The denon avp mod. Major mod improvement just found

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
The DVD-A1UD is a very compelling proposition - I still have mine.

The AVP-A1HD / A1UD (or 4010) is the only combo ever made with a jitterless blu-ray audio connection between player and processor.

Nick
 

cableman

Active Member
Guess what they are all buying? :)

Denon / DVD A1UD - CM Edition Tuning 1.5 (Gebrauchtgert) Blu-Ray Player Interessantes Angebot !


Heimkinoverein e.V. :: Thema: Denon A1UD silber - CM Edition 1.5 zu verkaufen (1/3) - Hifi Heimkino Forum

http://www.audio-markt.de/_markt/item.php?id=7101038178&

I know the CM 4010 a very nice player and the Denon link is better than the one in the A1UD.

But the stufe 2 players are better than both these Denon link players, Cinemike modded or not.

Isn't Cinemike pushing the versionII 3313 as his best Vik?
 

onlyvik

Active Member
Yes.. the DBT 3313 and the UD 7007 are the best players so the new reference.

Most of his customers made the jump from the A1 to one of these players. Some sell their A1's and some keep them just because of the cult status.



Isn't Cinemike pushing the versionII 3313 as his best Vik?
 

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
I'd suggest this is something you should find out for yourself, CM. Used DBP-4010 are available and re-sellable for reasonable amounts, so there's very little risk or loss in trying one out, and everything to gain. I'm confident that you're the sort of person who would appreciate the benefit (you can borrow my A1UD if you like).

My view is that you can't improve on i-Link or Denon Link (except by disconnecting the HDMI connection itself) as they have the right digital audio architecture. The player acts as a digital data source, not a digital audio source, so literally all it has to do is get the ones and zeros right. HDMI Audio Rate Control achieves the same thing, but its not supported by any processors (hence the significance of the AVP-A1HD).

Nick
 
Last edited:

onlyvik

Active Member
Why would he spent money on something that has been tried before and is known for a very long time?

A waste of money to spent extra on a used 4010UD.


Like i said before: Denon link (in any way) is not as good as the hdmi signal coming from the upgraded players. The signal is perfect because of the upgrades from both the player and the AVP.

You tested the first tuning edition of the 3313 and don't know how good the stufe 2 improved.

Even the HDMI stereo signal is comparable with the upgraded XLR stereo outputs from the DVD A1UD from Mike. Do you know what an achievement that is?


Do you really think customers would upgrade if Denon link will give the better sound and spent extra money on Cinemike just because he is a nice guy?

The German customers are very picky and don't buy anything before testing it them selves.

Then they all would stick with just an upgraded player like the 4010UD don't you think?

Read and translate the following German forum :

Heimkinoverein e.V. :: Thema: Cinemike 3313 Stufe 2 fordert den A1 CM heraus (1/3) - Hifi Heimkino Forum




I'd suggest this is something you should find out for yourself, CM. Used DBP-4010 are available and re-sellable for reasonable amounts, so there's very little risk or loss in trying one out, and everything to gain. I'm confident that you're the sort of person who would appreciate the benefit (you can borrow my A1UD if you like).

My view is that you can't improve on i-Link or Denon Link (except by disconnecting the HDMI connection itself) as they have the right digital audio architecture. The player acts as a digital data source, not a digital audio source, so literally all it has to do is get the ones and zeros right. HDMI Audio Rate Control achieves the same thing, but its not supported by any processors (hence the significance of the AVP-A1HD).

Nick
 

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
There were a lot of threads there about CineMike, but very little about Denon Link, and that only made comparison with analogue outputs. Most of the discussion seemed to be about the CM 3313 vs CM A1UD when using HDMI. I think they said the 3313 was a bit bolder but the A1UD more subtle, so not a unanimous consensus, but the 3313 was probably preferred overall. That sounds great for the 3313, which is a lovely player, and much quicker than the A1UD.

