Audiopraise VanityPro Review (HDMI Audio Extractor)

[voodooless]

So you're saying that my statement is wrong and that the Okto Research DAC8 Pro doesn't have 8 digital input channels via AES/EBU IN?

No, I just observed that you didn’t say that

Perhaps you didn't follow the discussion and didn't get the context. It wasn't about multiple USB inputs, but about more than just USB.

I get that, but that’s not what was stated.

But it’s all clear and good now

 

[Roland68]

No, I just observed that you didn’t say that

I get that, but that’s not what was stated.

But it’s all clear and good now

If you had read posts #493, #494, #495, then you would have related to it and understood it just as much as the others.
But as my father always said, you're right and I mean peace and quiet.

 

[dsd4life]

Hi steveoat87, the improvement of adding VanityPRO into the signal chain without anything else would depend entirely on the difference between the HDMI audio and digital audio circuit differences and their performance inside your Denon. The reviews of the Denon on the internet (and ASR too) indicate, there doesn't seem to be a lot of a difference in performance between feeding the Denon via HDMI or SPDIF. Also, the Denon might not be able to to process multiple SPDIF inputs at the same time for multichannel config.
If you wish to improve the sound, I would consider to pair the VanityPRO with a decent multichannel DAC and use the analogue inputs of the Denon and use it just as a multichannel amplifier. This way you bypass the Denon's internal DAC and replace it with a higher quality one. You would need to check if the Denon can take multiple analogue inputs for multichannel though.
Regards,
Pavel

we were hoping that Vanity can resample or improve the jitter within the HDMI chain directly into a processor.

There might be a product like a Vanity HDMI Jr. device that improves both 7.1 DSD / PCM and or True HD Atmos signal path.

 

[Bulldogger]

we were hoping that Vanity can resample or improve the jitter within the HDMI chain directly into a processor.

There might be a product like a Vanity HDMI Jr. device that improves both 7.1 DSD / PCM and or True HD Atmos signal path.

I think that audio input over HDMI into the receiving device will be undone by the receiving device. Audiopraise,”There is a great value in the article from OPPO though, and that is the sole fact that the HDMI audio cannot be improved in terms of jitter by a cleverly designed circuit in the HDMI source. HDMI is a complex protocol, and its primary purpose has always been video transmission, not audio. This is why the sonic quality is so much behind the aging S/PDIF and AES/EBU protocols which were designed specifically for audio. The issue of HDMI audio jitter has to be dealt with on the receiver side, where the audio clocks are derived from the high frequency TMDS clock with its own timing characteristics.”

 

[welwynnick]

I think that audio input over HDMI into the receiving device will be undone by the receiving device. Audiopraise,”There is a great value in the article from OPPO though, and that is the sole fact that the HDMI audio cannot be improved in terms of jitter by a cleverly designed circuit in the HDMI source. HDMI is a complex protocol, and its primary purpose has always been video transmission, not audio. This is why the sonic quality is so much behind the aging S/PDIF and AES/EBU protocols which were designed specifically for audio. The issue of HDMI audio jitter has to be dealt with on the receiver side, where the audio clocks are derived from the high frequency TMDS clock with its own timing characteristics.”

.....S/PDIF and AES/EBU protocols which were BADLY designed specifically for audio.

In the context of HDMI audio, people often imply that SPDIF or AES3 are the gold standard of digital audio. They're not, they're just what we've got (though HDMI is even worse). Digital audio done properly ought to have a separate channel for the word clock, like I2S does at board level. On SPDIF the data and the clock are forced down the same channel and the data corrupts the clock. The receiver / processor / DAC still needs to recover and re-clock the clock.

I think the unassailable advantage that the VP has is to keep HDMI and all the associated digital video and the worst of the audio DSP well clear of the audio DAC.

 

[voodooless]

.....S/PDIF and AES/EBU protocols which were BADLY designed specifically for audio.

In the context of HDMI audio, people often imply that SPDIF or AES3 are the gold standard of digital audio. They're not, they're just what we've got (though HDMI is even worse). Digital audio done properly ought to have a separate channel for the word clock, like I2S does at board level. On SPDIF the data and the clock are forced down the same channel and the data corrupts the clock. The receiver / processor / DAC still needs to recover and re-clock the clock.

I disagree. These protocols are excellent at what they do: transmit stereo audio and clock over a single wire (or 2 in the case of XLR). Given how well these work, and that they give perfect output with the right receivers, I see this as a non-problem, and it has been for decades.

The problems with HDMI aren't very dissimilar: clock recovery is just a lot harder to do due to the much-added complexity.

 

[welwynnick]

Yes, we can get round the limitations of SPDIF by great engineering effort on the part of ESS etc, but that shouldn't be necessary. Using PLLs and/or ASRCs, manufacturers can ultimately achieve good results now IN SPITE of the limitations of SPDIF, but there is nothing excellent or perfect about the interface in any respect. It's just what we've got, created at a time in history when we didn't realise that jitter could degrade digital audio. With hindsight, SPDIF would have been done very differently and much better, but it's too late now.

 

[Roland68]

Yes, we can get round the limitations of SPDIF by great engineering effort on the part of ESS etc, but that shouldn't be necessary. Using PLLs and/or ASRCs, manufacturers can ultimately achieve good results now IN SPITE of the limitations of SPDIF, but there is nothing excellent or perfect about the interface in any respect. It's just what we've got, created at a time in history when we didn't realise that jitter could degrade digital audio. With hindsight, SPDIF would have been done very differently and much better, but it's too late now.

Jitter and the problems were already known to Sony and Philips at the first meeting on the CD system on August 27-28, 1979 in Eindhoven, and this is documented.
SPDIF was simply the cheapest and most straightforward solution for an external digital consumer interface. The existing parallel I2S data stream was simply converted into serial blocks.

 

[voodooless]

The existing parallel I2S data stream was simply converted into serial blocks.

There is actually very little parallel about I2S

But yes, they squeezed three signals into one

 

[Roland68]

There is actually very little parallel about I2S

But yes, they squeezed three signals into one

There can't be any parallels because the signals are no longer parallel
But I2S is still the origin of the whole thing, it's always been like that in CD players. All USB DACs output I2S internally and everything that comes in as SPDIF and AES is converted to I2S for the DAC chip.

 

[Nattage]

Anyone know if the new Google TV streamer will decode Atmos etc and send as multi channel lpcm to the AP as the apple tv4k can?