PinoyDVD: The Pinoy Digital Video & Devices Community
High-Def => General HD Discussion => Topic started by: pchin on Oct 13, 2007 at 09:49 AM
-
Another great article from Joshua Zyber. It's very informative esp for those new HD fans that find the audio jargon a bit too complicated & confusing. Or simply anyone who wishes to refresh his memories or learn more on the various audio formats. :)
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1064
Some excerpts for HD DVD audios:
Dolby Digital Plus
What it is: DD+ is the base standard audio format for HD DVD. The format can be encoded at bit rates of 640 kb/s (considered equivalent to Blu-ray's use of standard Dolby Digital at that same rate) or 1509 kb/s. However, note that although the latter version of DD+ shares the same bit rate as standard DTS Encore, this does not mean that these two are equivalent to one another. DD+ uses better encoding and more efficient compression to provide improved quality at the same rate. At least one professional Hollywood sound mixer has described Dolby Digital Plus at 1509 kb/s as audibly transparent to the studio master.
Level of support: All players are required to support Dolby Digital Plus.
Examples of discs that use it: Almost all domestic HD DVD releases. Discs from Warner Bros. default to the lower 640 kb/s rate, while those from Universal and Paramount tend to favor the higher 1509 kb/s (with some exceptions).
How to get it:
*Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF cannot transmit DD+ in full quality. When using this connection method, the player will decode the DD+ and then transcode it to either standard Dolby Digital AC-3 or sometimes even DTS (depending on player model).
*HDMI - Almost all HD DVD players decode the DD+ track internally to PCM for transmission over HDMI. Some may transmit the DD+ bitstream to a receiver instead (HDMI 1.3 required).
*Multi-channel analog - In this case, the player decodes the DD+ track and converts it to analog. The quality of the DACs in the player will determine the resulting sound quality.
Dolby TrueHD
What it is: Once decoded, the lossless Dolby TrueHD format is bit-for-bit identical to the studio master.
Level of support: Support for TrueHD up to at least 2 channels is mandatory on all HD DVD players, but the majority will support it all the way to 5.1. Because there are rare cases of disc players that limit TrueHD to 2 channels (such as the LG model BH100), discs with TrueHD tracks must also contain a Dolby Digital Plus track for 5.1 compatibility.
Examples of discs that use it: '300', 'Superman Returns'.
How to get it:
*Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF cannot transmit TrueHD in full quality. When using this connection method, the player will decode the TrueHD and then transcode it to either standard Dolby Digital AC-3 or possibly DTS (depending on player model).
*HDMI - Almost all HD DVD players decode the TrueHD track internally to PCM for transmission over HDMI. Some may transmit the TrueHD bitstream to a receiver instead (HDMI 1.3 required).
*Multi-channel analog - The player will decode the TrueHD track and convert it to analog.
DTS-HD Master Audio
What it is: The other losslessly compressed format, DTS-HD Master Audio is also bit-for-bit identical to the studio master once decoded (and hence identical to Dolby TrueHD). DTS-HD MA works in a core+extension configuration.
Level of support: Since the DTS-HD MA format is optional on HD DVD, players that don't support it will extract the standard DTS core.
Examples of discs that use it: Almost all HD DVDs released by Studio Canal in Europe.
How to get it:
*Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF cannot transmit DTS-HD MA in full quality. The player will extract the standard DTS core for transmission as a bitstream.
*HDMI - If the player does not support DTS-HD MA, it will extract the DTS core. Some players may decode the DTS-HD MA to PCM and transmit it over any version of HDMI. Other players may instead transmit the DTS-HD MA bitstream to a receiver for decoding (HDMI 1.3 required).
*Multi-channel analog - Either the HD DVD player will extract and decode the DTS core, or (on some models) will decode the full DTS-HD MA and convert it to analog.