But I still maintain that you can't beat Denon Link. Its really simple and fundamental. Denon Link doesn't carry the audio clock from the player to the processor, and HDMI does. There's nothing you can do about that with HDMI, except to implement Audio Rate Control, and Denon won't do that.

Nick
 

onlyvik

Active Member
Ofcourse you can hold on to your believe Nick but i know that for the upgraded AVP it's simply not the case, HDMI betters Denon link. You can only judge that if you know them and i am sorry to say but you don't.

It's a bit the same story with people calling that bitstream is bitstream and there can't be a difference.

The offer still stands to come on over to demo everything yourself.

On the Denon link subject i will rest my case in Cablemans topic. I will continue reading his reviews. ;)

Have a nice sunday.







There were a lot of threads there about CineMike, but very little about Denon Link, and that only made comparison with analogue outputs. Most of the discussion seemed to be about the CM 3313 vs CM A1UD when using HDMI. I think they said the 3313 was a bit bolder but the A1UD more subtle, so not a unanimous consensus, but the 3313 was probably preferred overall. That sounds great for the 3313, which is a lovely player, and much quicker than the A1UD.

But I still maintain that you can't beat Denon Link. Its really simple and fundamental. Denon Link doesn't carry the audio clock from the player to the processor, and HDMI does. There's nothing you can do about that with HDMI, except to implement Audio Rate Control, and Denon won't do that.

Nick
 

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
Funnily enough I used to be one of the people that thought bitstream is bitstream - I didn't used to be able to distinguish bitstream between my cheap LG and expensive Denon players, but LPCM was another matter. Now I just don't know, largely based on what the experts say. However, unlike many people I do believe what my ears tell me, and I vividly remember the differences between player and processor decoding. This is somewhat relevent to the DenonLink discussion, because one line of reasoning (that bitstream avoids the jitter problems that LPCM suffers from) suggests that DenonLink WON'T improve on bitstream over HDMI. And I don't have a way of hearing that for myself, which is frustrating. What I do know is what i-link from an A1XV sounds like compared with HDMI from a CM 3313, and that's just one piece of the puzzle. I think Cableman may be able to fill in the other peices for me.

Nick
 
Last edited:

jason shep

Well-known Member
Hi Nick,
When I had a 4010 & AVP I found no difference when bitstreaming with DL4 on or off.
LPCM was clearly better with it on.
I only had a couple of blurays with LPCM soundtracks though so DL4 only really got used for CD replay.
 

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
Hi Nick,
When I had a 4010 & AVP I found no difference when bitstreaming with DL4 on or off.
LPCM was clearly better with it on.
I only had a couple of blurays with LPCM soundtracks though so DL4 only really got used for CD replay.
That's a fascinating observation, and gives a big clue about how the AVP works. It suggests that the AVP (like Onkyo and other processors) uses a different audio clock recovery / regeneration process when the processor is doing the audio decoding (though this obviously only works with compressed soundtracks like DTS MA, which are now the norm).

My hands-on experience is that player decoding sounds different to processor decoding, and good players sound better than poor players when they output LPCM audio (which is when the soundtrack is LPCM, or the compressed soundtrack is decoded by the player). This is where I found the A1UD and TUC Oppos to sound good, and the CM 3313 was clearly the best of the lot.

However, with bit-streaming players (processor decoding) the SQ was always very good, and I couldn't tell the difference between players. Bitstream from my cheap LG sounded better than LPCM from any big-bucks player. This suggests either that players aren't decoding properly (once true, but probably not now) or that processor decoding is less susceptible to jitter. That's the empirical conclusion, but explaining and justifying it is more difficult. See my blogs for all the reams I've written about this over the years. Better still read this thread, which tries to explain how sources can sound different, and in particular how sources can sound different for reasons other than jitter.

