Why Don't High SINAD Receivers Exist?

[3dbinCanada]

Already recommended rtings for TV/soundbar distortion/sound tests. If anyone has a direct link, highly welcome.
As about audibility, if you want to go by the "DBT or it did not happen" theory, my TV_pre_SQ=AVR_pre_SQ hypothesis pretty much gets a giant free lunch. The default DBT assumption is always that they are equal. And since they use the ~same $1 chips/circuits, there is enough science/engineering proof to consider '=' as the best assumption. By far. (didn't include this proof in my initial post because it's just too easy, I don't need a "free DBT lunch")
AVR_SQ==TV_SQ still looks good to me. And no need to keep any case open.

@3dbinCanada
criticism and debate are fine. I just don't think that "moron" and "audiophool" are on anyone's wishlist. Please keep those with you.

Your subjective analysis is as usual, very flawed. Until you bring audibility into the equation, then its merely popcorn speculation on your part. Here's a hint.... please keep your error proned subjective analysis to yourself. It doesnt belong here.

 

[ace_xp2]

...And since they use the ~same $1 chips/circuits, there is enough science/engineering proof to consider '=' as the best assumption. By far. (didn't include this proof in my initial post because it's just too easy, I don't need a "free DBT lunch")
AVR_SQ==TV_SQ still looks good to me. And no need to keep any case open. ...

The same chips and circuits is less relevant then the in situ result, in other words leading to the same overall SINAD and ability to put out the same sound in a room. In instances such as the 3500/3600/4700 when you're talking 96~100db at 1v+, the response of the TV/soundbar may be similar (though given you're own claim of 80db on the low side, some are apparently occasionally as much as 16db worse). This limits your amplifiers, but there's a non zero chance you'll end up with the same 1v limitation on tv pre outs as well.

The TV pre outs will lack LFE though, as well as sub out crossover, and speaker level crossover, as well as audissey, and of course the ability to multi channel with time delay and crossovers for each (understandably,that may not be an issue for some). Really, what you've got are two pre outs which are at best equal in sinad and have no ability to do anything with the sound. That's a far distance, in sq terms, from where a sinad=tv avr starts.

 

[lashto]

The same chips and circuits is less relevant then the in situ result, in other words leading to the same overall SINAD and ability to put out the same sound in a room. In instances such as the 3500/3600/4700 when you're talking 96~100db at 1v+, the response of the TV/soundbar may be similar (though given you're own claim of 80db on the low side, some are apparently occasionally as much as 16db worse). This limits your amplifiers, but there's a non zero chance you'll end up with the same 1v limitation on tv pre outs as well.

The TV pre outs will lack LFE though, as well as sub out crossover, and speaker level crossover, as well as audissey, and of course the ability to multi channel with time delay and crossovers for each (understandably,that may not be an issue for some). Really, what you've got are two pre outs which are at best equal in sinad and have no ability to do anything with the sound. That's a far distance, in sq terms, from where a sinad=tv avr starts.

Agree with pretty much everything.
The AVR wins on convenience. By a wide margin. The no-AVR route is a world of pain. Trouble with the LFE (you can get that from a TV with plex/kodi and other apps), the room correction/crossover issue (in theory there are android tv apps) and the whole might of the AVR and movie/music/dolby industries does everything to prevent your access to the decoded audio signal.
Not saying the no-AVR route is easy, on the contrary it's one of my peeves that it's so hard. Still, it's possible. Relatively easy with a pc/raspi, and much harder but fully ,doable nowadays with just a TV. And all engineering clues point out that the TV-only route will give you the same SQ as the AVR and/or PC route (a modern TV is ~a PC/raspi)

On short, the AVR way is the known/sure path, the TV way is uncharted and full of questions/headaches. But (still) no showstopper there or any sign of lower SQ, on the contrary

 

[teched58]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/

That's my short & simple definition, AVR == TV quality sound through 10+ speakers

The flaw in this argument is that it's implying that TV sound sucks. "TV-quality sound" has actually always been pretty good. Even in over the air analog tv (1945-2009), the sound was transmitted as an FM signal.