-
Great info Pchin..especially for people like me who are still starting off.. Thanks for the info!!! ;D
-
No problem chuck427. ;)
After reading the article, it does make us feel rushing out to search for the latest HDMI reserver that can decode all those gorgeous lossless audios...if only we had a money tree planted at our back yard. ;D
-
Thanks for the info pchin. Now i realize that I need to buy a lot more gears to maximize using this format ;) Like what you said if only there was a money tree at our backyard ;)
-
You dont need the latest HDMI receiver when there is an analog option. As I read in other articles, its still the DVD player that decodes these formats through HDMI, not the receiver. So you are NOT missing the world of HD sound formats if you use analog to your older receiver (or previous versions of HDMI receivers).
No need for that money tree in your backyard. ;)
Just read the 3rd option available in "how to get it".
You may argue, "but HDMI is direct digital & not converted to analog, ergo better quality". Answer: Ask yourself: "Will you actually hear the difference?" :P
-
True you don't need a HDMI receiver if your HD player is capable of multi-channel analog output & has the required built-in decorder. Also, if your existing receiver is compatible with MPCM :)
However, as of now NOT all HD players can decode ALL the mentioned audios while some can transmit the audio as bitstream for the receiver to decode. :)
-
You may argue, "but HDMI is direct digital & not converted to analog, ergo better quality". Answer: Ask yourself: "Will you actually hear the difference?" :P
Yes, I believe there should be no difference. :) No matter if it's decoded inside the player or receiver, the audio still going tru the digital to analog process at some point & finally for amplification.
Tho the quality of the DACs in the player will determine the resulting sound quality. But then again as MAtZTER says....can we actually hear the difference? ;D
-
Yes, I believe there should be no difference. :) No matter if it's decoded inside the player or receiver, the audio still going tru the digital to analog process at some point & finally for amplification.
Tho the quality of the DACs in the player will determine the resulting sound quality. But then again as MAtZTER says....can we actually hear the difference? ;D
What I'm more interested in is if someone can tell me that there is a big difference in HD vs SD audio, based on his actual experience and maybe some kind of A-B test. I guess this would involve listening to the same audio track on HD and then on SD.
I seem to recall reading an article which said that it is nearly impossible to tell the difference ... but I'm not sure.
-
What I'm more interested in is if someone can tell me that there is a big difference in HD vs SD audio, based on his actual experience and maybe some kind of A-B test. I guess this would involve listening to the same audio track on HD and then on SD.
I seem to recall reading an article which said that it is nearly impossible to tell the difference ... but I'm not sure.
There are two types of HD audio, one that is lossy & the other is lossless. Based on my personal experience, the lossless audio does offer improvement. Music and dialogue will sound more clear and accurate, and greater dynamic punch of action sound effects. However, for the Transformers HD DVD, its lossy Dolby Digital Plus is encoded very well, thus resulting in high rating & can be considered as good as a lossless track (also resulted in never ending debate among fanboys & tech geeks).
The other objective of HD audio is to give better coverage throughout the living room, trying to eliminate any "holes" in the surround sound field esp the multichannel surround 7.1 tho it's not common at this point of time.
IMHO, whether there's a diference in HD vs SD, it will entirely depend on the HD disc source. In certain cases, yes you could hear the difference while in some you couldn't. But then again, you also need to consider the type of HT equipments used, if you have the "golden" or trained ears, room accoustic, etc. :)
-
There are two types of HD audio, one that is lossy & the other is lossless. Based on my personal experience, the lossless audio does offer improvement. Music and dialogue will sound more clear and accurate, and greater dynamic punch of action sound effects. However, for the Transformers HD DVD, its lossy Dolby Digital Plus is encoded very well, thus resulting in high rating & can be considered as good as a lossless track (also resulted in never ending debate among fanboys & tech geeks).
The other objective of HD audio is to give better coverage throughout the living room, trying to eliminate any "holes" in the surround sound field esp the multichannel surround 7.1 tho it's not common at this point of time.
IMHO, whether there's a diference in HD vs SD, it will entirely depend on the HD disc source. In certain cases, yes you could hear the difference while in some you couldn't. But then again, you also need to consider the type of HT setup you use, if you have the "golden" or trained ears, etc. :)
Since the time I made that post, I have read a lot more and I realize that I was referring to the "Deep Color" aspect of HD. Its highly debatable if anyone will be able to tell the difference between "Deep Color" and ordinary color.
