How do you multiplex(?) your audio at home? Like, you have one

>>56940035
Its called a receiver.

>>56940035
A receiver with a good remote that supports macros and pass-through control.

Shitty Behringer mixer, and I regret every cent of it. USB interface isn't worth shit, analog paths are single-ended, and the second bus is also the "mute" switch. What trash.

>>56940922
Passable headphone amp though, and enough phantom power to run a proper mic.

The last receiver I had was a Technics(which I got for nothing) I junked because the fuses went bad in it and it kept shutting itself off.

It was a decent enough receiver...about the $150 - $200 price range.

>>56940922

Behringer stuff is JUNK.......a lad I know was selling a Behringer PA......

I told him if he gave me £20 I'd take it off his hands.

He laughed when I said that.

>>56940607
OP here, I wasn't aware of the existence of this kind of device!

Easy, different amp and speakers in each room.

my consoles are all on a cheap HDMI switch which is then plugged into a little box I found on Amazon that takes the digital audio and outputs it to optical, that along with my PC (via USB) is plugged into a Schiit Modi which then outputs to a Schiit Magni which goes to a pair of DT880s and a Pioneer SX-2600 driving a pair of Polk Audio RTi4s
it's all pretty convenient, all I ever need to do is plug/unplug the headphones or switch inputs on the DAC

>>56940983
damn i just bought a shitty dac from them.

File: yam1.jpg (231KB, 1800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1800x1000px

>>56941005
>OP here, I wasn't aware of the existence of this kind of device!
jesus christ...c'mom OP

>>56941091
If you're talking about the UCA202, if you can't send it back, smash it. It's the same chip they use for their USB interface mixers, and it's beyond useless. Oh and expect BSODs if you use their official drivers. It works as good as it'll ever work right out of the box.

>>56940983
>Behringer stuff is JUNK.
Wow...alternative?

>>56941118
After googling around... are they all huge boxes? I would like something wifi router sized that can take one or two analog stereo audio, one or two HDMI, and output one HDMI and one analog stereo audio. And then have wifi, or ethernet, or at least infrared for control.

>>56941245
Oof, audio mixing with HDMI on the small? Good luck, HDMI is black magic as far as most small boxes are concerned, unless they're dedicated audio extractors.

I still haven't found a decent standalone HDMI switch under $200.

File: yamaha-spx900-effects.jpg (23KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x450px

>>56941118

Yamaha make amazing quality products. I have a Yamaha SPX900 signal processor from 1988 which I got off Ebay for a good price.

Pic related.

My floor standing speakers are connected to my receiver. The receiver is connected to the TV, and only the TV. Everything else (consoles, cable, blu-ray, HTPC) goes through the TV and gets passed through to the reciever. There's bookshelf speakers on my desk for my PC, driven from a mini amp.

>>56941280
I have a rx-v379 for music and movie/tv, pretty happy but /g/tards prefer 2.0 ''vintage'' amp over 5.1 japanese receivers.

>>56941272
I'm not looking for mixing. Just switching inputs based on something that I can then automate or remote control.

>>56941236

Alternatives...depends on what you are looking for(their PA, Speakers etc).

If you are the Anon who bought the Behringer DAC, I don't know too much about DAC's.

If you got that DAC for cheap I personally wouldn't be too bothered about it.

>>56941349
Not a interface, just a shit like the UCA202 (RCA output)

Y cables

>>56941316
>/g/tards prefer 2.0 ''vintage'' amp over 5.1 japanese receivers.
I prefer my vintage 2.0 amp since it feels better made than the newer stuff, and doesn't cost a fortune like the good feeling new stuff.

>>56941316

Anon....Some people don't know what they are talking about.....seriously.

The Yamaha SPX series sounds as good as the TC Electronic 2290 and the Roland SDE 3000.

I paid £100 for that SPX900. An TC Electronic 2290 goes for about £800 to £1000 on Ebay now.

I'm a guitar player, BTW.

>>56941335
Thanks to HDCP, and the highly embedded way HDMI audio is done, your best route is probably gonna be two switches, one for HDMI, one for anything else.

>>56941429
>>56941425
I never said they are bad

>>56941369
>UCA202

Focusrite all the way.

>hdmi
>audio

>>56941527
Great if you've got money to burn, but a cheapish USB to optical S/PDIF adapter and a FiiO D3 covers the prosumer market at a much lower price point.

>>56940922
>USB
>audio

>>56941579
For those of us who don't care about latency in the 4000 samples range, asynchronous USB is quite capable. Power and ground isolation are a problem, but that's just as true for an internal card.

>>56941245
>are they all huge boxes
Receivers generally contain power amplifiers (often surround power amplifiers nowadays), so yeah they're generally "huge boxes" and I don't think I've ever seen a device that does what a receiver does but with no amp.

>>56941624
Class D amps are cheap, switching hardware is expensive, gotta meet in the middle and justify the price tag.

>>56940607
its called a crossover

>>56941637
no

>>56941569
Can you elaborate

>>56941651
ok then it is a physical device called a beringer mixer. enjoy spendink 10k

>>56941710
HDMI carries digital audio on a sidechannel along with video. This leaves one basically unable to affect the audio stream in any way without completely decapsulating the HDMI bitstream. The clock is tied to the source, inherently tied to the video clock, which is bad for audio.

>>56941570

That is the problem. Some people don't want to pay alot of money for things so they buy crap then complain about the cheap crap they've bought is crap.

The solution is to not buy crap and not spend crazy money on stuff but buy good quality middle of range stuff.

Good quality, reliable products that people don't need a second mortgage or a gold card to buy.

People don't research enough when buying products......that is a big part of the problem too.

>>56941191
My stereo receiver only has analog inputs, and I didn't want to connect that shit directly out from the back of my motherboard so I bought that shit. Should I just connect it anyway? Also I added a subwoofer to my setup ans somehow the midrange from my mains disappeared. I don't know if that's because my receiver is doing some funky shit, or if the DAC is fucking it up. Either way though, before I added the sub i still had the DAC and everything was fine. Also I cant seem to get the bass out of my mains anymore even if i disconnect the sub adn turn the receiever on with just the speakers connected. Kinda pissed. Should I not connect the sub to my receiver through rca? or should I run speaker wire to the sub first and then from the sub out to the mains? So confused

>>56941710
JITTER

>>56941773
>everything was fine
>no bass
Everything was not fine.

The way you're talking about your sub, I presume it has a built-in crossover. A receiver would have a subwoofer output, but without that you can connect your DAC to a distribution amplifier and feed the sub and your power amp from separate outputs.

>>56941819
Jitter's hardly the end of the world if the original source clock is clean, and the furthest sink is reclocking.

>>56941773
i have 4 18inch woofers connected to the black output of my mb. i runs through a 1000 per channel rms mosfet . i only use one channel. for mid and tops i run a THX 300 watt logitech from my green output. my neighbours fucking worship me

>>56941822
Before I had added the sub there was a good amount of bass, now the woofers on the mains aren't moving at all. My speakers are front ported so whenever I played anything with frequencies around 80hz i could feel the air from the ports and i could see the woofers move. The sub does have a crossover tuner, but it only works if i set it to think my receiver is pro-logic, not digital and for some reason this makes everything sound like shit, as is in no bass at all. I don’t know if it's the receiver's built in high pass that is messing with the mains or what. And yea could just feed the sub from a different source but my speakers wont revert back to the presence they had in the midrange even if I disconnect the sub and revert back to 2.0

>>56940922
>analog paths are single ended
Mine has a few passthrough inputs

>>56941005
Get a mixer instead, better quality, better audio-specific features and less hassle
>>56941236
The biggest meme in mixers is allen&heath, but you can't argue that it's dank as fuck

>>56941425
Medium-good 2.0 setups > good-great 5.1 setups

>>56941594
Even latency can become nearly irrelevant by messing around on the software/driver side

I have a ghetto mixer for my PC and RPi.

is latency equal to delay ? and i thought we were discussing different sampling rates for different devices. FAGOOTS

>>56941990
What receiver do you have exactly? It sounds like you fucked with the speaker/crossover frequency on the receiver and configured it poorly.

