backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 98 comment(s) - last by rninneman.. on Apr 16 at 5:12 PM

Sony's gaming console doubles as the market's best Blu-ray Disc solution
PlayStation 3 to become an even better Blu-ray Disc player with upcoming firmware update

Further cementing its reputation for being the most capable and versatile Blu-ray Disc player on the market, an upcoming PlayStation 3 firmware update will introduce DTS-HD Master Audio and DTS-HD High Resolution Audio support to the console.

“PS3 was designed to enable delivery of new and improved technologies like DTS-HD Master Audio,” said Teiji Yutaka, SVP of Software Platform Development at SCE. “So we are delighted to be able to offer this capability to PS3 users.”

Like PCM and Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA can deliver audio presentation that are bit-for-bit identical to the original studio master. According to the press release, DTS-HD MA has the capacity to deliver audio at the incredibly high variable rate of 24.5 Mbps on Blu-ray disc, a rate significantly higher than standard DVDs. DTS-HD MA also offers 7.1 audio channels at 96k sampling frequency/24 bit depths.

Although DTS-HD MA isn’t as commonly used in high-definition movies as Dolby’s TrueHD scheme, the added support from PlayStation 3 could change things. Fox Home Entertainment has been one of the strongest supporters of the DTS format, releasing such titles as Live Free or Die Hard and Juno with DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtracks.

Should 50 GB be insufficient room for a lossless audio track, the option exists for DTS-HD High Resolution Audio lossy track which streams audio at a high constant bit rate of 6.0 Mbps on Blu-ray discs, and is also capable of up to 7.1 audio channels at 96k sampling frequency/24 bit depth resolution. 

“We are extremely pleased that Sony Computer Entertainment is adding the full spectrum premium DTS-HD Master Audio codec into the PS3 so that more than 10 million owners of one of the best selling computer entertainment systems can have the best sounding, most efficient and flexible audio technology available as well,” said Brian Towne, SVP and GM Consumer Division at DTS. “DTS-HD Master Audio is fast becoming the must-have feature for high definition entertainment enthusiasts.”

The PS3 firmware, numbered version 2.30, is slated for release on April 15. The new firmware will also enable access to a newly renovated PlayStation Store.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By 457R4LDR34DKN07 on 4/10/2008 9:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
This is great for PS3 owners but I personally don't own a reciever with HDMI let alone decoding for DTSHD considering that those options on recievers cost mucho $$$$$.




RE: Nice... If you have a reciever that can use it
By Owls on 4/10/2008 9:30:43 PM , Rating: 3
Let me tell you how it's totally worth it. You can spring for the Onkyo-605 which is not that expensive and decodes all the newest audio. I bought an 805 model because of the extra HDMI inputs. It is definitely worth it when movies have the advanced codec, it totally blows you away how surreal it is.


RE: Nice... If you have a reciever that can use it
By MykC on 4/10/2008 10:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
The problem I'm having is that I really want a sound system that has wireless rear channels. From what I can tell from the packages that are sold at my local Future Shop and Best Buy the only receivers that support wireless speakers are home theaters in a box and home theaters in a box don't support 7.1/the newest audio formats. I hate wires so much that I'm willing to sacrifice audio format flexibility/quality so that I don't have to run 4x30 ft wires around the edges on my room.


By feraltoad on 4/11/2008 6:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
Get the wireless part as a separate component.

http://www.amazon.com/Kenwood-RFU-6100-Wireless-Su...

I also saw something at BestBuy like this, but I doubt the speakers were up to snuff.


By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 1:49:03 PM , Rating: 3
Theres no better way to make your new lossless audio setup useless than to use RF receivers ;) We need a better transfer method before Lossless codecs and wireless speakers become an option. I would not even recommend this for DD/DTS receivers if you value sound quality.


RE: Nice... If you have a reciever that can use it
By daftrok on 4/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Nice... If you have a reciever that can use it
By abhaxus on 4/10/2008 11:31:40 PM , Rating: 5
A great deal certainly for the functionality... but it's 110W at 1.0% THD... typical Sony advertising. It probably is capable of 75W/channel 5 channels driven at a reasonable THD, if its capable of producing a clean signal at all.

I sell a lot of sony receivers, simply because they are among the most "feature rich" of the mainstream brands, because they skimp on audio quality. I've always been an Onkyo fan although the 605/805 have a lot of overheating problems and have personally witnessed an 805 die in front of me :(. My next receiver purchase will be one that has at least a Reon HQV chip built in, I'm holding out for one that will upconvert 480i to 1080p/24hz, but I may settle for an Onkyo 875.

i'm by no means an expert or a true audiophile, I just manage an electronics store.


By abhaxus on 4/10/2008 11:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I must point this out... but Sony receivers are incredibly attractive to me. They have an awesome aesthetic design I think. I just hate the way they sound :)


By Murst on 4/11/2008 12:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'm waiting for the Onkyo 606 to come out.

I think it should be coming out in the next few weeks. Supposedly it has 4 HDMI inputs, which is very nice.

Something very important to me is the ability to hook up sound to my receiver via HDMI. If a home theater system does not support this, I just will not consider it. Unfortunately, most HTiB do not do this, unless they're $1000+, and for that price, I might as well build my own (hell, might as well build your own anyways, even if you're going for the low end). The 606 is supposed to do this.

Another very important feature for me is the ability to take a composite input and convert it to digital in the receiver and pass it out via HDMI ( I want a single HDMI cable running from the receiver). I wish I didn't have this requirement cause it further limits my choices as the majority of recivers do not support this feature. However, I do have a Wii and there's not HDMI option for that. I also believe the 606 will be able to do the conversion from analogue to digital.

Although the announcement from Sony about MA is awesome, we still do not know the details. There is nothing indicating that the signal will be a bitstream, and all indicators point to a conversion internally to PCM. Hopefully Sony will surprise us and announce that the signal will be bitstreamed, but I'm not holding my breath.


By MGSsancho on 4/11/2008 4:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
the 875 is awesome... but some of us have the 804 T_T.. *cries*


By therealnickdanger on 4/10/2008 11:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh, you can do so much better for $400. This new Yamaha RX-V663 is amazing. I just picked it up for $400 and... well... holy sh*t. It's got less power per channel than my old receiver, but the circuitry is so much better that it doesn't even matter. It's a striking upgrade, especially with lossless audio being fed to it from my LG BH200. Two sub outputs too! 7.2, baby!

