300w/channel receiver - I just want more inputs - but you can't have one without the other!
On the subject of logical responsibility.. it shouldn't be the receivers job to amplify either
It should merely route inputs/outputs from sources to display and speakers.. the speaker system should decide what frequency cutoffs and amplification to apply based on a digital input.
Right now we all have a situation where the amp has no control over the subwoofer crossover which is incorrect, and speakers just get what they are given and rely on simple analog crossovers.
But then.. people already have a hard enough time running 1 cable to their speakers, let alone power AND data lines
Okay so I'm ranting totally off topic now.. Bring on SlyPlayer to shut me up! :agree:
If you're being serious, I think you're going overboard with this. Having integrated hardware actually makes the stuff cheaper and more convenient, doesn't it? If you run any kind of "data" line to the speakers, what do you run? The PCM signal? Whatever you run, you're just moving the electronics from the AVR/amp to the speaker, making them more expensive.
Receivers I think do a good job of having all necessary stuff integrated. Routing, DSP, D/A and amp. Decoders are extra stuff, and sometimes redundant.
Ahaha yeah it's overboard. The model in use currently prevails because its simple and cheap, and the gains from digital speakers aren't huge enough to justify the price/complexity.
But a number of companies (eg meridian already make digital loudspeakers.
Yeah I know of those 'digital' speakers.. Though they are no in way digital - they still take analog amplified inputs. A better term for them would be 'binary' speakers.
Well, what do you think binary is a sequence of?
By the way, it just came to me something that I found interesting. Richard Dawkins writing about DNA and genes, makes the extraordinary, but quite evident if you think about it, point that we animals and all life in general are "digital" beings, seeing as our code is based on discrete bits of information as well.
By the way, it just came to me something that I found interesting. Richard Dawkins writing about DNA and genes, makes the extraordinary, but quite evident if you think about it, point that we animals and all life in general are "digital" beings, seeing as our code is based on discrete bits of information as well.
Last edited:
Ahhh.. now we're finding ourselves waaay off topic. In the woods behind the meadow behind the original path we were on. I love it!
It is indeed possible that we live in a digital universe.. but then, you could argue everything is analog too..
Something I find interesting regarding our 'code'.. people talk about how complex the human genome is, but if there's only 3 billion base pairs, and there are only 4 combinations of said pairs, then you could record the entire genome (uncompressed) in about 750mb of storage.. you could fit the raw genome on a CD!
If a receiver could only apply processing to encoded audio, and not to straight PCM.. It would be a truly awful receiver.
That said, it wouldn't surprise me - they're pretty much all awful.
I have used an Onkyo 606 and a Pioneer VSX-01 and both of them apply room correction for all digital audio. I don't see why they would do otherwise. Encoded audio has to be equalized after decoding to LPCM anyway. I can see that analog audio won't be equalized/room-corrected, but not digital.
Like fuzz! said, it would be a really awful receiver, though I'd like to know how they're pretty much all awful. I think they're pretty good, except for Harman Kardons.
Like fuzz! said, it would be a really awful receiver, though I'd like to know how they're pretty much all awful. I think they're pretty good, except for Harman Kardons.
You guys missed the very next post (and subsequent ones) to DLaD's post quoted by 73ChargerFan:
SamuriHL
UHD Guru
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,034
- Likes
- 2,530
My Onkyo can up to 48hz. At 96hz and above it stops doing so.
SamuriHL
UHD Guru
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,034
- Likes
- 2,530
That's not entirely accurate. Unless you go into the 8xx series, the 606 does not apply Audyssey above 48hz. It's one of the things that annoy me about the Onkyo, tbh. But, as most films don't go above 48 anyway, it's not really an issue. It was only a real issue when I was using my ATI 4850 and had the thing set for 96. I wasn't getting any Audyssey at all during that time which is why it didn't sound as good as my PS3 to me. Now I know better.