So that's a no, then. You really aren't aware of the good reasons why your perceptions may not reflect reality -- reasons recognized and accounted for in any serious investigation of such matters. What were you hoping to get from a forum called 'Audio Science Review'?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Audiopraise VanityPro Review (HDMI Audio Extractor)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
So that's a no, then. You really aren't aware of the good reasons why your perceptions may not reflect reality -- reasons recognized and accounted for in any serious investigation of such matters. What were you hoping to get from a forum called 'Audio Science Review'?
Indeed, I didn't explicitely spell it out. I said if you choose the DSD setting it will be a DSD signal that will be transmitted. If you choose PCM, the player will convert the DSD signal to PCM data before transmission over HDMI.
I used to find comments like this disgusting, but now just amusing.
For over a decade now, I use a Windows FREEware (Cross-platform, as well) called MediaInfo (use care as some bloatware has been known to be inserted into this great little application).
I wish there was a similar product which can provide ALL the details of the HDMI pass-thru data.
Is this the HDMI EDID data, that it "lies" about?
There is a new-ish version, now called enhanced-EDID.
Me thinks EDID is a bad actor; as it is also tied into the HDCP gift from the HooliganB*st*rds.
There are EDID "emulators" that can easily subvert such shenanigans.
Dsd ultrasonic noise need to be filtered during dsd to pcm conversion. No filter is perfect. If you have used foobar, it gives many choices to you to convert dsd to pcm. There is straight cut above 30khz or multi stage. Multi stage is better but requires more processing and even that is not perfect. J river has 64bit processing engine and has its own engine of converting dsd to pcm. Similarly hq player has much more elaborate filtering of noise in dsd to pcm conversion. Software based solutions can use more and better processing for filtering noise in dsd to pcm conversion. So if you are depending upon chip based dsd to pcm conversion of a universal player, it may not be as effective as other software based solutions. If noise is not effectively removed it will impact in the audible band. You can clearly listen this in foobar where you can choose to cut the ultrasonic noise higher than 30khz say above 50khz, no wonder such conversion with above 50khz cut sounds noisy. So once that noise has become a part of audible spectrum of music due to poor filtering in pcm you can't undo it.
There is no limit of processing you can do with pcm. A band width limited pcm signal can be perfectly recreated by using infinite long fir filter. Infinite fir filter is not possible practically so it is "windowed". By using very long filter with high processing power you can get very close to original wave. Pcm with 16bit or 24bit word length is amenable to all type of processing and dithering. 1 bit dsd can't be processed in a way like pcm because of 1bit resolution. That's why i said little did they know that even a cd quality signal can be processed to sound better than dsd64 in future with high processing power. It's not that dsd can't be processed like pcm but for that you would need to convert it to pcm which again defeats the original purpose of sacd.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
- Messages
- 64
- Likes
- 82
If I'm understanding this correctly... we could use this VanityPro to strip off up to 7.1 channels of audio (in high quality) from any HDMI source: movies, music, ... Then use the 4 x 2ch AES outputs to feed into the 4 x 2ch AES inputs of a DAC8 Pro. If my understanding of the DAC8 Pro is correct (I haven't played with it much yet) the DAC8 Pro can take the AES inputs and feed them out USB. So a computer using JRiver to apply room corrections and return the corrected signal, via USB, to the DAC8 Pro. Then the DAC8 Pro finishes the job - driving the (up to) 8 balanced XLRs outputs to stand alone amplifiers... say Benchmark AHB2s ...
So someone could get the best possible room correction (fairly complex, software based DSP on a computer), with a very high SINAD across all components, for ALL content coming across HDMI (up to 2.0a)? Am I missing something??
So someone could get the best possible room correction (fairly complex, software based DSP on a computer), with a very high SINAD across all components, for ALL content coming across HDMI (up to 2.0a)? Am I missing something??
Nope.
Codec support!
Has anyone considered a similar Multi-Channel Music-based chain utilizing a Roon streamer HDMI out (could be a very simple/cheap NUC-based streamer) to the VanityPro to the miniDSP DDRC-88D then to the Okto DAC8 Pro for a 7.1 music-based multi-channel setup? I realize the fidelity limitations of this chain would be based on the miniDSP DDRC-88D's performance, which hasn't been tested/measured. Amir has reviewed the miniDSP DDRC-88A, which got a very marginal pass/recommendation. But the miniDSP DDRC-88D is a different animal that does it all in the digital domain. This chain's performance would depend on the jitter or any noise the miniDSP unit might add. You would get Dirac Live room correction in a separate (non-PC based) box, to an otherwise very high-fidelity chain (only limited by the performance of the DDRC-88D). I'm a multi-channel music fan that has always been looking for an affordable solution to room correction that doesn't involve a PC.
I know many posters here seem to be concerned with the VanityPro's potential integration with their audio-video Dolby Surround or Dolby Atmos based setups. But, I'm not sure that's what it is being offered for (I guess not, since it doesn't support any of those codecs). It seems to me that that Audiopraise could be testing this out with a potential "audiophile" multi-channel music-based audience? HDMI has in the past been considered a very poor medium to transmit high-quality/high-resolution audio, but are they attempting to make it somewhat of an alternative to the traditional USB-based audio setups? Maybe multi-channel music, besides otherwise being almost dead, may have a future with Dolby Atmos? I don't know - but, if so, then I get these objections to this unit not supporting the Dolby Atmos codec . . . just sayin' . . .