Advanced topics in HD audio

(My take on this is that ultimately it is about jitter, but only at the point where it really matters – at the DAC itself. When people talk about jitter, they usually talk about the jitter on the digital audio signal – on the wanted signal. My view is that there are all sorts of other unwanted signals from equipment that can affect the final output. (For example, play a CD on an AV system, then completely disconnect the PVR/TV/VP/PJ, and see if that sounds different).)

The clear consensus from discussions with several audio experts is that bitstreaming should make no difference, as amplifier processing is the same. These experts included Bob Stuart, Charles Hansen, John Dawson and Amir Majidimehr – in other words, the people who best understand this, bar none. So that sowed a few seeds of doubt…..

Where I went from there, is that they can only speak for their products, and all receivers and processors don't necessarily work the same. The HDMI Forum is very specific about how the player's HDMI interface works, but leaves much more flexibility for the receiver. I suppose that some receivers use the same audio clock recovery process for both bitstream & LPCM (which is player-controlled dynamic rate decimation of the TMDS (video) clock from the player – a ghastly way to do it). And I also suppose that some receivers have a different clock recovery process for bitstream (like using a phase-locked loop, and ignore the rate decimation) to maintain synchronisation. That would help the receiver to isolate itself from the effects of the HDMI video clock jitter. This is how I explain to myself how bitstream can make the best of all players; its presumably how Onkyo do it, and now I guess that Denon and Marantz do, as well.

That's where I've come from; now here's the bit that's relevant to this discussion. What are the implications for the AVP?

Scenario 1: If the AVP uses video clock decimation for both LPCM & bitstream, both inputs will sound the same, and different players will sound different over HDMI. Denon Link 4, however, will sound better – better even than CineMike players. This isn't consistent with what Jason said, though.

Scenario 2: If the AVP uses a different process for LPCM & bitstream: In this case bitstream will sound better than LPCM, and it may even sound as good as DL4 (though I can't say for sure). Logically, a CineMike player that is bitstreaming to an AVP may also sound as good as DL4, but then, so will every player.

So which scenario is it?

Nick
 
Last edited:

cableman

Active Member
There were a lot of threads there about CineMike, but very little about Denon Link, and that only made comparison with analogue outputs. Most of the discussion seemed to be about the CM 3313 vs CM A1UD when using HDMI. I think they said the 3313 was a bit bolder but the A1UD more subtle, so not a unanimous consensus, but the 3313 was probably preferred overall. That sounds great for the 3313, which is a lovely player, and much quicker than the A1UD.

But I still maintain that you can't beat Denon Link. Its really simple and fundamental. Denon Link doesn't carry the audio clock from the player to the processor, and HDMI does. There's nothing you can do about that with HDMI, except to implement Audio Rate Control, and Denon won't do that.

Nick

Nick I usually find myself agreeing with you but the assertion that "you can't beat Denon Link", is totally unfounded speculation on your part. Please don't fall into the trap that many Luddites in here do, and say such without doing the heavy lift. Make the comparison THEN post your findings:lease:

Can you imagine if I had said the same about the AVP based on all the garbage reviews I'd read out there from deaf and ignorant fan boys.
 
Last edited:

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
Nick I usually find myself agreeing with you but the assertion that "you can't beat Denon Link", is totally unfounded speculation on your part.
Speculation - yes - completely, but unfounded - no. See the post above. In my defence I think I've done more heavy lifting than anyone else - see my blogs and the threads I started in this forum. I'm also someone who believes their ears, rather than what other people say, but you do have to consider that as well. HDMI is the worst digital audio interface imaginable, and there are only so many miracles that CineMike can do. Denon Link 4 and Denon Link HD sweep (almost) all of those issues away in a very elegant and simple way - like all the best solutions. Using straight HDMI is like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, I can't think of a better similie. I guess that saying
you can't beat Denon Link
was probably a counter-reaction to
Denon link (in any way) is not as good as the hdmi signal coming from the upgraded players.
The signal is perfect because of the upgrades from both the player and the AVP
which really rubs me up the wrong way.