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/productdetail.h...


RE: Nice... If you have a reciever that can use it
By daftrok on 4/11/2008 1:18:05 AM , Rating: 2
That's 550 bucks.


RE: Nice... If you have a reciever that can use it
By Creig on 4/11/2008 8:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's 550 bucks.


Not if you search around. (hint, try AVSforum) I got mine for $400 shipped as well. And from a VERY reputable authorized dealer, I might add.


By daftrok on 4/11/2008 11:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
True getting from the company tends to cost more than online. I actually found it for around 350 here:

http://electronics.pricegrabber.com/home-audio-rec...

That's a pretty good receiver. Granted some would complain that its "only" 95 W/ channel but who cares? Nice find!


By Creig on 4/11/2008 8:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
That's not really upconverting. Upconverting would be taking in a 480P source and outputting a 1080P signal. What you're describing would more accurately be described as transcoding.


RE: Nice... If you have a reciever that can use it
By Kefner on 4/11/2008 1:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
Onkyo vs Sony receivers? I'll pay the extra 200 and get the Onkyo.


By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 1:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
Extra 200?
http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-SR605-Channel-Theat...
Personally Ill stick with the yamaha's but in price per performance right now Onkyo is king.


By MGSsancho on 4/11/2008 4:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
look carefully at the specs page. it does not say "yes" HD audio decoding


By TimTheEnchanter25 on 4/11/2008 10:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
Their is a major difference in lossy (DTS, DD) and Lossless audio which optical cables can't handle.

Even though the new DTS and DD formats are lossless, they are still compressed, unlike uncompressed LPCM. Unfortunatly, I bought my reciever about 6 months before decoding the new DD and DTS formats was an option. So, I can't compare them with PCM. But, I have a hard time believing the PCM isn't better (even if it is a small amount).

Most movies have a 5.1 PCM track and more and more are starting to have a 7.1 PCM track. I'm pretty sure that any HDMI reciever is going to support 5.1 PCM. So, if you can find one cheaper without the new formats, I wouldn't worry about them.

Just because there isn't any advertising money to promote PCM and come up with pretty logos, doesn't mean it is an inferior format.


By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 10:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
I guess probably you're thinking "well it's compressed, so they had to have taken something away right?"... That's actually quite an incorrect assumption, PCM is in no way better than TrueHD (not DD) and DTS-HD/MA (not DTS). THD and DTS-HD/MA are a class of compression known as "lossless" compression.

Think of it this way, what if you were to save that PCM audio track from Cars to your hard drive, then Zip it up so it doesn't waste too much space on HD. At a later date you decide to unzip it and play it, did you lose any quality by putting it in a zip file? The answer is no, zip is designed such that when you extrat the data it's bit for bit equivilent to the original, the same is true for TrueHD and DTS-HD/MA (this is why they're called "lossless").

I do own a compatible receiver (Onkyo 605) and my bluray player is the Samsung BD-P1400 which allows all lossless tracks to be bitstreamed to your receiver for decoding. I can tell you that there's no difference in quality between a PCM track and a lossless track (I've compared them in 300). If anything, you get a slight advantage with compressed lossless because it allows for greater bit depth than you might be able to fit on disc with a PCM track. Take 300, the PCM track is 48Hz 16bit, the bit for bit equivilent TrueHD track is 48Hz 20bit. Which would you rather be listening to?


By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 11:42:47 AM , Rating: 2
TruHD does not use the same encoding scheme as DTS-MA, it still uses MPL (same thing that is used for DVD-A and your original DD tracks) and it is not in a encapsulated 'zip' form like flac audio file. This makes many people wonder if TruHD is really bit for bit.

quote:
Take 300, the PCM track is 48Hz 16bit, the bit for bit equivilent TrueHD track is 48Hz 20bit.
The bit for bit equivalent for a 48hz/20bit track is 48hz/20bit.. thats why they call it bit for bit..

As for the 300 situation, I am guessing the only reason the LPCM track is 16 bit is because they were forced to have it because its in the BD spec, while at the time HD-DVD required Tru-HD. As such the 16 bit version was only added because they probably had too, expecting most people would use the Tru-HD soundtrack.

The situation actually seems reversed today with BD, movies such as Spiderman 3 sound much better in LPCM, than they do in TruHD. But in the end its really up the the listener, with lossless sound, it really only matters what sounds best to you.


By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 11:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, but it's the best way of explaining it... The end result really is bit for bit, otherwise it could not possibly be called a lossless compression algorythm. I'm pretty sure that Dolby would have been called out by now if it wasn't.


By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 1:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The end result really is bit for bit, otherwise it could not possibly be called a lossless compression algorythm.
Sure it can, all that bit for bit means, is that the resulting audio is the same as the master. If the master is recorderd in 44khz/16 bit, then in order for it to be bit for bit, the DTS/THD codec must be 44khz/16bit.

If the master is recorded in 96khz/24bit, and the resulting THD/DTS track is 44khz/16bit, they are not bit for bit. Lossless compression just means the resulting audio wherever it may be processed, ends up being uncompressed PCM, and is not dependant on bitrate or frequency.

For example, I can record uncompressed(lossless) PCM via the microphone on my laptop. I only recorded it as an 8bit source at 22khz and it sounds like crap, but it is still lossless audio, as no compression algorithm is in use.


By AdamNZ on 4/13/2008 10:59:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it still uses MPL (same thing that is used for DVD-A and your original DD tracks

I think you mean 'MLP', which has absolutely nothing to do with the original Dolby Digital.

quote:
The situation actually seems reversed today with BD, movies such as Spiderman 3 sound much better in LPCM, than they do in TruHD.

Maybe to some. The PCM soundtrack on Spider-Man 3 is 16-bit, 48kHz. The TrueHD is 24-bit, 48kHz. In other words the TrueHD soundtrack has 256 times the resolution, and is by far my preferred soundtrack of the two.


By rninneman on 4/11/2008 12:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
You just need a receiver with HDMI 1.0. The decoding is done in the player to 8ch LPCM which HDMI supported from day one.


By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 12:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You just need a receiver with HDMI 1.0

No, in order to get 8 channel pcm you need at least HDMI 1.2a.
For 5 channel LPCM you need HDMI 1.1 not 1.0. As far as I am aware, HDMI 1.1 receivers do not support multichannel LPCM at all. Furthermore in order to bitstream TrueHD or DTS-MA, you need an HDMI 1.3 receiver. Personally I think an HDMI 1.2a receiver is future proofing, as my PS3 will decode both formats, and in the end PCM is PCM, regardless of how you transport it ;)


By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 12:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
oops..
quote:
As far as I am aware, HDMI 1.1 receivers do not support multichannel LPCM at all.
Should be
As far as I am aware, HDMI 1.0 receivers do not support multichannel LPCM at all.


