Pure digital AV processor?

[stevenswall]

Arvus might have what you need, combined with an HDFury Diva for source selection.

I think they do, but does it work with HDCP? I'm hoping it will work and I can use EARC and control the volume with my normal TV remote.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the DP564 limited to 7.1 channels and unsuitable for atmos height and tops?

Yes, which is why I want to upgrade to something like the JBL SDP55 which can do Dante output so that I can ignore the issue with that unit and go all digital which my sub needs anyhow.

I certainly would consider something like this:

- HDFury 2 for HDMI switching
- 7.1 Digital processor for crossovers
- OCTO 8 or other 8 channel DAC for volume control.

Such a product would likely have less bugs, higher performance, and perform faster switching than anything out there.
It would just work.

- Rich

GLM handles the crossover and subwoofer integration. Don't need a DAC as there is one inside each speaker. Do you know if the HD Fury does instant HDMI switching? That would be nice.

 

[rhollan]

The HDFury Diva strips HDCP on its audio only HDMI output.

 

[chelgrian]

Yes. 7.1.2 is what I'm looking at.

Genelec 8260 and 8351B for LR and C.

8331 for surrounds and height.

Bass manage everything except the L and R. 7271 subwoofer I have is only digital.

Do note you'll need a 9301b to do bass management in GLM for AES. Unless of course you already have a 9301a and you decide to drop some channels out of bass management.

 

[stevenswall]

Do note you'll need a 9301b to do bass management in GLM for AES. Unless of course you already have a 9301a and you decide to drop some channels out of bass management.

I'll drop the left and right from bass management or get two subs.

 

[rhollan]

I use an Emotiva XSP-1 for dual subs. Stereo bass from stereo signals. My Rythmic subs have XLR3 plate amps that allow for separate music and HT input, so I can tune HT bass individually.

 

[chelgrian]

I'll drop the left and right from bass management or get two subs.

Ok so looks like you could build something out of:

- HDFury matrix (vertex/vroom/diva)
- Arvus H2-4D
- Genelec 9301(a or b)
- Genelec SAM speakers

I don't think you are going to get volume control over HDMI though as the HD Fury doesn't seem to pass the eARC through. It extracts the audio from eARC and turns it in to a normal HDMI signal with blank video. I'm not sure the Arvus even supports volume control even if plugged directly in to an eARC capable display.

Thus you would need to do volume control in GLM or something Crestron like that can control the Arvus.

It's compromises, you compromise in usability to get better audio performance.

 

[rhollan]

I think Arvus does volume control with the latest firmware. Someone had promised a review.

 

[chelgrian]

I think Arvus does volume control with the latest firmware. Someone had promised a review.

It does, global control in 1db increments, however it is unclear if there is any way of interacting with it other than the web user interface.

 

[rhollan]

A Web UI on a tablet does not strike me as a bad thing for a volume control. YMMV. Also, a small computer could be programed to translate IR to web commands or other output IR control.

 

[stevenswall]

It does, global control in 1db increments, however it is unclear if there is any way of interacting with it other than the web user interface.

That is unfortunate, as home users like myself and many others need something that works with the remotes we already have.

I wish an updated GLM box would have an IR receiver that could learn the volume commands from a remote.

 

[chelgrian]

That is unfortunate, as home users like myself and many others need something that works with the remotes we already have.

I wish an updated GLM box would have an IR receiver that could learn the volume commands from a remote.

Genelec aren't aiming at he home market having said that the wired GLM volume control is a three-pin 10K potentiometer with logarithmic scaling. In the TRS connector slider is ring. Resistance between shield and tip is always 10K. In lowest volume position resistance between ring and shield is zero.

Thus it ought be be possible to DIY a solution.

It would also be worth contacting ARVUS to discover if it is possible for them to implement HDMI CEC volume control so the ARVUS volume can be controlled with the TV remote.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

It would also be worth contacting ARVUS to discover if it is possible for them to implement HDMI CEC volume control so the ARVUS volume can be controlled with the TV remote.

You can ask but I doubt this one will fly.

