New to Blu? Buy a PS3: the most featured BD hardware available... (1 Viewer)

[ManW_TheUncool]

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_

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Aha, you've got high-end (or close to it) audio gear. Yeah, that changes things.

My advice: have patience and hobble along with 2.0 PCM and lossy core bitsreams until Panny releases it's BD50 later this summer which will have 7.1 analog output, HDMI 1.3 and full profile 2.0. That will be a player you won't need to replace, and it will give you fantastic audio over multichannel analog.

BTW, in the meantime try this with the PS3: set it to PCM output full-time and let it downmix native 5.1 PCM and decoded TrueHD (and soon to be DTS-HD MA) to 2.0 PCM. Played back in ProLogic, that generally outperforms lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 by a wide margin (no kidding).

 

[Zack Gibbs]

I don't really know where the bandwidth of HDMI is coming into question. Looking it up, HDMI can transmit over 10 Gbps. For comparison, even something like a standard optical audio cable can transmit over 100 Mbps, so whatever the cause of limitations for early HDMI, I can't think it's simply bandwidth constraint.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

You may think that, and yet, we can't get more than just 2.0 PCM (bandwidth-wise) via our old optical connections.

I thought the distinctions/info/clarifications mentioned a page or two earlier specifically spoke to bandwidth issues w/ the old HDMI 1.3(a) that's supposedly used on the PS3. Well, ok, maybe it didn't explicitly say "bandwidth", but it seems close enough. OR did I misunderstand?

One thing to note. There is probably a significant difference between the max bandwidth capability of a specification for the hardware connection vs the implemented bandwidth capability for a version of that hardware and/or also the higher level a/v format being deployed over that hardware. Well, at least, that's what seems to be the case for the allowed audio formats deployed over the old optical connection (and also the old SPDIF digital coax connection).

_Man_

 

[Marc_Sulinski]

While nothing is definite yet, it looks very likely that the BD50 will only have 5.1 analog outs, as per the European specs. The Sony 550 (coming out later this year) is supposed to have 7.1 analog outs.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Yes, that's what's happening. Both with extraction of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. That's what "bit for bit" means.

Now, if the studio chose to down-rez the signal to 16/48 prior to compression... then you'll only get 16/48 resolution when extracting. But in that case the limitation applies to the bitstream as well.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

The 2.0 PCM limitation of standard optical connections has nothing to do with its bandwidth, toslink is more than capable of transmitting the latest audio formats. That it doesn't is because studios won't allow it, for the same asinine reasons they don't allow DVD upscaling over component connections and all their other hamfisted DRM technologies. HDMI is full of DRM, and that's why it's the only way you can watch 1080p with lossless audio. If I had to guess--after reading about the chip limitations preventing earlier HDMI from transmitting raw bitstream, I would say it was most likely a DRM issue.

In other words, it's not that it CAN'T transmit the bitstreams, but that it WON'T transmit them.

 

[Carlo_M]

Thanks for the advice guys, I'm thinking that I'll probably hold off for either the Panny or the Sony 550 and feed that via 5.1 into my T763.

Or, if I can find a decent enough new receiver with a good pre-amp section, I'll use that as a pre-amplifier and 5.1 out from the receiver to the T763 and use that as a pure power amp.

 

[Jari K]

Well, I would definitely buy that HDMI-receiver (1.3-receivers are more expensive, but e.g. Onkyo has some models in a decent price). HDMI is "the future", like David said.

Then again, it´s easier for me to say this, since my old receiver is not really "high-end" (not even HDMI) and I can make that "jump" for HDMI 1.3-receiver more easily. I´ll probably just move my old receiver to the other room and use it with "2.0 stereo"-music.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Based on?

 

[Jack Gilvey]

There's still lots of confusion over what "decoding" is, I think people don't realize that decoding has to happen in the AVR if not in the player, you can't hear a bitstream any more than you can read a zipped file.

 

[PaulDA]

It does NOT matter, for sound quality, where the lossless decoding occurs (player or receiver/pre-pro). It is BIT FOR BIT identical.

It DOES matter, for secondary audio streams (PiP features and such), where the decoding occurs in many cases--as bitstream will NOT allow for the full implementation of the secondary audio features. So while HDMI may be "the future", it isn't entirely "the present".

The extra max bitrate for DTS vs DD in their advanced lossless forms is for the same reason that plain DD/DTS have different bit rates at identical information--Dolby is more EFFICIENT algorithm. It requires fewer "bits" to transmit the same information. Is Dolby better than DTS (or vice versa)? In my experience, it varies from film to film (where both are available) and any difference in quality owes more to its implemenation rather than the actual format itself. And that's all I want to say about it as I do NOT feel like re-hashing a sterile debate.

