Like

What if HDMI Actually Worked?

 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Fort Hamilton, NY United States

Post Number: 2993
Registered: Oct-04
http://hometheaterreview.com/what-if-hdmi-actually-worked/
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14084
Registered: May-04
.

Yeah, I thought HDMI 1.3 solved all the problems HDMI 1.4 is supposed to fix. Or HDMI 1.5. Or 1.6.




Good article, CM, but IMO it's fairly easy to make the argument HDMI is not the single biggest headache in HT components and certainly not the first to obsolete what the client purchased last spring;
http://hometheaterreview.com/denons-new-avr-4810ci-93-channel-receiver/

"Denon just introduced the AVR-4810CI Audio/Video Receiver (SRP: $2,999), a next-generation 9.3 channel multi-zone A/V receiver that offers high-quality distribution of audio and video throughout the home. With nine built-in amplifiers that can be configured to a host of system designs, the AVR-4810CI offers unprecedented flexibility and support for high-definition audio and video performance from all digital sources.

Along with many of today's most advanced surround sound and distribution capabilities, the AVR-4810CI includes 6 HDMI inputs/2 outputs, all certified for HDMI 1.3a. It includes support for Dolby Pro Logic IIz, featuring Front Height Effects Channels, as well as Dolby TrueHD/ DTS-HD Master audio support for decoding the multi-channel recordings featured on Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs. It also features a built-in HDCD decoder, as well as a wide variety of performance and convenience features, including Vertical Stretch (2.35:1 CinemaScope) Mode, and a Video Control Adjustments Memory by input feature. Analog Video Conversion with Scaling to 1080p/24 uses advanced Anchor Bay Technologies (ABT) video processing and scaling.

Among the AVR-4810CI's leading-edge features and capabilities is the inclusion of Audyssey DSX with front height and/or expanded width channels. This advancement allows for a dramatic enhancement of the listener's 5.1- or 7.1-channel surround experience, adding a vertical component to the horizontal soundfield and/or widening the image field to recreate a more realistic movie theater-like experience. The enhanced spatial audio effect provides added presence and depth while maintaining the integrity of the source mix and ensuring audio is always appropriate to the source material."


$3k and it just has "many of today's most advanced surround sound and distribution capabilities".


How does anyone sell this stuff with a straight face? I'd have an easier time being a politician nowdays.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Fort Hamilton, NY United States

Post Number: 2994
Registered: Oct-04
I'll see that 9.3 and raise you 11.2.

May I present the Yamaha RX-Z1 11.2-Channel Digital Home Theater Receiver, all yours for the tidy sum of $5,499.95.

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/productdetail.html?CNTID=558249
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14085
Registered: May-04
.

And I guarantee you neither can be repaired - and they will need repair.

The problems really began to compound themself once video got inside the receiver. I know what a receiver is supposed to be but it would make more sense to have the switching as a separate but conjoined unit fed by the receiver's power supply. Yeah, yeah, that's a pre amp, I know, but receivers as they exist in the modern market aren't reliable and they aren't meant to last more than a few years. The audio industry just keeps shooting itself in the @ss. Why would anybody pay large dollars for this junk?


.


 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14086
Registered: May-04
.

The last two audio sales jobs I had we were generally not allowed to see the owner's manuals for anything we sold. Product was put on display and the boxes and manuals were taken to the warehouse. Beyond getting the unit up and running there was nothing else we were expected to know. And by comparison things were a lot simpler then. How the he!! does a salesperson learn these receivers? Even with a manual you'd have to spend a few days with them to know what they can and cannot do. And there's no f'ing way to display two of these receivers in one room and do both any justice at all.

Stoopid, stoopid, stoopid!



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Fort Hamilton, NY United States

Post Number: 2995
Registered: Oct-04
I suppose it's rather Freudian in nature, big is better, so on & so forth.

Jeez! $5,500 for a receiver is pushing into McIntosh territory, a company that will stand behind their gear into near perpetuity, will hardly depreciate, and will squash Yamaha's SQ any day of the week.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14089
Registered: May-04
.

Agreed, but you only get very good two channels that way. Like you say, more is better, right?

Where ya gonna put an 11.2
speaker system? Hardly leaves room for chairs.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Fort Hamilton, NY United States

Post Number: 2996
Registered: Oct-04
Overhead & Underfoot, I think there's even a tiny speaker you swallow.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Fort Hamilton, NY United States

Post Number: 2997
Registered: Oct-04
Jan, did you ever stray off into The Land of Surround?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14090
Registered: May-04
.