By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 12:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
how about i just leave the sentence out.. hdmi 1.0 does support it.. although its in the same boat as 1.1, it only supports 6 channel lpcm


By rninneman on 4/12/2008 12:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
No, HDMI 1.0 supports 8ch LPCM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#HDMI_1.0

Many products simply don't implement the "standard" correctly. (Kind of defeats the purpose of a standard.) That's why SimPlay Labs was eventually formed; to certify the compatibility and adherence to the HDMI standard.


By omnicronx on 4/12/2008 3:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
I knew someone would eventually correct me ;) . I always forget HDMI supports the full 8channels, because hardly any 1.1 receivers let alone 1.0 receivers support it. Most max out at 5.1 over HDMI, even in mid to high end systems. Also a lot of the systems that can only accept 5.1, can not use sound processing (i.e Dolby Pro Logic IIx) for the other two channels, wasting your 7.1 system.

The only way to be safe is to buy a 1.2a system or above. Also, when running the hdmi cable from your BD player to your 1.0 receiver, then to your 1.3 LCD/PLASMA, the signal becomes 1.0, losing any extra features throughout the HDMI spec.


RE: Nice... If you have a reciever that can use it
By Aaron M on 4/11/2008 12:29:14 AM , Rating: 2
While you do need an HDMI receiver, you don't need the more expensive ones that decode the HD audio codecs. The PS3 internally decodes those codecs, then sends LPCM to the receiver. While some people with high-end receivers would rather have the audio bitstreamed-out for decoding in the receiver, the PS3's current implentation is supported by the largest number of HDMI receivers. Most current receivers with HDMI support will correctly play the LPCM feed from the PS3, but only the more expensive HD-audio-capable receivers would support bitstreaming.

Of course, support for both LPCM, bitstreaming, and analog-outs is ideal, to satisfy everyone. However, anyone complaining about the PS3's current and announced features, at its price-point, really is whining.


By deeznuts on 4/11/2008 1:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
Have to double check though, because not all HDMI receivers will accept LPCM. Cheapest ones off the top of my head are the Panny XR-57 (discontinued) and Onkyo 604/605/606.


By bplewis24 on 4/11/2008 1:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
You can get an Onkyo 605 for like $350. An Onkyo 604 for even less probably.

Brandon


By robinthakur on 4/11/2008 11:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
You're so right, Sony shouldn't have bothered releasing the feature because you can't afford the equipment to use it. </sarcasm> The Onkyo range which has had all the needed support has been available for a while now, so when you next replace your HT amp/receiver, it will support the new ssound delivery


By ok630 on 4/13/2008 4:25:12 AM , Rating: 1

Die painfully okay? Prefearbly by getting crushed to death in a garbage compactor, by getting your face cut to ribbons with a pocketknife, your head cracked open with a baseball bat, your stomach sliced open and your entrails spilled out, and your eyeballs ripped out of their sockets. Fucking bitch


Meh
By BansheeX on 4/10/2008 10:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
In a perfect world, I would have liked to see DTS and DD get trashed in favor of PCM. Not only is having two compression standards confusing, as it was on DVD, now we have different names for the lossy and lossless levels of compression within both:

Dolby Digital
Dolby Digital EX
Dolby Digital Live
Dolby Digital Surround EX
Dolby Digital Plus
Dolby TrueHD
DTS
DTS-ES
DTS-HD High Resolution Audio
DTS-HD Master Audio

Anyone want to guess how much confusion this generates on the consumer front? :P

But the bigger problem is the cost and annoyance of the added complexity itself. The ability to decompress all this crap adds cost in hardware and licensing, which is passed on to the consumer. It delays the authoring process and by result in more authoring and player/receiver issues by definition of being more complex than handling uncompressed data.

When blu-ray first came out, it looked like this was what Sony themselves wanted to do, as a 50gb disc is plenty large to pull this off. But what I think transpired was that HD-DVD was competitive and many studios ended up supporting it either exclusively or in addition to BD. The BDA was pretty much forced to support the new audio compression schemes by virtue of studios wanting a single authoring process that could be released on both formats. Not doing so would have probably hurt their position with studios leaning towards HD-DVD.




RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 4/10/2008 11:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you complaining in this thread? The PS3 can not bitstream either format to your receiver. It decompresses on the ps3 into LPCM before being sent to your receiver essentially making your argument moot. The consumer does not need to concentrate on either format, just the ability to play 7.1 multichannel lpcm, something most 1.2a receivers can do.


RE: Meh
By BansheeX on 4/10/2008 11:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm complaining because people are utterly ignorant about stuff like this and buy into the marketing propaganda of these compression companies. It's like that stupid chick in Spinal Tap who wants her sound in "Dobly." If I can wise some people up here, why not.

This isn't just about the PS3 having to waste development time supporting it and getting bugged to add it by feature whores who are totally blind to costs outweighing benefits. This article and countless others regarding DTS support on the PS3 as though it were missing something is only one example of the pointless harm they do. It's about the added costs and confusion it creates in the entire god damned movie market, from authoring, to hardware, to decompression bugs. They both should have been wiped out, or at least one of them, and they weren't, partly because of HD-DVD.


RE: Meh
By rninneman on 4/11/2008 12:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think competition is a good thing. If Dolby had a monopoly, what incentive would they have had to develop DD+ or TrueHD. Usually competition makes things better for us consumers.


RE: Meh
By BansheeX on 4/11/2008 1:41:38 AM , Rating: 3
You're confounding the argument on several levels, chiefly by trying to correlate a free market's general accomplishment (which I am all in favor of) to mean that every product, including DTS/DD must benefit the consumer. But that's nonsense. Do two companies competing to make the best government subsidized horse buggy benefit the consumer? No, because it's obsolete, just like DTS/DD should have been on a 50gb disc. And the government subsidizing it with your taxpayer money would mean that you're paying for something you didn't need.

