Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Pioneer Elite > to new reciever question

This is topic Pioneer Elite > to new reciever question in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000902

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-07-2010, 12:56 AM:

I am running a Pioneer Elite THX reciever made in 1998. I am using a laserdisc player and the Dolby AC-3 RF out which goes into the reciever for Dolby Digital. The reciever has 6 channel outputs which can go to an amp.

I want to upgrade my system to include DTS and master audio because i am now into blu rays.

Here is my question.

Can I connect my laserdisc player rf out to my existing Elite machine. Then connect my Elite machine via channel out to a new reciever with 6-channel in.

Will I be able to use my reciever as a demodulator this way so I can get Dolby Digital from my laserdiscs?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-07-2010, 01:18 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Can I connect my laserdisc player rf out to my existing Elite machine. Then connect my Elite machine via channel out to a new reciever with 6-channel in.

I'm confused -- how many Elite machines are in this system? This sounds like you have 2 laserdisc machines. And I've never heard of AC3 delivered via RF.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-07-2010, 01:20 AM:

Almost all new recievers do not carry an RF demodulator.

So,

My laserdisc rf out > to my old Elite reciever > to a new reciever (which would carry DTS) etc.

make sense? I want the old Elite machine to act as a demodulator only.

quote: Manny Knowles
And I've never heard of AC3 delivered via RF.

Pre-DVD days. Dolby Digital was only available via RF out on a laserdisc machine.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-07-2010, 02:32 AM:

There are RF converters out there...check eBay. I know I have one for my LDs though the the current receiver I have already takes RF in...I know all future ones will not.

Steve

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-07-2010, 02:42 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
There are RF converters out there...check eBay. I know I have one for my LDs though the the current receiver I have already takes RF in...I know all future ones will not.

Steve

Thats not what I want. I can't afford both a RF demodulator and a new reciever that can handle Master audi DTS with HDMi.

I am hoping to use the pre-outs from one, and multi-channel from the new reciever. This way the old reciever acts as a demodulator or pass through if you know what I mean

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-07-2010, 10:06 AM:

Oh I see.

Would your decoded AC3 leave your old Elite machine as an analog signal?

Would the volume control on your Elite affect the signal going to your new receiver, or is the output pre-fader?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2010, 10:28 AM:

Steve is right, you'll need a standalone RF demodulator. But be warned, it will not be Elite and it will probably not be cheap. It would be much better than running two receivers, especially when both are doing the pre-amp function.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-07-2010, 07:53 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
It would be much better than running two receivers, especially when both are doing the pre-amp function.

So can it be done?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2010, 07:56 PM:

Only if you want to be truly ghetto.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-07-2010, 08:00 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Only if you want to be truly ghetto.

LOL. Its not about being ghetto. Its about saving money and still having AC3 from my LDS. It would be a bitch to change the speaker connection everytime I wanted to watch a Dolby Digital LD.

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 11-07-2010, 08:15 PM:

Simple question, simple answer: yes.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-07-2010, 08:53 PM:

Tom,

I've gotten around the problem by using an old Sony AC3 preamp/processor that has the AC3-RF connection. I connect my AC3-RF out from the LaserDisc player to the old Sony processor, and then connect the optical out of that processor to my modern Onkyo receiver. It works like a charm. I still have to run a separate digital coax from the LaserDisc player for DTS and PCM though. Luckily, the Sony pre/pro can also handle passthrough for those signals.

AJG

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-08-2010, 04:16 AM:

Doing it the way Aaron did it is really the only way to ensure you'll get the proper sound levels (other than getting a job and buying an RF Demodulator). If you are using the analog outputs on the first receiver and if they are controlled by that receiver's fader you will need to set all levels/tone/EQ/etc flat and then adjust the fader so each output reads the standard 300mv while playing a 1 khz tone (31.5 Hz for subwoofer). If one or more channels does not match, you must change it internally in the first receiver. Once everything is set, never EVER touch the volume on the first receiver again. Just turn it on and off. Set your levels and adjust volume with the second receiver. If you do not do this, the levels from your Dolby Digital LaserDiscs will likely be completely wonky.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-20-2010, 12:21 AM:

Thanks everyone for your help. This why this forum is so great. I appreciate it.

I did it. I could not resist. I purchased a Yamaha machine with 6 channel in. I can now play every audio format from Laserdisc/DVD/Blu ray except Dolby Digital EX from laserdisc.

I could not afford a THX machine so I had to go without THX this time. I let my Elite THX machine handle all laserdisc PCM/DTS/Dolby Digital decoding while the new machine takes care of DvD/Bluray.

I couldn't be happier.

I have not yet upgraded to 7 channel as I don't have the speaker mounts yet. I will be doing that soon.

Thanks again everyone.
Tom.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-04-2011, 06:41 PM:

My neighbor just put a Pioneer receiver out by the dumpster which has an AC3 RF input on it but has no outputs. I'm wondering if there's any way to remove the demodulation equipment inside and use it with my newer receiver? I hate to see it go to the landfill but I'm not going to pick it up unless I can do that with it. I have a Kenwood demodulator already but if that ever dies I'll be screwed. It was such a stupid design to not just put a normal digital output on laserdisc players for the AC3 signal instead of making it be demodulated outside the player.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 09-04-2011, 07:13 PM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
It was such a stupid design to not just put a normal digital output on laserdisc players for the AC3 signal instead of making it be demodulated outside the player.

No, it was good design that was better than DTS. DTS used the digital track and then you had no Digital unless you had DTS.

Dolby used 1 analog track while the digital track were preserved in case you didnt have AC3

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-05-2011, 08:32 AM:

I meant that however the sound was put on the disc, they should not have made it so complicated to decode it. With any current receiver you need a demodulator (my first multichannel receiver in 1998 needed one)- it would have been so much easier if the demodulating had been done in the player and had just a standard digital output to connect to any receiver. Would've been even better if they'd made it switchable between the AC3 and PCM/DTS output- I needed to use 2 digital inputs on my first receiver for the laserdisc player, my new receiver won't let me use 2 for the same source so I have a box hooked up which can switch between them and go to one input on the receiver.

I thought DTS was better for backwards-compatibility because if you have an older (1986 or earlier) player that can't play the digital tracks at all, you still have the analog stereo tracks. With AC3 you lose the right analog track. Sure you lose the PCM stereo tracks with DTS, but if you have a DTS-capable system that doesn't matter much anyways. The analog tracks still sounded good until you upgraded.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 09-05-2011, 09:53 AM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
it would have been so much easier if the demodulating had been done in the player and had just a standard digital output to connect to any receiver.

I got ya!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-05-2011, 05:48 PM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
I needed to use 2 digital inputs on my first receiver for the laserdisc player, my new receiver won't let me use 2 for the same source so I have a box hooked up which can switch between them and go to one input on the receiver.

Any of these are MORE than adequate to route any digital signals through. Been doing it this way since, what, 1995? Any of these are far more convenient to use than switching the output on the player which would likely need to be done through a shitty menu.

Posted by Jeff Kane (Member # 6372) on 09-12-2011, 10:09 AM:

The AC-3 demodulator would've added significantly to the price of the LD player, and provided no benefit to those without AC-3 capability. Many mid/high end receivers at the time had AC-3 RF inputs, and people who wanted the capability obtained it that way.

Incidentally the AC3 bitstream on LDs is likely at a LOWER bitrate than on DVDs. If the LD sounds better? It's 'cause it was mixed better.

When all this started? DTS compatible equipment didn't exist as such. Dolby Pro Logic reigned. AC3 compatibility was only starting to trickle down from the high end ($1000+ receivers), and DTS was very much a niche product. The only consumer DTS decoder available was the Millenium 2.4.6 outboard DTS decoder until the end of '97 when the Sherwood R-945 became the first DD/DTS capable receiver (at the bargain price of $1200).

Back then you had dedicated ICs for *everything*. Nowadays it's all done in firmware!

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 04-03-2012, 04:04 PM:

I wonder how complicated a device an AC3-RF demodulator is. Could someone with some technical skill just build their own?

I'm actually a bit surprised no one seems to have done this yet.

AJG

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 04-06-2012, 07:28 PM:

I'm guessing it's rather complicated, as someone would have done it by now if it weren't. Some people figured out rather quickly how to put an AC-3 output jack on any player, but of course that still requires a demodulator.

Wish I'd picked up an extra Kenwood demodulator at Fry's when they were marked down to $49.99, I've only got one that will have to last me for eternity (even if I re-buy a movie on Blu-Ray or whatever super hi-tech format comes out next, I will NEVER get rid of any of my laserdiscs!)

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 04-06-2012, 10:26 PM:

Hopefully someone bought those Kenwoods and they aren't just sitting in a land fill. At least they could circulate on eBay. My Sony SDP-E800 still works, but I fear for the day that it dies.

I've some titles here and there, but yes, I'll never part with my collection. I'd rather lose all my Blu-rays than my LaserDiscs. It's funny how it still wows guests when they see me put one in the player.

AJG

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-07-2012, 12:17 AM:

They're probably not "wowing" due to being impressed with LDs, but simply how extremely primitive LDs are and how far technology has come since the caveman days of primitive LaserDiscs.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 04-07-2012, 10:31 AM:

And yet many of them still sound better than many DVDs out there.

Heck, I'd even argue some look better. The CAV edition of Jurassic Park to my eyes has a better look than the DVD, despite being lower resolution.

AJG

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-07-2012, 03:38 PM:

The resolution isn't that much lower. The color space, however... well, not that DVD has any to brag about in that regard, either.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 04-07-2012, 03:58 PM:

Watching a 10 foot image now, both formats definitely have their shortcomings. I've grown to hate MPEG2 compression more than dot crawl and analog video noise though.

AJG

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-07-2012, 04:50 PM:

I'd probably have to agree with you there.