The chain I was proposing above, although admittedly multi-component, is still a whole lot cheaper than the very excellent, but also very expensive exaSound S88 MkII; now $7,600.00 -- course, that's what I really want, and it takes a Roon Ethernet streaming input! (but, sadly no real room correction).
- John
Last edited:
Paulkouhan
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 3
I asked reavon, manufacturer of blue ray players if they would be able to replace the SBL and SBR channels in the 7.1 PCM HDMI audio output to 2 atmos chanels. The 7.1 output would become 5.1.2.
No answer yet.
No answer yet.
Last edited:
Ain't the NUC a PC?
The issue is height channels are not discrete tracks. It's not like previous multi-channel formats where the audio information is broken into channels and then streamed. In Atmos, the object information is placed into previously empty spaces in the bitstream frames which is then decoded, processed against room-specific data that was generated by the endpoint with a microphone, and re-mixed as required into the speaker channel outputs (so the original 5.1/7.1 data + the atmos data is added together, and then sent to the 5.1/7.1 speakers and the atmos interpreted data is also simultaneously sent to the height speakers).
The only way an origination point can send the atmos data already processed is if it has DACs already, mic input, and the Atmos decoder/processor. You could strip the DAC out, but there is probably a much higher licensing fee. It seems very clear that Dolby does not want people to output digital signals after their processing unless they pay a very heavy fee. Tin-foil hat says it's because they introduce unique processing chips for those which create a fingerprint that can be traced for 'piracy' reasons.
Yes, of course ;-) it is a very small form-factor PC. Actually, you can call any streamer a computer, if you want, including RPi's. They all have processors and operating systems. I use the NUC solely as an appliance (just as a streamer). I set it up once and was done; it's sole purpose is to stream either USB or HDMI music output from my Roon core NUC, which is also a PC. But, I'm thinking your reply was more tongue-in-cheek, because we can't avoid PC-like appliances in the modern streaming world.
Truth be told, I do have a big clunky noisy Windows PC tucked away next to my AV racks. Set it up when I got the Oculus. Well that lasted for all of about 10 seconds and now I fire it up maybe once every other month just to update it. Windows sure looks pretty cool
on that big LG OLED screen, though.PS - Does anyone know why all the editing functions at the top of my ASR posting windows are grayed out? Have I become a second-class citizen here, or maybe I already always was
Yes, that but also suggesting that if that NUC was a more potent PC, you could do all the DSP in that same box.
These are claims, not evidence. When has it 'sounded noisy'?
Low pass filtering is not rocket science.
That's not what I asked. I'm well aware of the constraints on DSD in audio production, and why kludges like "DSD wide" exist.
None of which makes DSD inherently inferior *sounding*. Just more difficult to work with.
The original designed 'purpose' of DSD was *to be converted to PCM*. There was no 'unknown' there , little or big, it was supposed to be an encoding format for archival storage of audio -- mainly digital transfer and preservation of tape archives. Any further 'processing' required would take place after conversion to PCM (either directly or via an analog intermediate) for commercial release.
What changed was the decision to make commercial DSD itself a release format , via SACD. A highly encryptable format, not coincidentally.
There is a little bit of an issue when you speak of PC interfacing to an OLED (even the 2022 models w/all sorts of anti-burn-in tech inside).Windows sure looks pretty cool
That problem (i.e. BURN-IN) may never be fully solved, until another technology obsoletes OLED (and now QDLED)
Please meet Intel NUC11 TigerCanyon (a landlubber version of TigerLake)
Example#1. Intel NUC11TNHi70L Pro - Core7, Dual GLAN, FullyLoaded <$1200 (From <https://e-itx.com/nuc11tnhi70l/>)
- Yes, You can have it w/Fedora, if no flavors of Windows please you, or No OS
- Yes, you can get it w/64GB DDR4
- Yes, you can get it w/5yr warranty
- 8K or Dual Output (on board - Iris Xe)? No Problem
- HDMI? DP? TB? You choose.
- Dual 2.5Gb Ethernet? Yours
- WiFi6? Bingo
- Under $1k? Yes but ONLY if you are into DIY.
- From <https://simplynuc.com/product/11tnhi7-full/>
You can 'scale down" to NUC11 w/an i3 processors and still get decent performance.
If performance on the cheap is your gig SFF pc (or a portable work-horse): go for the NUC10i7 readily available still.
Example#3. Or, this one may please you >> (# RNUC11PHKI7CAA0) NUC11 EXTREME, MINI-PC I7,16GB DDR4, 512GB H10 RTX2060
nVidia GeForceRTX From <https://www.shopblt.com/item/intel-nuc11-extreme-mini-pc-i7/intel_rnuc11phki7caa0.html>
You can also select to build your own via sites like this one >> https://e-itx.com/nuc-11-pro/ and I am sure via amazon/eBay
There are alternative SFF pc manufacturers and probably wee-bit cheaper but Intel is getting it. IMHO.
That will do.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
