In Reply to: Re: Oh, BTW... posted by AbeCollins on May 15, 2004 at 12:12:29:
the i.Link pros and cons. I was actually thinking about starting a thread to see what fellow Inmates think about it, and how many are actually using it.>>>I have mixed feelings about IEEE1394/iLink because I have no equipment that can handle it and I have no near term plans to incorporate any IEEE1394 capable pieces into my system for this 'generation' of my home theater setup.<<<
The same applies to my current system.
>>>I know that IEEE1394 is a 'standard' while I believe Denon Link is proprietary to Denon.<<<
This is correct.
>>>I'll have to take a closer look at the new 3805 because if it has IEEE1394, it may be worth updating my DVD-5900 and get the more reasonably priced 3805.<<<
I agree. The 3805 looks to be a nice receiver, and it has nice setup features.
>>>Is the main advantage for IEEE1394 the elimination of all those unruly analog interconnects for multi-channel SACD?<<<
Ah, this is the question which I have been trying to figure out also. I agree that by using i.Link, you do minimize cable count in passing multi-channel audio. Another advantage is that your receiver/pre-pro performs the bass management and time/space alignment. However, the most important feature is the decrease in jitter. The player's clock is slaved to the receiver/pre-pro's clock which becomes the master. The data is then passed unchanged in digital form so that the receiver/pre-pro's processor/DAC do the manipulation and D->A before going through the analog out stage to the amps.
Anyway, here are some of my questions...
- Why do people spend megabucks on universal players with redundant processing and high quality DAC's if they are going to use i.Link? After all, these stages are completely bypassed in the player.
- Over on avsforum, certain members claim that i.Link is the ONLY way to go. They claim that this "superior" connection translates to superior sound. I will concede that jitter reduction translates to superior sound. My questions are:
1.) Does this mean that their receivers/pre-pros have superior clocks than all of the players out there? I find it very hard to believe that universal players/multi-channel audio players use clocks with lots of jitter.
2.) If this digital information is processed and D->A converted in the player thus sending out analog, then where is the increased jitter?
3.) Also, in good quality players (such as the 5900 for example), bass management and time/space alignment are quite flexible. Is there really an advantage to having the receiver/pre-pro perform these functions when you have a player with this flexibility not to mention very high quality DAC's?If someone can please help me to understand, then that would be greatly appreciated. After all, I am not an EE/Audio Engineer. Thanks in advance.
As for me, I believe in having excellent analog stages which is why I had my pre-pro modded. I will also have my 5900 modded in 2-3 weeks, and I will have the opportunity to tube roll for two-channel audio (redbook CD). So while people will be sending their players to Denon for the IEEE1394 upgrade, I will be sending mine to Oregon to Dan Wright.
And finally,
>>>My DVD-5900 didn't come with the IEEE1394 or Denon Link cable. I'm wondering if the previous owner lost the cables or if Denon never supplied them (even though the list of contents in the Owner's Manual states that these cables are included).<<<My 5900 came with both cables. In fact, I still have my Desay "Heavy Duty" batteries. Why is it that these companies supply such cheapy batteries with their equipment???
Anyway, sorry for the long post...but I hope it is some food for thought.
Ken
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Oh boy...(long) - kmmd 08:02:03 05/16/04 (1)
- Re: Oh boy...(long) - AbeCollins 12:27:19 05/16/04 (0)