THX Caught With Pants Down Over Lexicon Blu-ray Player

SchlimpyChicken writes "Lexicon and THX apparently attempted to pull a fast one on the consumer electronics industry, but got caught this week when a couple websites exposed the fact that the high-end electronics company put a nearly-unmodified $500 Oppo Blu-ray player into a new Lexicon chassis and was selling it for $3500. AV Rant broke the story first on its home theater podcast with some pics of the two players' internals. Audioholics.com then posted a full suite of pics and tested the players with an Audio Precision analyzer. Both showed identical analogue audio performance and both failed a couple of basic THX specifications. Audioholics also posted commentary from THX on the matter and noted that both companies appear to be in a mad scramble to hide the fact that the player was ever deemed THX certified."

Comments

Audio/Videophiles Beware

[Entropy98]

Expensive isn't always better. Ever heard of Denon's $500 ‘Audiophile’ Ethernet Cable

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[larien]

"designed for the audio enthusiast" - i.e. the only people who will pay $500 for a cable they could buy for I think in that way, it's perfectly designed.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[imsabbel]

I tell you, audiophiles have NO IDEA OF SCALE.

I am working with HF stuff. I run on cables that cost as much as that one, but in bulk supply from industry vendors (Huber+Suhner, for example). Because they are linear to 18 Ghz.

I also did an experiment where i had to synchronize two signals to some picoseconds, and that is damn hard. Damn hard in the sense of "a day of quality time with a network analyser and a few delaylines".

---

Speaking again on HDMI: Yeah, it matters for it, as its fucking running at several hundred times the datarate than an audio connection.
HDMI is specified to transport up to 10Gbits/s, multiplexed on only 19 conductors.
Compare again with audio datarates...

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[gowen]

Please do the calculation and tell us what the difference in transit times is for, say, 40m of cable.
Clue: do actually believe that a band who's musicians use different length guitar/mic cables cannot possibly play in time?

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[commodore64_love]

(shines ethernet cable)
(attaches fake Denon label)

I've got some amazing Denon wire here, personally spit-polished to ensure the absolute best in digital transmission quality. And at only $249 this is a real bargain! (audiophiles stampede into the room). My god. It's almost like being Timothy Geitner - I'm printing my own money.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[jgardia]

sorry, but the maximum speed of i2c is 3.4 mbps. you will need about 9m difference in length to have 10% of phase difference between your clock and your data, using the maximum speed (the usual one is 100-400 kbps). I agree that cat5(e) was not designed for i2c signals, but is more than enough for this application.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[Opportunist]

Given that the maximum cable length under best conditions (I'm not even accounting for cable twisting here) is about 100m, at 0.5c the delay between sender and receiver is about 6.6*10^-9. Not quite 7 nanoseconds, if I am not mistaken. The time it takes your computer to execute about 30 atomic instructions. Considering your reflexes take a billion times longer, I would be amazed if you can hear THAT.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[Opportunist]

We're not talking about data loss here, but data degeneration. And it used to be a problem with analog cables. A signal might have been distorted by a badly shielded cable because the signal was sent into the wire and then reproduced the way it was received. If it was altered along the way, that alteration was often audibly noticable.

That doesn't apply to digital data. If a 1 is sent and is received as a "0.8" or a "1.2", it will still be interpreted as a 1. Simply because there is no 0.8 or 1.2, as there used to be in analog times. Yes, the signal can still degenerate, but since we use discrete values of signals in digital media instead of a "sliding scale" analog signal, that degeneration is easily compensated. It can now be identified correctly and it is adjusted accordingly. So that signal degeneration plays a lesser role now. Of course, if you have REALLY crappy cables it will show. But the average cable that wasn't tied in a knot first will do just fine.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

Ethernet signals travel at a very large fraction of the speed of light. Light travels around 11 inches in a nanosecond. So you're claiming picosecond intolerances in your clock signals.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[Taimoor]

I'm laughing my ass off. You don't seriously think the jitter caused by that miniscule difference in cable length will fool with anything designed to use twisted pair as an interconnect, do you?

We're not talking about memory busses running at several GHz, we're talking about relatively low-bandwidth interconnects between devices. And this is assuming that you're not encapsulating everything and just using ethernet signaling like everyone else in the pro audio world does.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[marcansoft]

You're confusing jitter with clock skew. Clock skew means nothing as long as the input signal is still within the setup/hold times of the receiver. It either works or doesn't. This isn't to say that you don't need good matching, just that better matching will not improve quality.

Jitter is different. Jitter is uneven clocking. On the other hand, jitter is almost nonexistent on separate clock/data connections because any delays in the clock are consistent.

Jitter does matter in things like S/PDIF that combine clock and data, because then the data will affect the distortion on the clock and it will be jittery when recovered. This is what all the talk about jitter is: S/PDIF (and similar) clock recovery. Don't mix it up with other issues and other interfaces.

S/PDIF does have improved quality if the signal is less distorted, because it improves jitter. This problem can be completely eliminated by using a buffer before the DAC, or at least a PLL to clean up the clock (it only affects DACs that clock straight off of the recovered S/PDIF clock). Other interfaces (I2S) with separate clock and data do not have this problem because any distortion on the clock is consistent cycle to cycle.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[MattskEE]

At 20kHz two chunks of aluminum makes for a pretty nice cable. With 50GHz coax you need tiny precision machined connectors (2.4mm), and a very narrow cable with a low permittivity dielectric. Such a cable costs about $2,000.

The reason for the precision, size, and expense at those frequencies (as you know but others probably don't) is that if you have a large cable, there are multiple different wave equation solutions (modes) which allow power of a particular frequency to travel down a cable, and they will propagate at different speeds in the cable (and different attenuations), so what you get out of the cable is a distorted version of the input. So you must make the cable with size on the order of the smallest wavelength you intend to transmit. And it has to be precisely made because imperfections, scratches, and so on need to be even smaller or they will cause an impedance shift which reflects some signal back at the source.

At 50Ghz a wavelength is 6mm. At 20kHz it is 15km. This is why it is easy to make very nice audio cables, and hard to make nice HF cables.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[SchlimpyChicken]

I have been told (directly, not third party) by one of the highest authorities at Denon Electronics that their cable is a shielded Cat5e cable... They only made it to satisfy custom installers who wanted something ridiculous to sell clients who had more money than sense. Off the record of course...

In this case Denon aren't bad guys, they just aren't stupid. They had enough requests and knew these guys would simply go elsewhere to get what they wanted (another product they could sell people who, if they dropped a $100 bill on the ground, would think it a waste of time to stoop over and pick it up).

In this case, the people at fault are the installers who can't seem to charge for their time and instead want to cultivate an industry where their services are "free" and everything is paid through them buying products at cost and selling them at retail to clients. The really big installers know how to run a business, but the middle and lower tiers are largely fueling customer ignorance of the value of their services.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[ThreeGigs]

No, please let ME explain this.

The wires are in pairs. Color coded pairs.
Depending on your point of view, the green pair is TX (transmit) and the orange pair is RX (receive).
Since the green pair (solid/striped pair) is twisted together, both green wires are the same length. Both orange wires are the same length (although green and orange may have slightly different lengths).

ALL of the signal data is transmitted in ONE DIRECTION on ONE PAIR (man I love caps emphasis) whose wires are the SAME LENGTH.

Understand that yet? Data from component A to component B travels over two wires which are the _same length_. Data back from component B to A travels over another pair of same-length wires. There is no "messing" with clock data, as it's all serial. And even if it used the 1000-T/TX standard requiring 2 pairs per direction, the difference in length of conductors in a 10 meter long cable (10 meters would be a very big audio rack) is 4.44 centimeters (assuming 24 ga and standard insulation thickness and miswiring to get longest/shortest paired). Rounding that up to 5 centimeters, and using 300 million meters/second for speed of light, and .64c propogation speed in the wire, I get about one four-billionth of a second difference. Meaning your sample rate would need to be in the GHz range, and which means if you can tell the difference, you would be able to "hear" VHF and UHF radio waves.

Keep rationalizing though... it keeps my debunking skills fresh.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[Alioth]

Really? The clock is *that* intolerant on a 3 and a bit Mbps signal that a couple of mm is going to really make a difference?

Sorry - but a normal ethernet cable will be more than adequate. You're wasting your money if you spent $500 on the Denon cable - you've been had. Ensuring the PCB traces are exactly the same length isn't good engineering for this particular task, it's simply wasting your time. I simply do not believe the clock tolerance is measured in picoseconds.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[mako1138]

It doesn't matter for i2s, it's a clocked interface. As long as setup and hold times are met, the data will be valid. Picoseconds aren't going to mess things up when the setup and hold time specs are measured in nanoseconds or more.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[ultranova]

Just because you can't measure it doesn't mean that an audiophile can't hear it.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[ultranova]

What idiot would design a digital transmission protocol without built-in error correction?

The kind that wants to sell $500 cables to be used with it?

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[hufman]

I don't think this has to do with the length of time that a wireless signal takes to be transmitted. I think it's affected by the length of time that the music from the rest of band takes to travel through the air.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Greetings Mr Record Producer.

There's a world of misery in high end audio these days. First off, I do NOT have a high end DVD player, as I have yet to find a DVD player with decent enough audio out. But, I and my neighbour both have really awesome stereo systems and we regularly test different cables and suchlike, and oddly enough, cabling, even for digital, does make a difference, sometimes dramatic.

My system:
Computer: iBook, USB to (DAC)
CD: Rotel 855, spdif out to (DAC):
DAC: Musical Fidelity DAC, w/ M.F. power unit, kimber cable to:
Pre: Bryston, to:
Amp: B&K, using amazingly cheap yet excellent flat audio cable to:
Speakers: Home built. SEAS 8in woofers with 5in Audax mids and 1 in tweeters, in ported forward firing towers.
I also have a turntable: SOTA Comet with a REGA tonearm and Sumiko Blue Point Cart that goes to a Rotel ttable preamp. I also have an old Onkyo FM tuner that I rarely use.

My friend's system: Copmuter: IBM thinkpad, USB to DAC
CD: Rotel 855, spdif out to DAC:
DAC: Benchmark to:
Pre: Melos optical, to
Amp: Phase Linear 400 to
Speakers: Watson Lab 10s (monster towers. Filled with Audax drivers)

And we did a series of tests. Our results were:

1. The best listening on both systems was this arrangement:
24bit FLAC files on Computer via USB to DAC to AMP to SPEAKERS.
The FLAC sounds better than CD because of the error correction in the CD player accounting for defects in the CD, dust, finger prints, vagrant cruft, the fact that the discs aren't perfectly circular, etc.

2. Getting good electricity was paramount - plugging directly to the wall socket noticeably screwed with the sound.

3. We found that the Preamps very very very slightly altered the sound stage. We both have high quality passive preamps, and they shouldn't change anything, but they did. The Bryston was less affecting than the Melos. We swapped preamps one day, and decided the Melos sounded a wee tiny bit nicer, but was slightly more tiring with my speakers and amp. As a consequence, the ever so slightly better sound was to go directly from the DAC to the AMP.

4. Next to solid electric provided by power conditioners, cabling made a big difference. We both use fairly high end Kimber cables, so that is not the issue. What is supremely weird is the USB cable made a difference. We had some junk USB cables sitting around and used those. Then we both chipped in and got a stupidly expensive ($85) USB cable. It sounded great. That afternoon, I bought a hard drive that came with a USB cable. The FREE CABLE sounded better. No shit. On both systems. So, we got our money back on the USB cable and took our families out for pizza and beer.

Also, the SPDIF cable made a huge difference. The cheap plastic SPDIF lightpipe thingie sucked. It wreaked havoc with the soundstage. However, the SPDIF RCA style optical was WAY better. Why? No idea.

5. The second best arrangement was with the Preamps back in the system. Frankly, the differences were tiny. My neighbour noticed it more than me.

6. We both have shorter cable lengths. We both used to have longer cables, but after repeated testing on both systems, the longest cable either of us now has is 1 meter, except, or course, for the speaker cable. The speaker cable is an interesting issue. For years I used heavy duty lamp cord. Then I bought balanced studio TRS cables. Then I figured out, any decent cable is just fucking copper. Pure copper. It's NOT the cable: it's the interconnects. building my own cables is do-able as I can buy high end silver interconnects, and solder them to pure copper cables. I still have some Kimber cables, but it's mostly home built.

People poo poo home built, as if a kit is inferior. If you're careful and precise, and know how the stuff works, homebrew gear can be VASTLY superior. Example: I bought a pair of Polk Audio Monitor 5s at a pawn shop for $60. I used them until a tweeter failed. The cabinets were in PERFECT cond

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[AmiMoJo]

So what you are saying is that two guys spent large amounts of money on hifi gear and now both of you can hear a difference between digital cables which all the science and testing says are the same?

Psychology is always a problem with this sort of thing. Unless you can show that you can tell the difference in double blind tests then I'm afraid you won't be able to convince me. Every time people have done double blind tests the results have shown that they can't tell the difference between cheap digital cables and expensive ones, probably because there isn't any.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[maestroX]

I'm curious: can you hear the difference when using unequal cable lengths?

Yes.
It is common knowledge that the human body is not built symmetrically and distance between ear and brain vary from one another.
I usually tug along my portable CAT scanner for adjusting the cable lengths properly and provide my customers with the best aural experience possible.

Re:Audio/Videophiles Beware

[Schaffner]

Well, it was Grace Hopper and she's the mother of COBOL, not FORTRAN. She used to give out "nanoseconds" at her lectures. They were 11.9 inch lengths of wire, which represents how far electricity can go in a nanosecond. A friend of mine still has one of these "nanoseconds" he got from her.

No shock

[darkitecture]

The audio industry being less than honest?

Say it ain't so!

Re:No shock

[Sycraft-fu]

I've never understood why you'd want to buy a "high end" Blu-ray player anyhow. Reason is I can see only two setups:

1) You own a low end TV and receiver, or maybe no receiver at all. You've got no digital inputs. Thus your Blu-ray player's DACs have to handle the conversion. However, their quality matters little. Why? Well you've got a low end setup. You clearly are not concerned with quality. As such a cheap player will do fine. Improvements to its DACs and supporting analogue circuitry won't be noticeable to you.

2) You own a high end TV/receiver and care a great deal about quality. In the case you hook the Blu-ray player up using HDMI. Reason is HDMI gives you the best signal. However in this case, the player isn't doing anything other than nabbing the data and passing it along. The analogue conversion happens in other units. So again, the quality isn't important. Your receiver's high quality DACs will handle the audio, the Blu-ray player will just send them data.

I just can't see the case where you'd need good analogue outputs for Blu-ray.

I can see potentially buying something like the Oppo player, if it had a good warranty and build quality. Makes sense to maybe pay more to have your gear last, but I can't see paying more for one just because it supposedly had better circuitry. Even if it does, you aren't going to make use of it. You'd be a fool to buy a high end HDTV and then not use the digital input, as the TV processes everything digitally internally.

Re:No shock

[Shawn Parr]

This overlooks one group of people who actually exist in large numbers but are often overlooked:

3. You have a nice HDTV and HDMI digital for that. But you also have a very nice audio system, but one that you put together before the HDMI specification was well established and thus it does not have HDMI. But your Receiver/PrePro/Amplifiers are very good, and you don't want to just replace them just to get ones with HDMI built in. But luckily they can take 5.1 or 7.1 analog inputs from a player with good quality outputs.

This is exactly why I like the Oppo BluRay player. At the time for a minimal cost increase over other BR players I was able to use both a digital connection to my TV, and use the latest audio upgrades on BR along with my older, but very good, audio system. That being said I would never pay the $2000 plus for the 'high end' BR players. The Oppo is excellent, and I don't even have the special edition model with upgraded audio components. I'm sure it's fabulous, but the regular one I have is really really good.

Why replace perfectly good equipment just to get a new connector, when you can still use it and get great performance out of it? I occasionally get the itch to replace those components, but when I research new ones I just don't see enough upgrade for what it would cost to justify it at this point.

Credibility.

[headkase]

Years to build, seconds to destroy. So, who comes out on top over THX now?

Re:Credibility.

[Trepidity]

Sadly it's been a years-long downwards slide with THX. They used to certify only high-end theatres, then added high-end home theatre setups, then the standards for commercial theatres slowly started slipping until basically everyone who wasn't showing films in a tin can got certified, then they started certifying middle-of-the-road home theatre setups, then individual pieces of home-theatre hardware, and recently even some decent but not exactly world-class Logitech computer speakers.

Re:Credibility.

[Sycraft-fu]

Ya. While over all I like the idea of certification grades, THX did a bad job of it. Part of it was that they don't do enough to differentiate the certification types. They all feature THX in big letters and then something small that tells you what the actual certification is. Ok, well that matters a lot. A high end Ultra 2 certification on speakers pretty much means they can handle theatre reference levels of sound. They can truly give you a home theater. Their lower end stuff? Not so much.

Also when it came to computer speakers they started compromising too much. It wasn't a matter of backing off on some specs that really didn't matter too much, they changed it so much to accommodate the lower end nature of computer speakers as to make it more or less meaningless.

Personally, I don't buy THX gear. It is a waste of money in my book. All the gear I seem to like the best doesn't bother getting THX certified. They don't need a label saying "This is good for home theater." You take a listen to it and you say "This is good for home theater," no badge needed.

In some cases, they impose restrictions that aren't acceptable to manufacturers either. Speakers are a good example. The high end THX spec (don't know about the lower ones) requires speakers to be sealed with a natural rolloff at 80Hz. Ok, well maybe I don't want that. In fact, I for sure don't want that for music. I want more full range speakers, and I'd like them ported as that increases low end efficiency. Ok, well they can't be THX then, no matter how good they are.

Really, if you are looking for good home theatre, you'll do much better buying high quality gear you like, and making sure to get a receiver that has a good calibration solution like Audyssey MultEQ. Having your setup properly dialed in to correct levels and delays and such is way more important than if the speaker is precisely what THX likes.

Haha, and some people ridicule me....

[Tanuki64]

...because I always buy cheapest. Mostly people who deem themselves audiophile and cannot understand that I am not. For me a cheap player was always enough. Now I also have the satisfaction that I am not cheated. At least I get what I pay for. :-)

had a similar case with B&O and Panasonic

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was working for a Bang & Olufsen dealer I we had the case of a broken TV we had to pick up from a client and fix it. The TV in question was a rebadged panasonic with a nice B & O frame. We repaired the tv in the workshop and tested it. After that we put it back in its B&O frame and returned it to the customer only to find it wasn't working. Why? One of us had managed to accidently press the original panasonic powerbutton while putting it back in the B&O frame. Try explaining that to a customer.

Re:had a similar case with B&O and Panasonic

[TheGratefulNet]

want a worse example? lets continue with panasonic but lets enter LEICA into it!

rebadging was never quite the same as when 'red dot' leica did it. they took semi-crappy pany digicams, slapped a leica logo on it, LIED TO THE PUBLIC about the lineage of the camera (saying it was qa'd in germany which is an out and out LIE) and then sold the cams at several times the pany price.

LEICA used to be a real high end camera company. they lost face when they pulled this stunt. there are leica lenses in the $3k range that are 'real leicas' but a $500 digicam that is rebadged is not a real leica even though the brand lies thru their teeth about it (when dpreview.com was pressed, they dodged the issue. probably due to lost advertising income if they fessed up that the fz50 and vlux1 are the same friggin cameras. touch that 'third rail' and you lose advertising revenue and review samples. yup, we know the game, guys...

THX?

[JustOK]

Wow. I'm sticking with THC.

Could never happen with computers...

[lucm]

Imagine a company that would take a few hundred bucks worth of regular PC parts, add a slightly modified free open-source OS, package the thing in a white shiny box and sell it for a few thousand bucks... What a scam it would be!

No it works fine with normal Cat-5

[Sycraft-fu]

They say as much in the manual of Denon gear that has the port on it. You have to realize they used stick Denon Link on most of their stuff. They do it much less now that HDMI works well. The original purpose of it was to get a digital multi-channel uncompressed audio signal off DVD-A and SACD. Prior to HDMI, there wasn't an interconnect that did that so they rolled their own. Now it isn't so useful so they've pulled it off most of their gear.

At any rate, I don't think they were seriously expecting people who bought $1,000 receivers to get a $500 cable. As I said, the manual doesn't say you need to. What I think it was is audiophiles whining. They do sell some pretty expensive stuff, like a $7,500 processor/preamp. Some people who buy that probalby sniveled at the though of having to use an ordinary ethernet cable for their precious data. Denon then decided that if these people wished to waste money, they'd be happy to stick a vaccuum in their pocket and suck it out.

I don't believe it uses I2S, as they specifically talk about jitter immunity, and even if so it wouldn't matter. The data from any of the digital inputs doesn't go to a DAC, it goes to a SHARC processor (or sometimes more than one) where it is manipulated according to the setup of the receiver. From there it goes to the DAC. So it is going to get re-clocked anyhow.

Re:No it works fine with normal Cat-5

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago I worked for a famous chip company with only one real competitor. When they came out with a chip that was smaller, faster, and used less juice than ours, we were, ahem, green with envy.

And we raised our prices.

The marketing VP explained to us at a meeting that people will perceive our chips as being better, even when they know the facts prove otherwise, because if it "costs more it must be better."

I'd like to point out that most "audiophiles" are usually scrounging vintage gear at Goodwill, and pretty much tweak their analogue gear with rubber bands and safety pins or whatever words. It's the guys with too much money who are buying the alleged high end gear.

I2S clock jitter does NOT affect audio performance

[msgmonkey]

As someone who has actually interfaced I2S sigma-delta DAC's to DSP's I can tell you are either confused or have your facts wrong.

The clocking setup is typically a master clock running at 256X, 384X or 512X audio frequency running into the DAC, it is the stabilty of this clock that determines the accuracy of the analogue output.

The I2S bus has three lines, CLK (data clock) which runs at 32X frequency (for 16bit audio), DATA (the actual bits) and LR which indicated if the data is on the left or right side. Jitter on the data line has no bearing on the quality of the output as long the data is present on the clock transition as it is latched and presented synchronously to the analogue section of the DAC.

Although I2S was not designed for cable comunications you could easily get away with using it for short distances since even at 24bits and 96Khz the clock rate is only 4.608MHz with a cycle time of 217ns. Assuming a latch window of 25% of cycle time of gives us 51ns, any device producing that much jitter would have to be pretty badly designed.

So to cut a long story short, yes for I2S using ethernet cable is more.