Nick
 
Last edited:

cableman

Active Member
Speculation - yes - completely, but unfounded - no. See the post above. In my defence I think I've done more heavy lifting than anyone else - see my blogs and the threads I started in this forum. I'm also someone who believes their ears, rather than what other people say, but you do have to consider that as well. HDMI is the worst digital audio interface imaginable, and there are only so many miracles that CineMike can do. Denon Link 4 and Denon Link HD sweep (almost) all of those issues away in a very elegant and simple way - like all the best solutions. Using straight HDMI is like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, I can't think of a better similie.

Saying "you can't beat Denon Link" was perhaps a reaction to "Denon link (in any way) is not as good as the hdmi signal coming from the upgraded players. The signal is perfect because of the upgrades from both the player and the AVP." which really rubs me up the wrong way.

Nick

As I said Nick. I agree with you most times but on this occasion I can't. Yes you HAVE PREVIOUSLY done the heavy lifting but show me where u compared a CM3313 into a CM AVP vs the Denon Link please

Ps you're not wrong in HDMI being the worst of all scenarios lol. Lucky Ive also got a CM HDMI to help me through the haze lol lol lol
 

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
Yes you HAVE PREVIOUSLY done the heavy lifting but show me where u compared a CM3313 into a CM AVP vs the Denon Link please
Of course I haven't, and I'm not going to either. Neither could I find any user reviews that compared a CM 3313 into a CM AVP vs the Denon Link.

But I have tried HDMI from a CM 3313 vs. I-link from a stock A1XV, and the latter was significantly better. The 3313 was the best I'd heard from HDMI, but was still some way short of what was possible - unacceptably far behind in my view. I think the suggestion beforehand had been that HDMI should have been as good or better.

Nomatter - ignore what everyone says, and listen for yourself.

Nick

Edit: I did write a long PS to this, explaining where I was coming from, but somehow I deleted it. The short version is that I've been trying in vain to find the right AV solution for years, much of it trying to avoid the worst of HDMI. For many years I've been listening to manufacturers, testers, reviewers and owners alike claiming how some product or another has overcome the problems with jitter - but they never do. If you read the Benchmark website for example, you'd swear they had the problem licked.

My scepticism has been cultivated over a long time, and I've yet to see anyone overcome the shackles of the wrong architecture. In my mind, the only way to do is to have the master audio clock at the DAC - no other architecture has ever worked IMHO. Denon, Sony, Pioneer and Meridian. HDMI and Vanity93 all have their own interesting solutions, but only the AVP ticks all the boxes as far as I'm concerned - a processor with lots of HDMI inputs and outputs, lossless decompression, and it supports the DAC-master architecture.

I don't think there are even any processors with asynch USB inputs yet. Not one has Audio Return Channel. What are they waiting for? Who doesn't want perfect digital audio from any device? Why don't CD players have async USB outputs? Why don't universal players have DTS MA encoders so you can use lossless bitstream connections? Why does nobody have any good ideas any more? [/RANTOFF]
 
Last edited:

onlyvik

Active Member

But I have tried HDMI from a CM 3313 vs. I-link from a stock A1XV, and the latter was significantly better. The 3313 was the best I'd heard from HDMI, but was still some way short of what was possible - unacceptably far behind in my view.



I think this says more about the receiver/processor being used than it does about the DBT-3313.

Wasn't this tested with a first HDMI generation Sony Receiver/HT amplifier Nick? I can´t remember that anymore..

IMO If it did, technology improved in the years and the AVP HDMI board/(pre-pro design) is not to be compared with an older design receiver/processor.

I-link is a dead technology anyway.

You don't read any reviews about the Denon link because CM customers are not interested in Denon link.. because of ...( you know by now ;))

The only review with something about Denon link was on Area dvd, think i posted that earlier but did not get any responses to that link :

AREA DVD Hardware

Players improved sinds the 4010UD.

