[SurroundSound] Re: 96/24 Question

"> The HDMI spec provides no ability for retransmitting however it
does
> make extensive use of error correcting codes by way of parity. In a
> nutshell it is same as if you download a bunch of RAR files and a few
> are corrupt, you can then repair the corrupt ones by using information
> that is stored in the other files."

No. HDMI does not work like that. There is enough "parity data" to
reliably detect corrupted data... but not enough to reconstruct
corrupted data.

Digital errors in HDMI transmission are errors forever.... and there
are a lot more transmission errors in HDMI (than say SPDIF) due to
it's higher clock rate // jitter susceptibility..... HDMI cables are
more often than not, utter rubbish in construction, further
compounding the problem.

Digital system CAN be made 100% perfect.... however, digital to analog
conversion is NEVER perfect. Anybody who has heard a lot of
different DACs can attest to this. Analog (audio) output stages in
DACs also play a big part in the sound, they can be difficult to
design right (perhaps economically is a better word).

All that being said... generalising a transport like HDMI as "bad" is
a little rough. It's all in the implementation, and no doubt HDMI
audio can be very, very good.... and obviously is the only consumer-
grade choice we have for digital transmission of lossless surround.

On Aug 23, 10:25 pm, yorama <webmas...@liatart.com> wrote:
> The HDMI spec provides no ability for retransmitting however it does
> make extensive use of error correcting codes by way of parity. In a
> nutshell it is same as if you download a bunch of RAR files and a few
> are corrupt, you can then repair the corrupt ones by using information
> that is stored in the other files.
>
> Jitter shouldn't really be a problem for HDMI audio streaming and
> there are plenty of ways to overcome or improve at the destination.
> Even if some latency is introduced in the process it shouldn't effect
> the audio listener, if the playback will start even a second later
> then it's no big deal.
>
> HDMI 1.3 also defines two categories of cables, 1 and 2. If you are
> really paranoid about interference then you can use the latter for
> streaming up to 340MHz of high def video and audio (10.2 Gbps), only a
> small portion of that will be used for streaming a full uncompressed
> surround stream with 8 X 24/192 LPCM.
>
> As previously stated it is important to use the latest HDMI gear in
> the chain in order to reap all the benefits and achieve high quality
> playback.
>
> On Aug 23, 3:12 pm, Joe A <joe.anst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The myth of "digital is perfect"?
>
> > Versus the myth that digital is crippled by errors?
>
> > In the case of over-the-air or satellite transmission, yes, there's a
> > conversation to be had.
>
> > But we're discussing a closed system, between two HDMI devices.  Is
> > there any error at all, let alone anything significant.  Short of
> > defective hardware or a defective cable, I find it close to
> > impossible.
>
> > And if either device in the chain is defective, the chances are still
> > high that any DA-AD conversion is going to be wrong too.
>
> > Further, the assumption here is that the source is digital in the
> > first place.  I'll go back and reread the thread, but I haven't seen
> > many HDMI turntables.
>
> > On Aug 23, 2:12 am, dave <davewantsmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > " If there were transmission errors, I'm sure the
> > > stream is checksummed or has some other method of detecting errors,
> > > and it would be retransmitted or at worst case error correction would
> > > be applied (and this would be bad, but I'm skeptical as to whether it
> > > would happen at all). "
>
> > > Ahhh... This is the myth of "digital is perfect".
>
> > > The HDMI spec has no ability for "retransmission".
>
> > > Error checking can be done on the receiving end...  and if the device
> > > detects an error, it can decide what to do.... but it doesn't have the
> > > option to ask for the data again.
>
> > > It is also a myth to say that keeping a signal in the digital domain
> > > is better .... the errors in the digital domain (jitter/timing) are
> > > less pleasant audibly (generally) than errors in the analog domain,
> > > and jitter errors are much, much easier to encounter... especially
> > > when dealing with such a high clock rate interface such as HDMI.
>
> > > This is not to say that HDMI is necessarily worse than analog... there
> > > are obviously great HDMI machines out there....   to conclude that is
> > > a "superior format" becuase of reasons revolving around the
> > > "superiority of digial transmission" are based on a lack of
> > > understanding of digital sampling theory.
>
> > > On Aug 22, 11:12 pm, Joe A <joe.anst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Lokks:
>
> > > > I was scratching my head a bit when you first made that statement but
> > > > I thought I'd leave it for another day.
>
> > > > As near as I can tell, HDMI is completely digital and there are no
> > > > analog paths involved.  Therefore, regardless of fear of crosstalk and
> > > > bleed-over, it's essentially a digital data stream sent over the cable
> > > > much like SPDIF except there is two-way communication.  Do you have
> > > > evidence that there is a significant error rate (or for that matter,
> > > > anything worth discussing at all) when dealing with two HDMI
> > > > transceiving devices?  If there were transmission errors, I'm sure the
> > > > stream is checksummed or has some other method of detecting errors,
> > > > and it would be retransmitted or at worst case error correction would
> > > > be applied (and this would be bad, but I'm skeptical as to whether it
> > > > would happen at all).
>
> > > > Further one would think that keeping sound in the digital domain for
