Connecting Dvd Player to Hi Fi?

kraggy

Hi.

Just wondering, what sort of lead would i require for the purposes of playing mp3s on my dvd player through the speakers on the hi fi?

thanks

k.

Idleater

RCA Phono to RCA Phono.

Slaphead07

kraggy wrote:

Hi.

Just wondering, what sort of lead would i require for the purposes of playing mp3s on my dvd player through the speakers on the hi fi?

thanks

k.

at the risk of stating the obvious those RCA Phono connections go from the DVD player's phono out to your amp.

mossym

unless your dvd player has optical out and your amp optical in, in which case that would allow you to use one connection and still get surround sound for dvd's. you also may get better sound quality using an optical cable

Slaphead07

mossym wrote:

unless your dvd player has optical out and your amp optical in, in which case that would allow you to use one connection and still get surround sound for dvd's. you also may get better sound quality using an optical cable

yeah, but generally amps with a digital in are AV amps and not considered (by many) to be real hifi.

mossym

no, amps with digital in are to make use of the better Dacs in the amp, if they are better. if you go analog in, it'll most likely be converted back to digital, then back to analog for the output stage, unless you're using Class-D amps. so in the interest of your Hi-fi sound, you're converting 3 times from Digital to analog to digital again to analog.

unless you're using a valve amplifier are you?

mathias

yeah, but generally amps with a digital in are AV amps and not considered (by many) to be real hifi.

A Real throwaway statement considering the OP's purpose !

Just wondering, what sort of lead would i require for the purposes of playing mp3s on my dvd player through the speakers on the hi fi?

Optical or Coax cable is the best if the amp has the inputs ,
Then Phono ,

mossym

mossym wrote:

no, amps with digital in are to make use of the better Dacs in the amp, if they are better. if you go analog in, it'll most likely be converted back to digital, then back to analog for the output stage, unless you're using Class-D amps. so in the interest of your Hi-fi sound, you're converting 3 times from Digital to analog to digital again to analog.

unless you're using a valve amplifier are you?

actually, on thinking you could go straight from cd player to an analog amp using line level inputs. however i stand by my statement, if you haave an digital connection available between player and amp i'd use that unless your player is much higher quality than your amp.

anyway slaphead, humour me..tell me why using an av receiver is not considered hi-fi

and then tell me why, given that the op specified a dvd player he shouldn't use something that can actually decode the DD or DTS sound for him?

Slaphead07

mossym wrote:

unless you're using a valve amplifier are you?

are you asking me? Well yes, my preamp is a valve hybrid and power amp solid state.

Slaphead07

mathias wrote:

A Real throwaway statement considering the OP's purpose !

The OP asked about connecting to HiFi, not AV.

Slaphead07

mossym wrote:

anyway slaphead, humour me..tell me why using an av receiver is not considered hi-fi

I think teh question is name an AV amp that could be considered Hifi. The closest I've heard is teh Arcam AVR250 but it's still not as good as a hifi (i.e. music) amp.

mossym wrote:

and then tell me why, given that the op specified a dvd player he shouldn't use something that can actually decode the DD or DTS sound for him?

I never said anything like that, the OP specified HiFi, not AV. I'm not assuming anything just reading what's actually asked.

mathias

The OP asked about connecting to HiFi, not AV.

Slaphead the OP also asked about using it too play MP3's , you know what they are dont you ? Seeing as your still in the world of Valves I guess thats a reasonable question !!

If your going to get on your high horse about " Hi Fi " then at least be consistent , is MP3 hi-Fi , or is it just your orange light bulbs and shellac discs ? Or do you define hi fi as having an upper age limit ?

mossym

Slaphead07 wrote:

I think teh question is name an AV amp that could be considered Hifi. The closest I've heard is teh Arcam AVR250 but it's still not as good as a hifi (i.e. music) amp.


I never said anything like that, the OP specified HiFi, not AV. I'm not assuming anything just reading what's actually asked.

he also said dvd player, which would imply video also, that's whay i asked..would seem he could be using it for video as well

Slaphead07

mathias wrote:

Slaphead the OP also asked about using it too play MP3's , you know what they are dont you ? Seeing as your still in the world of Valves I guess thats a reasonable question !!

If your going to get on your high horse about " Hi Fi " then at least be consistent , is MP3 hi-Fi , or is it just your orange light bulbs and shellac discs ? Or do you define hi fi as having an upper age limit ?