>>56942126

Yes, Latency is equal to Delay......the entire signal is Delayed. So the lower the Latency, the better......

I.E:- 2 to 4 Milliseconds is optimal.

>>56942126
I thought we were discussing samples as actual audio objects since "4000 samples" has nothing to do with sampling rate
And there's more to it, but the end result of latency is delay

>>56942166
It's the onkyo tx 8020, after some research im starting to think its a phase problem

>>56942242
so basically you are using it in a country not recommended voltage wise ?

>>56942242
It really sounds like a crossover problem, but fixing phasing issues is always good too

>>56942242
Maybe, but it's hard to believe you don't see the speakers move because of a phase problem. I can understand not hearing the bass because of that, but it shouldn't stop a speaker from moving.

fuck you OP.

multiplex? so who do you assume has a demux? and even if you do, then multicast would be improbable. FUCK YOU

personally i would go Marantz

>>56942274

its the american model so it should be correct, the EU model has digital inputs and this doesnt so I know its not that one.

>>56942277
>>56942279

After doing a phase test its not a phasing issue. But to clarify better lets say for example that I play a drum hit, I mostly hear the lowest frequencies of the drum sound (with the sub on), but the initial hit of the mallet is almost inaudible. There isn't the thump that i would hear before anymore, as in i can no longer feel it in my chest (on just 2.0)

>>56942391
Does it have some sort of way to factory reset it? I'd start there. I had a quick look at it and it seems to be a pretty odd device, branded as a receiver but going by its actual features it's basically a pretty standard stereo amp.

I have a NAD C 326BEE with a sub output too, I simply connected my powered sub to the amp, adjusted the sub's cutoff frequency, then its phase and that's it. The signal coming to my speakers isn't altered at all (the sub isn't even in the signal path) and it sounds like you could do the same with your setup.

Fancier receivers have settings like "big" or "small" speakers and will do shit like low/high-pass filtering themselves, does yours have that? If it has settings like that you could most definitely fuck up your bass response if those aren't properly configured.

>>56942475
Yea no it really is just a stereo amp/receiver, and there is no setting for big or small speakers, and it seems like it is doing it all on its own so I have no control. My sub is the BIC H100 -ii, speakers are fluance signature series bookshelves.

>>56942605
Well, I've no idea honestly. Don't know what to say, try fucking with your connections but I doubt it's because of that.

>>56940035
a mixer, duh

>>56942871
shit, I dont really want to buy a new amp, maybe ill see how it goes as the sub breaks in more

>>56940983
Meh, I've got a speaker amp from them, and it works pretty well.
The A500. Also, OP, if a receiver is overkill, Schit Sys, and TC-716 http://www.phonopreamps.com/tc716pp.html have served me well.

Chromecast audio

>>56942871
If we're guessing that somehow the receiver/amp is somehow keeping the high pass settings that it had for the mains when I initially connected the sub. This would make sense since the sub seems to have a bit of a drop off before it plays if I set the crossover very low. Now if I connect the sub by speaker wire then out to the mains from the sub would that rectify this problem?

>>56940035

>not having a dedicated machine for media

heh

>>56941735
>which is bad for audio.
Retard: the post. HDMI on audio is perfect stupid normies

>>56945039
Oh HDMI audio's fine for movies and shit, but I wouldn't want to take an existing S/PDIF source and mux it into HDMI to be switched, that'd be silly and terrible.

It's just a tool whose only use case is connecting your chromecast/blu-ray/laserdisc player to a display.

>>56943333
Seconded for any android users... Chromecast audio is the only way to play sound out of a phone.

Utility limited for playing media from a PC, due to sheer hassle in config, unless you're a pulsefag.

>>56946143
W H Y ?
H
Y

Im about to cop a 6.2 sony niggerki. Anything better for about the same price?