> > > > as long as possible is beneficial -- at least with digital data we can
> > > > keep an eye on integrity from component to component.  In the analog
> > > > domain, transmission noise, cross-talk, magnetic and RF interference,
> > > > et al, can leak into the signal and there's not too much we can do
> > > > about it without signal processing which is undesirable.
>
> > > > And while I agree that up until now audio has been neglected -- there
> > > > was no widespread successor to SPDIF until now -- DVI had no audio
> > > > support, firewire was proposed but never implemented, etc -- I find it
> > > > hard to argue it has been neglected in HDMI.  7.1 192-24 PCM or
> > > > bitstream audio (DTS HD-MA, Dolby True HD, even heard DSD).  What more
> > > > do you want?  Where is HDMI deficient in this area?
>
> > > > Finally, when one puts a little thought into the problem, as you said
> > > > the signal has to become analog somewhere.  Is is smarter for every
> > > > consumer device to have its own DACs of varying quality, and introduce
> > > > noise in the analog domain in transmission from the device to the
> > > > receiver, or is it smarter to stay in the digital realm as long as
> > > > possible, eliminate transmission noise, and save the good Burr-Brown
> > > > DACs for the receiver's consistent DA conversion.  As long as the
> > > > receiver has a good DAC all should be good, shouldn't it?
>
> > > > Any differences I can think of should be down to:
> > > > - quality of the DACs in the component versus quality of DACs in the
> > > > receiver
> > > > - if PCM is the output then quality of the decoder in the component
> > > > versus the decoder in the receiver
> > > > - error correction in the digital signal, if any exists (and I have no
> > > > idea if it does or not)
>
> > > > In the context of home theater, audio seems to have been addressed.
> > > > As an audiophile, you just have to buy into it.
>
> > > > What am I missing?  I want to hear your thoughts.
>
> > > > On Aug 21, 8:23 am, Lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Which then goes full circle to my point - the audio has been neglected with
> > > > > this plug and play interconnect and after all I thought that this was what
> > > > > we are all about. (The sound that is).
>
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Joe A <joe.anst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Very good point RW.
>
> > > > > > Not only that, we seem to be in a period of seemingly unnecessary
> > > > > > format change as far as interconnects as HDMI.  There have been
> > > > > > endless revisions to HDMI culminating in the current 1.4 spec with 3D
> > > > > > support and arguably this all goes back to DVI and HDCP.  Then there's
> > > > > > the spectre of Display Port and all its offshoots gunning to eliminate
> > > > > > HDMI.  HDBaseT has benefits of using existing cat5 infrastructure and
> > > > > > cheap thin cabling, but is it enough?
>
> > > > > > I think (and somewhat hope) that HDMI has hit the high-water mark of
> > > > > > being "good enough", and being ubiquitous on AV gear for the past 5
> > > > > > years or so (TV/disc/AV receivers) that its established itself and
> > > > > > efforts to usurp it will be wasted.
>
> > > > > > If there are cheap adapters that don't do any processing (I've seen
> > > > > > cheap DP->HDMI cables and someone already posted about HDMI->HDBaseT
> > > > > > adapters) then what's the point?
>
> > > > > > I think HDMI has established a beach head that will not be easy to
> > > > > > dislodge.
>
> > > > > > On Aug 20, 12:39 pm, RW <rlwainwri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> HDMI is now dead!! <<
>
> > > > > > > Well, folks, I wouldn't bet the ranch on that just yet.  You must
> > > > > > > remember, it is not always the better format that wins the battle - if
> > > > > > > it were so, BetaMax would have defeated VHS, SACD and DVD-Audio would
> > > > > > > not be niche products.  Many other factors are in play besides just
> > > > > > > technical superiority. And market "penetration" is one of them.  HDMI
> > > > > > > has a very high market penetrtation; EVERY A/V device (and PCs) being
> > > > > > > produced today has HDMI capability.  And consumers love HDMI, it does
> > > > > > > make for a very neat and simple hook-up, you must admit.  And,
> > > > > > > frankly, it sounds damn good to my aging ears - I do not hear (or see)
> > > > > > > any adavantage of Component connections over HDMI.  And the Component
> > > > > > > connections require 6 cables to HDMI's 1, that is a huge benefit for
> > > > > > > HDMI.
>
> > > > > > > I see myself still using HDMI connections 20 years from now, I can see
> > > > > > > no good reason for me to want to change.  In fact, I placed an order
> > > > > > > from MonoPrice 2 days ago for some very nice 22 awg HDMI cables, I
> > > > > > > should have them in my system by the end of the weekend.
>
> > > > > > > -RW-
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 19, 7:08 pm, "Lokkerman" <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Very interesting article I got sent to me from a fellow SSGG member.
> > > > > > HDMI is
> > > > > > > > now dead!!
> > > > > > > > BTW what a great site and will sort out links to it soon. (that's if VF
> > > > > > > > didn't do it already lol)http://www.audaud.com/article?ArticleID=7597
> > > > > > > > Lokks
>
> > > > > > > >   _____
>
> > > > > > > > From: surroundsound@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> > > > > > surroundsound@googlegroups.com]
> > > > > > > > On Behalf Of mircea raibulet
> > > > > > > > Sent: 19 August 2010 22:19
> > > > > > > > To: surroundsound@googlegroups.com
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: 96/24 Question
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound