Home Digital Drive

Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it.

Re: Is HDMI interface better than the old S/PDIF for digital audio ?

HDMI can offer multi-channels and high sample rates that are simply not possible from S/PDIF. Performance-wise, it is a mixed bag.

HDMI does have a separate clock signal, unlike S/PDIF where the clock and data are embedded together. However the clock signal is the 27 MHz *video* clock, and the audio clock needs to be recreated (presumably via PLL's) from the video clock. So it's not clear that there is much to be gained there.

Finally, HDMI comes along with a video signal, which means that in general there is a also a video display now hooked up to your audio system. Hooking up a video display is the single quickest way to degrade the sound of your audio system.

Better than HDMI is I2S, where the clock and data are separate. However, this was only ever implemented by a couple of small companies (eg, Camelot). Better still are the systems where the clock is sent "upstream" from the DAC box to the transport box. This was only ever done on a proprietary basis by a few people like Linn and Wadia.

I tried to organize a standard for doing this so that all high-end digital audio components could be compatible, but there was too much political infighting to ever achieve success. This eventually became the "SyncroLink" system that is on the Ayre DX-7e DVD transport. We will implement the other half in a DAC box, maybe later this year.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Parts Connexion  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.