It does, global control in 1db increments, however it is unclear if there is any way of interacting with it other than the web user interface.

Control of the increments is promised.

 

[NiagaraPete]

Topping have a 8 channel DAC that might be a good starting point.

 

[chelgrian]

Topping have a 8 channel DAC that might be a good starting point.

In this case the person asking wants to go digitally in to Genelec monitors so no standalone DAC is needed.

 

[chelgrian]

You can ask but I doubt this one will fly.

Control of the increments is promised.

I thought as much on the CEC, it's annoying since because of the way HDMI works they must have done 90% of the work needed here in order to implement ARC support.

 

[welwynnick]

This one of a number of confusing threads, discussions, standards and products that got me thinking about how to get better quality out of an AV system.

I think Meridian started this idea first with the HD621 that takes HDMI but sends only multi channel spdif or MMHR to a suitably equipped Meridian processor.
That means the digital audio is separated from the digital video BEFORE all the processing is performed: bass management, room correction and DA conversion.
It's also possible to perform DA conversion in their active speakers.

Another way is to perform all the processing and THEN separate out the digital audio for DA conversion.
Either way, analogue audio is kept separate from video. I believe these are the processors that can output digital multi-channel audio:

• Trinnov Altitude 32 (standard AES/EBU output and audio network provision)
• Trinnov Altitude 16 (audio network ports provision for future use)
• Lyngdorf MP-60 (optional 16 Ch AES/EBU and AES67 I/O)
• Lyngdorf MP-60 2.1 (optional 16 Ch AES/EBU and AES67 I/O)
• Datasat RS20i (16 Ch AES/EBU out)
• Datasat AP25 (16 Ch AES/EBU out)
• Arvus H2-4D (Dante/Ravenna/AES67 or AES/EBU; no Eq)
• Arvus H1-D (Dante/Ravenna/AES67 or AES/EBU; no Eq or DAC)
• Storm Audio ISP Elite Mk1 (AES/EBU Option)
• Storm Audio ISP Elite Mk2 (AES/EBU option)
• Storm Audio ISP Elite Mk3 (32 Ch AES/EBU & AES67 options)
• Storm Audio ISP 3D 16 Mk1 (32 Ch AES out)
• Storm Audio ISP Evo (32 Ch AES3 or AES67/Dante/Ravenna AOIP)
• JBL Synthesis SDP-75 (Trinnov clone)
• JBL Synthesis SDP-55 (Dante )
• JBL Synthesis SDP-58 (Dante )
• JBL Synthesis SDR-35 (Receiver, Dante)
• JBL Synthesis SDR-38 (Receiver, Dante)

And these are some of the multi-channel DACs / audio interfaces that might be capable of improving on the analogue output of these processors:

In general they have other digital audio inputs like MIDI, MADI, ADAT or AVB, that aren't used by domestic AVPs.
The prices are in GBP, so add a quarter for USD.
The top of the table is recording studio quality, so not worth improving.
The bottom of the table is top AVP quality, so no point using.

 

[welwynnick]

For completeness, all the THD+N and dynamic range figures are from manufacturer's manuals. Amir has tested several audio interfaces, but they're mostly 2 or 4 channel units. At least the Universal Audio Apollo X16 is at the top of both lists, and there's pretty good correlation elsewhere.

A few of the well established makes have blogs that discuss specs, and a common gripe is that some nameless competitors are guilty of quoting DAC chip specs rather than measurements of the actual equipment, and we know how much of a disparity there can be.

I wondered if some of the claims were dishonest. The Topping and Octo Research are the cheapest, but I don't think their performance is in question.
The other conspicuous over-achiever is the MOTU 16A. I found no independent tests, but Amir did test the M4. MOTU claim 110dB SINAD, and Amir measured 111dB.
Better, the MOTU 624 has the same claimed performance as the 16A, and Amir measured 112 at 4V, and 117dB at 10V.
I compared several claimed and tested specs and made another little table:

Manufacturer	Model	SINAD Spec	Test (max output))
Universal	x16	123	117 (120)
Topping	DM7	121	120
MOTU	624	110	112 (117)
MOTU	M4	110	111
Focusrite	2i2	94	102
Tascam	102i	93	103

Even the most modest $140 Focusrite 2i2 humbles the best $15k AVPs - the Storm is typical - which struggle to keep their distortion harmonics below 100dB. Cheap interfaces are down at -110 or -120dB, and look cleaner on every chart, and these are units that are off the bottom of the big table above.

The cheap interfaces are also clean and uncompromised in the other tests - jitter, linearity, multi tone etc, and show thorough implementation.

I think this indicates that the manufacturer's claims in the previous table are actually pretty fair, and show the potential for off-board DA conversion.

Edit: Incidentally, I found a lot of audio interface measurements in Sound on Sound. There was one exception to the rule (Mytek Liberty) but otherwise the independent tests correlated very closely with every manufacturer's claims, and that was a large sample over a long period of time. The data did suggest though, that Ferrofish, Dangerous Music and Behringer were not worth considering.

 

[mumford]

Good list. I just like to add that Topping and perhaps other 8-channels DACs do not have word clock in, and sync problems may exist if one uses 2 or more units at the same time.

 

[Vincentponcet]

For completeness, all the THD+N and dynamic range figures are from manufacturer's manuals. Amir has tested several audio interfaces, but they're mostly 2 or 4 channel units. At least the Universal Audio Apollo X16 is at the top of both lists, and there's pretty good correlation elsewhere.

A few of the well established makes have blogs that discuss specs, and a common gripe is that some nameless competitors are guilty of quoting DAC chip specs rather than measurements of the actual equipment, and we know how much of a disparity there can be.

I wondered if some of the claims were dishonest. The Topping and Octo Research are the cheapest, but I don't think their performance is in question.
The other conspicuous over-achiever is the MOTU 16A. I found no independent tests, but Amir did test the M4. MOTU claim 110dB SINAD, and Amir measured 111dB.
Better, the MOTU 624 has the same claimed performance as the 16A, and Amir measured 112 at 4V, and 117dB at 10V.
I compared several claimed and tested specs and made another little table:

Manufacturer	Model	SINAD Spec	Test (max output))
Universal	x16	123	117 (120)
Topping	DM7	121	120
MOTU	624	110	112 (117)
MOTU	M4	110	111
Focusrite	2i2	94	102
Tascam	102i	93	103

Even the most modest $140 Focusrite 2i2 humbles the best $15k AVPs - the Storm is typical - which struggle to keep their distortion harmonics below 100dB. Cheap interfaces are down at -110 or -120dB, and look cleaner on every chart, and these are units that are off the bottom of the big table above.

The cheap interfaces are also clean and uncompromised in the other tests - jitter, linearity, multi tone etc, and show thorough implementation.

I think this indicates that the manufacturer's claims in the previous table are actually pretty fair, and show the potential for off-board DA conversion.

I understood AVRs are taking a 10db margin for the room EQ. So standalone DACs connected to them would be driven at max -10Dbfs, so it is like we should remove 10db to their SINAD to estimate their performance when connected to a digital AVR.

 

[welwynnick]

I understood AVRs are taking a 10db margin for the room EQ. So standalone DACs connected to them would be driven at max -10Dbfs, so it is like we should remove 10db to their SINAD to estimate their performance when connected to a digital AVR.

That puzzled me for a bit. Did you mean that the DSP pipeline truncates the bits per sample for processing (as it often does with sample rate) ? Did you mean that the processing itself loses precision due to compounded rounding errors? Did you mean the processor reserves headroom to allow for EQ boost at certain frequencies? I figured it was the latter. The difficult bit is how that affects the comparison between AVP and DAC perfromance. For testing purposes all you can do is drive the output to just below clipping. This is a digital domain process, and doesn't affect the DAC max analogue output level - only where the processors considers FS to be. A stand alone DAC won't be affected by this. Therefore if the processor does reserve 10dB headroom for EQ, you would only be able to get 4V-10dB=1.27V max analogue output. I believe AVP's with room correction generally deliver the nominal 2V RCA or 4V XLR output.