protocols :i-link/HDMI/DVI/SACD/DSD etc

Call me un-informed, though I'd like to be not so. [I'm Mr. Newbie] and I'm just trying to understand. I read these threads several times a day and get additional input (no pun intended). Posters to these threads discuss various protocols and why they will or will not get a 990 based (in part on this). I dunno. Gonk makes good points other, too.

This AM gonk writes:
"I think most people are wishing for HDMI for the audio, not realizing that the current HDMI standard for audio is still evolving. As you say, DVI can switch HDMI video."
So I have to wonder:what about the audio when you switch? How to do that and is it important?

Kevin brings up:
"HDMI might never be able to pass SACD/DSD, and even if it does, it can never be a jitterless connection like i.Link can be. For those of you not into SACD, that's fine. But I am. i.link passes all current digital audio *now*. HDMI doesn't, and might never be able to either"

Now a new issue: i-link.

Is there a review/comparison I can go to in order to learn about all these issues and make an informed decision. No one wants to get a new pre/pro which would become obsolete soon.

There isn't really a single source of information that covers all of these, in part because in some cases (HDMI being a prominent one) the technology is still in flux.

First, iLink is also called FireWire or IEEE-1394. The interface itself is used for a wide variety of things - DV camcorders, computer peripherals, and so forth. It was accepted as a means of making a digital connection between player and receiver for DVD-Audio a few years ago, although it took another year or so to hammer out the required encryption. Once that was all done, 1394 could be used to replace the half-dozen analog audio cables used by most DVD-Audio player owners. SACD took a little longer to come on board with 1394, but they do now also allow 1394 to carry digital SACD signals. There are a few players around that support a 1394 output for DVD-Audio and SACD (most don't, but you can find some that do). The 990, however, is like pretty much all of the surround processors on the market in that it does not support 1394. When the Model 950's features were announced over three years ago, some people thought it was a disasterous mistake to omit 1394 from the design because it was going to be the next big thing and a processor without it would be a dinosaur. Today, 1394 remains on the fringes, with little or no presence on even the latest processors. Also, it's worth noting that there are a few processors out there that offer 1394 inputs but that currently do not support actually using those inputs for anything. This all sounds really harsh, so I should balance it out a bit - there are companies supporting 1394 for DVD-Audio and SACD. For example, Pioneer has used it on some products, including some of their flagship receivers I believe (their site is down for service, so I can't check the model numbers), and Yamaha offers 1394 inputs on the RX-Z9. Denon, on the other hand, developed their own proprietary link for DVD-A and SACD, which requires you to use both a Denon player and a Denon receiver - the latest versions of DENON Link support both SACD and DVD-Audio.

My post last night about HDMI audio was intended to reiterate one fact: HDMI can carry audio and video, but the standard for that audio is not resolved yet and therefore can't be designed for. HDMI video is carried on separate conductors from the audio, and when you connect an HDMI cable to a DVI adapter, the video passes through while the audio is abandoned. In this scenario, you would be using a separate audio connection of some sort - today, it would be a coaxial or optical digital audio cable.

Nobody likes obsolescence, but you have to look at how you will use the product. Will you be putting it in a rack with a universal DVD player equipped with a 1394 digital output? If so, you may want to look at some of the (more expensive) flagship receivers that offer 1394. There may also be a few mid-level receivers with 1394 that could be reasonable alternatives, but then you have to decide if you are trading sound quality for a single feature. Are you really, truly interested in your next processor having HDMI inputs that are compatible with high definition optical discs (whatever format they may appear in)? If so, are you willing to wait for the year (or years) it will take for that standard (and the associated optical disc format) to be settled and products to be released with it? One danger that has always existed in the consumer electronics world is the wait for the next big feature. You can keep waiting forever, because as soon as the feature you wanted arrives there will be another one on the horizon. Or you can find a product that suits your needs well now, and spend the intervening months or years enjoying that product. For some people, their current gear is such that they can happily wait. For others, their preferences steer them toward other products (like the Yamaha RX-Z9, perhaps, or an all Denon system with DENON Link). You have to evaluate your personal needs, however, and not assume that one person's strenuous objections (or one person's shining praise, or even one person's utter indifference) must also be yours.

Great response! Thanks for your perspective.

Ditto
gonk's info always is helpful

Agreed, a very thorough response. Thanks.

I ask again, though, why don't a/v manufacturers use slots like computer manufacturers use - wouldn't it make hardware upgradability a no-brainer? Pop out yesterday's connection du jour and pop in today's - what could be easier?

I must be missing something...

-SM

"I must be missing something.."

Cost! It would cost an arm and a leg to build a CE product with slots. Plus there is no standard for the slots.

Yes they do, see this thread

Of course the receiver pictured is $3500

that onkyo isnt selling for crap either. hey meangene do you know any Evensons from Simi Valley?

Nope, don't know any Evensons.

I think Onkyo has a reputation for inexpensive products, so when they try and make something high end no one wants to buy it becuase of the name, no matter how good it is. They need to market their high end products under a different name.

They do that under the name Integra don't they?


later,
simp

yeah integra is better, but how many people DO YOU KNOW with integra? i know more people with Outlaw than integra and it has been around longer and is not internet only.

yeah, i know. i was just pointing out that integra is supposed to be onkyo's upscale line of produts. i don't know a single person that owns any integra hardware. i tried to demo an integra pre/pro and the dealer wouldn't let me demo one in my house. i told him that he'd lose a sale as a result and he didn't seem to mind so i walked...

later,
simp

Well, dang there goes the great marketing plan I was going to sell to Onkyo.

i have done some reading up on that card based receiver and it sounds pretty interesting. but i haven't been able to figure out what cards it comes with and if you can order it a la cart... plus where do you get the cards? might be a little ahead of it's time?

later,
simp

The 990 should have had an i.Link input. All of Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo/Integra, Denon, and Sony support it with various players and receivers (and pre/pros). Plus, Anthem is coming out with a hardware upgrade for their AVM-30 and D1 pre/pros to add i.Link, and B&K might as well.

Outlaw in the past has been very quick to include higher priced performance features in their very reasonably priced components as a way to undercut the competition (i.e., the analog BM the 950 has). They could have scored a real coup by including i.Link in a pre/pro this competitively priced.