Second of all, these two companies are now producing things to similar effect in different proprietary ways. Back in the DVD days, DTS filled a niche. Its higher bitrate and algorithm produced undoubtedly better sounding tracks than heavily compressed DD. But now you've got a DD lossless algorithm vs a DTS lossless algorithm. Their output is both the same and with negligible space differences. I dare you to justify supporting any more than one of those. Where do you feature whores draw the line and say "okay, enough with the list of logos splattered on my receivers insomuch that I can't even remember what they all denote." And look at all these retards going out to spend $500 on a new receiver to decode this new crap which blu-ray should have destroyed.

quote:

“We are extremely pleased that Sony Computer Entertainment is adding the full spectrum premium DTS-HD Master Audio codec into the PS3 so that more than 10 million owners of one of the best selling computer entertainment systems can have the best sounding, most efficient and flexible audio technology available as well,” said Brian Towne, SVP and GM Consumer Division at DTS. “DTS-HD Master Audio is fast becoming the must-have feature for high definition entertainment enthusiasts.”


Translation: "I'm so glad all you retarded people feel forever dependent on our THX-inspired marketing bull to sustain our DVD-era profits at least one more generation for a service no longer technologically relevant. I'm off with some charts to slick some studios into using our format now. Hope you all don't mind paying and waiting extra for the equipment to do it! And don't worry, we'll lobby and advertise the f^%k out of our next concoction ten years down the line to make ourselves relevant. Chow!"


RE: Meh
By Chaser on 4/11/2008 8:29:25 AM , Rating: 2
They've added support for more audio formats. When I am at Blockbuster I might glance at the audio format but I'm not going to decide against a movie I want to see because I'm having a panic attack over audio formats. If I bring it home and the audio is great I'm even more happy with the movie.


RE: Meh
By robinthakur on 4/11/2008 11:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I remember back in the DVD days when Home Cinema Choice did blind tests, people tended to prefer the Dolby Dogital tracks over DTS. You just like it because in your mind, higher bit rate = better!


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 4:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
Ever notice when you turn your receiver to dolby it may say +4db and then go back to saying DD. Thats because Dolby manipulates the track, including a 10db boost to the LFE channel over and beyond the db boost that is performed by most receivers. Loud sound is not always good sound, and a blind tests with a bunch of bass loving idiots does not mean the sound quality was good. I like to hear what the author of the track wanted me to hear, plain and simple. Anything else is just personal preference and has nothing to do with being closest to the studio master. Which when comparing a DTS to a DD track, DTS usually is. Anyone who has ever watched the gladiator DVD knows what I am talking about ;)


RE: Meh
By rninneman on 4/15/2008 9:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Dolby Digital encodes the LFE with 10dB trim. The decoders are designed to compensate by boosting the LFE by 10dB so it balances out in the end. I think you also have the common misconception that Dolby Dialog Norm is messing with the level of the recording or the dynamic range when it is neither. It simply tells the decoder the offset of the dialog so that one DD track to the next will have the same relative volume. It's an attempt to prevent switching from one DD source to another and getting the same effect as when you are watching network television and when commercials come on, they are much louder.


RE: Meh
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 10:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
Your right... People - like you don't understand the technology... You don't understand that decoded DTS-HD/MA is an exact copy of the PCM track, only because it's compressed you can have a version of the PCM file with greater bit depth (24bit v. 16bit) and still have MORE room left over for extra's... You also don't seem to understand that if you go the PCM route you also HAVE to package a DD track for those users that don't have hardware capable of handling the PCM track...

With DTS-HD/MA not only do you get full lossless audio, but those people who don't have compatible hardware also automatically get a 1.5Mbps lossy track with THE SAME AUDIO TRACK. DTS-HD/MA is a much better choice than PCM.


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 11:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
Nice post, good reasons as to why these codecs will always have their place. But.. theres a few things I would like to correct. First off, all 3 (THD,DTSMS,LPCM) support bit depts of up to 24 bit, and samping rates up to 96hz in multichannel mode, there is no advantage sound wise between any of the formats. All of the tracks are encoded in lossless LPCM, it is just the way it is transfered to your receiver (or decoded by your player for that matter).

Second, there will be many movies encoded in just multichannel LPCM, as neither DTS-MA or Tru-HD are required by the BD spec, they are both optional formats. I have 3 movies already that are just in LPCM 48/24 sound, with neither a DD ors DTS track present. For those without a capable receiver, the track is downmixed to 2 channel PCM, as at this time there is no downmixing to 5.1 on any player or receiver, nor do I believe there will be any time soon.

As for DTS-HD/MA, there are two tracks kept, DTS core, which is the 1.5 Mbps track you speak of, and the exteneded track, which contains all of the extra information for the extra channels, and other information such as dynamic range settings. Keep in mind though the DTS core track is still kept as a lossless format, your player merely downmixes the track to lossy DTS 1.5 track. This is how DTS achieved its backwards compatibility while still achieving lossless sound.

One more thing I would like to add, DTS-MA does not save that much space, TrueHD from what I have noticed on average is compressed around 2:1, while DTS-MA is around 1.5:1.

Not that space matters at all when talking about Blu-Ray, as the audio is transfered during the video 'blanking intervals', (or for an over simplification, the unused space between video frames). BD has a max combined bitrate of around 48Mbps I think, so carying a lossless track was never really the problem as it was with HD-DVD. Unless Studios lower the actual video bitrate, no extra space is actually 'saved' for extras.


RE: Meh
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 11:36:55 AM , Rating: 2
You're right about the PCM supporting higher bit depths, however with no compression what so ever you're losing precious space that could be getting utalized for other things. Think of how much more space is going to be required to encode 24bit 48Hz (this is the most comment "high end track") v. 16bit 48Hz, even 1.5:1 is going to save you a bit of space.

As far as the DTS having a "shadow track", this is the first I've heard of it. I do know that TrueHD requires a shadow track in order to maintain backwards compability, is that what you were thinking of? I just prefer lossless compressed on principal that PCM is a waste of space, both in terms of phsyical disc space and in terms of bandwidth required to stream off disc which is a consideration many people forget to make as well. With all optical video media (bluray, hd dvd, and regular dvd alike) *ALL* video, audio, directors commentary, PiP tracks and anything else you can think of that you can access while watching the movie is streamed *AT THE SAME TIME*. In other words if your disc has

1) the video (obviously)
2) English PCM 48Hz 24b
2) Spansih DD 5.1
3) French DD 5.1
4) Dutch DD 5.1
5) Swahili DD 2.1
6) Directors commentary
7) PiP

All of the above combined *MUST* fit with in the bounds of bluray's max bandwidth bounds for streaming content off disc. The reason is all of the above is infact "always playing", this is how the player can allow you to switch between different audio tracks and the like while the movie plays. With PCM the bitrate is purly a function of the sample rate (Hz) combined with the bit depth (16b v. 20b v. 24b) times the number of channels (5.1/7.1). With TrueHD and DTS-HD/MA since it's compressed you have a variable bitrate which is likely going to be lower than PCM.