And today, as this thread has noted, multichannel PCM (sometimes with dolby or DTS) are sent via cable systems. This is good sound. So, if you're saying that AVRs produce poor sound, you're going to have to provide a(nother) reason.

We've already stipulated that, beyond a certain point (which modern AVRs pretty much meet), lowering the noise floor gets you minimal, incremental improvements. So are you making a "golden ears" argument or do you just not like the fact that (according to claims in this and other ASR threads, which I'm not disagreeing with) many AVRs use similar parts (ICs) and even similar ODM designs, and you don't think their power amp sections are much good nor properly isolated. (This again is pretty close to a specs-based or golden ears argument.)

As an old guy, I am compelled to point out that even the most budgety AVR receiver made today will deliver sound that was IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in the 1970s no matter how much you spent. Period. Maybe the highest $$$ components of the day would get you close, but then the standard source material of the day (LPs) had no bass, so you'd have to go to the added expensive of prerecorded reel-to-reel.

The one caveat to my "we walked to school in the snow 40 years ago" argument is that one obviously must use a subwoofer in one's modern 5.1 setup. However, in this regard, you can get a decent sub today for $100. Forty years ago there were no plate amp 8-inch woofer subs. If you wanted a sub that even came close to what you can get today for $99, you had to build it yourself -- a cabinet to house (at minimum) a 12-inch woofer and maybe 15-inch.

 

[3dbinCanada]

Agree with pretty much everything.
The AVR wins on convenience. By a wide margin. The no-AVR route is a world of pain. Trouble with the LFE (you can get that from a TV with plex/kodi and other apps), the room correction/crossover issue (in theory there are android tv apps) and the whole might of the AVR and movie/music/dolby industries does everything to prevent your access to the decoded audio signal.
Not saying the no-AVR route is easy, on the contrary it's one of my peeves that it's so hard. Still, it's possible. Relatively easy with a pc/raspi, and much harder but fully ,doable nowadays with just a TV. And all engineering clues point out that the TV-only route will give you the same SQ as the AVR and/or PC route (a modern TV is ~a PC/raspi)

On short, the AVR way is the known/sure path, the TV way is uncharted and full of questions/headaches. But (still) no showstopper there or any sign of lower SQ, on the contrary

Does polly wanna cracker?


Again with the meaningless SINAD parroting and grossly misinformed on how this translates to sound. Unlike some who like to just regurgitate specs with no clue on how it translates into audible distortion, I have taken DBT listening tests. The results are very scarey on how limited human hearing is. Noting that I and others could not detect differences in sound between high priced separates and the upper tier AVRs should be your first clue on how meaningless the SINAD specs are UNTIL you correlate it to the point of audible distortion. Please please educate yourself and stop your nonsense.

 

[valerianf]

Why don't high Sinad receivers exist?
Receiver market is shrinking, you cannot listen anymore to a receiver before buying it, the marketing is looking for the larger number of sticker popping up on the front panel!
Thanks to Amir we are noticing that even very expensive brands with high value names are not doing better.
AVR design philosophy needs to be completely reshaped with a focus on audio performances.
I remember a post on another forum of a guy complaining that his AVR system was sounding worst than his computer.
He switched every element without success until he got rid of the AVR...

It is not a technical issue, but a market issue.
If a company design a better sounding AVR with let us say 7 amps, only video HDMI 2.1 switching (no video treatment), 4V pre-out for every channel, basic room correction, not any wireless gadget (it brings noise), but only USB and Ethernet, a remote, a decent transformer, will someone buy it?
I worry that I would be the only one to buy it if I am having the budget ( small number production are very extensive).

For now I will not buy any existing AVR (there is no audio gain from 10 years ago), but a good surprise could come at the end of the year. Who knows.

