New receiver provokes new question about downmix to stereo

[BrianZ]

I am a 2 channel guy, period. Surround sound is nowhere in my foreseeable future (like, for decades). My current receiver (Harman Kardon HK3490) has no HDMI inputs so I use the TV (Samsung UN48H6350) as my HDMI hub and send a single optical out of the tv to the receiver. Nice, clean and simple, plus I can choose to play everything through the big sound system or just the tv speakers.

But I just ordered a modern AVR behemoth (Marantz SR6009) and am now obviously faced with two options: (1) simply running it the same way as above, or (2) connecting all the HDMI devices to the AVR and sending the ARC HMDI back to the tv. Aside from the functionality differences of this new approach, would there be any audio quality benefit? Since I'll still be stereo only, it seems the main question is:

Is the tv's stereo downmix of all the snazzy audio formats that come from my devices (BluRay, streaming services, mkv files with DTS) is an any way lesser fidelity to what the new receiver will be doing with those same formats.

I ask this because I have no idea what goes into decoding the likes of DTS, DD+ and whatever else might come on BR and such. Is it so basic that there is no such thing as a quality decoder and a crappy one? I just want my new PSB Synchrony One B speakers to sing at their highest potential (within my limited budget).

Thanks,
Brian

 

[Haywood]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

ARC should not be any worse than optical.

 

[BrianZ]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

Thanks, but I think maybe I was unclear. I'm more concerned about what goes to my PSB speakers, not the TV speakers. In my current setup all movie audio passes through the tv and goes out via optical to my receiver. With the new method, the audio would go straight to the AVR (via HDMI) and is processed entirely within the AVR, then out to the PSB's (iow, the tv never touches what goes to the PSB's.)

And you know I may have just answered my own question because I just remembered that optical has limited bandwidth compared to HDMI. So no matter how well the tv decodes the audio, it has to drop some bits to pass through optical, right? I imagine this will only relate to the highest res audio that one might see on a BRD or something. I don't know that streaming services provide high enough res audio to surpass optical capacity (but maybe they do, or will soon).

 

[Haywood]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

If you are using your television as a source, the Audio Return Channel will send the same audio to your receiver that an optical cable would send. The issue you raise is generally irrelevant, because AC3/DD audio caps out at 640kbps anyway. Optical cannot handle Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD Master, but there are exactly zero sources that would come through your television with those soundtracks. Optical is perfectly fine for lossless stereo audio ala FLAC, Apple Lossless or WMAL.

 

[yromj]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

I think what he's asking is more about the other sources than the TV.

My guess is that in the end you probably won't hear much difference either way since you ultimately are arriving with a stereo signal from the same multi-channel data stream. The receiver's benefit could be that it can handle the newer formats better; but, in the end I think that both devices will end up generating the same set of 0s and 1s for the receiver to convert to analog. If that's the case there should be no difference.

All of that said, I would use the receiver as the source switcher, if for nothing else, the warm and fuzzies of it. You just bought it, why not let it do something it's good at. It definitely won't be worse than the TV.

John

 

[Barney]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

Love my SR5009 from accessories4less.

 

[BrianZ]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

I think what he's asking is more about the other sources than the TV.

My guess is that in the end you probably won't hear much difference either way since you ultimately are arriving with a stereo signal from the same multi-channel data stream. The receiver's benefit could be that it can handle the newer formats better; but, in the end I think that both devices will end up generating the same set of 0s and 1s for the receiver to convert to analog. If that's the case there should be no difference.

All of that said, I would use the receiver as the source switcher, if for nothing else, the warm and fuzzies of it. You just bought it, why not let it do something it's good at. It definitely won't be worse than the TV.

John

Yes, that is indeed what I'm asking. Warm & fuzzies are definitely important and so connecting all sources to the receiver is most likely the way I'll go eventually. If nothing else to have fewer cables routing all the way up to the tv (all my sources are below in a long & low cabinet). Be nice for cleaning things up a bit back there. But I'll likely be first setting it up exactly as my current receiver is (all hmdi's thru tv) just to do a sort of A/B test to answer the question whether the Marantz sounds any better than the HK in a strictly amp-to-amp, level playing field comparison. But I'm sure it won't be long after I'll be redoing all the connections the modern way.

And one more thing: I'm in way over my head with all these audio formats, but I assume there are a least a few of the higher res ones that might exceed optical bandwidth even after being decoded for stereo. Maybe not.

Thanks, all.

 

[BrianZ]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

Love my SR5009 from accessories4less.

Good to know!

I gotta say I'm just a bit afraid of it due to the number of complaints about freezes, malfunctions and unit returns in the SRx009 thread over at AVS Forums. I'm hoping it's simply more that that is where most of problem unit owners have gathered, rather than it being a representative sample.

 

[Botch]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

Love my SR5009 from accessories4less.

Good to know!

I gotta say I'm just a bit afraid of it due to the number of complaints about freezes, malfunctions and unit returns in the SRx009 thread over at AVS Forums. I'm hoping it's simply more that that is where most of problem unit owners have gathered, rather than it being a representative sample.

Very wise; it's human nature to post/yell/rant when something goes wrong, than when things are cool. The larger the number of respondents, the clearer picture you have of how a device really is.

