Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems how much better are the new hd formats?

excellent info so far guys thanks!!

this is very informative.

I have always found the A/D conversion in my 568.2 to sound very good. Feed it my old 596 output or a phono preamp and it sounds amazing. I think you just need a good player. People are raving about the Pioneer 51FD as having very good analog outputs but lack good bass management and they are relatively cheap these days before the new players are released. With a Meridian preamp you don't care about base management. Might be worth a shot for anyone wanting to use the analog inputs on a G series or 800 Meridian processor. I can't do this with a 568.2mm but I did have Shawn modify my 51FD for 3X SPDIF and the sound is wonderful. I couldn't be happier.

I'm sure I can hear a difference using my modified Pioneer Bluray player between the Shawn digital, and 6 multi analog input way.

I don't know how well I would do with a blind test?

The HD621's presence on the M website was an eye blink. The HD621 Product Information piece starts with M philosophy, makes Bob's case about keeping HDMI outboard, separating video from audio signal paths and then gives product highlights, pix of front and back panels with detailed descriptions of each input and output function.

The HD621 connects HDMI audio from up to six non M sources to an M processor via Smartlink coax or RJ45/Cat5 cable, both with up to 8 channels. "As a general rule, audio from M sources is fed direct to a M surround decoder via Smart Link." I never knew this was the term for the three SPDIF connections between an 861v4 and an 800v4.

IMHO, the feature set of the HD621 for my system is a great bargain. All HD621 HDMI audio output is delivered to the currently unused second MHR S/PIDF inputs on my IE42 card, encrypted to MHR. Settings for 44.1/48, 88.2/96 sample rates. Meridian Comms over BNC/DIN enabling an M remote to seamlessly control HD621 input. M audio FIFO buffering and resolution enhancement. Lyp-sync control. Rack mounting. M backing up the product.

I look for the HD621's return to the web site every day.

Wishing you the best.

Tim

Rod to get an idea,
but a standard CD in your Sony and compare the digital output via the analog output
and you should hear the difference.
You have to adjust the volume to the same soundpressure level
and listen to the "live" performance if you just hear music-
or the musician are playing in your room(to get the idea).
For hires sources as Bluray there should be more audible difference.

Robert

I think also a relevant point in this debate is that the current crop of Blu-Ray releases are not all 24bit. Many are not even 20bit. None is 96KHz.

So theoretically there could be both a resolution boost to Dolby TrueHD/DTS Master HD as well as an all digital path.

This is why I think the difference is not that great between regular DD/DTS bitstream and "HD" audio formats which many times are SD (CD) quality encodes..

What is nice though is that the HD621 owners atleast get a high quality resolution enhancement on that 48KHz signal.

This way they can sell us another round of discs. Or perhaps two

And they will call them High Definition Sound disc version.

Yeah and we'll need new players to get the best out of them - HDS compatible?? HDS ready, HDS 24bit, HDS 96, LOL!

I was skeptical on how much of an improvement there was going to be with lossless. If not for the cheaper clux I definitely would buy a HD621 knowing what I now know and may still eventually get a HD621. I can't right now due to low toy funds.

No point in again going thru the recent thread on 16bit versus 24bit Bluray Audio, but just thought it worth clarifying the following (just in case some people were led astray by tongue in cheek comments)

a) There is (at least) ONE 24bit/96 Bluray Disc out there today and ANY Bluray player is capable of playing it. So even if/when the Studios move to 96khz, new players will NOT be required

b) Bit Depth (24bit v`s 16bit) is FAR more important than Sampling Rate (IMHO and many others) Therefore, while 48khz Sampling is below what the Bluray Spec is capable of and also below what is desirable, but as long as 24bit Word Length is used, the Audio is a long way down the road. It would obviously be better if all discs exploited the 24bit/96khz Bluray Spec, but 24bit/48khz is reasonably close, especially for movies. Hopefully the future Music Titles will exploit the full BD Spec

c) All DTS Titles are 24bit. Many LPCM Titles are 16bit. A good percentage of TrueHD releases WERE 16bit, but Most Studios are now releasing new titles using TrueHD 24bit Soundtracks. The big exception seems to be Warner

d) Having had a detailed look thru this thread, I`ve come to the following approximate conclusions (http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieMatrix.aspx?Display=Audio1Codec,Audio1Channels,Audio1SampleRate,Audio1BitRate,AudioScore&SortExpression=MovieAudioScore&SortDirection=Descending)
................• For Bluray Discs about 12 months old, 24bit Processing is used on about 30% of the Releases
................• For Bluray Titles released in the last 12 months, 24bit Processing is used in about 55% of cases
................• For Releases in the last few months (and announced future releases) 24 bit Processing will be used in about 75% of cases

e) ANY Equipment you buy now (e.g. Bluray Player or HD621 or Clux or Octava) can play ANY of the above and future releases, so you're not buying into a Blind Alley product wise

f) I`ll keep it simple and refer to one disc only. (I could make a similar case about many others.) The Dark Knight is obviously a recent release whose Theatre Version was recognised as being state of the art. The Bluray version is TrueHD 16bit/48. Comparing the Lossy versus Lossless soundtracks, there is simply a LARGE Perceptible benefit from the Lossless track and that is definitely worth having IMHO. As I said, many 16bit discs show a similar difference, while a significant minority don`t show as marked a difference. Should Dark Knight have been 24bit/48 (or 96khz)?? Of course it should have and I`m angered by that. Would a 24bit Lossless version sound better than the current 16bit Lossless version?? I`d be shocked if it didn`t. But that still doesn't mean that the Lossless Soundtrack doesn't sound much better than the Lossy version!!!

Summarizing, Lossless is worth having and ANY Equipment you buy today can exploit the Older, Current and Future Bluray releases. If someone has the interest and the funds, then you shouldn`t hesitate to jump in. The water is most definitely warm!!!

I think the point is why would I buy into a format where I am not getting the best souind/video quality on all discs NOW? The gap between marketing hype, technical capability and actual product delivery is variable and unpredictable. I refer you to Kal's article in Stereophile this month re the Denon player. And especially with the problems and/or cost associated with getting the new sound formats out of even a 568.2mm based system

Having spent two weeks researching the market to determine whether to buy a cheap entry level as a stop gap or go SOTA now my conclusion is that a s/h G91/G98 may be a better bet.....

DVD-V was hampered from the start by studio concerns about pirating so the video capabilities were limited. Now we have HDMI to get the HD video into our plasma displays, we are handicapped at the audio level, either bog-stock DTS/AC3 or buy a proprietory player/processor combination.

Nomex on and ready :-)