Of course I know what MP3s are but anything less than 320kbs cannot be considered HiFi. Your comment "Seeing as your still in the world of Valves" tells me you don't know anything about Hifi.

Slaphead07

mossym wrote:

he also said dvd player, which would imply video also, that's whay i asked..would seem he could be using it for video as well

It's not unusual for DVD players to be used a CD players. As I say I assumed nothing.

mossym

surely a true hi-fi system would be using a dedicated cd player? not a dvd player which has all the video processing chips turned on as well?

your solid state power stage has much the same components as an av receiver. what the av recever has is all the video processing stuff, which is why purists shy away from it, even those that have the ability to power down the video processing side. they feel that the high speed converters and video processing chips will only cause noise in the audio..

a dvd player has all the same video processing chips, or equivalents...surely a dvd player can't be hifi by your definition then?

and btw, most true purists i know wouldn't touch mp3 in anything less than uncompressed format..

Slaphead07

mossym wrote:

surely a true hi-fi system would be using a dedicated cd player? not a dvd player which has all the video processing chips turned on as well?

your solid state power stage has much the same components as an av receiver. what the av recever has is all the video processing stuff, which is why purists shy away from it, even those that have the ability to power down the video processing side. they feel that the high speed converters and video processing chips will only cause noise in the audio..

a dvd player has all the same video processing chips, or equivalents...surely a dvd player can't be hifi by your definition then?

and btw, most true purists i know wouldn't touch mp3 in anything less than uncompressed format..

You're assuming an awful lot there... my power amp (not stage) has little in common with an AV amp in terms of quality.

Very few DVD players make good CD players, I have an Arcam 88+ for DVD playback but it has an entirely separate circuit for CD (essentially one of their higher end CD players) . Even still, as it goes through an AV amp it's never used for music. That and 1 or 2 Primare DVD players are the only ones that can play CDs with any degree of competency.

I only use MP3s in the car or MP3 player but a straight copy using windows is 320kbs is virtually indistinguishable from the original. If you know of a way of getting a higher bitrate then I'm all ears - pun intended.

btw, I assumed the OP was asking about comnnecting a DVD to an analogue amp because a: he described it as "hifi" and b: It's in the "HE Audio Hi-Fis & Separates" forum.

Idleater

kraggy wrote:

Hi.

Just wondering, what sort of lead would i require for the purposes of playing mp3s on my dvd player through the speakers on the hi fi?

thanks

k.

bet you're glad you asked now....

Slaphead07

Yeah, I think Kraggy should stop reading at post #3!:D

mossym

Slaphead07 wrote:

You're assuming an awful lot there... my power amp (not stage) has little in common with an AV amp in terms of quality.

what assumptions? tell me what i assumed and i'll discuss them..

and then tell me what distinguishes your amp in terms of quality, and we'll discuss that

Slaphead07 wrote:

I only use MP3s in the car or MP3 player but a straight copy using windows is 320kbs is virtually indistinguishable from the original. If you know of a way of getting a higher bitrate then I'm all ears - pun intended.

am..lossless formats? why settle for anything less than the original? ripping to lossless format is more popular than the other characteristics that define true hifi you have mentioned

Slaphead07 wrote:

btw, I assumed the OP was asking about comnnecting a DVD to an analogue amp because a: he described it as "hifi" and b: It's in the "HE Audio Hi-Fis & Separates" forum.

do you not think if the original poster was into audio as you are he would know what a phono connection was? sometimes it might be better to judge the equipment by the question asked. i could be wrong, but i would think the op has nowhere near a top end system by your books, and i'd bet his best option is still a digital connection to his amp

mossym

Slaphead07 wrote:

Yeah, I think Kraggy should stop reading at post #3!:D

i see two votes for digital..one that applies for a system most people wouldn't understand...me thinks Kraggy should heed the majority..

ah sure if i didn't argue with slaphead who would? can't have him goint around touting his stereo history when the world has moved to surround...:D

Slaphead07

mossym wrote:

ah sure if i didn't argue with slaphead who would? can't have him goint around touting his stereo history when the world has moved to surround...:D

I have surround - just not for music thanks! I'm old enough to remember quadraphonic, that didin't work either!