 

[3dbinCanada]

Why don't high Sinad receivers exist?
Receiver market is shrinking, you cannot listen anymore to a receiver before buying it, the marketing is looking for the larger number of sticker popping up on the front panel!
Thanks to Amir we are noticing that even very expensive brands with high value names are not doing better.
AVR design philosophy needs to be completely reshaped with a focus on audio performances.
I remember a post on another forum of a guy complaining that his AVR system was sounding worst than his computer.
He switched every element without success until he got rid of the AVR...

Did "this guy" use DBT tests or were his evaluations done sited with all the influences other thsn hearing that comes with sited tests?

For now I will not buy any existing AVR (there is no audio gain from 10 years ago), but a good surprise could come at the end of the year. Who knows.

Audio amplifier technology hasnt changed in the last 50 years or so so the gain stopped that far back. What really needs to happen in the audio industry is to start coming up with a baseline where distortion becomes audible (similar to human hearing bandwidth of 20Hz to 20 KHz). That way when comparing SINAD or its recipracle spec THD+noise, there is some absolute meaning behind the numbers rather than this relative crap we are seeing now.

BTW, the so called premium brands never offered any real value. NAD, Harmon Kardon, and others have poor QC problems and their AVRs have had many repair issues and or returns. Yamaha on the other hand has one of the highest QC controls in place and their return rate is one of the lowest in the industry. Its ironic that SINAD fails to recognize this yet, the stigma of low SINAD without listening tests are used as a way to justify that AVRs are generally bad.

This is a good read and shows that there is too much wrong emphasis done on SINAD.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/what-matters-about-sinad-measurements.7375/

 

[TonioRoffo]

So, if money is no objection, and a little bit of electronics backgrounds...

...surely every receiver has a point where the multichannel audio is travelling as I²S signals, going to the onboard DAC. I²S is always stereo/2 channel AFAIK.

So, for 5.1 audio, given three identical DACs with volume control (let's say, three NAD M51 or such and sync their volumes), it might be feasible to run the I²S signal into SPDIF (or AES/EBU) converters and offboard to the M51's?

Sure, that's quite a sum of money, but not more so than the fancy megabuck receivers.

Of course, I'm not sure where the channel volume control/bass management happens. 24-bit audio before the DAC, or circuitry behind the DAC? Anyone know this?

Another approach is a PC source with PCM 5.1 (HDMI) out, split into three decent DACs with volume control.

 

[peng]

I think practically speaking we have to consider the noise floor as well. I though my HT room is very quiet when the HVAC is off, but it measured about 23 dB in the most sensitive 1,000 to 6,000 Hz. Since I never listen to music at louder than 75 dB average 95 dB peak, so any harmonics distortions at -75 dB (75 dB SINAD at the AVR amp output) or better should be silent to me. If my room is as quiet as an anachoic chamber, then I would want 95 dB or higher SINAD.

 

[valerianf]

Well, I would be very happy to find an AVR with 95dB Sinad but I am not sure that it is really needed to get a 95dB dynamic.
SINAD is an invert transformation of the THD.
If you get an AVR that is at 0.005% THD at 95 dB peak volume, on the very low 35dB sound track, the THD can go a little up (i.e. 0.01%) but you will not ear the noise floor of the AVR.
It is why an AVR with a S/N of 80dB may have a maximum dynamic capability of 101 dB (it is an example of a Yamaha AVR measurement).
101 dB of dynamic is far sufficient in current home use (but not in a concert hall).

 

[fyonn]

Sorry, my post wasn't very clear. The TV is set to output "multichannel PCM" not some kind of Dolby bitstream. The AVR shows 5.1 incoming. In theory that should be decoded, plain audio but no idea if it will work with anything but an AVR. Solving such issues is "the beauty" of DIY and separates.

as I understand it, an optical cable only has the bandwidth for 2 full bandwidth channels or an encoded 5.1 stream. There is no multichannel PCM over optical unless multi means two (which.. I mean it does but you know..). you need HDMI for the bandwidth to transport 5.1 channels in PCM.