BTW AVP is running and so is the CM-3313 UD :thumbsup:











Of course I haven't, and I'm not going to either. Neither could I find any user reviews that compared a CM 3313 into a CM AVP vs the Denon Link.

But I have tried HDMI from a CM 3313 vs. I-link from a stock A1XV, and the latter was significantly better. The 3313 was the best I'd heard from HDMI, but was still some way short of what was possible - unacceptably far behind in my view. I think the suggestion beforehand had been that HDMI should have been as good or better.

Nomatter - ignore what everyone says, and listen for yourself.

Nick

Edit: I did write a long PS to this, explaining where I was coming from, but somehow I deleted it. The short version is that I've been trying in vain to find the right AV solution for years, much of it trying to avoid the worst of HDMI. For many years I've been listening to manufacturers, testers, reviewers and owners alike claiming how some product or another has overcome the problems with jitter - but they never do. If you read the Benchmark website for example, you'd swear they had the problem licked.

My scepticism has been cultivated over a long time, and I've yet to see anyone overcome the shackles of the wrong architecture. In my mind, the only way to do is to have the master audio clock at the DAC - no other architecture has ever worked IMHO. Denon, Sony, Pioneer and Meridian. HDMI and Vanity93 all have their own interesting solutions, but only the AVP ticks all the boxes as far as I'm concerned - a processor with lots of HDMI inputs and outputs, lossless decompression, and it supports the DAC-master architecture.

I don't think there are even any processors with asynch USB inputs yet. Not one has Audio Return Channel. What are they waiting for? Who doesn't want perfect digital audio from any device? Why don't CD players have async USB outputs? Why don't universal players have DTS MA encoders so you can use lossless bitstream connections? Why does nobody have any good ideas any more? [/RANTOFF]
 

cableman

Active Member
Of course I haven't, and I'm not going to either. Neither could I find any user reviews that compared a CM 3313 into a CM AVP vs the Denon Link.

But I have tried HDMI from a CM 3313 vs. I-link from a stock A1XV, and the latter was significantly better. The 3313 was the best I'd heard from HDMI, but was still some way short of what was possible - unacceptably far behind in my view. I think the suggestion beforehand had been that HDMI should have been as good or better.

Nomatter - ignore what everyone says, and listen for yourself.

Nick

Edit: I did write a long PS to this, explaining where I was coming from, but somehow I deleted it. The short version is that I've been trying in vain to find the right AV solution for years, much of it trying to avoid the worst of HDMI. For many years I've been listening to manufacturers, testers, reviewers and owners alike claiming how some product or another has overcome the problems with jitter - but they never do. If you read the Benchmark website for example, you'd swear they had the problem licked.

My scepticism has been cultivated over a long time, and I've yet to see anyone overcome the shackles of the wrong architecture. In my mind, the only way to do is to have the master audio clock at the DAC - no other architecture has ever worked IMHO. Denon, Sony, Pioneer and Meridian. HDMI and Vanity93 all have their own interesting solutions, but only the AVP ticks all the boxes as far as I'm concerned - a processor with lots of HDMI inputs and outputs, lossless decompression, and it supports the DAC-master architecture.

I don't think there are even any processors with asynch USB inputs yet. Not one has Audio Return Channel. What are they waiting for? Who doesn't want perfect digital audio from any device? Why don't CD players have async USB outputs? Why don't universal players have DTS MA encoders so you can use lossless bitstream connections? Why does nobody have any good ideas any more? [/RANTOFF]

And thx for confirming my point You don't have a modded CM AVP so your comparison is irrelevant. I'm surprised at this Nick.
 

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
Just remember where you heard it first (like the truth about the stock AVP)

Nick :)
 

cableman

Active Member
Just remember where you heard it first (like the truth about the stock AVP)

Nick :)

So did your ownership evaluation and criticism of the stock AVP predate mine Nick:D
 

Mr_Sukebe

Active Member
Guys,

I'm surprised at the apparent sniping at Nick, who's been a VERY solid member of this forum for years and has happily given what appears to be unbiased views and comments on his expereinces.

