New to Blu? Buy a PS3: the most featured BD hardware available... - Page 10

Jari K · 04-10-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Hillenbrand

Unless there is a different HDMI1.3 model # chip in the PS3 (Edit: Si9134 transmission chip or later), the hardware cannot support the "bitstream output of the advanced authored lossless audio codecs".

While this is not the ideal way for me (I´m getting HDMI 1.3-receiver in early next month), HD-audio decoded internally (via PS3) is not a deal breaker. Besides, before the 100% official announcement, there´s always hope..

I have to say, that I´m very impressed of Sony and PS3. My first BD-player and it has almost everything (soon). And it´s probably still getting better over time...

Can´t wait for my first "full" DTS-HD master-track..

**HTF Ads**

Man-Fai Wong · 04-10-2008, 02:53 PM

Wow! So the top end of the DTS-HD/MA variable rate bitstream bandwidth is 24.5Mbps?!? That *IS* a whole lot higher than I imagined (and certainly a lot higher than LPCM's sustained rate). No wonder the PS3 HDMI hardware probably can't handle that (or does DTS allow different levels of support w/ different max bitrates?). Gosh, that alone is starting to approach the max sustained video bitrate of the HDDVD format too -- and I guess that's partly why none(?) of the studios wanted to use DTS-HD/MA on HDDVD. BTW, what's the top end for Dolby TrueHD?

I don't imagine I'll really need full fidelity of DTS-HD/MA for watching films -- and so, the PS3's own decoding should probably be good enough for me for that purpose. But maybe I'll want full fidelity via bitstream at some point for hirez music playback on BD though, especially if they start putting out some really good stuff on BD.

And yeah, great to hear that the PS3 will finally get that update for DTS-HD/MA decoding come Tax Day next week.

_Man_

Jari K · 04-10-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong

No wonder the PS3 HDMI hardware probably can't handle that (or does DTS allow different levels of support w/ different max bitrates?).

I don't imagine I'll really need full fidelity of DTS-HD/MA for watching films -- and so, the PS3's own decoding should probably be good enough for me for that purpose.

I believe the quality will be the same with both (decoded internally or via bitstream), it´s just that PS3 will output PCM (instead of e.g. DTS-HD master).

Or am I wrong (about the quality)?

Paul Hillenbrand · 04-10-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jari K

I believe the quality will be the same with both (decoded internally or via bitstream), it´s just that PS3 will output PCM (instead of e.g. DTS-HD master).

Or am I wrong (about the quality)?

Hope not!

Lossless audio should be "LOSSLESS".

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdurani

HDMI allows 8 channels of 96/24 PCM to be transmitted (more than enough resolution for any soundtrack), but not the new codecs in their native form.

Also, using the bitstream has the potential to LOSE capability of soundtracks authored in Advanced mode, where they cannot be transmitted in undecoded form because of live mixing.

Paul

Jack Gilvey · 04-10-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

I don't imagine I'll really need full fidelity of DTS-HD/MA for watching films -- and so, the PS3's own decoding should probably be good enough for me for that purpose. But maybe I'll want full fidelity via bitstream at some point for hirez music playback on BD though, especially if they start putting out some really good stuff on BD.

Why would fidelity be different? The bitstream will be decoded/unpacked into the same PCM in either place.

Zack Gibbs · 04-10-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Hillenbrand

Hope not!

Lossless audio should be "LOSSLESS".

Paul

What do you mean by this? (in regards to your reply, not the general statement.

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Gilvey

Why would fidelity be different? The bitstream will be decoded/unpacked into the same PCM in either place.

You see this a lot in the forums, I think it's because people assume that their receivers can "process" the bitstream the same way it processes the sound, and that better equipment could decode the data better. That's not how this aspect works though, decompressing the bitstream is an absolute, and ultimately the raw audio stream is going to be totally identical no matter what device is decoding it.

Carlo Medina · 04-10-2008, 10:17 PM

Well, now it's decision time. Do I buy a new receiver that can accept 5.1 LPCM? Or do I buy a new BD player with 5.1 output and feed that to my existing receiver. Either way, I'm out about $600

DaViD Boulet · 04-10-2008, 10:22 PM

Anybody know if the new Apr 15 update also provides 1080i deinterlacing? What about upscaling of SD content on Blu-ray?

Quote:

Well, now it's decision time. Do I buy a new receiver that can accept 5.1 LPCM? Or do I buy a new BD player with 5.1 output and feed that to my existing receiver. Either way, I'm out about $600

Get the new receiver.

HDMI is the future. Analog 5.1 connections are the past. Don't spend (waste) $$ in a new BD player for an obsolete connection. Invest the money in a receiver with HDMI 1.3. Not only will it take PCM this way, an HDMI 1.3 receiver will take advanced audio codecs and serve as an HDMI video switcher.

DaViD Boulet · 04-10-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Why would fidelity be different? The bitstream will be decoded/unpacked into the same PCM in either place.

In theory they should be bit-for-bit.

However, there are other issues that can affect the final sound of the d/a conversion such as jitter... and compressed bitstreams tend to be less affected by jitter than PCM (one reason why letting the receiver do the decoding might sound better to some listeners, as it apparently does to those who can listen both ways in their systems).

Carlo Medina · 04-10-2008, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Get the new receiver.

HDMI is the future. Analog 5.1 connections are the past. Don't spend (waste) $$ in a new BD player for an obsolete connection. Invest the money in a receiver with HDMI 1.3. Not only will it take PCM this way, an HDMI 1.3 receiver will take advanced audio codecs and serve as an HDMI video switcher.

Point taken. My only reservation is that I love the sound and power of my NAD T763, and I don't have that kind of money to spring for the replacement, so my next receiver will have more advanced decoding chips, but I'm pretty much guaranteed not to get the same power rating (not at $600).

Of course, if Denon releases the update to the 3808 soon (to address the bugs that were in that unit), I may wait for that...

Man-Fai Wong · 04-10-2008, 10:52 PM

Why should the decoded PCM coming out of PS3 necessarily be equal to what's actually on the DTS-HD/MA bitstream? Unless you're saying the decoded PCM actually provides the same hirez 24-bit, 96Khz audio quality as the encoded DTS-HD/MA bitstream, rather than a downconverted version of that like say 16-bit, 48Khz, which is what I would assume, if not told otherwise. Afterall, if the decoded PCM is indeed exactly equal, then wouldn't it actually require *higher* audio data bandwidth than the bitstream itself?? I seriously doubt that's actually the case considering the argument that the PS3 doesn't have good enough HDMI hardware to handle the bitstream in the first place.

What does Dolby TrueHD use? I imagine the decoded PCM of that would probably come closer to full fidelity.

_Man_