Idleater

mossym wrote:

i see two votes for digital..one that applies for a system most people wouldn't understand...me thinks Kraggy should heed the majority..

ah sure if i didn't argue with slaphead who would? can't have him goint around touting his stereo history when the world has moved to surround...:D

FYI, some DVD players disable the Digital output for compressed media files.

Slaphead07

mossym wrote:

am..lossless formats? why settle for anything less than the original? ripping to lossless format is more popular than the other characteristics that define true hifi you have mentioned

We were discussing MP3 specifically, in fact solely, and in my limited experience they only go up to 320kbs - which is actually ok, and virtually indistinguishable from the original. I used to doubt that but another HiFi geek insisted on a blind test and he was right, the human ear can't really hear much difference between an original CD and a 320kbs copy.

I'm aware of FLAC, ogg and a few other lossless formats but Windows Media Player (spit) goes to MP3 by default and to be honest is very handy for quick copies. Most of these are being copied for the car or radio use so 320 is more than enough.

mossym

nereid wrote:

FYI, some DVD players disable the Digital output for compressed media files.

few enough from experience, but i've seen a couple. could never figure out why. if it's copy protection, it makes no sense, the mp3's are on a disc anyway and could just be copied anyway, withouth going to the hassle of recording them from the spdif output

mossym

Slaphead07 wrote:

We were discussing MP3 specifically, in fact solely, and in my limited experience they only go up to 320kbs - which is actually ok, and virtually indistinguishable from the original. I used to doubt that but another HiFi geek insisted on a blind test and he was right, the human ear can't really hear much difference between an original CD and a 320kbs copy.

I'm aware of FLAC, ogg and a few other lossless formats but Windows Media Player (spit) goes to MP3 by default and to be honest is very handy for quick copies. Most of these are being copied for the car or radio use so 320 is more than enough.

fair enough, i won't argue with that. from experience i've seen majority of people can't tell the difference above 192kb..

however quite a few audiophiles claim to be able to tell the differnece between any sort of compression and real deal..

i would still love an answer though, more out of interest than anything else, to what you think distinguishes your hifi system from an av system in terms of quality. If you think it is for the sake of arguing, i assure you it is not, and am willing to take it off thread if you want in case you think i am attacking you, however it may be an interesting read for some people. My intererest is in home cinema more than music(not that i don't listen to music very often, just not tenough to have a seperate stereo system), so my requirements from an audio system are different than yours. i work in audio on the electronics side, so hence my interest in this. we've butted heads on this forums a couple of time now and are bound to again so if you prefer not to discuss it, that's fine, but I'll remind you of that every time we disagree in advice..:D (only kidding)

Slaphead07

mossym wrote:

i would still love an answer though, more out of interest than anything else, to what you think distinguishes your hifi system from an av system in terms of quality. If you think it is for the sake of arguing, i assure you it is not, and am willing to take it off thread if you want in case you think i am attacking you, however it may be an interesting read for some people. My interest is in home cinema more than music(not that i don't listen to music very often, just not tenough to have a seperate stereo system), so my requirements from an audio system are different than yours. i work in audio on the electronics side, so hence my interest in this. we've butted heads on this forums a couple of time now and are bound to again so if you prefer not to discuss it, that's fine, but I'll remind you of that every time we disagree in advice..:D (only kidding)

I don't for one second think you're attacking me or that we're "head butting". I take your questions on face value and hope to reply in the spirit they were asked.

Now... the differences between music through an AV system and through a dedicated music system...... I'm not going to get into the techie stuff because I'm simply a fan of music not of technology. I have a few mates who can advise me on the characteristics of different valves but outside of a few industry names (Brown Burr etc) I know little of resistors, capacitors and circuits.

The AV system I have is an Arcam DVD 88+ (which is an excellent CD player as well) with a Marantz 6.1 amp and Tannoy sixes as fronts. I'd say a better than average AV system in terms of sound. It will play music quite well but there's a lack of detail (something you could easily be unaware of) and no real soundstage. Treble and bass is there of course but the amp can't tame a bright treble in a recording or contain the bass. I really don't want to sound condescending (for a change:rolleyes: ) but most people would think it a pretty good system for music.