The biggest issue I see here is an apparent and obvious bias towards CM gear, almost as though you chaps had actual ties or interest in their business.

I don't see this ever being resolved without a serious get together to compare some CM gear with other comparable kit by other well known forum parties.
You chaps interested in meeting up in the UK?
 

onlyvik

Active Member
I am absolutely not sniping @ Nick. I do respect him as a person and he knows that. It's nothing personal and we are just talking about the hobby. (at least that´s how i see it)

I even invited him to come over to experience everything himself. It will be hard the other way around with getting an AVP under my arm and get on the plane over there. It's an expensive and rare machine and i will not do that i am sorry.




Guys,

I'm surprised at the apparent sniping at Nick, who's been a VERY solid member of this forum for years and has happily given what appears to be unbiased views and comments on his expereinces.

The biggest issue I see here is an apparent and obvious bias towards CM gear, almost as though you chaps had actual ties or interest in their business.

I don't see this ever being resolved without a serious get together to compare some CM gear with other comparable kit by other well known forum parties.
You chaps interested in meeting up in the UK?
 
Last edited:

cableman

Active Member
Guys,

I'm surprised at the apparent sniping at Nick, who's been a VERY solid member of this forum for years and has happily given what appears to be unbiased views and comments on his expereinces.

The biggest issue I see here is an apparent and obvious bias towards CM gear, almost as though you chaps had actual ties or interest in their business.

I don't see this ever being resolved without a serious get together to compare some CM gear with other comparable kit by other well known forum parties.
You chaps interested in meeting up in the UK?

Sniping? No way. Disagreeing with a sweeping and unsubstantiated statement but him CERTAINLY

What ties are you inferring? Did you read the start of this post. Have u listened to or compared any CM kit to the standard fare. Have you anything to substantiate your hilarious dig. If not....
 

cableman

Active Member

cableman

Active Member
Guys,

I'm surprised at the apparent sniping at Nick, who's been a VERY solid member of this forum for years and has happily given what appears to be unbiased views and comments on his expereinces.

The biggest issue I see here is an apparent and obvious bias towards CM gear, almost as though you chaps had actual ties or interest in their business.

I don't see this ever being resolved without a serious get together to compare some CM gear with other comparable kit by other well known forum parties.
You chaps interested in meeting up in the UK?

Question. Did you say the same of Nick when he was fulsome in his praise and defender of David at TUC having bought his products and raved about them? Did you suggest " actual ties or interest" between Nick and TUC?
 
Last edited:

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
Question. Did you say the same of Nick when he was fulsome in his praise and defender of David at TUC having bought his products and raved about them? Did you suggest " actual ties or interest" between Nick and TUC?
I think that's a very fair point. We've both been trying to do the same things – informing the community about the benefits of certain equipment mods. There are similarities – but key differences as well. TUC never do demo loan units – you have to buy one to try one – whereas we have both benefitted from a CineMike loan unit.

We've also done side-by side comparisons with both stock and competing products to try and establish the value of the mods. I've always said (and few people appreciated this) that it's not enough to simply detect an improvement – the improvement has to be greater than simply moving up-market.

Its fair that there should be other similarities. When I described the improvements of the TUC mods, I was greeted by a wave of scepticism at AVF, and vilification at AVS. Why would this thread be any different? I think you've had it really easy in comparison.

Regards, Nick
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Sky Glass, Epson Laser Projectors plus Home Cinema Subwoofers and More…
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Apple unveils MacBook Pros for 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Apple launches third generation AirPods with spatial audio
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Netflix UK for November 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
PrimaLuna debuts Evo 300 Hybrid integrated amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Astell&Kern announces AK ZERO1 in ear monitor
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom