HDMI and DACs not evolving

[Trell]

I understand that, but HDMI data is mostly streaming, so it surprises me if there is that much of overhead.

Agree, and I’m skeptical of his claim.

 

[Trell]

Overhead (computing) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That does not address his question at all. He knows what overhead is as he asked why you claim it’s so large.

 

[Trell]

Have had Nvidia RTX 3000 series from launch with HDMI 2.1 connected to TV no problems ever. I think vast majority of the issues in the AVR industry was because bad chip design or manufactoring and are allready fixed with current generations. Atleast i remember the early problems pinpointed during the chip shortage to some universal used component in the AVRs.

Might there been also other prroblems im not aware?

Nope, lots of issues over various generations of HDMI and HDCP.

 

[Roland68]

That SVS Prime Soundbase is good example. They had almost the same version without eARC. The original model cost 699$. They added eARC and new model costs 699$. Old one you can now find discounted.

Where is the advantage of the device compared to an AV receiver with its extensive possibilities and equipment?

Admittedly, the SVS Prime Soundbase has nice functionality and is also built very cleanly. But you can get the built-in DAC as an external device for $30-60 and the sound should only be ok.

For around $/€ 500 you get a Yamaha RX-V4A / TSR400 5.1 AV receiver with 4 HDMI/2 x digital/3 x analogue inputs, eARC, WLAN, Bluetooth®, AirPlay 2, 8K/60 Hz, 4K/120 Hz , HDR10+, gaming function (ALLM, VRR, QMS, QFT), YPAO™ and 2 x subwoofer connections.
I wouldn't even have to think about it.

 

[bungle]

No point to make any other than eARC moving forward as the future devices & codex stay indeed better supported and the signal chain, heartbeats and so on are vastly improved.

Compared to existing home theater audio connectivity methods, HDMI 2.1 eARC provides a number of improvements:
1. eARC is the only forward-compatible solution, which ensures that the AVR will continue to work with newer televisions
2. Delivers uncompromised, full audio quality with nearly 30 times the bandwidth of optical
3. Engineered for far better inter-brand interoperability
4. Is easier to use
5. Simpler connectivity

Delivering Forward Compatibility

eARC delivers forward compatibility by removing the audio device from the video path. With a conventional AVR system, both the audio and video flow from source devices through the AVR and onto the TV.

Very often, a consumer’s TV and AVR are made by different manufacturers. eARC is designed to ensure exceptional compatibility and interoperability between these mixed-brand TV and AVR connections. The improved compatibility comes about firstly because video doesn’t flow through the AVR, and because the discovery mechanism of eARC is brand-new and dedicated specifically to audio devices and format discovery, as described below.
HDMI eARC is a must-have feature to look for when shopping for an HDMI AVR or sound bar because eARC is the only way to ensure future compatibility with HDMI 2.1 devices. In addition to future compatibility, eARC brings substantial improvements in simplicity, audio performance, and compatibility over any other audio interface, and is designed to last decades into the future.

Technical Details

How does eARC work?
eARC transmits a high bitrate audio signal from the television to the audio device using an HDMI with Ethernet cable. This cable was designed in HDMI 1.4. An HDMI with Ethernet cable has the same connector and pins as an ordinary HDMI cable. However, inside an HDMI with Ethernet cable, pins 14, 15 and 19 are constructed as a twisted, shielded pair – originally intended to serve as an Ethernet channel alongside HDMI. In HDMI cables without the Ethernet feature, these are simply straight-through pins, which cannot support transmission of the eARC signal.
The eARC signal transmitted by the television is similar to the format of a SPDIF audio signal, but it is transmitted at up to 98 megabits per second. Because of the protocol overhead, the maximum raw audio speed is about 37 megabits per second, which is the rate of eight channels of 192 kHz, 24-bit uncompressed PCM audio. (8 x 192,000 x 24 ≈ 36,864,000 bits per second

A one megabit per second, bi-directional data signal is modulated on top of the eARC audio signal. This bi-directional signal is used to allow the eARC TV to discover the eARC audio device. This data signal has several other functions: It allows the TV to read a list of audio formats supported by the audio device, allows the TV to send lip sync correction data, and it lets the audio device send regular “heartbeat” signals to the television, letting the television know that its built-in speaker should be muted. These data-related signals are mandatory in eARC devices. None of these signals are available in optical (TOSLINK) or SPDIF audio, and are optional in the older HDMI-ARC audio.



Full read in the PDF

I understand that, but HDMI data is mostly streaming, so it surprises me if there is that much of overhead.

Ok read that Lattice doc, I think they probably have error there. They later on say:

”HDMI Ethernet cables, which are designed to support 100 Mb/s Ethernet. With eARC’s protocol overhead, the maximum actual bandwidth is 98 Mb/s, which is a perfect fit for the HDMI with Ethernet cables already in use today.”

Which makes much more sense. I think they just specced audio to match max that is available with blurays, and perhaps allowing this to be used to other stuff too in a future.

 

[pau]

I understand that, but HDMI data is mostly streaming, so it surprises me if there is that much of overhead.