To Fyonn. Get a power amp if you feel like your current AVR cant drive your speakers to loudness levels you seek cleanly. If, however, you find nothing wrong with sound, then the only thing a power amp buys you is freedom to get speakers that are more difficult to drive.

well.. there's mopre to it than that. firstly, my speakers are 4ohm and the reviews tell me that this pushed the denon to it's limits a bit and heats it up, and it does get warm. a seperate power amp might allow me to keep the denon cooler. Why do I care about that? a kinda silly reason really. I have a really nice TV unit that I got for a great price. it allows me to hide away all the wires and stuff and keep the lounge neat and it's got a nice centre speaker area with some AT fabric covering it. turn out I should have read the description more closely as it turns out the cavities for equipment are remarkable short. the area where the denon would go is only about 170mm tall and the denon is 167mm tall. that leaves very little space above the amp. being as it's got a cover at the front I'm worried about heat buildup. for now, the amp is just sitting on top but that's not ideal. perhaps I need a slimline 5 channel power amp (which presumably would do a lovely job with my speakers too) and then I could put the denon in eco mode, and not use the power amps at all...

I told you it was a bit silly

 

[peng]

Well, I would be very happy to find an AVR with 95dB Sinad but I am not sure that it is really needed to get a 95dB dynamic.
SINAD is an invert transformation of the THD.
If you get an AVR that is at 0.005% THD at 95 dB peak volume, on the very low 35dB sound track, the THD can go a little up (i.e. 0.01%) but you will not ear the noise floor of the AVR.
It is why an AVR with a S/N of 80dB may have a maximum dynamic capability of 101 dB (it is an example of a Yamaha AVR measurement).
101 dB of dynamic is far sufficient in current home use (but not in a concert hall).

Sure, I am okay with 75 dB SINAD for my need, that is , noise floor and spl need considered. AVRs can do that for me.

 

[3dbinCanada]

I want to add to both valerianf's and Peng's point that AVRs were not designed to power difficult loads to concert levels in large rooms. However, they work remarkably well and provide more than enough dynamics in most people's HT applications.

I've 3 Yamaha AVR/PSB system setups and not once did I ever run into dynamics being limited or detect any audible distortion. People who think that the sound equivalent of an AVR is hanging 10 speakers off a TV judge only on spec and have very litte experience in critical listening.

I have been in blind listening tests with separates verses AVR and I guessed right less than half the time. Only when the AVR was asked to deliver more than what it was designed to do did I detect differences.

 

[3dbinCanada]

as I understand it, an optical cable only has the bandwidth for 2 full bandwidth channels or an encoded 5.1 stream. There is no multichannel PCM over optical unless multi means two (which.. I mean it does but you know..). you need HDMI for the bandwidth to transport 5.1 channels in PCM.



well.. there's mopre to it than that. firstly, my speakers are 4ohm and the reviews tell me that this pushed the denon to it's limits a bit and heats it up, and it does get warm. a seperate power amp might allow me to keep the denon cooler. Why do I care about that? a kinda silly reason really. I have a really nice TV unit that I got for a great price. it allows me to hide away all the wires and stuff and keep the lounge neat and it's got a nice centre speaker area with some AT fabric covering it. turn out I should have read the description more closely as it turns out the cavities for equipment are remarkable short. the area where the denon would go is only about 170mm tall and the denon is 167mm tall. that leaves very little space above the amp. being as it's got a cover at the front I'm worried about heat buildup. for now, the amp is just sitting on top but that's not ideal. perhaps I need a slimline 5 channel power amp (which presumably would do a lovely job with my speakers too) and then I could put the denon in eco mode, and not use the power amps at all...

I told you it was a bit silly

That sucks man and I feel for you. Nothing silly about this and it shows how disconnected these media unit manufacturers are with electronics. I wanted to get a media unit with a built in electric fireplace for my bedroom system but none of them could accommodate the depth and height needed for an AVR older than 15 years.