 

[Randy]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

I love my SR 7007, I know its not the x009 series, but still. Accessories4less did me right when the forst one arrived DOA.

 

[yromj]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

...And one more thing: I'm in way over my head with all these audio formats, but I assume there are a least a few of the higher res ones that might exceed optical bandwidth even after being decoded for stereo. Maybe not.

Thanks, all.

No, once it's stereo, it's stereo regardless of the source. Optical can handle that; but it won't feel as warm and fuzzy with all those veils in the way.

John

 

[BrianZ]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

Well I couldn't resist the temptation to set it up as intended, so now all the HDMI's go to the receiver, with just one out to the tv - so civilized! Its great. It's also nice that I don't have to worry about formats anymore. Now I have my PS3 and Amazon Fire box set to output all those snazzy, hi-end formats & codecs, and the Marantz just eats 'em up and spits out a gorgeously clean & warm stereo signal to my speakers. Can't beat it!

Thanks for the all the input. (pun fully intended)

 

[Botch]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

Brian, if I may ask: why do you not foresee Surround Sound in your future? I know I held off a long time (until about 5 years ago, when I met all you guys) and I love it as long as its not mixed unrealistically (for example: a high conga in the front left and the low conga in the rear right; stop that! :angry-tappingfoot: )
Just curious, it's been such an improvement for me. :music-listening:

 

[heeman]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

:text-yeahthat:

 

[BrianZ]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

Frankly nothing about surround appeals to me. I dunno, maybe I'm just to old (school). I mean, I've heard a small number of surround systems (none very good, I'll admit) and they just didn't move me. Even in movie theaters I feel like my brain very quickly assimilates and it seems to all come from the front. I am however fully open to the idea that a nicely done system could change my mind, which is why I hope to never hear one!

I also have a serious problem with gear obsession (I'm sure you can all relate). I already have a hard enough time just sitting and enjoying my music & movies without running virtual frequency response graphs in my head. So three more speakers to select and balance would probably not be good for me.

And lastly there's the marital peace factor. Between my living room system (with big tv), my bedroom system, headphone gear, portable speakers scattered throughout the house, and an impressive amount of stellar guitar gear, my saint of a wife has tolerated more equipment than she would prefer as it is. <3



And btw I am still wowed by my Senn HD600's every time I put them on, going on 2 years now. It's a love that's difficult to adequately express in words. Listening to them now and I just wanted to say that.

 

[mcad64]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

I remember the first time I heard Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots (Part 1) in surround. A rather large grin came over my face!!! Purists will tell you two channel is the only way to fly, and I guess if you are at a concert all the sounds come at you from the front . But in the real world sounds come from all around you , so I am perfectly fine with surround sound mixes!!

 

[Botch]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

I guess if you are at a concert all the sounds come at you from the front . But in the real world sounds come from all around you , so I am perfectly fine with surround sound mixes!!

In a concert, the sound does come from all around you! That's why I like the "audience" mix on the AIX Records recordings, and why I like Tom Petty's two bluray releases, it sounds like a concert.
There's certainly room for wild mixes where sounds come from all directions (cue Pink Floyd) but when the mix is set up to replicate a musical space, and it's done well, that's when the magic happens! :banana-rock: :banana-rock: :banana-rock:

 

[Randy]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

Frankly nothing about surround appeals to me. I dunno, maybe I'm just to old (school). I mean, I've heard a small number of surround systems (none very good, I'll admit) and they just didn't move me. Even in movie theaters I feel like my brain very quickly assimilates and it seems to all come from the front. I am however fully open to the idea that a nicely done system could change my mind, which is why I hope to never hear one!

I also have a serious problem with gear obsession (I'm sure you can all relate). I already have a hard enough time just sitting and enjoying my music & movies without running virtual frequency response graphs in my head. So three more speakers to select and balance would probably not be good for me.

And lastly there's the marital peace factor. Between my living room system (with big tv), my bedroom system, headphone gear, portable speakers scattered throughout the house, and an impressive amount of stellar guitar gear, my saint of a wife has tolerated more equipment than she would prefer as it is. <3



And btw I am still wowed by my Senn HD600's every time I put them on, going on 2 years now. It's a love that's difficult to adequately express in words. Listening to them now and I just wanted to say that.

I'm sitting here watching the Cards vs Padres game and the surround mix is good. The surrounds come into play for ambient crowd noise predominantly and it is much more involving than just watching it on the ole TV. It really enhances the experience.

I have several concerts that are amazing too.

But that's just me.

 

[Botch]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

^^^ Randy, I"ve noticed I watch a lot more football now with 5.1 too, a lot more fun even if I'm just sitting there by myself.
Have you noticed, though, that there's that one really loud, obnoxious guy in one of the back speakers who will NOT shut up, just like a real game?? :angry-tappingfoot: :angry-cussingblack: :angry-banghead: :doh:

 

[Flint]

Re: New receiver provokes new question about downmix to ster

Stick to your guns, man. I am not a HUGE fan of surround either. I find a well tuned, high quality stereo setup to deliver a hemispherical soundstage without all those extra speakers.

That said, there are some movies which and TV shows which deliver added realism and excitement to the experience when heard in full surround, so I get why it can be better. It just isn't universally better. That's why I chose to go with simple stereo in my second home.