This was pretty informative,

 

[Roland68]

A is your very old personal knowledge
As for B, I cannot see what your reply has any relation to what I said: you don’t need the latest HDMI version for audio only hence old chips works.

I asked that.
What would be the benefit of HDMI for a DAC if eARC and CEC weren't a feature?
Older HDMI chips couldn't do that.

 

[sarumbear]

Depends on which part of market, I guess, and how large the manufacturer is.

Can you imagine the soundbar market to be as it is now if HDMI was an unreliable connection? Which is what is suggested and to what I was replying.

 

[pau]

Nope, lots of issues over various generations of HDMI and HDCP.

That does not address his question at all. He knows what overhead is as he asked why you claim it’s so large.

Thats why eARC now riped and matured the correct time is in hands to get DACs and devices like miniDSP a viable solution for more than the most extreme enthusiasts.

Also im a consumer and would like to see the features of eARC on my future purchases, not claiming to understand HDMI communication to know full details of the various bits and frameinfos passed within the packet's with raw data.

There's no need to get hostile, we are arguing here as possible future buyers about the industry being overrun by soundbars and future mainstream connectivity or the lack of it in our belowed music devices.

Be it may the overhead is irrelevant if you focus on the forest from the trees.

 

[Trell]

Be it may the overhead is irrelevant if you focus on the forest from the trees.

2/3 overhead in a streaming protocol is not irrelevant but awful, and I doubt that is true.

 

[bungle]

Where is the advantage of the device compared to an AV receiver with its extensive possibilities and equipment?

It is hard to explain. For me it feels like using a hammer (AVR), to fill my need (eARC in DAC). Sure it gets the job done. Just like soundbars is not my thing, I don’t believe AVR is either (it will not bring me any joy, this is a hobby after all). I have dropped the ball on real multichannel as I don’t want my home to look like some immersive demo studio. Now I just want to improve/evolve the 2.0. I would still love to have some modern niceties.

 

[pau]

Ok read that Lattice doc, I think they probably have error there. They later on say:

”HDMI Ethernet cables, which are designed to support 100 Mb/s Ethernet. With eARC’s protocol overhead, the maximum actual bandwidth is 98 Mb/s, which is a perfect fit for the HDMI with Ethernet cables already in use today.”

Which makes much more sense. I think they just specced audio to match max that is available with blurays, and perhaps allowing this to be used to other stuff too in a future.

Yes i think you are right and makes more sense (2MB overhead).

eARC Bandwidth
eARC is based upon a maximum audio payload size of 36.8 Mb/s. This value corresponds precisely to 8 channels of 24-bit, 192 kHz uncompressed audio. It is the maximum audio bandwidth used in Blu-ray. It also corresponds to the audio bandwidth of a four-channel I2S interface, which is the electrical, chip-to-chip interface most often used to transmit audio within high-end audio devices. Lastly, eARC was designed to work with existing HDMI with Ethernet cables, which are designed to support 100 Mb/s Ethernet. With eARC’s protocol overhead, the maximum actual bandwidth is 98 Mb/s, which is a perfect fit for the HDMI with Ethernet cables already in use today.

 

[Roland68]

It is hard to explain. For me it feels like using a hammer (AVR), to fill my need (eARC in DAC). Sure it gets the job done. Just like soundbars is not my thing, I don’t believe AVR is either (it will not bring me any joy, this is a hobby after all). I have dropped the ball on real multichannel as I don’t want my home to look like some immersive demo studio. Now I just want to improve/evolve the 2.0. I would still love to have some modern niceties.

I can partly understand that, but on the other hand it's maybe just a question of perspective.
The AVR acts as a simple 2.0 stereo amplifier, with pure direct even without DSP and bells and whistles. Everything else is optional, whether built-in DAC, HDMI/eARC functionality, wireless/network, DSP, room measurement function, expansion to 2.1/3.0/3.1/4.0/4.1/5.0/5.1, etc., everything can, nothing has to.
There is also the misconception that the AVR has 5 full power amplifiers installed, of which only 2 are needed in stereo mode. In reality, a power supply is installed like in a potent 2-channel stereo amplifier. In addition, 3 additional output stage circuit boards are installed, costing less than 40 $/€ (in the DIY sector, 2 such circuit boards cost about 30 $/€). An additional model as a stereo amplifier with only 2 output stages would only be more expensive because of the additional effort.
In terms of price/performance, AVRs can hardly be beaten, on the one hand due to the number of pieces, on the other hand many functions are developed for the entire AVR portfolio.

Stereo amps with added functionality are available from NAD, Yamaha, and other companies, but are significantly more expensive.

 

[pau]

I can partly understand that, but on the other hand it's maybe just a question of perspective.
The AVR acts as a simple 2.0 stereo amplifier, with pure direct even without DSP and bells and whistles. Everything else is optional, whether built-in DAC, HDMI/eARC functionality, wireless/network, DSP, room measurement function, expansion to 2.1/3.0/3.1/4.0/4.1/5.0/5.1, etc., everything can, nothing has to.
There is also the misconception that the AVR has 5 full power amplifiers installed, of which only 2 are needed in stereo mode. In reality, a power supply is installed like in a potent 2-channel stereo amplifier. In addition, 3 additional output stage circuit boards are installed, costing less than 40 $/€ (in the DIY sector, 2 such circuit boards cost about 30 $/€). An additional model as a stereo amplifier with only 2 output stages would only be more expensive because of the additional effort.
In terms of price/performance, AVRs can hardly be beaten, on the one hand due to the number of pieces, on the other hand many functions are developed for the entire AVR portfolio.

