-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wii U - No optical audio connector? Nintendo. Fix this!!
- Thread starter Fredrik
- Start date
Always-honest
Banned
Sure. It's great qualityPhife Dawg said:
walking fiend
Member
I have tried, like years ago when I switched over wireless, but seems I had a superb router, as my latency wasn't added by 8ms, not even 4ms, maybe 2 or maybe 1, maybe less, can't remember...The Faceless Master said:
still waiting for anyone to provide a test which shows >4ms added latency
Wireless is not nearly as good as wired ethernet, even with N/N+/whatever. My router is positioned in a rather central place, and if I use my laptop at some positions around the house the best I can get are ~20 MBit/s. That's opposed to ~800MBit/s over ethernet. And without doing file transfers to other wireless devices at the same time. It's fine for web browsing but that's it.
Also, latency spikes can occur if you have multiple devices connected wirelessly and a few of them transmit data at the same time.
Also, latency spikes can occur if you have multiple devices connected wirelessly and a few of them transmit data at the same time.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
In terms of immersion factor alone, the jump from 2 channel audio up to a proper surround setup can easily be on par. I wouldn't casually dismiss it and I'm far from an audiophile type. Then again, it seems some people like to classify anyone who can appreciate even a basic jump in the audio quality experience as being an audiophile. But then again, there are also does who think there's no appreciable jump in quality from SD to HD either. ;PkneePat said:Really? While gaming? On a medium which is almost entirely visual? Could you justify this by explaining the quality jump from 2 ch stereo to 5.1 Surround versus PQ going from 480i to 720p+? Some games are unplayable at lower resolutions, and interlacing is a terrible way to watch anything now a days.
Audiophiles and their finely tuned ears make no sense to me
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
Phife Dawg said:
Well what else would all the millions of people out there use that still own non HDMI receivers and cheap surround sound kits?
I actually only just recently purchased an av receiver and specifically went for a non HDMI one so I could get a second-hand one and have better audio quality for my money, I have multiple HDMI devices that all have different display profiles and HDMI av receivers are crap in that regards as they don't have any video processing built into them so I prefer plugging my devices directly into my TV that has a profile for each input.
The Faceless Master
Member
with the 128k reference, there's no doubt it's just about games.Anilusion said:
XiaNaphryz said:
It can be argued that the immersion you speak of relies on the quality of the image just as much if not more than the audio system. After all your eyes are fixed on a point and thus yours ear are fixed as well.
I do appreciate surround sound but when I look at the entirety of a home theater setup I won't notice the 2 channel output if there is only that, because my receiver will do a good job at utilizing the setup and produce sound from all the speakers. Now if I try to play a PSone game on the PS3 I immediately notice the pixelization and the lack of detail because my system is fixed and thus the screen size is fixed and TV's today are usually at fixed resolutions and unfortunately anything that doesn't abide by these fixed progressive numbers will suffer and that means older games, tv shows, and standard def movies. After becoming used to this I will take a hit in sound if it means my eyes will stay fixed on superior image quality for the sake of immersion.
The same also applies to having to watch/play something on a standard def crt tv, even if it has the best 7.1 speakers in the world I would have serious apprehensions about playing anything on it. In this medium, Picture/Graphics quality is what sells and has always been and will always be. If today's games are designed to be immersive experiences with good surround sound in mind, then it is even more true that they are designed at high def resolutions with even better image quality in mind.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
kneePat said:
Maybe for the majority but Audio is every important to me, I personally rate it over image quality, I have a great imagination, my brain finds it easier to fill in the gaps on a poor looking game over that of a game that has poor audio, it's like when you read a book, your imagination builds a picture based on what your reading but it's a lot harder to imagine sounds, so I'd rather have that as a priority to help supplement my imagination.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
wsippel said:
S/PDIF has enough bandwidth for 2 channel linear PCM, that's better than nothing.
And I find it hard to believe that they won't support ac3 or dts, that would just be silly.
walking fiend
Member
Anilusion said:
This:
And also such a drop will never happen for a 128k speed anyway, speed drop usually will be a totally no issue unless you reach a certain speed, which is usually more than enough whatever you may normally want to do with your Wii U. With the extremely common g, you may easily go as up as 20Mbs for download, with an n, it'll be around 80Mbs.
Regardless, Netflix highest stream is bellow 5Mbs which can be attained normally with even b, let alone g or n:
http://techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/netflix-performance-on-top-isp-networks.html
it'll only matter when you have a very fast connection and during downloading games, etc.
Phife Dawg
Member
I mean my receiver has optical audio but it never crossed my mind to actually use it.Always-honest said:
Not a tech guy but my av receiver has video processing (hw upscaling etc.) maybe I'm confusing things here? Was cheap too, and of good quality (Yamaha RX V-567, not an audiophile though).lowrider007 said:
I love the internet.
Only on the internet can you find people who act like 5-12 year old receiver tech is old tech.
Only on the internet can you find people who get new routers everytime there is a new standard.
Only on the internet can you find people who upgrade every single piece of technology that ever existed in an ongoing basis.
There are units worth thousands of dollars without HDMI. Receivers are typically bought once or twice ever by people. If you've ever had discussions with various normal human beings, you might actually know that.
Only thing left is to run into some moron that upgrades their refrigerator every year. Then I'll have seen everything.
"What? You have a fridge without internet and online shopping on it? Are you from the stone age??"
"No but you certainly are an idiot."
Nevermind that only a few years ago, HDMI receivers were not only obscenely expensive but they were nonworking products. They had something called passthrough which basically made audio not work if I recall. The port was a bulletpoint, and otherwise inoperable besides for video.
Someone correct me on this if I'm totally off.
When I was in the market for a Receiver in 2007, I could either buy a $5-600 HT setup with HDMI, or $300 for a DD/DTS setup, quality otherwise identical. Take a guess which one I went with.
Only on the internet can you find people who act like 5-12 year old receiver tech is old tech.
Only on the internet can you find people who get new routers everytime there is a new standard.
Only on the internet can you find people who upgrade every single piece of technology that ever existed in an ongoing basis.
There are units worth thousands of dollars without HDMI. Receivers are typically bought once or twice ever by people. If you've ever had discussions with various normal human beings, you might actually know that.
Only thing left is to run into some moron that upgrades their refrigerator every year. Then I'll have seen everything.
"What? You have a fridge without internet and online shopping on it? Are you from the stone age??"
"No but you certainly are an idiot."
lowrider007 said:
Nevermind that only a few years ago, HDMI receivers were not only obscenely expensive but they were nonworking products. They had something called passthrough which basically made audio not work if I recall. The port was a bulletpoint, and otherwise inoperable besides for video.
Someone correct me on this if I'm totally off.
When I was in the market for a Receiver in 2007, I could either buy a $5-600 HT setup with HDMI, or $300 for a DD/DTS setup, quality otherwise identical. Take a guess which one I went with.
Reallink
Member
HDMI repeating on AVR's (i.e. actually handled HDMI audio) wasn't really "standardized" until the 2010 model year. By that I mean any $200-$400 AVR you bought wasn't guaranteed to handle HDMI audio. As late as 2009, you really had to be in the $400-$500 bracket to get HDMI audio. Most of the cheaper models that year had HDMI inputs, but they didn't actually extract any audio, they just acted as HDMI video switches/pass-throughs. Yep, it was as asinine as it sounds. Earlier model years played this same game, with only the most expensive models actually handling HDMI audio--only the have and have nots were higher up the price tiers.
Theonik
Member
Iwata: (laughs)
Edit: Personally I'm a bit annoyed about the lack of Optical out as I'd like to be able to use it on my ancient Onkyo TX-DS777 in my bedroom.
Probably want to save on royalties. Don't really need them either tbh not without movie playback capabilities anyway. PS3 only does LPCM through HDMI for games and it's fine, devs haven't seemed to have an issue with it.lowrider007 said:
Edit: Personally I'm a bit annoyed about the lack of Optical out as I'd like to be able to use it on my ancient Onkyo TX-DS777 in my bedroom.
Always-honest
Banned
If you also have HDMI on your receiver i guess you don't have to. But i have a great receiver without HDMI. I don't really want to buy a new one.Phife Dawg said:
hey, it's an image.Medalion said:
H_Prestige
Banned
At least it has HDMI this time. So much nicer than that messy analog crap.
Dash Kappei
Not actually that important
My receiver sounds much better than your does and it doesn't have hdmi inputs.Amon37 said:
You're wrong.
Dark Octave
Banned
Why is Nintendo half assing their systems a surprise to anyone anymore?Amon37 said:
Nuclear Muffin
Banned
That hardware isn't even in an Alpha state yet. Why is this even a matter of concern right now?
Phife Dawg
Member
Understandably so. But there will probably be a work-around.Always-honest said:
Wasn't one of the reasons DVD playback was scratched from Wii that optical audio was demanded? Anyway I wouldn't expect them to put it in if it's not in now, alpha or not.Nuclear Muffin said:
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
Phife Dawg said:
What I want is the ability to change and memerise the picture settings on each input, brightness/contrast etc.
Sorry this is a little ot, but it seems like the best place atm. Like many posting I have a 10 year old receiver that is very nice. I am content with DTS 5.1 for another year, when I will probably upgrade to an HDMI receiver.
I am wondering if I will be able to use that switcher posted earlier so that I get DTS via toslink from my GTX 580 as well as 3d video. essentially running just the HDMI cord from the 580 to the converter, getting DTS output from the optical out on the converter, and video to the 3dtv.
I am wondering if I will be able to use that switcher posted earlier so that I get DTS via toslink from my GTX 580 as well as 3d video. essentially running just the HDMI cord from the 580 to the converter, getting DTS output from the optical out on the converter, and video to the 3dtv.
Bluemercury
Member
never used an optical port...but i would if i needed it...
Palette Swap
Member
The issue here seems to be more that the Wii U won't support anything other than LPCM anyway.
But yeah, count me in the "no HDMI audio" camp. And I'm certainly not going to change my receiver for a console, considering it delivers a sound I love and I can play fine every source out there.
Thinking people will change their receiver every other year seems absolutely ignorant to me. HDMI audio is the new norm but I'm pretty certain it's far from the majority of the AV receiver install base right now.
Then again, that's just Nintendo being themselves. Props to MS for making DD a gaming standard and to Sony for building up on that.
But yeah, count me in the "no HDMI audio" camp. And I'm certainly not going to change my receiver for a console, considering it delivers a sound I love and I can play fine every source out there.
Thinking people will change their receiver every other year seems absolutely ignorant to me. HDMI audio is the new norm but I'm pretty certain it's far from the majority of the AV receiver install base right now.
Then again, that's just Nintendo being themselves. Props to MS for making DD a gaming standard and to Sony for building up on that.