If you had more airflow around your Denon, it may not be a problem. May I ask what the make and model are of your speakers? I run PSB, fairly high sensitivity speakers but they dip into 4 ohms in the midrange and with a low phase angle so the 4 ohms isnt all that difficult to drive.

 

[TonioRoffo]

I agree that 75dB should be enough, sure, it doesn't feel right owning receivers at megabuck prices performing badly on paper. OTOH, I never really listen "loud". I read sometimes about people listening to reference levels (0db on the volume dial?) with a bunch of subwoofers present, that's not what a movie experience is for me, it's the subtle dynamics, the sound sphere some movies can create. In my living room, I barely get past -23dB.

Then what I love most - the soundtrack. That's why for me, surround should be high quality sound first.

 

[fyonn]

That sucks man and I feel for you. Nothing silly about this and it shows how disconnected these media unit manufacturers are with electronics. I wanted to get a media unit with a built in electric fireplace for my bedroom system but none of them could accommodate the depth and height needed for an AVR older than 15 years.

If you had more airflow around your Denon, it may not be a problem. May I ask what the make and model are of your speakers? I run PSB, fairly high sensitivity speakers but they dip into 4 ohms in the midrange and with a low phase angle so the 4 ohms isnt all that difficult to drive.

the media unit is a project optimum 1300FG. beautifully made and only cost me £200 instead of the £900 it would normally cost. I just didn't spend enough time reading the internal dimensions. the top bit is really made for a sound bar but I thought, great, I'll stick a centre speaker in it. however not only is the upper section slightly shorter the the bottom, but in the middle, at the top of it is the pusher that pushed the door out when you push it in, which makes it even shorter in the centre. finding a centre speaker that can fit in about 150mm of height was a challenge!

the interior cavities are however quite wide, so I have wondered about putting a fan at either side and maybe cooling it like that, but so far haven't...

my speakers are Antony Gallo Reference AV, mounted on wall. hmm.. time to fill in a sig I guess...

 

[peng]

Well, I would be very happy to find an AVR with 95dB Sinad but I am not sure that it is really needed to get a 95dB dynamic.
SINAD is an invert transformation of the THD.
If you get an AVR that is at 0.005% THD at 95 dB peak volume, on the very low 35dB sound track, the THD can go a little up (i.e. 0.01%) but you will not ear the noise floor of the AVR.
It is why an AVR with a S/N of 80dB may have a maximum dynamic capability of 101 dB (it is an example of a Yamaha AVR measurement).
101 dB of dynamic is far sufficient in current home use (but not in a concert hall).

That is the case if you look at the AVRs ASR measured so far, the Arcam 390 and Denon AVR-X3600H (yes they are AVRs) tops the chart with SINAD 92 and 88 but amazingly, that's better SINAD (at 5 W) are better many many separates ASR also measured.

If we don't can't the amazing Benchmark amp and those top notch Hypex Ncore kind of class D amps including ATI's, there isn't too many separates measured better than the likes of the recently measured Denon and Yamaha AVRs.

So can we apply your point "I would be very happy to find an AVR with 95dB Sinad"...........to separates too?

Another example, the Parasound A52+ (just caught my attention because someone just posted a link to the S&V review on the AH forum), has the following SINAD/THD+N measurement.

I don't care what the reviewers said in his subjective review, the fact is, for the most part of the curve, it shows SINAD only a touch more than 70 dB, or 0.03 %, from 0 to 150 W and about 0.055%, SINAD 65 dB. That's measured at 1 kHz, S&V's standard test, also use an AP so it should be comparable to ASR's. The advantage I see from that graph alone is that it has a much gentler climb above the clipping point, apparently between 155 W to 240 W and the amp is rated 225 W into 8 ohms, 0.05% (i.e. SINAD 66 dB) THD+N. This is a $3,000 conventional class AB power amplifier. I can see substantial gain in power output vs a mid range AVR, but in terms of sound quality, I don't think so, based on my personal experience but ommv.., as always.

