HDTV Forum

I have a older audio receiver that works fine (other than the lousy user interface) with only analog inputs. I haven't bothered to upgrade since it would be one more piece of equipment I would have to sell since I have no other use for it. Since I wouldn't get squat for it I have kepted it.

Comming from a HD TV, HD DVR, CD player, DVD player using an analog path to the receiver and comparing that to getting a new receiver with digital inputs is there really a difference regarding:

1. The basic 'audio' (sonic) quality: tonal range, dynamic range, imaging etc.
2. Separation and surround sound effects (I'm not using a subwoofer or center channel speakers).

I know how hyped "digital" everything is these days and I question if it is really better especially considering all the compression & processing of most sources??

If you have a HDTV, HD DVR, and DVD player, you are missing a lot of bang in your viewing (and listening) pleasure. You should think about an audio home entertainment system, maybe one in a box. There is a world of difference in a 5.1 system compared to a 2.0 system related to movies, sports and, in general, TV series.

It's not just a plain 'stereo' receiver, it is Dolby Pro Logic, but no digital inputs.
I'm not interested in a sunwoofer or a center channel.

videobruce,

I understand your concerns.

Nearly all DVDs and most broadcast content is mastered for digital multichannel. With a digital connection it is a straight shot from disc to speakers more or less through the receiver.

For analog... the digital multitrack must be digitally downmixed to digital stereo, error 1. It must be decoded to analog, error 2. It must be connected to your receiver using analog cables, error 3. It must go through the switching circuits, error 4.

From there it depends on your receiver but if you don't support at least DD/DTS 5.1 the signal will be put through another barrage of processing that will create even more errors.

I had a client who requested an ISF and HAA calibration. Upon inspection of his equipment, an old analog surround receiver, I told him to skip the HAA calibration and instead run out while I did the video calibration and update/replace his receiver because those benefits would far out weight any money spent for audio calibration. He did; he was BLOWN away!

Nearly all DVDs and most broadcast content is mastered for digital multichannel.

I understand that, but there is a long journey between that "master" and the feed that makes it to my HD TV receiver with all sorts of places where who knows what can happen. Yes, I know it should sound better.

This might not be a good example, but many years ago I knew an engineer at a local network affialate, he made a recording of a news broadcast on plain old VHS (linear audio). One of the first things I noticed when I played it back at home was the improvement in the audio. Mind you, this was just people talking, no music. It was obvious just what a transmitter did to the audio by the time it got to your TV.

Other than DVDs' (which I watch rarely) my viewing and listening material is through broadcasting or cable with all kinds of processing. I just question after all is said and done is it really worth it.

he made a recording of a news broadcast on plain old VHS (linear audio). One of the first things I noticed when I played it back at home was the improvement in the audio.

Of course! He used the original audio track. To transmit the signal it had to go through a barrage of processing to set it up for an analog audio carrier on an analog video transmission. Today that same signal will be digitally compressed and spit out into the data stream of DTV or a digital provider such as sat or cable.

I understand your reservations, they are quite real, yet no more real than the fact that upgrading your receiver will be a huge improvement. I guarantee that DVD will be far better. Your mileage with broadcast will be better but will also vary. OTA DTV is the better route as they do less compression on the audio than sat or cable.

To transmit the signal it had to go through a barrage of processing to set it up for an analog audio carrier on an analog video transmission.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. After all that 'processing' is the weak link still the receiver (other than the speakers which is a separate topic)??

Yes. I laid out the 4 errors you are getting by converting to analog and touched on the host of errors you get processing that to surround. You are only adding to the errors that already exist.

But, would MY errors be worse than all of theirs?