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 1:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're right about the PCM supporting higher bit depths, however with no compression what so ever you're losing precious space that could be getting utalized for other things.
Ya I do not know what I was smoking when I wrote that, I once again confused myself with the how HDMI transfers audio vs how BD stores it. An LPCM track will take up more space, But your list down there seems a bit much. Regardless of which format you use, tracks in other languages must be included on the disc, you can't downmix an english TrueHD or DTSMA track to spanish ;). So essentially, for lossless audio if LPCM is the only track on this disc, its not going to take up much more space than if only a DTS-MA track was present. Only downside is, those who wish to downmix their lossless to a 1.5Mbps DTS/DD will be out of luck. In my opinion there is no reason to put both tracks on the disc, except for legacy playback.
quote:
I do know that TrueHD requires a shadow track in order to maintain backwards compability, is that what you were thinking of?
No I meant DTS-MA, TrueHD still uses the MPL encoding system (same thing used for DD) similar to that of DVD-AUDIO. DTS-MA has the core track for backwards compatibility purposes, and the extended track for the 'rest' of the sound. In the end they both THD and DTS-MA allow for backwards compatibility, its just the method in which it is achieved.

So in closing having only an LPCM track is not the end of the world, and it does not limit the addition of extras. It is only when two lossless formats are included that the issue arises. And as time goes on, We will be seeing less and less dual audio format releases, as backwards compatibility becomes less of an issues.

I would also like to note, that when studios release LPCM tracks with lower bitrates, its usually because LPCM was a required codec of the BD spec and TrueHD was required by the HD-DVD spec, (i don't know how fox gets away with only have DTS-MA on BD). For the studios releasing in both formats, it just seemed foolish for them to include a full bitrate LPCM track, when they would have to author a TrueHD track anyways. As such I belive the LPCM track is just there to keep the BD spec guys happy. With HDDVD now extinct, I expect we will see less dual release audio tracks as time goes on.
As I previously noted, Fox already releases most of their movies in just DTS-MA.


RE: Meh
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 1:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
If studios could get away with only putting an LPCM track on disc then I would agree, but the fact of the matter is they can't. Currently there are very few setups that can take full advantage of lossless audio (including LMPC) out there, so right there you *NEED* to have at least a DD track for backwards compatibility. Additionally, these discs are marketed internationally, so you *HAVE* to have the international audio mixes on there as well. I know it may seem like I was being exsessive with the audio tracks in my example, but check this out Harry Potter OOTP, it's got a similarly large array of language tracks and only lacks pip. This seriously cuts into total bandwidth available to the disc (and remember, all content on disc playing at the same time needs to fit into the stream).

Harry Potter Review, HDD:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1121/harrypotter_o...


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 1:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so right there you *NEED* to have at least a DD track for backwards compatibility.
I am not debating this, but that only adds 500MB maximum for that DD or DTS stream, as I said before the other languages would have to be present anyways, regardless of the lossless codec being used. This makes absolutely no difference when it comes to extras.
Even when both DTS MA and LPCM tracks are present, they won't take up more than 8-9 gigs total on the disc. As you may have noticed, there are not many BD movies that have had a video bitrate higher than 30Mbps. As the max combined bitrate for video and audio is 48Mbps, this would still leave a sufficient amount of space for any extras or other audio tracks that you want to add.

Eventually whether you like it or not we will be seeing Dual disc releases for movies. 50GB is not enough to get the kind of extras we are used to on DVD. At this point, this whole argument will become moot anyways.


RE: Meh
By ArneBjarne on 4/12/2008 6:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As you may have noticed, there are not many BD movies that have had a video bitrate higher than 30Mbps. As the max combined bitrate for video and audio is 48Mbps, this would still leave a sufficient amount of space for any extras or other audio tracks that you want to add.


30Mbps video average, sure, but for peaks absolutely not. I have plenty of discs that peak higher than 30 Mbps.

When you subtract the audio bitrate from the 48Mpbs you set the ceiling for video peak bitrate. For the example with HP:OOTP it is pretty easy to calculate for the entire movie, since the PCM and DD tracks are fixed bitrate:

1x    5.1 24bit 48khz PCM  =   6.9     Mbps
11x  DD 640Kbps               =   6.875 Mbps
--------------------------------------
Audio total                         = 13.775 Mpbs

48 - 13.775 = 34.225 Mbps

Now since Warner was still doing HD DVD compatible video encodes, it didn't matter to them, because HD DVD can't do 34.225 Mbps at all, but I have plenty of discs from BD only studios that peak higher.


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 2:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Currently there are very few setups that can take full advantage of lossless audio (including LMPC) out there, so right there you *NEED* to have at least a DD track for backwards compatibility.
There are a lot more receivers out there that can accept MLPCM than there are bitstream TruHD or DTS-MA. Any 1.0+ receiver can accept LPCM (as long as the receiver is not only HDMI video passthrough), HDMI 1.3 is required for DTSMA and THD via bitstream. This is the reason why many people feel the extra codecs are useless, as every BD player can decode THD to PCM, and many can do DTS-MA to PCM.

As for the languages, it depends on where you buy your disc, BD's are region coded, and rarely do I see a disc with more than 3 languages, with one of them usually being downmixed 5.1 and the other downmixed 2.0, this will hardly make a difference.(an addition of less than a GB to the disk)

The international releases do not contain large amounts multiple tracks of different languages either, it depends on where you buy it. Here is a nice list of the international language movies, and the language they were released in, with most of them only containing 2 sound tracks. (2 total, ususally a lossless and a 5.1 track, not multiple 5.1 legacy tracks )

http://www.releaselists.com/BLURAYInternational.ht...


RE: Meh
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 2:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
There are still many time more that only accept multichannel audio off of an optical cable than with any form of HDMI or even multi-channel analoge inputs (which the PS3 doesn't have anyway). In the cases where you get your audio via optical, PCM isn't the ideal way to go.


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 2:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are still many time more that only accept multichannel audio off of an optical cable than with any form of HDMI or even multi-channel analoge inputs
Without a doubt ;) But for those with setups like these, a BD player with multichannel analogue outputs will do the trick. Almost every 5.1 receiver has multichannel analogue inputs. I actually recently convinced my friend to pay a bit more for his BD player so that he would not have to go out and buy a new receiver for a few years. Yet since his original amp was high end, I could not perceive the difference between his analogue setup and my HDMI digital setup.


RE: Meh
By ArneBjarne on 4/12/2008 5:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No I meant DTS-MA, TrueHD still uses the MPL encoding system (same thing used for DD) similar to that of DVD-AUDIO.


MLP = Meridian Lossless Packaging (developed by Meridian Audio, Ltd.) has absolutely nothing to do with the compression used in normal DD and DD+.

MLP is used in DVD-A, and Dolby has slapped a Dolby name on it to use it for their lossless implementation. The fact that it is just the use of Meridians algorithm is also the reason it requires a shadow track, because Meridian obviously didn't have backwards compatability with DD as a requirement/feature on their list when they designed MLP.


RE: Meh
By AdamNZ on 4/13/2008 11:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No I meant DTS-MA, TrueHD still uses the MPL encoding system (same thing used for DD) similar to that of DVD-AUDIO. DTS-MA has the core track for backwards compatibility purposes, and the extended track for the 'rest' of the sound. In the end they both THD and DTS-MA allow for backwards compatibility, its just the method in which it is achieved.

DTS-HD MA and HR are backward-compatible due to their core. Dolby TrueHD is not. There is no Dolby Digital core, nor is there mandatory TrueHD transcoding to Dolby Digital by TrueHD decoders. There must be an entirely separate track for the purpose of legacy decoder support (on Blu-ray, that is, not HD DVD).


RE: Meh
By AdamNZ on 4/13/2008 11:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, there will be many movies encoded in just multichannel LPCM, as neither DTS-MA or Tru-HD are required by the BD spec, they are both optional formats.

DTS is part of the Blu-ray specification, and therefore support for DTS-HD HR and MA (core) is also.

quote:
Keep in mind though the DTS core track is still kept as a lossless format, your player merely downmixes the track to lossy DTS 1.5 track.

The core is lossy, not lossless. And there is no 'downmixing', the core is simply fed directly to the legacy decoder and the additional data (MA or HR) ignored. The additional extension data contains the extra channels and the 'difference' data. Only when this data is combined with the lossy core then do you get a lossless soundtrack.


RE: Meh
By BansheeX on 4/11/2008 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
only because it's compressed you can have a version of the PCM file with greater bit depth (24bit v. 16bit) and still have MORE room left over for extra's


Totally irrelevant on blu-ray. An uncompressed 5.1 PCM track for a two hour film takes about 3GB of space. If you increase the bitrate to 24/96, it might go to 6gb. That's only 12% of the disc. A DD lossy track added on is something like 500mb. If video is 15-25gb, that leaves about 20gb for extras. Absolute worst case scenario, LOTR extended will need its own extras disc. Gasp!

quote:
DTS-HD/MA is a much better choice than PCM.


No, it isn't. It adds cost to players and receivers to support it, it adds costs to movies because studios pay licensing fees, it delays an authoring process, it causes support and decompression issues (read: this article), increases processing power requirements, and generates gads of consumer confusion. All for a totally irrelevant and negligible space savings. Congrats.


RE: Meh
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 1:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Space and bandwidth considerations (as noted in my post above) are NEVER irrelivent even on bluray. There's a reason why Sony ditched PCM in favor of TrueHD for their movies, space and bandwidth savings! With DTS-HD/MA you get similar space/bandwidth savings plus the advantage of automatic high quality backwards compatibility. You lose that with PCM/TrueHD (entirly). At least with TrueHD though, you're still saving on disc space and bandwidth.


It adds negligable costs to players that bitstream it (my player, the BD-1400 is one of the cheapest on the market and the first to bitstream DTS-HD/MA) and PCM subtracts nothing from the cost of the disc because a DD track still needs to be licensed for compatibility reasons.

quote:
Totally irrelevant on blu-ray. An uncompressed 5.1 PCM track for a two hour film takes about 3GB of space. If you increase the bitrate to 24/96, it might go to 6gb. That's only 12% of the disc. A DD lossy track added on is something like 500mb. If video is 15-25gb, that leaves about 20gb for extras. Absolute worst case scenario, LOTR extended will need its own extras disc. Gasp!


Space and bandwidth considerations (as noted in my post above) are NEVER irrelivent even on bluray. There's a reason why Sony ditched PCM in favor of TrueHD for their movies, space and bandwidth savings! With DTS-HD/MA you get similar space/bandwidth savings plus the advantage of automatic high quality backwards compatibility. You lose that with PCM/TrueHD (entirly). At least with TrueHD though, you're still saving on disc space and bandwidth.


RE: Meh
By BansheeX on 4/11/2008 2:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PCM subtracts nothing from the cost of the disc because a DD track still needs to be licensed for compatibility reasons.


Fine, pay them endlessly for their bygone product because of DVD, but don't tell me we needed two lossless formats.

quote:
TrueHD for their movies, space and bandwidth savings!


TrueHD was likely added to cater to HD-DVD studios wanting a single authoring process or they wouldn't release on BD. Space savings assumes that total disc space is in danger of going past the available 50gb, which it wasn't. It makes no difference whether total size is 32 with TrueHD or 36 with PCM.


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 1:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, it isn't. It adds cost to players and receivers to support it, it adds costs to movies because studios pay licensing fees, it delays an authoring process, it causes support and decompression issues (read: this article), increases processing power requirements, and generates gads of consumer confusion. All for a totally irrelevant and negligible space savings. Congrats.
Licensing fees are no more than a cent per player.. probably less per disc.
LPCM IS LPCM regardless of how you transfer it, the only difference between the 3 formats is backwards compatability..

And issues with bass management, but thats a whole different story ;) Many non HDMI 1.3 receivers can not add the +10db filter to the LFE channel via LPCM over HDMI. (usually movie soundtracks the LFE channel is kept .1 or -10db lower than the rest of the channels, and it is up to the receiver to correct this (for normal DD and DTS tracks your receiver adds a +10db gain to the LFE track). I personally had to trade in my 1.1 receiver because I just could not stand it, as my 500$ subwoofer was being wasted.

For this reason once the PS3 allows for DTS-MA, it will be my codec of choice.


RE: Meh
By rninneman on 4/11/2008 12:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
HDMI 1.0 supports 7.1ch 192KHz/24bit PCM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#HDMI_1.0


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 1:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yep it supports it, but you would not believe what a mess the different HDMI specs caused in the industry. Hardly any HDMI 1.1 receivers fully supported LPCM 7.1 . The problems ranged from no processing (LPCM has LFE channel level issues over HDMI which is usually fixed by the receiver) to receivers actually accepting 7.1channel source, but merely outputs 5.1 (Onkyo), to not being able to process 5.1 tracks to 7.1

For a real futureproof receiver that you know will support 7.1 channel LPCM, a 1.2a receiver is required.

there is a whole post on it at avsforum.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=73...


RE: Meh
By daftrok on 4/10/2008 11:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
Also in this case its actually good to have two formats because if it was just one of them then they could exploit their dominance and overcharge on the technology, making DVDs and Blu ray discs more expensive. That and pretty much any receiver out there can handle both formats in some way, shape or form.


RE: Meh
By PrasVT on 4/11/2008 12:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that having more than just DD and DTS is confusing - whether or not your receiver can decode them. But, presumably the addition of 6.1 and 7.1 speaker setups and any other HT advancements are partly to blame. Still, it's confusing only if you dwell on it...otherwise, I pop in a dvd and my 5 year old Sony receiver will decode DTS or DD without any real input from me. But still, I'm looking forward to trying out these lossless formats ... we upgraded our 57" Sony rear project to a 61" LCD and ordered the Yamaha RX-V663 receiver to get the all-around 1080p/hd audio experience. In fact, we're getting a 2nd PS3 (I hate bringing mine up and downstairs) b/c it's a great blu-ray player. In my mind, the new receiver is just an incremental upgrade (bd player, receiver, hdmi cables), much like the vhs to dvd upgrades were done (dvd player, 5.1 receiver, component cables). In anycase, I don't see anything to complain about. Sony's been pretty decent about adding features people wanted. I don't think we're feature "whores" per say - I think Sony initially gave the PS3 some potential. Owners are just helping Sony add the features that will help enhance their experience.


RE: Meh
By whirabomber on 4/11/2008 7:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
The HDMI 1.x debate is moot as 2.0 is on the horizon. On topic, I'll just stick with my optical fiber PCM receiver. It is Sony since I couldn't find any Kenwoods in my area.


RE: Meh
By Locutus465 on 4/11/2008 9:56:49 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but how in gods name do you think PCM is better than DTS-HD/MA? Do you even understand lossless technology? Please explain what it is you think you're gaining out of PCM?


What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By Cunthor666 on 4/10/2008 9:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone tell me what the actual quality of BluRay on PS3 is like compared to expensive stand-alone units? Is it actually good for watching movies, or pretty lackluster for the price (not counting its a gaming machine as well)? I am asking because PS3 could be my next new 'dvd' player with format war over and all.




RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By abhaxus on 4/10/2008 11:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
The only real downsides vs a standalone player are the lack of multichannel analog outs (meaning your receiver has to support HDMI w/ linear PCM to make use of the high quality audio like DTS-HD MA or TrueHD, or even PCM), the lack of HDMI 1.3 bitstreaming (which may or may not be added in a future update and isn't a HUGE deal, given that it now decodes DTS-MA... although some people with high end receivers will notice a difference between a well calibrated AVR and the PS3's output), and finally, that you have to jump through hoops to get a universal remote to work. From what I understand, you must buy a PS2 to PS3(usb) controller adapter, and a PS2 dvd remote, to get the damn thing to work with universal remotes.

I've been holding out on buying one myself but the April 15 combo of GT5 prologue and DTS-HD MA is definitely enough to get me in.


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By BAFrayd on 4/10/2008 11:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
Logitech will soon be coming out with a universal remote that will support bluetooth and PS3.


By Aaron M on 4/11/2008 12:34:52 AM , Rating: 3
Is this confirmed, or just speculation? With millions of PS3s sold, this would be a good business decision by Logitech. In fact, I would hope this would entice other component manufacturers to start implementing Bluetooth options in their products. The only advantage to IR, is current marketshare.


By Blight AC on 4/11/2008 9:22:03 AM , Rating: 2
This would be great, but with the added cost of Bluetooth, I'd expect this to cost around $299. :( The Harmony 880 was a great purchase for me, really simplified setup and using my system.

I hope they keep the 880 design and just add bluetooth. I've seen some of the newer remotes from Logitech, and don't really like their layout. Like the Harmony One, which has the buttons spread out too much, and only 3 activities visible on the screen? :( Sure it's a cool touch screen.. but 3 soft buttons visible is far too few.

Anyhow, to answer the OP's question, yes the PS3 is a great Blu-Ray player, but the lack of IR remote sensor is a real bother, especially after being used to using only 1 remote for a few years now.


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By rninneman on 4/11/2008 12:11:08 AM , Rating: 2
There is no difference between decoding the audio to LPCM in the player or the receiver. TrueHD and DTS HD-MA are lossless so the same bits result no matter what. HDMI is still better than 5.1/7.1 analog out because with HDMI the receiver can still perform bass management, channel time alignment, and independent channel level adjustment. Almost no player has ever implemented all of these things adequately. Although, every decent receiver for the last several years performs this processing on any digital signal. So any receiver with HDMI will provide this additional functionality that is quite important to the overall sound.


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By rhangman on 4/11/2008 6:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
There would be a difference in terms of advanced audio though. ie. live mixing where just the centre channel is swapped for foreign audio, two streams mixed for commentary, etc.

With HDMI 1.3 you can't do any of that. Just one stream is sent to the AVR for decoding. More an issue for HD-DVD though as I think all current Blu-Ray discs use just basic audio. Guess this will change in the future though which is probably a main reason behind the update.


By rninneman on 4/11/2008 12:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
I should have clarified my point. I meant there is no difference sound quality wise. I was trying to show that decoding in the player does not sacrifice quality for advanced audio functionality.


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By deeznuts on 4/11/2008 2:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no difference between decoding the audio to LPCM in the player or the receiver
Two words. Clock Jitter.

Would I notice it? No. But there is a difference.


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 2:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
3 words. Long Cable Runs.

