TOPIC:

Jim wrote:

Looking at the nanoAVR manual, there is an adjustable delay on each channel, but there isn't a global setting to tweak all delays simultaneously, Also, the adjustment(s) are only accessible via the plugin, not the IR remote port. Last but not least, the delay is only positive, not negative (video delay), so it could only compensate for audio that's ahead of the picture, not the other way around

Hi Jim, I believe you are correct on all counts. I only wish I could be the person to invent negative delay though... I've read that my TV has about 60ms of delay but in all honesty I simply can't tell. Apparently this (ability to detect lag) varies quite a lot by the individual. Hence my question about how to measure it, it would be interesting to A/B it and see if I can tell then.

jsteinh wrote:

I also want to replace my miniDSP8x8 through a NanoAVR. In this time I use a 5.1-HDMI-DolbyDigital-to-Analog-Converter and give the analog-Signal to the miniDSP8x8 and from there unbalanced to my Class-D-Hypex-NC400-Amplifier. I also need a completely solution from HDMI-signal to balanced-analog-Output!
But if I want to use the nanoAVR, I also need:
1) a converter from compressed DolbyDigital to uncompressed 5.1-HDMI (for the NanoAVR-Input)
2) the nanoAVR
3) a D/A-converter from HDMI to unbalanced

One of the interesting things (I think) emerging from this discussion and related ones is that maybe analog is the true lingua franca. I'm just putting that out there as a thought. On one hand, you have so much more processing capability with digital, but then again, nobody wants to be converting from analog to digital and back again, again and again. It's all a very interesting topic (I think).

For your particular situation, and with respect to using the nanoAVR, it does seem that simply finding a source that outputs linear PCM is really the way to go and probably the most cost-effective.

?

jsteinh wrote:

for point 3) jaynyc wrote:
Question #2: Has anyone looked at the Essence Evolve HDMI DAC?
www.essenceelectrostatic.com/essence-dig...-truhd-dts-masterhd/
--> its realy a nice box and if anyone can get technical infos about this pleas tell me.

Yes, I'd be curious to know how this unit measures up (literally) as well.

Right now I'm using a Yamaha HTR-4065 AVR that I got on clearance at Newegg for around $220. I've modified it for preamp outputs, which I use to feed various (larger) power amps I have lying around. Turns out that some of these low-budget AVRs have fairly respectable front ends in terms of sound quality; it's mainly the power amp sections that are disappointing. (This is of course the logical place to cut costs, since the power supply and amplifier circuits are where all the big heavy expensive parts are.) With its internal power amps idling (inputs grounded), the little Yamaha's power supply is now more than adequate to the task, and it sounds really nice as a pre/pro!

The only trouble I have is that it's only a 5.1 unit (6 outputs total). I'd like to go to a 5.3 setup (3 separately-EQ'd subs), so I recently purchased another little Yamaha, this time a 7.1 model. I had intended to mod it the same way, but now there's this tiny Essence box that would free up a whole shelf space...

Decisions, decisions. On one hand, call me old-fashioned but in my book there is still something to be said for having a Big Master Volume Knob With Readout on the audio system, which I would lose if I went from the Yamaha to the little black box. On the other, that's really about the only feature I would miss, since nanoAVR needs everything else to happen upstream anyway. Hmmm....

-- Jim

john.reekie wrote:

One of the interesting things (I think) emerging from this discussion and related ones is that maybe analog is the true <em>lingua franca</em>. I'm just putting that out there as a thought. On one hand, you have so much more processing capability with digital, but then again, nobody wants to be converting from analog to digital and back again, again and again. It's all a very interesting topic (I think).

Oh, I agree. We've certainly traded one set of trials & tribulations for another with all this new stuff. When it comes to hooking things together in particular, analog just works for the most part. It certainly would be simpler in many ways to just use the analog ins & outs on these fancy digital black boxes. Sometimes I wonder if I could really, truly, verifiably hear a difference if I did it this way? But of course that's just crazy talk. Excuse me, I have to go dig through the closet for another HDMI cable...

-- Jim

The essence box is one of a number available… search 'HDMI converter 7.1' on ebay (no quotes) and two basic designs show up… both under $150. The essence one appears identical to the Atlona box (& a generic one as well), while the second design has individual outputs for each of the 7.1 outputs (as well as coax and optical outputs). Seems an interesting alternative to the AVR to me… nanoavr w/umik, HDMI DAC box, 7x outlaw 2200 (200w) mono blocks all for under $2500. Even better if you already have a decent multichannel amp. I figure, if you are going away from the AVR, you might as well get amplification that really cannot be had in ANY AVR (including the likes of Cambridge 751r).

Seems like the biggest loss would be the processing to convert 5.1 to 7.1 in most receivers (e.g. lossless 5.1 audio on bluray utilizing all 7.1 channels in a system). placing the nanoavr downstream of the up conversion would be best, but there does not seem to be a solution to that without a receiver… even the pricey sony virtual surround headphone boxes seem to only support the up conversion (e.g. pl-iix or pl-iiz) via the wireless headphones and not the hdmi output over llcm. no worries for those with 5.1 systems, but a bummer for those with 7.1 given the relative lack of lossless 7.1 tracks.