[SurroundSound] Re: 96/24 Question

"> 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."

Sorry buddy, but it seems with this statement that you don't
understand what jitter means in a digital system. It's probably best
not to "school" others if you're not sure.

It's most certainly not about a delay thats perceivable to the
listener. It's about the timing of the digital data and the clock
signal at the pico-second level.

Sorry, guys. I'm getting off my "soapbox" now.

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