QUESTION? DOES 5.1 AUDIO ANALOG OUTS(hd-a35)SOUND AS GOOD AS HDMI outputs? - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-17-2008, 02:54 PM
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,022
Default QUESTION? DOES 5.1 AUDIO ANALOG OUTS(hd-a35)SOUND AS GOOD AS HDMI outputs?

reason I'm asking, i currently have hd-a2 going optical to a very nice yamaha reciever, so it's getting downconverted to 1.5mbs dts, that sounds very good, but since my Yamaha does not do HDMI but it does have 5.1 ANALOG inputs, WILL that sound as good as an HD receiver that can do true LOSSLESS from HDMI, If not then I need to know! ..kind of confused with this??...Want to buy a HD_A35, since cheaper then getting a new reciever...ALso what type of cables are use for the 5.1 analog for best sound? REgular RCA's? Or COAXIAL?? THANKS EVERYONE FOR YOUR HELP!!!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-17-2008, 03:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,420
Default

Well, to be honest, I've only used the A35 with HDMI. But before the A35 I had the XA1 and used it for a year with the 5.1 analog before upgrading to my HDMI receiver. I heard no difference in quality on the XA1 between analog / HDMI, so the A35 should be the same. When your receiver is receiving audio via analog input it does not processing, just amplifying, so you use the speaker settings in the A35's setup menu to set speaker size, distance, etc.

As for cables, yes you use standard RCA jack cables. But just be sure to use good quality cables - with analog you can have signal loss with poor quality cable / connectors.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-17-2008, 03:18 PM
mrspeakers's Avatar
analog/digital audio expert
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 650
Default

I get better results having the processor decode, but that's probably because it has better A/D converters, and because you lose an amplification stage (a lot of players have a buffer amplifier after the DAC to drive the analog output. You lose this, plus cable loss, when you process in the receiver/processor instead of the player).

In short, you'll get better audio through analog 5.1 than through downsampled, as you can get hi-def, but if you have the option, sending PCM or bitstream over HDMI will likely be an incremental improvement.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-17-2008, 03:26 PM
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post
I get better results having the processor decode, but that's probably because it has better A/D converters, and because you lose an amplification stage (a lot of players have a buffer amplifier after the DAC to drive the analog output. You lose this, plus cable loss, when you process in the receiver/processor instead of the player).

In short, you'll get better audio through analog 5.1 than through downsampled, as you can get hi-def, but if you have the option, sending PCM or bitstream over HDMI will likely be an incremental improvement.
It soundslike analog 5.1 will be close to HDMI>? but not exactly? If it's only a small improvement over the 1.5 down convert DTS from my hd-a2 then it wouldn't be worth me getting the hd-a35 but If you guys are saying it going to be about 90% as good as true hdmi lossless and 75% better then downconverted DTS, then it would be worth it, bottom line will I hear a big differnce? Also , so the A35 has all the sound settings in the menu and then my reciever would do nothing more then be an "amplifier" ? Thanks again!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-17-2008, 11:04 PM
mrspeakers's Avatar
analog/digital audio expert
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 650
Default

The uncompressed audio sounds quite a bit better. It always boils down to whether or not people care. I've designed speakers for twenty years, and people always say "I can't hear the difference." Then they listen, and say "wow, never knew it could sound like that."

Then comes the decision to invest in the better audio. For many people, it's nice to have. For people like me it's essential.

Analog 5.1 from an A35 will probably get you to 95% of the benefit of going HDMI PCM or bitstream to a quality processor or receiver. Unless you have either bad ears or crappy equipment, you'll hear the difference. Whether it's worth it to you to upgrade the player is another question. :-)

Yes, you'd use the A35's speaker setup. You may need to further tweak the sub level on the receiver, but that's probably it.

Note: I am making an assumption that the A35 offers audio setup for distance/channel gain/crossover like my XA2. You should verify. Check out the manual on the Toshiba site, it's there for download.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-18-2008, 12:58 AM
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post
The uncompressed audio sounds quite a bit better. It always boils down to whether or not people care. I've designed speakers for twenty years, and people always say "I can't hear the difference." Then they listen, and say "wow, never knew it could sound like that."

Then comes the decision to invest in the better audio. For many people, it's nice to have. For people like me it's essential.

Analog 5.1 from an A35 will probably get you to 95% of the benefit of going HDMI PCM or bitstream to a quality processor or receiver. Unless you have either bad ears or crappy equipment, you'll hear the difference. Whether it's worth it to you to upgrade the player is another question. :-)

Yes, you'd use the A35's speaker setup. You may need to further tweak the sub level on the receiver, but that's probably it.

Note: I am making an assumption that the A35 offers audio setup for distance/channel gain/crossover like my XA2. You should verify. Check out the manual on the Toshiba site, it's there for download.
Thank you..You have been very helpful!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-22-2008, 07:27 PM
almadacr's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post
The uncompressed audio sounds quite a bit better. It always boils down to whether or not people care. I've designed speakers for twenty years, and people always say "I can't hear the difference." Then they listen, and say "wow, never knew it could sound like that."

Then comes the decision to invest in the better audio. For many people, it's nice to have. For people like me it's essential.

Analog 5.1 from an A35 will probably get you to 95% of the benefit of going HDMI PCM or bitstream to a quality processor or receiver. Unless you have either bad ears or crappy equipment, you'll hear the difference. Whether it's worth it to you to upgrade the player is another question. :-)

Yes, you'd use the A35's speaker setup. You may need to further tweak the sub level on the receiver, but that's probably it.

Note: I am making an assumption that the A35 offers audio setup for distance/channel gain/crossover like my XA2. You should verify. Check out the manual on the Toshiba site, it's there for download.
I agree with everything that you say and the difference that i notice was wile using the analog cables was a bigger bass sound but less decoded compared to the HDMI .
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-22-2008, 08:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 144
Default

If the choice is relatively-lo-res DTS thru the decoders in your receiver v. the BEST soundtrack available on the disc (and that may be hi-res [= 6-channel 48/24 PCM]), the answer is the latter. I THINK cable 'losses' will be about equal, analog v. HDMI. Whether you can easily hear the differences only you can say, and that's only after spending the money for 3 pairs of good analog interconnect--or using the free stuff included with players.

I use a 6-channel analog preamp and NOT a pre-pro and I let both my disc players decode the digital signals. I also use hi-quality Audioquest-brand interconnect, but that's another story.

The conrad-johnson MET1 preamp has 2 sets of 6-channel inputs; here they are, full.

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-23-2008, 02:18 PM
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreybehr View Post
If the choice is relatively-lo-res DTS thru the decoders in your receiver v. the BEST soundtrack available on the disc (and that may be hi-res [= 6-channel 48/24 PCM]), the answer is the latter. I THINK cable 'losses' will be about equal, analog v. HDMI. Whether you can easily hear the differences only you can say, and that's only after spending the money for 3 pairs of good analog interconnect--or using the free stuff included with players.

I use a 6-channel analog preamp and NOT a pre-pro and I let both my disc players decode the digital signals. I also use hi-quality Audioquest-brand interconnect, but that's another story.

The conrad-johnson MET1 preamp has 2 sets of 6-channel inputs; here they are, full.


That looks sweet!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-23-2008, 06:45 PM
Arkadin's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,401
Default

I would LOVE to have those Audioquest cables. =p~=p~=p~
I bet they are amazing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lossless with analog outs? high_rollin Home Theater Gear 15 09-12-2008 03:54 PM
Analog outputs on a blu-ray player... kstang99 Blu-ray Hardware General Discussion 8 09-01-2008 03:48 PM
Question about using 7.1 analog outs to 5.1 receiver singhcr Blu-ray Hardware General Discussion 6 07-10-2008 12:21 PM
How to setup my Bluray to enjoy HD sound using Analog Outputs to my receiver? charolin Blu-ray Hardware General Discussion 2 09-14-2007 11:47 AM
Lossless over 5.1 analog outs? dwirving68 Blu-ray Hardware General Discussion 5 06-02-2007 12:48 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off