In Reply to: Is HDMI interface better than the old S/PDIF for digital audio ? posted by beppe61 on April 8, 2007 at 05:01:26:
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:
Follow Ups
- Re: Is HDMI interface better than the old S/PDIF for digital audio ? - Charles Hansen 10:36:36 04/08/07 (4)
- Damnation! nt - clarkjohnsen 14:19:34 04/11/07 (0)
- Re: Is HDMI interface better than the old S/PDIF for digital audio ? - beppe61 12:15:33 04/08/07 (0)
- Re: Is HDMI interface better than the old S/PDIF for digital audio ? - Ted Smith 10:50:28 04/08/07 (1)
- Re: Is HDMI interface better than the old S/PDIF for digital audio ? - Ugly 23:34:05 04/08/07 (0)