Personally, I view the DVI switching that they did include as not very useful since the world has settled on HDMI anyway. My question: how much different would the 990 have cost if instead of DVI, they had included i.Link, which I view as much more value added...

i think that MANY more people value dvi switching over firewire. and IF the world has settled on hdmi, wouldnt firewire become obsolete anyway? if you were going to argue this case, you should argue for hdmi which will carry everything (hdmi now with upgradeablitity).

when that onkyo came out, i thought it was an excellent concept, but ahead of its time. i dont think it is too unrealistic to see audio gear sold like computers and able to be upgraded that way. the only reason why it might not happen is because consumers pay a huge premium for audio equipment now, and would probably end of paying a lot less if their products got modularized. all of these traditional audio companies wont want to cut their margins so drastically like the pc market has now.

i mean, if you think about what the sum of the parts in an audio product cost and its price, it is absurd. considering that most companies now a days do little engineering and mostly adapt what the chipmakers make to their specific needs, it is even worse of a rip off. there is basically no alternative though (outlaw being one...). then again, almost everyone has at least one computer in their house, while not nearly every person has an audio system. not many manufacturers want to go for quantity at low prices unless they have to.

DVI is disappearing. HDMI supercedes it. Look at the new players and displays coming out. 95% of them have HDMI, not DVI. But HDMI right now does not pass SACD/DSD. It might never. And even if it does, components with HDMI *today* probably will not be software upgradeable to accomplish that. Plus, HDMI cannot give a jitterless digital audio connection. i.Link can. And i.Link passes SACD/DSD now. I don't envy the Outlaw's decision concerning DVI vs HDMI vs i.Link. But I personally think they made a mistake choosing DVI.

at this point in time, i think that the choice of dvi over hdmi is probably the correct one -- especially if the 990s can be retrofitted with hdmi inputs (at least one) in place of the dvi inputs at the appropriate time.

but, i would have included an i.link input as well so that the 990 could more easily compete against the top-line units from other companies today.

Reading this thread led me to do a search.
Here's a link to a thread about hdmi problems:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-14,GGLD:en&q=hdmi+switch

Here's a link to a thread about hdmi vs. dvi:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-14,GGLD:en&q=hdmi+dvi

And in this second thread there's an article showing differences and giving explanations and some products with their specific connections:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-14,GGLD:en&q=hdmi+dvi

Does it not seem that when hdmi becomes fully stable dvi will vaporize like beta vs. vhs?
Now I'm concerned. I want the 990, but I don't wanna be sorry in the future due to incompatability. Gonk has addressed this issue thoroughly above.........but..........

Having retrieved this finromation:

http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/why_hdmi.asp

.....it appears that while HDMI is indeed the future (at least according to them) for me and perhaps most of us it's not a problem (gonk and others have alluded to this alread). The advantage to switching with HDMI as I see it is that everything gets switched at once. Since HDMI and DVI can talk and be compatible I have to ask myself if it's important that everything be switched at once....no.
So for me, I think I'm satisfied that the 990 with its DVI and without iLink (which would be nice but unnecessary) is the choice. Besides I'm at the bottom. Never really had home theater or anything like that.
Opinions invited.

There is no question in my mind that HDMI will prevail. There are far to many big $ companys putting big $'s behind, and pushing for HDMI. Most have incorporated HDMI into there product lines already. These companys with all there influence, and power will not let HDMI fail even if something else was proving a better choice. History teaches this, just look at DTS, and Pro logic, DTS was clearly the better format, but with Dolby labs influence, and money, DTS was almost destroyed and sent into digital heaven. Also, as previously mentioned Beta and VHS, Beta was and still is clearly superior to VHS. Although the bigger question for me at this time is when will HDMI be a viable formate. I also see no way for the outlaws to be able to upgrade the 990 to HDMI. If you look at the rear panel there are no removable panels as is with the new Parasound 7100 and a few others. Also, on another note the ability to add room EQ after the fact is in question for me. I feel that room EQ is currently available at a very high level of quality, take the Audyssey labs multi EQ system for instances www.audyssey.com . The Sherwood piece that the 990 was designed after is soon to be upgraded and re-released with room EQ as well as many other advances, HDMI will not be included however, there will be an upgrade panel on the back of the unit for an HDMI upgrade in the future.The 990 appears to be dated before it has even hit the warehouse. I still want to give the 990 a test run in my system, but I am a little discouraged with the current features of the 990. I am currently waiting the arrival of the promising Parasound 7100 for review as well.

After reading through all of the links posted in the few messages above, I still think DVI was the right choice for this product. What I think most of those shouting for HDMI keep forgetting is that this is a video switch on the 990. All of those links say that the only real difference is the audio content included with HDMI. Since it has been pointed out repeatedly that the audio standards on HDMI are a moving target at best, it makes sense to disregard it and concentrate on video switching for this feature.

I would assume then, that the DVI interface was cheaper to implement. With the fact that you can switch between DVI and HDMI video with an adapter, as a video only switch I think they chose wisely. This allows anybody with either connection to connect and use the high quality video today, without worrying about obsolesence (sp?) tomorrow because the audio standard winds blew the wrong way.

I suspect that some of you may be getting weary of hearing my take on this, and for that I apologize, but there are a few thoughts that I think are of some value here.

DVI started appearing on displays a couple of years ago, and there is a continually growing installed user base of DVI display owners for whom digital video switching is very valuable in either form. (By the way, Runco will be using DVI on its upcoming models .) For those displays, the 990's DVI switching is of great value. And for HDMI displays, DVI switching still allows video switching.

HDMI's great benefit over DVI is the ability to carry audio. However, that ability has not been properly developed yet. Big corporations like JVC or Panasonic can tuck an HDMI 1.1 input into a receiver and leave consumers with a product that won't work with the final standard (SACD, high definition video discs), but a company like Outlaw would be crazy to do so.

When will HDMI audio be truly ready? That depends in large part on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. If both formats roll out on schedule, HDMI will need to be pinned down in the next 12 months. If the two do merge, as is rumored, it could take longer - possibly 2 more years or more - to get all the details nailed down. By then, the 990 will be at least 2 years old. It's 7.1 analog input will provide an avenue for compatibility, and a future generation unit can have HDMI integrated.

GONK WROTE:

"I suspect that some of you may be getting weary of hearing my take on this, and for that I apologize"

MY RESPONSE: "You've got to be kidding"
Seriously: this equipment is expensive and we all want to make the right decisions. Input from gonk ereally helps. Certainly it helps me, so thanks, gonk.

So unless I missed the point I'll be switching video with DVI and if it is HDMI gear I'll only be switching the video. OK. So Mrs. nfaguys and I will have to switch audio another way. Not having ever seen even a 950, I imagine one can easily do this with outlaw pre/pro's.

if you use dvi for video, you'll still have the option of using a digital audio input (coaxial or toslink).

Wow...all this nonsense about the future. If it ain't here right now and working perfectly, it certainly can't be called the future.

I run the source directly to the monitor/FP. Switching, schmitching.

The 7.1 analog ins have digital BM. I'm interested in the details on that, not lamenting what feature the 990 doesn't have (which makes no sense). For anyone who already has an ICBM, for example, will the A/D>digital BM>D/A sound better than the ICBM, straight analog path?

Analog is still the best audio solution, IMO.

Auto-EQ on a $1,100 pre/pro? Those who are looking for this feature simply don't know much about the concept. It's like thinking that Lex could have offered their auto EQ upgrade for $100 instead of $4K.

DVI/analog was the right decision. Auto EQ is crap, unless you can afford Lex or Meridian, which are better than crap. Analog audio path is still superior to 'future speak'.

I'm with Gonk on this one.

Bosso

bossobass wrote:

Would you please be more specific as to why you call auto EQ "CRAP"?

I respectfully beg to differ with you, auto EQ is not crap by any means. Have you personally reviewed a unit with auto EQ? I have, and I can tell you that I was truly, very impressed. Auto EQ is perfect for surround encoded software, it makes every seat in the theater an excellent seat. It also dramatically improves the you are there effect, you will find yourself thinking that the bullet whizzing past your head just missed you, or the car comming around the corner is going to hit you. For two channel audio listening it has no use, but for surround encoded material it is well as my son said it's totally awesome. Also, there are units, not pre pro's,
but receivers many of them with this feature at and below the $1099. price point. Soon, very soon, there will be pre pro's as well.

I don't understand why anyone would want their pre-pro to switch audio via HDMI. Are their that many people using their video displays for audio too? My audio stops at teh pre-pro is sent to the amps and out to the speakers, I don't use the speakers in the displays...maybe I'm different. What I can see is the single cable concept from a DVD player to the pre-pro but those units are normally together in the rack, I don't mind too much ponying up a few extra dollars for a digital audio connection. Just my 2 cents.

Ed

Roland I think you are missing the point regarding HDMI audio. The big advantage to audio over HDMI is to get audio into the Pre/Pro not switch it. Many of us SACD/DVD-A users would like a digital interface into our Pre/Pros. This will become even more important (required) when the HD versions of DD and DTS show up.

For those complaining about lack of HDMI "video switching" the 990 has HDMI switching with a $10 adapter.

John which Auto-EQ system do you like? It almost sounds like you are talking about auto-setup. Why wouldn't Auto-EQ be beneficial to two channel if it makes such a big difference with surround sound?

obie_fl wrote:

One of the auto EQ systems that I like is done by Audyssey www.audyssey.com and no, I am not referring to auto speaker set up.
The reason that I would not use auto EQ for two channel audio listening is that for one, the design of auto EQ is meant for surround applications.
Also, when it comes to music I prefer to limit as much as possible adding in anything that would possibly add any coloration to the music.
There were times that I put some music on and used a surround mode. The EQ system worked very well in this regard, and was very enjoyable, but with movies the auto EQ in my opinion, really shines, and is nothing short of amazing.

HDMI has a higher bandwith for video than DVI does. DVI is only 8 bit, but HDMI can go up to 12 bits. They are not apples to apples. More info here:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-dvi-hdmi-hdcp-connections-11-2004.html

John,

What is the price of that receiver that used the Audyssey Multi-Point Speaker EQ system?

"DVI is only 8 bit, but HDMI can go up to 12 bits."

Both are 8-bit for RGB. YCbCr on HDMI can be 8, 10, or 12-bit.

John - I've read about the Audyssey system before but haven't heard it. What reciever or Pre/Pro actually uses it? When I read up on it, it sounded like a big compromise of your sweet spot. I'm also not sure why it wouldn't work for two channel. I'll have to read up on it again as I didn't know it was actually available in the market now. My take on the Yammie, Pioneer, etc Auto-Eq is that they often times do more harm then good. I think the technology has promise but is still in it's infancy.

Cliff Watson wrote:
The receiver was the Denon 3805 currently available for less then $1000.

Is it the 3805 or the 5805? The only model that Denon's site mentions having Audyssey's system is the 5805.

This comment piqued my interest, but I've been unable to find anything about a successor to the P-965. Have you got some more information about this?

And the gray market price of the 5805 is $4999.00

>> "DVI is only 8 bit, but HDMI can go up to 12 bits."

> Both are 8-bit for RGB. YCbCr on HDMI can be 8, 10, or 12-bit.

From the Secrets article:
This also means that if you have an HDMI player and an HDMI display, and actually converted to DVI to use the switching in the 990, and then converted back for the display, you would also lose the below black information.

CEDIA 2004...

Sorry for the double post...

John,

Yes, I'm familiar with the 3805's 8 band digital parametric EQ in 'Auto' mode. I set another one up for a client 2 weeks ago, but chose the manual route, as I had my computer and measurement equipment with me and that's much more precise.

It's interesting to me how reviewers of this product say how 'precise' this auto EQ is, but show no before and after graphs of phase and FR curves.

Parametric EQ is a bandaid to fix the fact that the room isn't suited (placement/acoustic treatments/leaks/bad hardware, etc.) to a MC audio system. The majority of HTs out there are just a living room with hardware in it. Most of those enthusiasts have no clue how to employ an 8 band PEQ and Denon knows it.

Certainly, if you're one of the many who fit this category, the Denon receiver (a mid-fi, low powered MC receiver that uses bells and whistles to make up for it's sonic deficiencies, like Yammie, Onk, Sony, etc.) is for you.

I have no problem with that, I just dislike to see a new pre/pro slammed for not having a $50 digital EQ feature. Especially when Outlaw has explained why it doesn't, and those slighting it have not heard it.

In stating that they are familiar with the various versions of auto EQ out there, I'm sure that would include the version you speak of. I agree with Outlaw that there isn't a viable unit available yet. There may be one that is of good quality at a reasonable price one day, and it can be added to the 990 as an upgrade.

As I mentioned earlier, Lex has the best unit, but it alone costs the price of several 990s.

Bosso

"This also means that if you have an HDMI player and an HDMI display, and actually converted to DVI to use the switching in the 990, and then converted back for the display, you would also lose the below black information."

So are you claiming that the DVI switch on the 990 will transcode component (YPbPr) colorspace to RGB colorspace in the switch?

Several have written about

"BELOW THE BLACK INFORMATION"

What is that? Thanks.

bossobass,

Did you run an auto setup configuration and then compare to your manual configuration?

ill say it again, perhaps more clearly this time. hdmi is nothing without the ability to pass audio. that is what it was intended to become, one cable that did it all digitally. i think that will happen. how is firewire possibly the answer when it is clearly going to be superceded by hdmi? i can understand your argument for hdmi over dvi, but never firewire over dvi. i.link is a sony term, nobody likes sony! IEEE 1394 if you prefer that over firewire, though its all the same and just a higher speed usb. if you are gonna complain that the 990 had dvi, make your complaint that it doesnt have hdmi not firewire. though i am not at all surprised that they didnt do hdmi because it is not proven YET. who wants to make a product for something that is going to happen, that could possibly not work with that final product due to changes in its development. dvi is established, and while, like anything, it will be bettered, it is the most practical choice today.

PT,

Yes, I did. I used a high quality measurement mic connected to my interface/computer vs. the optional Denon mic into the receiver, and tweaked the EQ manually, mostly for curiosity's sake.

Unless you have the equipment to measure the results, the power of suggestion is the Denon auto EQ's best asset.

Just an opinion, in agreement with Outlaw's position on the matter.

Bosso

nfaguys, BTB is the ability for a display/source component to pass below black. If you have a copy of DVE - Digital Video Essentials - you can do the PLUGE pulse test to see if your display shows Blacker than black. There are 3 pluge pulses with the outer one being BTB. It's an easy way to adjust brightness. You turn down the brightness until the BTB pluge pulse just disappears. The THX optimizer akso has a BTB pattern. It's the shadow of the THX logo.

That sets your display at optimum brightness. Some argue that it is not necessary to be able to display BTB; I like it because it makes adjusting brightness a snap for me.

Here's a useful quote from the Secrets link Kevin posted on the previous page:

Does this affect using a DVI switcher between HDMI source and HDMI display? Since the DVI switch is a pure switching mechanism, with no processing applied, my understanding of it suggests that there is no issue - the DVI switching is simply shuffling the pin pattern of the wires carrying the signal at the switch. So the issue is really not related to the 990 at all, but to the source and display components that might be used - in which case, the problem would exist (or not exist, depending on the combination of source and display components) even if the 990 weren't used.

This is great information, but I'm getting lost in it.

Given that audio standards are not resolved for HDMI, I'll omit any questions on that subject.

If I had a (video) DVI source and DVI display, you're saying it would still be (potentially) inferior to an HDMI source and display?

And, that DVD data (until we see HDDVD or BluRay?) is converted to analog before the DVI output - so is it no "better" than regular RCA connected RGB outs from a DVD?

Where does the old computer VGA connecter fall in this hierarchy? That is, my Infocus 5700 has a VGA input and a DVI input - if I had a computer playing a DVD, would the data also be converted to analog before leaving the computer video card?

If there is no video improvement available from DVDs beyond analog due to the type data,does it make any difference which connections you use (RGB via RCA, VGA, DVI, HDMI)?

Thanks...

Could you please let me know if the Denon unit has fixed centers for the PEQ feature? After reading the specs, I got the impression that the bandwidth and gain were adjustable, but each of the 8 bands were at predetermined center frequencies. If so, this feature would be next to useless for true room/speaker correction.

And I agree with you about the need for good measurement tools. The use of a good RTA like "Real RTA" provides 1/24th octave analysis, which is critical to a successful result.

I use a separate Simetrix PEQ with the Outlaw 950 and am very satisfied; this will be much easier to employ with the 990's balanced outputs. Thank you in advance.

Allan

I don't believe this to be the case, no. I also don't believe that Kevin's statement about losing blacker than black with the 990's DVI switching is correct, since the switching is not directly affecting the signal at all.

DVD players that have DVI or HDMI outputs should be preserving the digital video data all the way through to the display. Most also convert the 480i video contained on the disc to 480p, 720p, or 1080i (some HDMI players support digital 480i output, but most don't). Whether it is better or not depends on how well the conversion is performed.

VGA is an analog format, whereas HDMI is digital only and the full DVI standard allows for either analog or digital (DVI was originally developed to connect PC's to LCD flat panel monitors, which are digital display devices.)

From what I understand, it depends largely on the source device being used. A good progessive scan player with component output to a good, properly calibrated display (particularly a CRT, which is an analog device) could yield results equal to a mediocre implementation of DVI or HDMI when connected to the same display. I'd recommend looking at your specific case, keeping in mind that at some point we are likely to see high definition video sources restricted to using digital video outputs (primarily HDMI when that day comes) - with analog component or VGA outputs restricted to a maximum resolution of 480p.

Allan,

The auto EQ does not have fixed center points, nor does it have fixed 'Q'. However, the manual EQ option has both fixed center points and fixed 'Q', allowing the user to select amount of boost/cut at each of the 8 fixed point frequencies (which are spaced 1 octave apart, starting at 63 Hz.

I found the auto EQ generally (I'm no expert, and have not spent too much time with this because it takes more than enough time to set up a decent HT and I prefer to use the time to affect tweaks that I know are valid ones) to be akin to a DSP matrix type of effect rather than a tool that 'corrects a room'.

I only compared auto to manual because I had the time and computer set up and was curious. I find the Denon manual all but useless. All things considered, I don't find the on-board digital PEQ of the Denon to be the right approach.

Again, I think Outlaw is right. DSP setup/parametric EQ is an idea that will eventually evolve into a great feature for an affordable price. Just not yet. Just my opinion.

There is no substitute for room treatment along with sub/sat placement angle and distance tweaks in a properly constructed room...before EQ. Auto EQ, to those uneducated on the subject, will give the false impression that it will fix the room, placement, etc.

Bosso

Gonk,

No wonder everyone here holds you in such high esteem. Thanks for your reply.

I'll ask your *opinion* on this, and accept your answer as that...

I have an Infocus 5700 front projector. It has the TI Matterhorn chip, 1024 x 576 (at 16:9) display (ie, not true HD), and a Faroudja DCDI processor (I can give you a link to the specs if you wish).

1. I've heard different opinions about which of the following would be better:
A) using a newer (than what I have with RGB outs) DVD player that scales the DVD to 480P and has a DVI output or
B) using my current setup and letting the Faroudja scaler upconvert the signal. The Bravo D2 from Vizio is the only one I seriously considered.

Part of the answer would seem to be whether or not the DVD player has a better scaler than the projector. The other part would seem to be that a DVI output from the DVD player *should* be more desirable than analog RGB outs.

DVI is an 8 bit pathway. HDMI is higher than that. I personally wouldn't assume that the switching in the 990 wouldn't discard that below black info. Someone should ask Outlaw. They should be able to find out.

This problem has been reported on AVS with players outputting HDMI then converted to DVI for the display. If the 990 has 8 bit digital switching for DVI, it's very unlikely that it'll pass higher res than that.

Actually RGB is a 8-bit pathway.

The Sil DVI chips (Tx/Rx) support three digital video data lines with data rates of 1.65 Gbps each regardless of the video stream bit depth.

The DVI chips used for Tx and Rx do not support color space conversion as the HDMI chips do.

The below black (and above white) problems on some DVD players and displays are caused by video processing before or after the DVI Tx/Rx chips.

Bosso wrote:
Yes, I did. I used a high quality measurement mic connected to my interface/computer vs. the optional Denon mic into the receiver, and tweaked the EQ manually, mostly for curiosity's sake.

Question: what software program etc... are you using to test and set up a HT with? Can you set up the system so that every seat is a sweet spot?

Bosso wrote:
Parametric EQ is a bandaid to fix the fact that the room isn't suited (placement/acoustic treatments/leaks/bad hardware, etc.) to a MC audio system. The majority of HTs out there are just a living room with hardware in it. Most of those enthusiasts have no clue how to employ an 8 band PEQ and Denon knows it.

Certainly, if you're one of the many who fit this category, the Denon receiver (a mid-fi, low powered MC receiver that uses bells and whistles to make up for it's sonic deficiencies, like Yammie, Onk, Sony, etc.) is for you.

Response: The Audyssey system is not a Parametric EQ system. See below.

I can not help but feel that some of your comments in your post are meant to be insulting and are combative.

In order to clear up one of your accusations regarding myself and others slamming the Outlaw 990.I feel compelled to state, that I have never slammed any product from any manufacturer, and never will, nor have I used wording like crap to describe a product. I understand the theory that one mans treasure is another's junk. I respect others and there product choices. If it sounds good to them, and they enjoy it that is what counts nothing else. I would not insult there choice. I fully intend on reviewing the 990 in my theater. I will at that time decide if the unit works for me or not, period. My statement that the 990 appears to be dated before it even hits the warehouse floor is not a slam, nor intended to be, just my feelings regarding it's current features

I will also add, that maybe Outlaw is waiting for Audyssey to release there new products in the very near future, and will at that point offer an upgrade. I don't know, only the powers that be in Outlaw know for sure.

Please find below some information about Audyssey Labs', and there Multi EQ program. Hopefully this information will clear up some of the confusion surrounding the Audyssey Multi EQ system.

Audyssey is a spin-off of USC’s Inmersive Audio Lab which Tom Holman (a Professor of Film Sound at the University of Southern California’s School of Cinema-Television and father of THX) and Chris Kyriakakis co-founded nine years ago. MultiEQ has been in the works for the last 5 or 6 years and is the result of Sunil Bharitkar's PhD thesis. Sunil was a doctoral student with Chris at USC and is a co-founder of Audyssey. Yes, Audyssey is a start-up, but this effort differs from most in that it has multi-million dollar funding backing it through an endowment from the National Science Foundation.

Below is a few excerpts from a few interviews with Tom Holman,and Chris Kyriakakiis.
an adjunct application to MultEQ intended for HTIB systems. It’s called PrevEQ. “The main problem with home theater-in-a-box systems is the huge hole between the sub and sat. With a HTIB system we would have the luxury of having the speaker systems in advance so we could pre-characterize the speakers and boost the subwoofer to make it go up higher in frequency (to match with the satellites).” Tom and Chris then both clarify that "the filter placed on the content side is 120Hz for Dolby and 80Hz for DTS which is a problem for movie theaters also.


“The approach to solving this problem in the past has been based on parametric EQ which is an extension of what was done with analog equalizers just, done digitally. The first problem is that you never have enough bands, typically 10, using an IIR (infinite impulse response) filter. IIR filters allow you to do things in the frequency domain but it does unknown things to the time domain. In many cases it manifests itself in ringing or smearing.”

“Our approach is based on FIR filters which in the past have been computationally intensive but this is not an issue any more because the DSP power has increased so dramatically. FIR filters allow us to correct the time domain and frequency domain at the same time. 'Well, you might say, FIR filters don’t give you enough resolution if you want to keep them relatively short.' And that’s true. This is the reason we implemented Dynamic Frequency Allocation (another of the imbedded technologies) which gives non-linear spacing. So instead of having only 80Hz or so resolution we can get down, at low frequencies (where it matters), to under 5Hz of resolution. It’s on a Bark Scale but the resolution starts below 5Hz at the lowest frequencies and goes up to a few tens of Hertz at 20KHz." (The Bark Scale ranges from 1 to 24 barks, corresponding to the first 24 critical bands of hearing. For computing all-pass transformations, it is preferable to optimize the all-pass fit to the inverse of the map, i.e. Barks vs. Hz, so that the mapping error will be measured in Barks versus Hz.)

The conversation now turned to the bottom line technology within MultEQ. The ability to have every seat be a good seat. Again Tom provided his historical perspective from tuning theaters in the early eighties. “While real-time analysis is ‘time-blind’ (so you have to know something about the time domain before you use it) nevertheless, if you clean it up, it has some advantages over the FFT-based analyzers. The THX R2 (from the eighties) was readily able to do spatial averaging and temporal averaging and we realized if we made an extension of it using a laptop with an add-on spectrum analyzer peripheral that we could send signals across dynamically from the analyzer and do a lot of mathematics to it and therefore clean up the signal."

[MultEQ]Chris takes over, “So part 1 was, we knew if you EQ for the single sweet spot then every other position would suffer from much poorer frequency response. (And that was one of the reasons for the bad name 1/3 rd octave equalizers were given.-Tom) Initially Denon and every other potential customer thought 'let’s have two modes'. One for a sole listener and one for when you have several listeners in a room. Well, it turns out if you EQ a whole room the audiophile seat gets better. If you take more of the problems of the room into account you’re fixing a bigger area than just the audiophile seat so there’s no need for two modes.”

Chris continues, “The approach other people have taken is to throw DSP at it. There are room correction units on the market that do just that. They can do 8000-tap FIRs and you need 3 DSPs per channel. But if you want to be in a consumer product you have to make some computing decisions. So that was the thinking that went into Audyssey’s Dynamic Frequency Allocation.

I then asked “Does it give the same response at each listening location? How is it possible, for instance, if you have a standard D’Apollito-style center channel which is known to have a lobe which points mostly toward the audiophile seat.” Chris responds, “By measuring the response at different locations we use a fuzzy-logic based clustering approach which, after computation, makes the sound at the audiophile seat better. The average assigns equal importance to each seat, an importance of 1. Now by applying a weighting factor automatically we use an approach based on pattern recognition. It doesn’t have anything to do with what we know about acoustics,” Chris stresses. "This is the leap of faith. It is the first application of fuzzy logic that I know of in audio.”

“If we were to treat the time domain version of these responses and say which of the criteria are closer to each other as far as pattern similarity, then I find for instance that seats 1, 3 and 5 in the room are "clustered" as far as similarity, seat 2 is by itself and seats 2 and 4 are similarly grouped together."

I interject and ask if the sound the system is reading is mainly direct sound and first order reflections and the answer was “No”. "The response that we’re taking is quite long. It’s 8000 samples over 200 milliseconds. If you look at the time response, it has a pattern. But if the seats have similar problems, they will fall into similar clusters as set up by our pattern recognition method. Where it gets fuzzy is that a particular seat can belong to more than one cluster. In other words, what it says is that based on our theory that seat #2 has 80% of the characteristics of seat #3 but 20% of the characteristics of seat #1. So there are no hard boundaries."

"So now we have six responses which we’ve clustered into 3 groups. From each response we elect a representative of the cluster. It’s not any one (exactly within the cluster), it’s one that represents each one in the cluster in the optimal way. That’s called a cluster centroid. So now, of the 3 clusters you have, you have 3 representative responses. So you do it again until you finally end up with the “President response” which represents the constituent responses in the optimal way. So the final representative response is the one we take and invert. When we invert we are inverting proportionally and non-linearly.”

Yes this Audyssey system is more complex and complete than the one currently found on the Lexicon piece. The Lexicon system only corrects for bass response while the Audyssey is full range, and uses FIR mulit taps. We have been researching this for quite awhile. Currently this is the most innovative and advanced room correction system in the industry.

I just found the "Secrets" article. Maybe this is part of the answer to my question:

" If you have a DVI source and DVI display, there will be no problem. If you have a DVI source and an HDMI display, again, no problem. If however, you have an HDMI source and a DVI display, the below-black video information may be lost in the translation. There is a bug in the Silicon Image HDMI transmitter that pops up when converting YCbCr to RGB"

So - if I use a DVD player with DVI and my Infocus projector with DVI I'm *OK*...
but -*should* that be an improvement on RGB coax w/ RCA connectors on both? I ask that because (back to the Secrets article and elsewhere posted in this thread): "DVD data are YCbCr, and are converted to RGB in the player for the DVI output. "(Notwithstanding quality issues of the DVD player or projector) (And, BTW, I will take no offense if anyone criticizes the Infocus unit)

Further reading of the article and posts here seem to tell me that HDMI is the only full digital method of transmitting the video without conversion to analog RGB - correct?

Also - the "Secrets" review of the OPPO Digital OPDV971H makes that DVD player sound pretty good for $200. Anyone had any experience with that unit?

RGB is not by definition analog in my understanding (although I could be wrong), so I don't think that the path from a DVD to a DVI output has to leave the digital domain to carry out the conversion from YCbCr to RGB.

The OPPO Digital did turn in an impressive set of scores on the Secrets shootout, but I don't know that many people had seen it prior to the shootout and what little I've read online indicates that most places have sold out of them. I am also a bit curious about the player or perhaps a future unit from OPPO. It's odd that the 971H will only output 480i on the component video output, making it primarily suited for those of us with DVI or HDMI inputs.

Ah... so conversion from YCbCr to RGB does not necessarily mean converting from digital to analog? Then moving up to a DVD player with a DVI out *might* offer better performance than component connections?

And sorry for 2 posts - but the OPPO web page says they have the DVD player in stock...

Alvin:

Without questioning Secrets, the more important thing to note is that they are talking about an Rx/Tx situation, which I'll bet is different than the pure switch that seems to be what is in the 990. If there is no conversion, no "taking apart" of the signal and "putting it back together again", then there should be no problem.

John,

Saying that the 990 is '...dated before it even hits the warehouse' because it lacks 'auto EQ' and HDMI is what provoked my response.

1st, you asked me if I have ever reviewed auto EQ, I replied that I have. Now, you want to know what measurement equipment I use. I didn't detect in those questions a sincere wish to actually know the answers.

Though I appreciate the ad for Holman's latest money-maker and I'm glad for you that you like it so, I will repeat, in abridged form, once more for you.

1. I don't believe you can 'fix' a room by employing parametric EQ.

2. The Denon 3805 receiver's version of whomever's auto EQ is indeed a parametric EQ. Whether or not it uses IIR or Multi-tap FIR filters matters not. The parameters are Frequency Center, Bandwidth or 'Q' and Boost/Cut or Gain.

3. The $60 (approx street) microphone...well, I'll be kind here and just say that it's modest for it's intended task.

4. The manual clearly instructs the owner of the 3805 to place the mic at ear height at the primary LP. How that exercise will 'fix' every seat in the house is baffling to me. Actually, it isn't at all baffling, it simply won't.

5. For the money, the 3805 is a decent HT receiver, that's why I recommend it. It has bells and whistles in lieu of sonic accuracy. EQ of any sort doesn't 'fix' that.

I think your blurb about some other product should be as you first approached the subject. A link to the info for those who might be interested. The last post belongs in some appropriate forum, not here.

I've been coming here for years and have purchased, directly or indirectly, many Outlaw products. I've been waiting for this pre/pro for a long while, as have others. I'm excited to hear everything about it. I dislike hearing negative things from anyone who has never done more than read the specs and look at a picture about features that it doesn't have.

Just as I believe that analog component is as good as DVI, I believe that analog filtering is still better than the DSP approach...so far. My Opinion.

Outlaw has said that they haven't seen a diigital room correction product that meets their standards yet, so it wasn't included, but they have provisions for that sort of product to be added when it may become available. Hardly 'dated before it hits the warehouse'.

I also believe that, in the near term, they are right about not including the so-called HDMI for the so-called HD software of the future that may or may not be available for purchase by year's end.

If I didn't think Outlaw is right about those things, I wouldn't be interested in the 990, In which case, I wouldn't be here telling eveyone why I'm not interested.

I'm sorry if I seem combative. You'll just have to get over that. I think this subject is off topic for this thread. You should maybe start another thread about auto EQ.

Bosso

If the DVI switching in the 990 is a 8 bit digital switching, then it is likely you will lose higher res info than that.

Ask them. Don't assume.


The more I think about it, the more I think DVI is a mistake. Right now, today, HDMI already does what DVI does. Look at the players and displays coming out now: almost all of them have HDMI. I don't understand comments regarding any uncertainty surrounding HDMI. As far as video goes, and that is all DVI does in the first place, nothing will change with HDMI. The only things that newer versions will give is possibly transmission of SACD/DSD, and the newer high def versions of DD and DTS. So what. DVI can't do any of those anyway. So why hold off on HDMI when any new advancements won't affect video anyway? But yet HDMI passes CD audio, and DD (EX) and DTS (ES) audio *now*.

The big picture view is that i.Link + DVI = HDMI. So then why include DVI but not i.Link? Makes no sense to me. DVI is disapearing in consumer products. Going, going, gone. I can understand wanting to be in Outlaw's corner. Heck, I had a 950 and really liked it. I almost bought a 755 amp, and I still hope they do a DVD player (but I guess it won't have ... i.Link ... if they ever do. ). But to overlook the facts at hand just to emotionally support a product because you like the company ignores what is going to drive a product's sales in the marketplace.

None of this matters much anyway. What does matter, is that I now have a firm belief that Outlaw will sell a bunch of 990s. But not near as many as the 950's that they sold. I believe that the 950 had some unique features that people specifically bought the unit for. The 990? DVI but not HDMI and/or i.Link, only 2 coax inputs, and I personally view digital bass management on the 5.1 analog inputs as a step backwards from the 950's analog BM...

Absolutely! That's an excellent idea. I should have done that earlier this week, but didn't think about it. I fired off an e-mail this morning and caught an Outlaw on his way out the door to New York. Here's his response:

This description of the switching matches my previous understanding of it. The problem with losing the "blacker than black" data going from 10-bit YCrCb HDMI to 8-bit DVI is not the adapters used to connect the two - HDMI and DVI are perfectly pin-compatible, after all, so the data itself comes through the adapter(s) without being altered in any way. The problem lies in how a DVI display processes a 10-bit HDMI source.

I think the reason Outlaw used DVI instead of HDMI is partly perception. Whichever one they used would provide equally effective digital video switching, which is the greatest benefit of either option. HDMI would provide Dolby Digital and DTS audio, but we've already got that with coaxial and optical (formats that people are familiar with, everyone has on source components, and are convenient). It could also provide DVD-Audio, which would be convenient for a few people (those with the handful of HDMI-equipped DVD-Audio players) - most folks would still be wagging half a dozen analog cables from their DVD-Audio player to the 7.1 input, including anyone with a universal player who also wanted to listen to SACD's. What an HDMI input would not do is provide audio for the future hardware that will make the greatest use of HDMI - which while harmless today would be likely to confuse and anger existing 990 owners in a year or two when they tried to use it and discovered that the HDMI they bought doesn't do everything they expect it to be able to do. A DVI connection is clearly different and clearly a purely digital video switching solution. Is this the perfect solution? Heck no, but I don't think there is a perfect solution available today, so any approach will have to accept some compromises.

bossobass: Just as I believe that analog component is as good as DVI

You know, I've heard that before but had forgotten it - I wonder if that opinion is shared by other readers of this thread? I've been stresing over whether or not I should upgrade my pre/pro because I very much wanted the 990 - but maybe I should just keep my current component switching pre/pro and wait for the next outlaw product which will probably have HDMI switching.

Bosso,

I think that both of our individual post speak for themselves regarding the EQ subject. I also believe that Mr Hollman's reputation, and credentials, speak for themselves. I am not going to continue to debate this subject with you any longer, as you have far to many emotions involved, to have an intellectual conversation with at this time. Maybe another time.

I think the 990 is a good value. Here is a picture that may help some decide.



Closer Look

Mean Gene,

You convinced me, I'm going for the $3000.00 unit. With bright metal on the rear,it has got to be three times better that the 990. NOT!!!

MeanGene, I have no doubt the 990 will be a good value. When HDMI (or iLink) is standardized, what are the chances the 990 can be sent back for an upgrade?

