Why so very few HDMI DACs?

I know of only two, a Bryston and an Essence, which I own. The Essence is really good but doesn’t do 5.1, only stereo. I’m ok w that since I can do DTS master, etc in 5.1 in other ways without using the Essence DAC. But it would be nice if there were other HDMI DACs including models that could do 5.1. I’m thinking that an HDMI deembedder might get close to what I’m looking for but I’m not sure exactly how they work.

 

just a wild shot in the dark. But if I needed 5.1 data conversions I would look for a multi processor (hardware and or software); and most multi hardware have DACs. Other than multi (talking 2 ch now) HDMI would be used as a container for I2S data/bits...I don't see another use for HDMI 2 ch. Something like Sonores' UltraDigital implements it.

What I don't understand, in regards to using HDMI as an I2S container, is that the USB signal (PCM) would be separated into its data and audio bits and put back together as an I2S signal via the UltraDigital processor and sent to the HDMI output -then sent to something like the PS Audio Direct Stream DACs' HDMI input. So many people are doing this and I just don't understand why. I would much rather have my PS Audio DSD do the PCM translations. The Ultradigital isn't magically turning USB PCM data into an I2S signal to be fed into the PS DAC. And I could be wrong, but I would guess it's not doing it better than the DAC itself (which is a ball busting DAC). I'm either missing something or it's audio snake oil creeping in on an undeeded 800$ piece of gear (the UltraDigital in this case.)

So, back to the question. There just doesn't seem to be a demand for HDMI. The PCM audio 2ch data is already processed by the DAC. It's basically what happens in a transport. From disc to PCM data and the other data/bit separation and converted back to analog via the transports DAC. No HDMI needed in the transport.

Hope i got to your question.

 

I use a HDMI deembedder between my Oppo 103 and my Marantz Dac/headphone amp. Works but I really don't know for certain what word length or rate comes out of it. Worked right out of the box with minimal (to not say none) set-up. Set it once and forget about it for the rest of your life.

Agree with you 100% that this should now be a pretty standard feature in Dacs.

I only do stereo.

 

The Essence DAC that I use is basically a DAC w a deembedder. Do you use an optical connection?

 

Yes, optical from the deembeder to the Dac.

 

The reason why HDMI DACs are uncommon is because to legally put a genuine HDMI interface on anything requires a paying a very expensive licensing fee. Only very large companies can afford to do this. The small manufacturers who make most DACs simply can't afford this expense.

Cheap HDMI de-embeders many be had because intellectual property and licensing restrictions are not generally respected inside of China.

 

I know what you’re saying about using a processor. My system is based on a stereo preamp which I’d like to stick with. I’ve got high resolution 5.1 now, but options to accomplish what I’m doing are really limited if you’re using a two channel preamp

 

The way that the PS Audio standard implements their I2S connections does not in any way use HDMI as a container for I2S. They merely use I2S connectors and cables wired in a custom configuration to run I2S signals directly through them. These are in no way HMDI connections on any level, and they do not encode I2S over HDMI. They could have just as easily used RS232 connectors, or CAT5, or something else which had enough discrete conductors to send raw I2S signals. The primary reason that they chose HDMI connectors is because HDMI cables are common, and because these have a strict characteristic impedance specifications.

 

Just get yourself a cheap HDMI de-embeder to send a coaxial signal to your stereo DAC. Problem solved.

 

How do those things sound?

 

The units which I have tried sound fine to my admittedly aging ears. Sometimes you need to mess with the settings on your BluRay player a bit to get everything to send your signals at full resolution though...

 

Some deembeders have RCA stereo line outs, so they must have some kind of DAC, but I have to think we are interested in the digital output.

Have no idea how the analog RCA line outs sound. Never tried it. The digital output, of course, has no "sound" of its own.

 

Hey Tarnished Ears,
I'm an Oklahoma Transplant from Seattle. I lived in Pioneer 2. What part of the city are you in? I do miss Seattle a lot man!

Well, I'm not sure what you're actually saying hear. Your first sentence says PS does not use HDMI as a container for I2S. Yes, I know they are not HDMI signals. But your second sentence states that they "run I2S signals through them." Isn't that what a container do? PS audio was one of the first audio component developers to take the DAC out of their transports. When they did that, to get the I2S signal to the DAC they decided to do so with HDMI as a container. A quote from wiki: PSAudio, Wyred4Sound use an HDMI connector. I demoed the Gain Cell DAC, and they told me the only reason it's there is due to the fact that it's original purpose was to send the I2S signal from their transport (which they don't sell anymore). He then went on to mention that the only reason it is still on the GC DAC (and their two other DACs) is that they do not want to reconfigure the internals and possibly changing the voicing; as well as the fact that more Network servers are merging that have playback via I2S contained inside an HDMI cable. He also sent me this link of sources that can send I2S signals to PS DACS via HDMI:
i2s

Basically you confuse me by saying they do not use HDMI as a container and later state "The primary reason that they chose HDMI connectors..." I'm not following.

Yes, all you really need is 4 rca cables to send an I2S signal.

But the point I was trying to make in my first post is much more basic. I'm just trying to figure out why someone would use the Sonore Ultradigital to convert a USB signal to I2S as opposed to using the DirectStream DAC to do this?!?! I would think the Master Clock is much more advanced in the DSD. The UltraDigital my convert PCM via USB to I2S better than the GainCell Dac...but that's a 1200 DAC. An all together different animal from the DSD Sr., but not a bad unit for the price. PS Audio do know DACs.