The stereo is, by sheer chance, all Copland gear. CD & valve hybrid Pre amp & solid state power amp. Van Den Hul interconnects and Nordost Blue Heaven speaker cable going to Quad 63 electrostatic speakers. Here music has more depth, far more detail and a pure 3D soundstage - you can pinpoint where musicians are in the studio or on stage. This works best with classical music of course where you can "see" each musician and even hear pages being turned and lips being licked before a wind instrument is played. You can hear the wood creak in the double-bass during "Take 5" or the buzz from a clapped out guitar string on Johnny Cash's "Hurt".

In short the AV system is data retrieval, it takes info from a disc and sends it to the speakers. The Hifi system however delivers music with emotion and power and still gives a huge amount of detail. It will expose poor recordings - most "high street" stereos will 'whitewash' them but a good hifi will deliver whatever's on the disc for better or worse.

I'm moving house at the moment Mossy but if you want to hear the difference yourself give me a shout and you can drop over in a month or so. I'll be in Rathmines by then.

mossym

Slaphead07 wrote:

I don't for one second think you're attacking me or that we're "head butting". I take your questions on face value and hope to reply in the spirit they were asked.

Now... the differences between music through an AV system and through a dedicated music system...... I'm not going to get into the techie stuff because I'm simply a fan of music not of technology. I have a few mates who can advise me on the characteristics of different valves but outside of a few industry names (Brown Burr etc) I know little of resistors, capacitors and circuits.

The AV system I have is an Arcam DVD 88+ (which is an excellent CD player as well) with a Marantz 6.1 amp and Tannoy sixes as fronts. I'd say a better than average AV system in terms of sound. It will play music quite well but there's a lack of detail (something you could easily be unaware of) and no real soundstage. Treble and bass is there of course but the amp can't tame a bright treble in a recording or contain the bass. I really don't want to sound condescending (for a change:rolleyes: ) but most people would think it a pretty good system for music.

The stereo is, by sheer chance, all Copland gear. CD & valve hybrid Pre amp & solid state power amp. Van Den Hul interconnects and Nordost Blue Heaven speaker cable going to Quad 63 electrostatic speakers. Here music has more depth, far more detail and a pure 3D soundstage - you can pinpoint where musicians are in the studio or on stage. This works best with classical music of course where you can "see" each musician and even hear pages being turned and lips being licked before a wind instrument is played. You can hear the wood creak in the double-bass during "Take 5" or the buzz from a clapped out guitar string on Johnny Cash's "Hurt".

In short the AV system is data retrieval, it takes info from a disc and sends it to the speakers. The Hifi system however delivers music with emotion and power and still gives a huge amount of detail. It will expose poor recordings - most "high street" stereos will 'whitewash' them but a good hifi will deliver whatever's on the disc for better or worse.

I'm moving house at the moment Mossy but if you want to hear the difference yourself give me a shout and you can drop over in a month or so. I'll be in Rathmines by then.

fair enough, i won't argue the listening tests. listening tests are on a pure person to person basis . I have to say i like the idea of your electrostatics, i demoed a pair of Martin Logan electrostatics, but for a 5.1 system they were outside my budget. they sounded incredible.

i've an engineering background, so my interest is in what electronically would make the systems different. Thereis no reason electronically that a stereo amp should be different to an av, given that the extra processig is turned off. Obviously given the extra processing involved in an av receiver comparing a stereo amp to an av receiver at the same price point doesn't add up.
anyway that's neither here nor there

to be honest, a couple of the things you've said i don't agree with, based on technical reason more than listening. For example saying that an av amp cannot be true hifi. i don't liek generalisations like that. Sure, my av recevier isn't hifi, i wouldn't ever say it is, but to rule them all out seems wrong to me. However, that said, i realise from the system you've listed above that you've invested a lot in your system, not just in money, and are well entitled to that opinion if you so desire. to have that as a sort of rule for hifi in general however is what annoys me.

Then again as i said the Av combination is more important to me than the audio alone. for me good audio and good video are more important than excellence in one of them at the expense of the other.

it can never be said though that audio is not interesting. the fact that one person can hate what another loves makes it difficult..

Slaphead07

mossym wrote:

to be honest, a couple of the things you've said i don't agree with.... saying that an av amp cannot be true hifi. .... to have that as a sort of rule for hifi in general however is what annoys me...

Well I've heard some serious AV amps and they fell short of true high end HiFi amps. I suppose my €6,000 pre & power combo shouldn't be compared to a €300 AV amp (or even a €2,000 Arcam Av amp) but that represents my priorities.
I know some guys who would keep their high end audio gear but then add on a processor or multichannel amp for AV. This means they keep a clean circuit for music but can expand on it for cinema. It works very well.