Ultimately, I think the S550 and BD50 are the ONLY players (currently available or proposed) that offer the ideal setup--internal decoding of ALL audio codecs, bitstream output of same AND analogue MCH outputs. Best of ALL worlds and this feature set should have been part of the first Blu-ray player (along with Profile 2.0). Water under the bridge and all that, but I'm glad I won't have to compromise (I was planning to get a PS3 and sacrifice the advanced audio codecs as I will NOT be "upgrading" my otherwise excellent receiver ONLY for HDMI capabilities--but with the S550 and BD50 to choose from, I won't have to make that sacrifice). I'm glad the PS3 is improving its feature set for those who can make full use of them, but it won't be my first player (it may well be a second player down the line--I don't have anything against it because it is a "game machine").

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I think people are missing a large part of my point regarding the decoding of the advanced codecs to PCM.

My main point was not whether the decoded PCM exactly equals the audio of the source codec. But rather why do we believe that the PS3 canNOT possibly pass those source codecs in bitstream form.

The posts referenced over in AVS *seems* to suggest this is because the PS3's HDMI chipset is not capable of passing the higher bitrate bitstream output. However, if the decoded PCM is truly equal to the source codec, then shouldn't *that* actually require the highest bandwidth anyway? If so, then why exactly is the PS3's HDMI chipset not capable of passing the undecoded source bitstream? What other aspect of the specification makes this impossible, if it's not about bandwidth??

*THAT* is what I'm really trying to get at. How exactly do we really know whether the PS3 can or cannot possibly pass the undecoded source bitstream? So far, the response to that question is vague at best. All I'm getting is that the PS3's HDMI chipset is missing some sort of feature to allow passing of bitstream, but what is actually missing remains a mystery. For all we know, this might all just be a red herring for some other as-yet-hidden political and/or economical agenda (as apparently hypothesized by some over on AVS).

_Man_

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Apparently. What matters is that it doesn't bitstream. If it does someday, that will prove that it can. What's important to understand it that the PS3 decodes DTS MA to its native PCM form, what the encoder was fed, bit-for-bit identical.

 

[Jari K]

This is valid info and reassuring.

It´s just, that when people spend 1000$ (give/take) for a new HDMI 1.3-receiver (no, not that you *have to*, but e.g. I have non-HDMI receiver now and since I´m getting a new one, I go straight to 1.3), it´s *a bit* annoying that everything will be "PCM" for the receiver (=receiver says "PCM", even when it´s something else), even when it could fully decode both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD. So yes, bitstream-support can be important feature, but like I said, not a deal-breaker.

Main thing of course is, that the audio quality is *identical* with "internal decoding" (=to PCM) and "bitstream" (wisely, e.g. upcoming Panasonic DMP-BD50 has "both").

 

[Jari K]

Good point also here. I doubt that we actually know for *100% sure* (can PS3 support "bitstream"). Sure, it looks like it can´t at the moment, but it´s still far from "official". Then again, can we get that "100% official" info from e.g. Sony? Not sure. Like someone already said, these type of hardware issues might be a tricky question for any company... They obviously don´t want to reveal everything.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Well, I'll certainly agree that if the decoded PCM version (from the PS3) is indeed ultimately identical data-wise, then that's probably plenty good enough for me.

Yeah, it would be nice to spend $$$ on an HDMI receiver and actually be able to make full use of it, including its ability to decode the advanced hirez codec bitstream, but I'm fine w/ not actually make use of that as long as audio fidelity is maintained. Besides, it's not like one can easily go out and buy an HDMI receiver that only handles PCM, but not the advanced hirez codecs, (in order to save a few bucks and still not worry about future obsolecence), right?

Hmmm... Wish I could just go ahead and buy the darned receiver and make full use of it now. The Onkyo 805 (for just under $700 street price) certainly appeals to me a whole lot right now, the space heating issue notwithstanding. Too bad getting something like that might mean downgrading a bit from my now-long-in-the-tooth B&K surround amp on certain aspects of audio quality. Oh well, I guess I can't win them all since my wallet has its limits, especially w/ 4 other mouths to feed and loads of violins and violin lessons to pay for in the family nowadays. And of course, I still have the display that needs upgrading (from non-HDMI 1080i)...

_Man_

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Everyone wants to see the lights they paid for. People are used to sending a bitstream like we've done for 10 years now, but these new codecs work differently. When you realize that the only way to hear everything on the disc (PiP, secondary audio) is to have the player decode, it becomes obvious that this is what the designers had in mind. Many are resistant, as you see, thinking (hoping?) player-decoding must be inferior somehow, but that's based on a misunderstanding of what decoding actually is.

DTS - We Bring Entertainment Alive!

 

[Jack Gilvey]

I think I got this right from reading this thread, but wanted to confirm: If I only want a PS3 for BD playing and PS3 games, the 40G is what I'm looking at right?
I don't need any backward-compatibility for PS2 games, etc.

 

[Matt Hough]

Yes, the 40G is what you want.