That would seem like a pretty significant upgrade for a processor in this price range, especially if they fully implemented HDMI audio (likely to affect a lot of internal hardware to tie the HDMI audio in and make sure the DSP can handle the HD versions of Dolby Digital and DTS as well as DVD-A and SACD presumably). Outlaw hasn't said anything either way, but my suspicion is that the answer would be "no." I suppose they could surprise us all, though...

Most of you prbably know this, but I just visited a web site and found a Grefen DVI switcher - 1 input, 2 outputs - selling for $250. That's either an outrageous price or the 990 is an outrageous bargin.

bargain, that is....

Gonk wrote: This comment piqued my interest, but I've been unable to find anything about a successor to the P-965. Have you got some more information about this?


Yes Gonk, I do have some inside information from a vary reliable source from within Sherwood, that the P-965 will soon be updated with auto eq from audyssey. However, they will not be upgrading to HDMI because they didn't leave enough room in the unit, and the cost factor would be staggering for them. I do believe that we will see Outlaw offering auto eq for the 990 eventually as well, as they have stated that they would. I would be willing to wait it out without a problem. I think, but I am not 100% sure that Audyssey is coming out with an improved version of there auto eq system. Maybe Outlaw knows this? There is still the HDMI concern for me though. I just don't know what to think about this issue. It is a timing factor, and a guessing game as to when everything will fall into place. Sorry for the delay in responding to your question.

” Yes Gonk, I do have some inside information from a vary reliable source from within Sherwood, that the P-965 will soon be updated with auto eq from audyssey.”

Actually, according to the VP of Marketing at Sherwood USA the P-965 will be upgraded with Cirrus Single-Point AutoEQ within the next 30 days.

The P-965 nor the Outlaw 990 have enough DSP power or memory to support Audyssey Multi-Point AutoEQ internally.

There has been some discussion with Audyssey about releasing a computer software package that would support Multi-Point AutoEQ and then write the firmware upgrade to be loaded into the P-965. However, there is currently no agreement with Cirrus Logic to obtain the source code needed to write the firmware upgrade and Cirrus may not be willing to release the code into the public domain.

This is highly possible as I didn't really ask if they would use Cirrus or Audyssey. I just assumed that they would be using Audyssey. I am awaiting a call to clarify this point that you have made. Wow, if Outlaw can not use the Audyssey either and would need to use Cirrus, humm, I may as well not wait it out.

So far I like my 990, and am happy with the dvi switching on it...or will be once I finish off a ground problem with my projector...but since I am not really versed in the possibile benefits of transmitting audio via hdmi, as compared to the current tosilink digital connection, or analog via rca's, this is where I am a little concerned. I figured the only real benefit was reducing the number of cables from source to pre/pro, but was not worried because I don't mind runnning audio on seperate cables. Since I started reading some on hdmi, have seen it posted in forums that the new HD audio formats (HD DTS etc..) will have bandwidth requirements that tosilink connections won't be able to support. This does concern me some, because I would like to keep my 990 for more than 2 years, and definitely see myself jumping on HD dvd in whatever format wins. It seems like from Gonk's post, the 7.1 analog ins are there to allow the 990 to get the audio signals from hd dvd/blue ray devices (is it even a given they will have analog outs?), assuming the 990 can be upgraded to decode HDdts or other new audio formats, just want to verify the 7.1 analog inputs are the 990's answer for input of audio from hd dvd devices. Or is the bandwidth limitations of tosilink connections only speculation, and they will be able to send the audio from HD audio formats to the 990.

Pretty much the only way the 990 could decode HD-DVD is if HDMI Audio inputs were added and most probably a major processor upgrade. Not an easy feat with the present platform. Having said that with 7.1 analog inputs you would not be decoding HD-DVD in the 990 but rather in the player. It is really unknown at this time whether either of the HD DVD formats will support analog HD audio or if HD audio will only be output over HDMI.

Obie is correct about the ambivalence of the HD-DVD standards. One thing to keep in mind is that they're at least proposing a host of Digital Rights Management features. On the video side, DRM will be in full force - meaning that none of the players would be allowed to have analog video outs (read: no component outs) in order to ensure the digital protection is enforced.

Not sure how the audio will be handled, but if it follows the video lead, there won't be any analog audio outs, either.

The only Blu-Ray player likely to omit built-in Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD decodes is the Playstation 3. Standalone players are going to have to include built-in decoders with 7.1 analog outputs much like early DVD players included built-in Dolby Digital decoders because of the large installed base of receivers and processors with no way to handle the decoding internally. In fact, the need for it is even greater now because the installed base of home theaters has grown drastically since DVD was launched in '97.

I think the HD DVD players may have to output component. There are an awful lot of displays out there without DVI or HDMI (like mine) that have HD inputs. The ability to "record" component is pretty tough. The HD recorders are recording the MPEG stream, not the component analog signals.

The courts just ruled the FCC overstepped their bounds too. DRM could fall apart yet. (I like to dream)

Here I was thinking it would be something like a software update for DTS-HD and DD Plus, similar to what was done for some receivers and DPLiix. The proposed formats must be a lot different than DTS and DD as opposed to the differences in DPLiix and DPLii. So using a tosilink connection to output the decoded output of DTS-HD or DD plus is out of the question? If so why, is it bandwidth or something else.

Thanks,

Bandwidth will apparently prevent using toslink for either format, but I suspect the ability to tuck the audio in on HDMI alongside the video - where the copy protection keeps everything locked down so we crazed and theiving consumers can't manipulate it is a bonus for the studios.

As usual gonk nailed most of the issues in his last two posts. I'll just add a couple of minor comments. The present processors may very well have the "power" to decode the new formats, but you have to have a way to get it the signal. Keep in mind that the new HD versions of DD and DTS are 7.1 channels of uncompressed audio, which is far beyond toslinks capability. It has also been rumored that the new formats may just send the audio out as PCM over the HDMI port, which basically means the decoding would be done in the player.

The other thing to keep in mind is the new formats are supposed to be downward compatible so even though you may not get the latest and greatest audio the players will probably still have a toslink downmix available. Whether we will get 7.1 Hi-res analog outputs is anyone’s guess. Same is true for the video side I doubt very seriously we will see analog outputs higher then 480P, but I imagine we will still see all the various video formats just down converted.