Stereo amps with added functionality are available from NAD, Yamaha, and other companies, but are significantly more expensive.

I think this only holds valid if one agrees to,

-compromize signal quality with what ever is used in the devices preamp & amp section.
-compromize interconnections with unbalanced connections on allmost all devices if used as pre.for 2.1
-add more devices to the signal chain than optimal.
-lack robust EQ + DSP features.
-take varios room corrections that come witth the device.

Add any balanced pre features for just 2 cha via eARC and the gab in industry and prize is abysmal.

 

[Roland68]

I think this only holds valid if one agrees to,

-compromize signal quality with what ever is used in the devices preamp & amp section.
-compromize interconnections with unbalanced connections on allmost all devices if used as pre.for 2.1
-add more devices to the signal chain than optimal.
-lack robust EQ + DSP features.
-take varios room corrections that come witth the device.

Add any balanced pre features for just 2 cha via eARC and the gab in industry and prize is abysmal.

I totally agree with you, it's not for nothing that I have an AVR for surround and a good DAC and stereo amplifier for music.

However, with regard to AVRs and AV-PREs, there is one important piece of info about Balanced Connections.
With a high-quality DAC, the balanced signal is already generated at the output of the DAC chip (ES9038Pro, AK4499, etc.).
Most high-end AVRs and AV-PREs, even $5000 (or more), have the balanced signal created from an SE signal at the output. It's easy to see in the service manual.
I just did this with the DRV134 chip directly on the preamp output of my AVR and saved myself over $4000/€ on an XLR based unit.

 

[bungle]

I can partly understand that, but on the other hand it's maybe just a question of perspective.
The AVR acts as a simple 2.0 stereo amplifier, with pure direct even without DSP and bells and whistles. Everything else is optional,

Stereo amps with added functionality are available from NAD, Yamaha, and other companies, but are significantly more expensive.

For me power amps are optional too, as I have them in speakers. If you want pre-outs, it starts to cost a lot, and even then, only unbalanced RCA. If you want it without mains, it starts to cost a way more. And none of them measures as good as simple DACs (many actually quite badly).

AVR can be said to be solution to any audio connectivity/feature need, still other products exists on market. Perhaps all those other markets have a wrong perspective.

You mentioned dual approach. AVR for AV and DAC for music. Yes, I have been thinking about that too. I think using Toslink until DACs start to offer eARC is closer to my needs currently.

 

[JSmith]

My question is, will the TV and stick behave as if they were connected directly with nothing in between or do these splitters behave like the sound extractors?
thanks in advance for your answers.

Yes, you can plug a Firestick into a HDMI splitter or switch and it will operate normally. People do this often so they can use the Firestick on two TV's without having to buy another one. If your having issues with an extractor in between, this should solve that as the splitter is not "seen" as such.


JSmith

 

[MCH]

Yes, you can plug a Firestick into a HDMI splitter or switch and it will operate normally. People do this often so they can use the Firestick on two TV's without having to buy another one. If your having issues with an extractor in between, this should solve that as the splitter is not "seen" as such.


JSmith

Thanks! In the meantime I have found a more straight forward solution: plug the fire stick directly to the tv and then a ARC capable sound extractor (there are a couple available in amazon.de) to the ARC HDMI of my tv, so that the tv acts as a passthrough. I was trying to find out if with such setup the tv still processes the sound or if it is just a "bit perfect" passthrough as if I was connecting the extractor directly to the stick. Any ideas? (I only need stereo streamed music from Amazon music, no video, no multichannel, nothing, and yes, I know the stick up samples everything to 192khz, which I don't care, just want to be aware if the tv is going to mess somehow there)

PS: this discussion got me interested in HDMI, something I thought would never happen. Thanks all for the good info.

 

[JSmith]

I was trying to find out if with such setup the tv still processes the sound or if it is just a "bit perfect" passthrough as if I was connecting the extractor directly to the stick. Any ideas?

What is the model # of your TV? ARC will passthrough stereo unmolested generally.

Rtings test for various audio passthrough;

Our TV Input Tests: Audio Passthrough

To have the best home theater experience, you won't only need a TV with great picture quality, but you'll also need the best sound experience possible.

www.rtings.com

JSmith

 

[MCH]

ARC will passthrough stereo unmolested.

Rtings test for various audio passthrough if you ever have a need for multichannel;

Our TV Input Tests: Audio Passthrough

To have the best home theater experience, you won't only need a TV with great picture quality, but you'll also need the best sound experience possible.

www.rtings.com

JSmith

Yeah, that's exactly the test I was reading. It focuses in capabilities though, I did not find any comments on the tv doing something to the signal. But I trust what you say.
Thanks a lot again