I think before people buy an external power amp for their "hard to drive" speakers or just to gain headroom is one thing but if their main goal is improved sound quality, then they should do their research to see if there are bench test measurements. Otherwise they may not feel so good (will most likely sound good/better) after seeing SINAD (THD+N) worse than their AVRs after the fact. That is, do the research before not after, I learnt that the hard way.

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/parasound-halo-52-amplifier-review-test-bench

 

[3dbinCanada]

That is the case if you look at the AVRs ASR measured so far, the Arcam 390 and Denon AVR-X3600H (yes they are AVRs) tops the chart with SINAD 92 and 88 but amazingly, that's better SINAD (at 5 W) are better many many separates ASR also measured.

If we don't can't the amazing Benchmark amp and those top notch Hypex Ncore kind of class D amps including ATI's, there isn't too many separates measured better than the likes of the recently measured Denon and Yamaha AVRs.

So can we apply your point "I would be very happy to find an AVR with 95dB Sinad"...........to separates too?

Another example, the Parasound A52+ (just caught my attention because someone just posted a link to the S&V review on the AH forum), has the following SINAD/THD+N measurement.

I don't care what the reviewers said in his subjective review, the fact is, for the most part of the curve, it shows SINAD only a touch more than 70 dB, or 0.03 %, from 0 to 150 W and about 0.055%, SINAD 65 dB. That's measured at 1 kHz, S&V's standard test, also use an AP so it should be comparable to ASR's. The advantage I see from that graph alone is that it has a much gentler climb above the clipping point, apparently between 155 W to 240 W and the amp is rated 225 W into 8 ohms, 0.05% (i.e. SINAD 66 dB) THD+N. This is a $3,000 conventional class AB power amplifier. I can see substantial gain in power output vs a mid range AVR, but in terms of sound quality, I don't think so, based on my personal experience but ommv.., as always.

I think before people buy an external power amp for their "hard to drive" speakers or just to gain headroom is one thing but if their main goal is improved sound quality, then they should do their research to see if there are bench test measurements. Otherwise they may not feel so good (will most likely sound good/better) after seeing SINAD (THD+N) worse than their AVRs after the fact. That is, do the research before not after, I learnt that the hard way.

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/parasound-halo-52-amplifier-review-test-bench
View attachment 72261

Most if not all AVRs have THD+N well below the point of being audible so the only real value a power amp can give is headroom and the assurance of opening up the choice of being able to drive more diificult speaker loads. :

There was an old contributor at AH who drove electrostatics with a Yamaha AVR. I cant remember the guys name. He realized that he was throwing out money hand over fist by upgrading his separates to get the magic sound. He sold it all off except for the speakers and boight a Yamaha AVR and never looked back. He was as happy with the AVR, more so than with his old seperates because he got the same quality of sound for thousands less.

 

[lashto]

The flaw in this argument is that it's implying that TV sound sucks. "TV-quality sound" has actually always been pretty good. Even in over the air analog tv (1945-2009), the sound was transmitted as an FM signal.

And today, as this thread has noted, multichannel PCM (sometimes with dolby or DTS) are sent via cable systems. This is good sound. So, if you're saying that AVRs produce poor sound, you're going to have to provide a(nother) reason.

We've already stipulated that, beyond a certain point (which modern AVRs pretty much meet), lowering the noise floor gets you minimal, incremental improvements. So are you making a "golden ears" argument or do you just not like the fact that (according to claims in this and other ASR threads, which I'm not disagreeing with) many AVRs use similar parts (ICs) and even similar ODM designs, and you don't think their power amp sections are much good nor properly isolated. (This again is pretty close to a specs-based or golden ears argument.)