Jitter happens with long cable runs usually with sub par 14$ cables, not with 3-9foot HDMI cables. This is due to reflections occurring at the connectors, and has nothing to do with where the signal is decoded. (i.e it is not limited to just LPCM, THD and DTS both fall into its domain)

Jitter is also something anyone would notice, it results in popping or drop outs in the audio. I can tell you for a fact, my LPCM system is not affected by jitter.

Jitter is also not limited to the audio, it can cause video issues too, for 75% of the cases, you will know immediatly if you are feeling the effects of jitter, as video drops, and sound clicking and sound dropping could occur. Fortunatly for almost everyone, this is NOT an issue and is yet another huge piece of misinformation floating around on the net.


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By deeznuts on 4/11/2008 2:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=1360...

quote:
1) PS3 being internal decoding vs bitstream isn't a problem. They are two different ways to skin a cat. Many people that spend serious $$$ on their AVR or pre/pro would prefer to use the AVR clock and avoid jitter by bitstreaming. If you don't then don't worry about it. Jitter is real but it likely 20th on list of top 20 things that affect SQ.


Like I said, it's real, just not egregious.


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 3:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
As I said, misinformation.. Just because its avsforum does not mean its true. There are contracticing posts all over avsforum, but here is an interesting on that best matches the real defintion.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t...
see FiberOpticDude 's about half way down the page.

I have already explained to you that jitter is not limited to the audio, this means that 'jitter' is effecting the lossless audio codec before it even gets to your receiver as the entire data stream, not just merely the audio is effected. Which basically disproves that your thoery. Jitter is nothing new here either, it does not only pertain to HDMI or BD. Even DVI cables can adhere to the effects of jitter.

Heres an example of what I am saying.

10101010101010101 is the audio/video signal being sent from the BD player. (audio signals are sent in the whitespace of the video via HDMI, there are not two seperate streams)

jitter has occured so the signal now reads (hdmi clock is no longer sync'd)
1...010...10101....01010...101

Now the audio stream contained in that movie stream have now been effected, before it makes it to the receiver, before it has a chance to be decoded.

so the receiver takes those 1...010...10101....01010...101 splits the audio from the video, and there you have it, jitter.

I know its a major simplification, but I wanted to show why its not possible for it to only effect LPCM transfers.


By omnicronx on 4/11/2008 4:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
p.s I am not saying jitter does not exist, it does, but bitstreaming the audio the receiver instead of letting the player decode does not fix the problem.

95% of those who suffer from jitter probably do not even know it, because usually the effects are inaudible. Jitter exists everywhere in the electronics world, from audio, to video, to computer interconnects like your PCI express and Hypertransport. We've had to deal with it in audio ever since CD players were released. jitter is nothing new, methods and techniques to minimize the effects to essentially nothing have been in place for a while. While I agree HDMI is more susceptable than say SPDIF, its still nothing you need to worry about unless you spent 5+k on your audio equipment alone, in which case it probably matters to you, not because its sounds bad, but because you are a audiophile nerd ;)


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By MisterChristopher on 4/12/2008 1:29:25 AM , Rating: 2
Bass management, channel time alignment, and level adjustment are not desirable if the music was properly mixed and mastered for whatever format you are speaking about.

When speaking in terms of audio, the best systems are always the ones that sound best with the least amount of processing done to your original source.

The best possible sounding system would be analog out direct into a group of matched mono block amps (hopefully tube) with a specialized amp and speaker for your bass channel. In this case the recievers circuits could be viewed as bad because they introduce more connections, and filters (caps, resisters, inductors etc) into your audio stream. Of course this setup would give you no volume control, but that could be accomplished by other means.

The important thing is to understand that a properly done surround mix with 7.1, or 5.1, or any number of discreet channels, sounds excellent directly from channel output to the amps and speakers with no digital processing.

In some cases (depending on quality of your player), having a reciever could be considdered a positive if the D/A converters are better, but certainly not due to digital processing capabilities.


By rninneman on 4/16/2008 5:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are missing the point of what all of that post processing is for. Almost no room is setup with the right equipment in the right locations to avoid all post processing. To accomplish that, you would have to have identical amplification on every speaker, identical speakers on every channel, all speakers would have have to be equidistant from your ear, and the room would have to be a perfect cylinder with the you seated in the center. If this describes your setup, you don't need post processing. For everyone else, post processing is absolutely necessary.


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By ATC on 4/11/2008 12:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
I bought the BT Sony PS3 remote and it works great. I would prefer a universal remote and looking forward to Logitech's solution which is coming soon I heard.

But the BT remote has worked great in that its battery life is awesome (same batteries still since last August and still showing full), no line of sight required (PS3 sitting behind a wooden cabinet door) and not having to point the remote at the PS3.

Hopefully the BT PS3-friendly Harmony won't be too pricey.


By BAFrayd on 4/10/2008 11:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
It is overwhelmingly lauded as "the best" BluRay player available.


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By allnighter on 4/10/2008 11:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, PS3 is currently "a player to beat" in quality and features. And it's is about get even better next week. It is excellent for watching movies. there isn't a stand alone player currently in the market or due out in the near future that will put it to shame.
What happens later on ... we'll see.


RE: What is the BR quality like on PS3?
By jabber on 4/11/2008 10:04:24 AM , Rating: 3
Have to say I'm inclined to agree with you there. MS have been very quiet on the 360 front of late and we havent had any really nice or useful features added for quite a while now. I guess the half hearted effort at Xvid/DivX was the last one of note. I powered up my 360 a couple of weeks ago to see if there was anything new etc. and nope, other then a few more crappy movies, nothing exciting at all.

I guess having to sort Vista out is taking up their time at the moment?


By robinthakur on 4/11/2008 11:44:03 AM , Rating: 2
And Home Server lol. (they are actualy completely different divisions in MS) I feel that the 360 is now winding down in preperation for the next gen (Next year), and have thought this from Xmas what with the "shortage" taking place...


Let's just get this out of the way now...
By Owls on 4/10/2008 9:28:46 PM , Rating: 6
Xbox fanboy: PS3 sucks
PS3 fanboy: Xbox sucks

now that's out of the way, this is excellent news. AVSforum will have to find other things to complain about :P




RE: Let's just get this out of the way now...
By Hydrofirex on 4/10/2008 10:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
You ass, get it right:

PS3 fanboy: Xbox sucks
Xbox fanboy: PS3 sucks

GOSH! You're such a fanboy!

HfX


RE: Let's just get this out of the way now...
By Gul Westfale on 4/10/2008 10:36:20 PM , Rating: 5
PC user: all consoles suck.

;)