A box that has chips and wires and produces a sound is not automatically hifi, it may not even be lofi. I don't know enough about the parts used except that a beefier mains leads to better sound, as would twin mono paths etc. Isolation and build quality have an effect too.
I think all we're discussing is when does something become hifi? It's not price anyway, I know of phono amps and headphone amps that cost about €150 and they are very clearly hifi. So it's a quality issue. How much of the music do you want to hear accurately? 20%? 50%? I'm just trying to get as close to 100% as I can.
Listening to music through an AV amp is a bit like watching a blockbuster movie on a Black & White mono TV (I exaggerate of course). You get the plot, you get the dialogue and drama but you get none of the impact, subtlety and detail you'll get from a larger colour TV. But if you've only ever seen a B&W mono TV then you'll be perfectly happy with that.

mossym wrote:

it can never be said though that audio is not interesting. the fact that one person can hate what another loves makes it difficult.....

I don't get this? Who hates what another one loves? Each to their own I say but it does annoy me when people pay good money for BOSE or other "big brand" names that wouldn't make a good paperweight . I don't hate inanimate objects but I do hate seeing people being ripped off.

mossym

Slaphead07 wrote:

Well I've heard some serious AV amps and they fell short of true high end HiFi amps. I suppose my €6,000 pre & power combo shouldn't be compared to a €300 AV amp (or even a €2,000 Arcam Av amp) but that represents my priorities.

my point there was that given the extra processing involved in a av receiver, a 3000 receiver vs a 3000 stereo amp only, i would expect the amp to sound better, simply because you can choose better components because you need less of them...that's all..

Slaphead07 wrote:

A box that has chips and wires and produces a sound is not automatically hifi, it may not even be lofi. I don't know enough about the parts used except that a beefier mains leads to better sound, as would twin mono paths etc. Isolation and build quality have an effect too.
I think all we're discussing is when does something become hifi? It's not price anyway, I know of phono amps and headphone amps that cost about €150 and they are very clearly hifi. So it's a quality issue. How much of the music do you want to hear accurately? 20%? 50%? I'm just trying to get as close to 100% as I can.
Listening to music through an AV amp is a bit like watching a blockbuster movie on a Black & White mono TV (I exaggerate of course). You get the plot, you get the dialogue and drama but you get none of the impact, subtlety and detail you'll get from a larger colour TV. But if you've only ever seen a B&W mono TV then you'll be perfectly happy with that.

my 1000 receiver is a black and white tv? well *&^%&^%&^%..

Slaphead07 wrote:

I don't get this? Who hates what another one loves? Each to their own I say but it does annoy me when people pay good money for BOSE or other "big brand" names that wouldn't make a good paperweight . I don't hate inanimate objects but I do hate seeing people being ripped off.

sorry, i wasn't referring to you or me here, just examples of what i've seen. all i meant was that finding 2 people with the same ears is impossible. becuse of that genearalities in audio are dangerous..

and don't get me started on Bose

ZENER

I'm surprised that someone who can hear the differences - however subtle - between 2 lengths of copper cable cannot tell the difference between raw and 320kbps compressed files. Considering CDs have a bitrate of almost 1.5Mbps, at 320Kbps that's almost 4/5 ths of the original information discarded !!!


ZEN

Slaphead07

The Zener child is on ignore but I'm guessing the above is a sweeping generalisation based on a misrepresentation of something said earlier. Am I right? hah? hah? Am I?

ZENER

Slaphead07 wrote:

The Zener child is on ignore but I'm guessing the above is a sweeping generalisation based on a misrepresentation of something said earlier. Am I right? hah? hah? Am I?

Shoot . . . yep . . . spot on ! now try to defend your position. By the way I'm probably old enough to be your older brother and on the same side of the track as Mossym. Qualified to talk technical and to demand that variables be measurable in some way. I agree that based on the OPs post the first couple of answers were relevant - your's were simply arrogant ,ill informed and down right condescending.

Subjectivity does not measure up where I come from - although I do envy your speakers, where did you buy them.

It's a pity really, you seem to have grasped what audio is all about but got lost along the way to realisation of the root of it. To you the more you spend the better it sounds - an advertising execs wet dream !

ZEN