As an old guy, I am compelled to point out that even the most budgety AVR receiver made today will deliver sound that was IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in the 1970s no matter how much you spent. Period. Maybe the highest $$$ components of the day would get you close, but then the standard source material of the day (LPs) had no bass, so you'd have to go to the added expensive of prerecorded reel-to-reel.

The one caveat to my "we walked to school in the snow 40 years ago" argument is that one obviously must use a subwoofer in one's modern 5.1 setup. However, in this regard, you can get a decent sub today for $100. Forty years ago there were no plate amp 8-inch woofer subs. If you wanted a sub that even came close to what you can get today for $99, you had to build it yourself -- a cabinet to house (at minimum) a 12-inch woofer and maybe 15-inch.

That is an interesting flaw you found in there.
But here's something even more interesting: I didn't (want to) say that TVs sound bad. Or good. Also didn't say that AVRs sound bad. Or good. Also no "golden ears" or other ears in my posts besides a few "try this comparison yourself".
My AVR_SQ=TV_SQ argument is mostly a tech/engineering point of view. It's just a simple '=' argument and should be independent of any good/bad implications. But there are of course other implications, like the (at least) partially true: an AVR is not needed since the TV can output the same SQ into external amps/speakers.

Spoiler: offtopic and dangerous

The 'flaw' you found is still a beauty and it's definitely easy and (somewhat) fair to interpret my '=' like that. I was actually curious how many will cry on that '=' with "you insulted my precious AVR, I hate you" (like 3db did). And while 'secretly' cheering for someone to use a "my TV is better" angle, I had very low hopes. Thank you for that good surprise! And a surprisingly balanced 'cry-score'

It's all just a human-nature thing, it happens (almost always) when you put an unusually far-our argument on the table. Many people who don't like it (and/or don't understand it), will have a very butt-hurt reaction. Some will even put their own stuff into the original argument and start demonstrating how that stuff is wrong. A psycho form of yelling/arguing with yourself that I sometimes find entertaining. Sometimes not.
But that's pretty much how I 'became' all sorts of 'scary people' in this thread: audiophile, DBT-hater, deaf and many other things. Sorry to disappoint: just an engineer who sometimes finds psychology fun. Danger warning: that is only armchair psychology at best!

Here's someone who does the unusually far-out argument waaaaaay better than me. For anyone who likes their standup comedy to be a lot more than simple ha-ha, it should be quite a delight.

Or an even more far-out idea: forget imaginary audiophiles, DBTs and all other off-topics and (re)start talking about "high SINAD receivers".

 

[lashto]

as I understand it, an optical cable only has the bandwidth for 2 full bandwidth channels or an encoded 5.1 stream. There is no multichannel PCM over optical unless multi means two (which.. I mean it does but you know..). you need HDMI for the bandwidth to transport 5.1 channels in PCM.

Yep, spot-on DIY headache. Optical-out can't do 24bit/192khz on 5.1 channels because of bandwidth limits. But you can only get compressed bitstream DD via optical because of industry/dolby 'limitations'. Might even not be true, the spdif/optical bandwidth should be enough for 5.1 channels of 16bit/48khz PCM. And no, I did not do that math cause this is all DIY

But optical is not the only way out of that TV. An Android TV should work with external USB 8xDACs or interfaces. And since Android is Linux, that .1/LFE channel is 'easy' to solve: add it to both L & R channels, multiply it for xx subs, etc. 'Simple' ALSA configs can do all that and more in the digital/lossless domain.

One can also get the whole 100% original surround sound without any AVR: Essence HDMI DAC or it's sibling Evolve . That Evolve is ~ an AVP. For anyone who (still) cares about that stuff, it's also Stereophile recommended. At the very reasonable price of $299, it seems to only lack room-correction, which can be done (even better) elsewhere.



That should be more than enough about those slightly off-topic AVR-alternatives. Even I got tired of my own TV=AVR and DIY-separates posts
Some truly "high SINAD AVR/Ps" to come .. sometime.