One of the founders of Sonore, Jesus, did work for PSAudio for sometime and Ted Smith (DSD developer) did mention that, due to Jesus' knowledge of PSAudios use of Is2 in their DACs, that it could be a solid device. It was a very indirect statement, but that's what i took from it:

tedsmith Chief digital guru
Nov '18
The people at Sonore definitely understand PS Audio’s version of I2S. I’m reasonably sure they’ve tested all of their recent projects with PS Audio gear. I do know that they loaned me an earlier version of the Rendu to test with the DS.

Link to quote: Sonore Ultradigital

anyway, I think we're basically saying the same thing but using different techno jargon.

 

I'm sorry, but this is most definitely not what a "container" does. The HDMI standards allow for it to be genuine a "container" for Digital Video signals, PCM signals and even DSD signal. When used as HDMI all of these types of signals become encoded inside of HDMI data packets which are both transmitted and received in precise accordance with the HDMI data transmission standards. Therefore the HDMI data packets are specially encoded to CONTAIN all of these various types of digital signals.

The HDMI standards are very precise and specify both the data layers as well as the electrical level of the signals. Each wire inside of an HDMI cable bundle has a precise purpose.

When PS Audio uses an HDMI cable for I2S data transmission (as in just a set of wires which happen to have a HDMI connectors on each end, but which could have used literally any connector which had enough conductors), this cable becomes the physical media which they chose to use for I2S, but both electrically, and in terms of the data, there is absolutely nothing remotely resembling HDMI about it. PS Audio could have chosen to use a pair of 3 wire power cables to do the exact same thing if they had wanted to. Yes, this would have been an incredibly stupid choice had they done so. But I'm making such an extreme example in an attempt to more clearly illustrate my point.

But if they had done something really stupid like this, then you would never then say that the power line was the container for the signal (even though in this hypothetical example they happened to use IEC power cords as their transmission medium). Why? Because it wouldn't be transmitting any of its signal through your power line.

Now if, OTHO, they had decided to encode a signal onto the actual power line (like some Ethernet to power-line adapters do), then the power-line would indeed represent a container for the signal.

I hope that this clears-up my meaning, despite how absurd the above example is.

 

Okay, you keep bringing up the point that I am talking about HDMI signals. I am not talking about them at all, and I think the misunderstanding may be that I was calling this medium a container. I guess 'container' is actually a real thing in the cable/transmission world, which I was unaware of. An example as to how I used the term 'container' is more akin to an mp4 file. Which can 'contain' data from audio to images.

 

One or two of the NAD stereo amplifiers can be fitted with HDMI modules, though I don’t think they do any standalone DACs.

 

Are HDMI de-embers worth it? Are there any good sounding ones?

 

My NAD M51 (discontinued) and the almost-identical NAD C 510 DAC have 2 HDMI inputs and one HDMI pass-through for video monitor. Output is 2 channel PCM.

 

I use one by Trip-Lite that seems transparent as far as I can tell. With the proper settings on my Sony X800 -> de-embedder -> PS Audio dac, I get DVD A's up to 24/192, and SACD's converted to 24/176.4. Sounds good to me.

I compared CDs between the Sony/de-embedder combo and a Cambridge Audio CXC transport using the same cables, and the difference was negligible, if any. I'd recommend trying one, I think the Trip-Lite was 40 bucks on Amazon, a pretty risk free endeavor...

 

what model?

 

There are plenty of HDMI DAC sold by pretty much every major audio/video system manufacturer. They are just called AVR or audio processors.

 

Hell yeah!!!!!!
From experience ( comparison testing with friends) I can tell you that this one is totally transparent.........I am pretty certain there would be others too.

Audio De-Embedder with 3D Support

Used an OPPO 105 hooked up to the De Embedder's HDMI input.
Connected De Embedders Optical and Coax outputs to external DAC. (Benchmark DAC2HGC)
Switched between DAC inputs and slightly preferred Coax.

Then also connected OPPO 105's Coax output direct to DAC and switched inputs on stereo preamp between OPPO and De Embedder.

No one could tell any difference in SQ whatsoever between De Embedder's or OPPO's Coax outs to DAC.

We found the result a bit surprising considering another box and HDMI lead were involved.

You will also need to run a HDMI lead out of the De Embedder to your AVR or Pre/Pro to "complete the handshake" and ensure everything works properly.

Don't forget to select 720P or higher video output rez to ensure proper transmission of hi rez audio.........( it's a HDMI thing)

Good Luck

 

Thanks for this write up! To state the obvious, the other main reason to use the de-embedder is to have your player output the DVD-A and SACD as PCM. This way one can listen to those discs in hi rez through a coax running into a DAC. For those of us with less than stellar players, this tool can help improve the sound, provided the DAC is high quality.

 

Tripp Lite HDMI Audio De-Embedder/Extractor, UHD 4K x 2K @ 30Hz (P130-000-AUDIO) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01FM3HWNW/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_LP5.DbQ3JKECM

It looks like it's made by Kanex for Trip-Lite. Looks exactly the same as the link @Linger63 sent.

Just make sure you hit the 5.1 button on the de-embedder, or you'll only get 16/44.1. This drove me nuts when I first got the unit lol

 

General Clarification:

I²S uses a HDMI connector.
"The I²S bus separates clock and serial data signals, resulting in simpler receivers than those required for asynchronous communications systems that need to recover the clock from the data stream."
Wiki

So it's not the connector nor cable.
It's the output clock is more accurate w/o the additional data on some other digital outputs.
Of course a re-clocking device can reconfigure the data to remove jitter induced by all the signals being transported together.

The Old Audio Adage 'less is more'.
The Audiophilic, Steve Guttenberg, repeatedly praises I²S outputs on his recent DAC reviews [that have that option].

1:35