I have a system if that's what you're asking. But video has never done much for me and surround has never sounded right. I bought an early SACD with 5.1 and have a few multi-channel discs but they just don't get used. The whole Old Dogs thread was based on my dislike for surround and sort of went from there; https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=79442#POST79442

But I was around for the first go at surround sound with DynaQuad, QS, SQ, CD-4, etc. I thought the bucket brigade digital delays in the late 1970's did add to the sense of realism on most recordings when they were set up not to draw attention to their sound. But that was all matrixed stuff and not discrete channels where the engineer could put the kick drum in front of me, the hi-hats behind me and the guitars spread over the whole room. Then I played classical music on a 5.1 system. That was the end of that.

I watch movies in whatever surround format is on the disc because it's too much hassle to screw with all the settings. Sometimes I think things sound good when the effects are in place but not enough to invest any more cash than I already have in a different system. No HDMI or any of that crap. My TV isn't even set up for picture in picture any more and at one time that was the bee's knees and the cat's pajamas for video around here.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Fort Hamilton, NY United States

Post Number: 2998
Registered: Oct-04
I'll tell you what's funny, you had ZERO post and were an "unregistered guest"! Oh how time flies.

I've read some of this before, but forgot.

I think your argument has weathered the test of time. SACD is on life support, and DVD-A is all but dead. And as for HT surround, I suspect many are coming to their senses, and realize that the expense & clutter of a 5,6,7,8,9,10,11.1 system just isn't worth the headaches for the occational sci-fi or action flick, at least that's the way I see it.

If I had a dedicated theater that didn't double as my living room, I might feel different, but 2.1 is as good as I need for the moment.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14091
Registered: May-04
.

Yeah, I went for about three years or more as "unregistered" because I didn't see the point of giving the spam folks my information. Then someone started posting as "Jan Vigne" with some really nasty stuff - might have been an early try out for wiley. Things were being deleted all the time and lots of people were complaining so Brian decided to make everyone register and said he figured I'd probably made about "XXXX" posts was I OK with that to start as a registered guest. The rest is spilled milk under the bridge, lots of people and lots of gear have come and gone in the past six years.

I have no interest in BluRay or anything else related to HT right now.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4829
Registered: Dec-03
I think I started Old Dogs after discovering DVD-A, and in order to have the debate out in the open with Jan. It may be that I conceded defeat after a mere 5,000 posts. It also may be that I am biding my time until an affordable 27.9 channel system comes along with EHDMI.

So, Denon offers a next-generation 9.3 channel multi-zone A/V receiver?

The AVR-4810CI includes 6 HDMI inputs/2 outputs, all certified for HDMI 1.3a.

You'd need eight picture frames to hang all those certificates on your wall....

"Dolby Pro Logic IIz"

This must be the ultimate. At least for Pro Logic II. In English. In other languages, will Pro Logic IIo be far behind? Or will the next-generation phase-difference surround from two channels be Pro Logic IV? Or Pro Logic IIz Plus?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14109
Registered: May-04
.

They'll take a tip from the cosmetics industry and rename it Pro-enriched UltraLogic Advanced (with extra moisturizing nano-hydroshperes).


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Exerciseguy

Fort Hamilton, NY United States

Post Number: 3013
Registered: Oct-04
ORGANIC Pro-enriched UltraLogic Advanced (with extra moisturizing nano-hydroshperes)
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4830
Registered: Dec-03
And, for the European market, GM-free ORGANIC Pro-enriched etc. etc. With omega-3 fatty acids.

Just to summarise my eventual position on Old Dogs, though it changed several times, I admit. If you would like surround sound, 4.0 will do it. If you would like surround sound from tiny, unobtrusive speakers, then make it 4.1 and put the LFE channel through an active subwoofer that is placed somewhere out of sight. If your front main speakers will not give a coherent stereo image over a wide enough listening angle, then there might be some benefit in a center channel, and so in 5.1.

Whether you want surround sound or not in the first place is a personal decision, really. It would be sensible, before shelling out, to consider what you listen to.

Jan's original observation was "As an aside, am I the only one who thinks music almost always sounds better when you listen just in stereo. How old I feel."

9,027 posts later and I think the thread has stalled since every point of view has been covered. It was an education.

Seriously, I've just dipped back into the world of e-coustics, and I learn some things, noted with thanks.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4831
Registered: Dec-03
Teaching and old dog new tricks... Thread: Archive through May 23, 2004

The answer to whether music sounds better in stereo is simple: it depends on the music.

I think that's still about right.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 14110
Registered: May-04
.

YEP!


.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4832
Registered: Dec-03
Good ol' Kegger. Hope he's doing fine.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Add Your Message Here

Bold text Italics Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image Add a YouTube Video
Need to Register?
Forgot Password?
Enable HTML code in message
   

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us