With respect to the new audio formats of HD, particularly the lossless audio, there appears to be a consensus that there is definitely an improvement. I guess it's similar to the difference between ordinary CD and SACD, which is pretty huge.
The way I look at it, however, the only way you will really get the full benefit of lossless audio is if you upgrade both your DVD player and pre-pro:
1) Toshiba HD-A35 or equivalent which can pass lossless audio through HDMI 1.3
2) Denon AVR-2808 or equivalent which can receive lossless audio through HDMI 1.3
The other way to get it is through multi-channel analog but the problem is that, at least in my AVR, this kind of input (similar to SACD) is not processed by the AVR so you can't do any equalization or even bass management.
Bottom-line is that for the full benefit of lossless HD audio, you need an upgrade of around USD1,500. Am I right?
-
I would also add that if there is a difference in sonics, you have to own a really good setup to hear the full potential.
IMHO, I dont think an underpowered entry level receiver (specially future HTiB's w/ the new surround formats) will be capable of bringing out the full dynamics (as this requires power) of lossless tracks.
Just my thoughts.
-
I would also add that if there is a difference in sonics, you have to own a really good setup to hear the full potential.
IMHO, I dont think an underpowered entry level receiver (specially future HTiB's w/ the new surround formats) will be capable of bringing out the full dynamics (as this requires power) of lossless tracks.
Just my thoughts.
Fully agree. It should be very similar to SACD vs ordinary CD. You need good speakers and power amps to hear the full benefit of SACD. But if you have a good system, the difference is like night and day.
My problem is that with SACD, you need to use the 5-channel analog inputs and when you do this, you can't use the equalization (or room correction) features of the pre-pro. That's a big thing. I'm pretty sure that the same is true with HD audio and that's why it will be best to let the pre-pro, not the player, decode the bitstream. But in order to do this, you need a BIG upgrade of DVD player and pre-pro (AVR). ;D
-
I would also add that if there is a difference in sonics, you have to own a really good setup to hear the full potential.
IMHO, I dont think an underpowered entry level receiver (specially future HTiB's w/ the new surround formats) will be capable of bringing out the full dynamics (as this requires power) of lossless tracks.
Just my thoughts.
Bro u r talking as if u dont own one of the best sounding setups here ;D However, if there are still better sound that you can hear from a "supposed to be" better setup, what quality of sound could that be? in one thread i ask, is there really a difference on the sound of a cracking gun or a crashing glass between, lets say a 100k HT setup and a million worth of HT setup?
-
with a simple A-B test between DD and DD+, the problem i think is that we may not be comparing the same material. the DD+ might be re-authored already, or at least re-leveled, resampled, re-sweetened, etc... so it's not really a level playing field. :D be that as it may, if the reprocessing did make for better sonics, then it may be worth a revisit for the same title. still, i think most who will get a movie of the same title from their dvd collection will get it for the HD PQ and not really for DD+ SQ.
-
with a simple A-B test between DD and DD+, the problem i think is that we may not be comparing the same material. the DD+ might be re-authored already, or at lease re-leveled, re-sweetened, etc... so it's not really a level playing field. :D be that as it may, if the reprocessing did make for better sonics, then it may be worth a revisit for the same title. still, i think most who will get a movie of the same title from their dvd collection will get it for the HD PQ and not really for DD+ SQ.
Further to this post, the following article is incredibly interesting:
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1
Basically, it states that a very recent extensive study concluded that SACD was not better than CD! This was in spite of the much higher bit-rate of SACD. As gearhead pointed out, the conclusion was that the apparent differences were due to the recording and production techniques. ;D
If this is true, then it should also hold true for HD audio.
-
........ a very recent extensive study concluded that SACD was not better than CD! This was in spite of the much higher bit-rate of SACD. As gearhead pointed out, the conclusion was that the apparent differences were due to the recording and production techniques. ;D
If this is true, then it should also hold true for HD audio.
i was actually about to say that. to quote on the highdefdigest article posted above:
Though it hasn't always panned out that way in actual practice, there is a perception in the DVD marketplace that DTS is the "better" sound option that will provide greater fidelity to the source. Sometimes that's true and sometimes not, but that's a discussion topic for another day. The reality of the situation is that both Dolby Digital and DTS are capable of delivering very good, sometimes even exceptional sound quality on DVD.
there are DTS tracks that seems to be just slapped in there, just so they can put on the cover the DTS logo. so in practical terms, it's still how the soundtrack was authored which will determine how good the sound will be. all things being equal though, a less compressed material will be better than the more compressed one. but as with the CD and mp3 experience, you hit a wall after a certain bitrate where you will be hard-pressed to hear and say that the other one has higher or lower bitrate than the other.
-
Bro u r talking as if u dont own one of the best sounding setups here ;D However, if there are still better sound that you can hear from a "supposed to be" better setup, what quality of sound could that be? in one thread i ask, is there really a difference on the sound of a cracking gun or a crashing glass between, lets say a 100k HT setup and a million worth of HT setup?
LOL, u made me blush :-[. But before I got to my current setup, I started with the cheapest receiver then constantly upgraded to a mid level ($1k) then a mid level receiver as pre/pro + power amps, then later an acoustically treated room. Also, w/ speakers, I started from Daiichi's & DQ12's to my current THX system. (modestly speaking, just to drive a point). I still retain an entry level setup in my bedroom so I could still differentiate the 2.
And with my journey through these different HT levels (wala pa ako sa high end), I can definitely answer YES there is a difference. from the klings & clangs of the HF to the loose or tight bass of a sub or a dramatic midrange that you could feel on your skin (& its not coming from the sub!) or a distorted gasping midrange. For me, HT is about good dynamics to get you drawn into the action. And to achieve a good level of it you need power. Thus I always promote "the more power, the better".
I would argue though that its easier to achieve to mid level from entry level (price/performance wise), as compared to going high end, as the price difference is too big, but the results arent too far from a mid end system. But thats just me, I havent dabbled in the high end yet admittedly.
More importantly, what I actually aim to point out is that there is no need to make a big fuss & drool over these new formats (and their marketing) that much or buy one immediately, unless of course you can easily afford it or its already the standard (cheap) format. as they need quite an investment, both in TV size & "more revealing audio gear" (as I read in this forum).
A shop owner was telling me about a guy who was boasting to him of his bluray setup. but the guy is using a 32" LCD, so the shop owner was just laughing at the boastful guy since he doubted the bluray difference can be seen on a 32" screen. The analogy is something like this for the audio side. I dont mean to offend anybody here please, just presenting some logical beliefs that may save some people a lot of money. :)
-
A shop owner was telling me about a guy who was boasting to him of his bluray setup. but the guy is using a 32" LCD, so the shop owner was just laughing at the boastful guy since he doubted the bluray difference can be seen on a 32" screen. The analogy is something like this for the audio side. I dont mean to offend anybody here please, just presenting some logical beliefs that may save some people a lot of money. :)
Nice point, Matt. To quote a relevant article from Home Theater Magazine:
"I've been saying it since the first 1080p displays hit the market: There's no need for 1080p on a screen smaller than 65 inches. Your eye just can't resolve that kind of detail at the distance just about everyone sits from their TV. Resoundingly, no one cared. Where that level of detail is really useful is with projection. With a screen of 90 or 100 inches, you can use every bit of detail you can get."
My bet is that if you've got a 42" screen, 720p is probably good enough and if your screen is 32", 480p may be alright.
Pero back to the topic, that's the reason why I was thinking that if I want to fully appreciate HD audio, I would need to go all the way and get the latest HD player and pre-pro technologies, which would cost a lot of money but might be worth it if you can really hear a big difference. However, as you may note in the latest posts, nagduda ako bigla. Kasi after all that gastos, baka naman wala talaga masyado difference. ;D
Kaya wait and see na lang muna. :)
-
The way I look at it, however, the only way you will really get the full benefit of lossless audio is if you upgrade both your DVD player and pre-pro:
1) Toshiba HD-A35 or equivalent which can pass lossless audio through HDMI 1.3
2) Denon AVR-2808 or equivalent which can receive lossless audio through HDMI 1.3
I'd say this is certainly based on personal preference & financial resource, i.e. whether you intend/afford to have a high end system or mid-range, etc. It's a two separate matters: To be able to enjoy the lossless audio vs To get the full benefit of lossless audio. :)
Pero back to the topic, that's the reason why I was thinking that if I want to fully appreciate HD audio, I would need to go all the way and get the latest HD player and pre-pro technologies, which would cost a lot of money but might be worth it if you can really hear a big difference.
Yep if budget permits. I don't own a high-end system. Have neither high-end HD player nor pre-pro hardwares but I'm still able to enjoy the HD audio. However, I certainly would love to own those high-end pre-pro beauties in the not so distant future. :)
-
Yep if budget permits. I don't own a high-end system. Have neither high-end HD player nor pre-pro hardwares but I'm still able to enjoy the HD audio. However, I certainly would love to own those high-end pre-pro beauties in the not so distant future. :)
You own a well powered mid end system Paul, and that is good enough to enjoy HD audio. I actually applaud your choice in going for a good receiver when you were starting your HD upgrades. It was a correct path IMhO to take by upgrading your gears. I am sure there is enough power & processing to reveal the differences of HD audio.
You dont need high end stuff to appreciate HD audio (thats going to extremes of the point being argued), just a well powered system is enough to reveal the dynamics & higher resolution of HDA.
I am just doubtful if the differences will be that obvious in a (future) HD audio enabled htib or a low powered setup. Again, I am not saying this to put down anybody, but to let readers think twice before just jumping to the bandwagon, spend a lot & then not hear a dramatic difference worthy of their investment.
If you got the extra dough then why not, go for it by all means. But if you got the extra dough (and want to hear a difference), think: why not invest more in your HT first? ;)
-
Thanks Matt, I really appreciate all the advices you given to me in the past years & still have so much to learn pa. :) I still regret a bit for not getting the speakers suggested earlier due to budget concern. I recall you were saying if my AVR has pre-out then rejoice! ;D
Your advice also included the importance of room/accoustic treatment which could be done within a small budget thus saved me lots of dough! MAtt is indeed a great AV guru :D
-
You own a well powered mid end system Paul, and that is good enough to enjoy HD audio. I actually applaud your choice in going for a good receiver when you were starting your HD upgrades. It was a correct path IMhO to take by upgrading your gears. I am sure there is enough power & processing to reveal the differences of HD audio.
I second to that, I heard Paul's system and this made me decide to upgrade on speakers and in the future a hdmi receiver..Room acoustics etc. ya they really make a difference. Really appreciate audio more now hehe..Its great we have this forum for a lot of info and lots of help from you guys. The problem lang is "gastos"..Ya these stuff is really putting a hole in my pocket..I can imagine those hi end stuff..If I can afford these and purchase these, my wife might divorce me na... ;D
-
I think I need to explain myself better. It may also be time for a good summary.
Standard-definition DVD's have a limitation in the capacity of their discs. Therefore, the audio had to be compressed.
HD DVD has such a high capacity that it is even capable of storing the original non-compressed audio tracks. The assumption is that this will lead to higher audio quality - maybe broader frequency range, better separation, imaging, detail ... I don't know kasi di ko pa nga naririnig!
In order to hear this kind of difference (which can sometimes be subtle), as Matzter puts it, you will need a good set-up: equipment and acoustic treatment of your room. It doesn't have to be really high-end but definitely not just a typical HTIB.
In addition, in my experience, "room correction" technology (Audyssey, etc.) makes a huge difference as well. This will act as an equalizer to compensate for the specific characteristics of the room (and equipment!).
Here comes the problem - My understanding is that you can get HD audio either through:
1. The 5+1 analog channels feeding from your player to AVR, in which case the processing is done by the player or
2. Your HDMI 1.3 connection from player to AVR (in which case both the player and AVR must support HDMI 1.3, and there are very few of these equipment right now). Here, the player just transmits the bitstream to the AVR, which then does the processing.
What I have found is that when you use the 5+1 analog channels (as in SACD), the room equalization features of the AVR (and a lot of other audio processing features of the AVR) are disabled. I am afraid that without the room equalization feature, the audio may deteriorate, even if the audio tracks are non-compressed.
Therefore, my conclusion is that if your set-up has a room equalization feature, you should not use the analog channels. You have to use HDMI 1.3, in which case you will need the latest players and AVR's. Translation - more than P60,000 in equipment alone. If your AVR doesn't have room equalization or correction, maybe the analog channels will be fine.
All of this, however, is premised on the assumption that the non-compressed audio of HD will be of better quality than the compressed audio of DVD, and that a normal person can actually hear the difference! What really surprises me is the recent comprehensive study (link is posted earlier) which claims that people cannot hear the difference between SACD (very high bit-rate) and ordinary CD (relatively low bit-rate). That seems to be pretty analogous to HD audio vs. SD audio. I guess that unless there is a similar study out there for HD audio, the jury is still out on whether or not HD audio really makes a big difference.
As gearhead put it, there is no doubt that there is a huge difference in pq with HD. With regard to audio, however, I am not yet sure. Maybe ...
-
YW Paul. Its always pleasure to help & share my experiences. What I enjoy in my setup, I would love others in this hobby to enjoy too.
The problem lang is "gastos"..Ya these stuff is really putting a hole in my pocket..
I've been having a hole in my pocket since I started this hobby & I cant seem to sew it up..
You just have to keep the "gastos" into perspective to your wife:
1.) you dont need to go to a moviehouse anymore
2.) I believe the THRILL & number of hours you spend on a good, well executed setup is worth its cost. Easy come easy go, others assemble a poorly executed setup & are not captivated in HT or music & they retire early & sell their stuff at the B&S. Unlike a good setup that can really captivate you in HT & music for a long time & mas sulit ROI mo!
3.) You are always at home w/ your family
4.) No more time & specially money to ever think of spending on other vices like women... ;D
I guess #4 is always a good punch line for our wives. :)
-
. Translation - more than P60,000 in equipment alone.
I guess that unless there is a similar study out there for HD audio, the jury is still out on whether or not HD audio really makes a big difference.
Sir naman kayo pa! Kayang kaya nyo yang 60k na yan! :D
I am sure there will be a difference in sound, whether its big or small, the question for budget conscious people like me is:
Is it worth spending 60k for? ;) (software not included)
-
It seems that in the world of audio technical measurements draw most of the conclusions of what is good, better and best. But i think it is correct that most of the time our ears may not even appreciate such differences. The appreciation changes however, when listener learns of the technical representations or the measurements. Thats the influence of the mind ;)
-
Sir naman kayo pa! Kayang kaya nyo yang 60k na yan! :D
I am sure there will be a difference in sound, whether its big or small, the question for budget conscious people like me is:
Is it worth spending 60k for? ;) (software not included)
Matt .. I don't like to throw away money! If I am confident that there will be a discerible improvement, okay lang yun. I note that you say you are sure there will be a difference but that's also what I thought about SACD, which is a much older technology and received huge rave reviews. Yet, the latest findings seem to point out that wala naman pala "discernible" difference ang SACD vs CD when subjected to a blind test. That's why I am not sure anymore. ??? Meanwhile, wait na muna ako.
Kaya nga tama rin si jerix .. When you are aware that you are listening to an "uncompressed" audio track which is equal to the original master, wow! Yet, baka pareho lang yun sa compressed audio track insofar as actual listening is concerned. :)
-
Yep, analog or digital, compressed or uncompressed, it may all just be marketing gimmicks set to make people drool & most specially part with their hard earned cash, whether they hear the difference or not.
I was actually anal about the whole compressed/uncompressed, digital/analog concept when I was talking to an old fellow member & good friend who knows tons about HT (he started his HT in the 90's) . His response was very simple:
"Will you hear the difference?" (thus I echoed his question here in my first reply in this thread)
I had an epiphany after that & realized it must be the marketing going into my head. ;D
Who knows? the difference might be staggering.
Will I embrace the whole thing? My answer is Yes... but when they dont cost a 60k upgrade anymore... :D
As of now I really have no complaints w/ my SD DVDs & compressed analog sound :)
-
Who knows? the difference might be staggering.
Yup! Except that we will never know that till we actually get the equipment and software upgrades. Chicken and egg. ;D
Siguro, konting tukso na lang at bibilhin ko na rin para masubukan lang. ;D
-
amen to the gurus. :D
-
Here comes the problem - My understanding is that you can get HD audio either through:
1. The 5+1 analog channels feeding from your player to AVR, in which case the processing is done by the player or
2. Your HDMI 1.3 connection from player to AVR (in which case both the player and AVR must support HDMI 1.3, and there are very few of these equipment right now). Here, the player just transmits the bitstream to the AVR, which then does the processing.
Therefore, my conclusion is that if your set-up has a room equalization feature, you should not use the analog channels. You have to use HDMI 1.3, in which case you will need the latest players and AVR's. Translation - more than P60,000 in equipment alone.
You can also get HD audio (only TrueHD) tru the player internal decorder. TrueHD is mandatory in all HD DVD players. The player will output the audio in MPCM via HDMI to the AVR. But then again many will argue the decoding process done by the AVR is always better. ;D
Yes, I agree that the HDMI audio will be advantage over the analog channels in regard to the AVR room equalization or correction. Yikes... it would be easily cost more than P70k in equipments alone (HD player + AVR). :'( Very expensive hobby eh ;D
-
Yup! Except that we will never know that till we actually get the equipment and software upgrades. Chicken and egg. ;D
Siguro, konting tukso na lang at bibilhin ko na rin para masubukan lang. ;D
Thats the catch... ;D but the whole thing starts when u have them all already, though the intention sometimes is para masubukan lang. If thats a hard earned money somehow you need to justify even just to yourself that it was a good buy so you will be happy. Lahat tayo ayaw malugi..This i think is a natural phenomena. So the situation influences your mind. Mas maganda kung subukan mo muna. then when you know that the cost is worth the difference then go.
-
Thats the catch... ;D but the whole thing starts when u have them all already, though the intention sometimes is para masubukan lang. If thats a hard earned money somehow you need to justify even just to yourself that it was a good buy so you will be happy. Lahat tayo ayaw malugi..This i think is a natural phenomena. So the situation influences your mind. Mas maganda kung subukan mo muna. then when you know that the cost is worth the difference then go.
Alam ko na gagawin ko. :)
Bili ako Toshiba HD-A35, kasi this model can output 24fps and my projector can handle that. The pq is supposed to be outstanding.
Tapos, may friend ako who just bought a Denon AVR-2808. Dalhin ko player sa bahay nya para ma-test ko ang HD audio through the AVR. Then I can decide if its worthwhile to upgrade even the AVR.
Kapag nagawa ko na, post ko impressions ko dito. :)
-
Thats the catch... ;D but the whole thing starts when u have them all already, though the intention sometimes is para masubukan lang. If thats a hard earned money somehow you need to justify even just to yourself that it was a good buy so you will be happy. Lahat tayo ayaw malugi..This i think is a natural phenomena. So the situation influences your mind. Mas maganda kung subukan mo muna. then when you know that the cost is worth the difference then go.
bro same thing happen to me, before kating kati na ako na masubukan yung hd. So nag loan ako d2 sa work & purchase hd-A1 para masubukan lang . Picture quality is very good, then sa sound quality i did not hear a big difference
in optical (digital-plus) & analog multichannel connection. kaya ngayon kating kati ulit ako masubukan naman sa
new model of avr with HDMI to hear true hd. Problem now is budget, so i end up watching again sa sd muna.
-
Bro sanmig that is why it has always been my personal issue: will i hear the crashing of a glass on a true HD setup BETTER and MORE ENJOYABLE than with my present basic digital setup considering cost of upgrade? ;D
-
Just to add in a note from amirm (AVS Special Member):
TrueHD vs PCM
"TrueHD can indeed be better than PCM, if the former is decoded in the AVR. I explained this in detail in the insider thread. But briefly, if you decode PCM in the player, then you have to send it over long cables, slave to video clock on HDMI. Then the signal travels from that port through HDMI transceiver, buffer, etc. eventually to the DAC. Every step along the way then is an opportunity for jitter to be induced/increased.
In case of sending over the TrueHD bitstream to AVR, it can remain as "data" immune to any jitter until the last moment before the DAC. Of course, one can do serious damage in this short link just the same . But assuming good design, compressed streams can in theory sound better to folks who can hear jitter artifacts..."
Link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12389387#post12389387)
-
Currently is it best to have a receiver with a Dolby True HD and DTS HD Master Audio decoder to enjoy HD or are our current receivers with DTS ES and Dolby EX decoders sufficient to enjoy HD?
-
For people with more than extra moolah, Yeah I think it may be the best to have a receiver that can decode the DHD and DTS HD. But it seems that there is also another but CHEAPER direction where decoding is done by the player. This way you can use present generation receivers. The choice will be yours.
Please refer to this:http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/High-Def_FAQ/High-Def_FAQ:_Is_HDMI_1.3_Really_Necessary/853 (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/High-Def_FAQ/High-Def_FAQ:_Is_HDMI_1.3_Really_Necessary/853)
-
But if money wasn't what you were concerned with. While I was making the rounds of the websites looking at the new generation of receivers...noticed that other receiver brands haven't released receivers with the new decoders yet....so would you go for the Rotel or Arcam without the new decoders or just wait for the new decoders to come out for these brands as well....
-
There are quite a number of latest AV receiver with HDMI 1.3 that can decode all the lossless HD audios including Onkyo, Denon & Yamaha. Some of these receivers (higher end model) can cost up to almost P80,000. :)
-
There are quite a number of latest AV receiver with HDMI 1.3 that can decode all the lossless HD audios including Onkyo, Denon & Yamaha. Some of these receivers (higher end model) can cost up to almost P80,000. :)
This is exactly my point. ;)
-
There are quite a number of latest AV receiver with HDMI 1.3 that can decode all the lossless HD audios including Onkyo, Denon & Yamaha. Some of these receivers (higher end model) can cost up to almost P80,000. :)
But it really makes more sense to me that the more powerful upper model receivers are the ones with these as their better power & processing can bring out the audible results of the new HD audios.
I met SGT last night & turns out he also thinks the same way I do regarding weaker AVR's + the new sound formats.
-
High-Def FAQ: Uncompressed vs. Lossless Audio
A couple of months ago, I wrote a column called Blu-ray and HD DVD Audio Explained that spelled out the basic functions, features, and differences among the various audio formats available on both High-Def disc types. In it, I explained that uncompressed PCM audio (as found on many Blu-rays) is an exact replication of the studio master, encoded on disc without compression, and that the lossless audio formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are also bit-for-bit identical to the studio master once decoded. Doing the math, that should mean that a lossless track is also identical to an uncompressed track. Indeed, that is the case. However, some confusion remains as to whether an uncompressed track is actually better than a lossless one.
Now that both High-Def formats have been available for over a year, and each has built up a catalog of hundreds of titles, we have several cases where two high-resolution audio tracks (one lossless and one uncompressed) can be directly compared for the same movie. Examples include Warner's dual-format releases of 'The Departed' and 'Troy: Director's Cut', which feature lossless TrueHD on HD DVD and uncompressed PCM on Blu-ray, or Sony's Blu-ray release of 'Ghost Rider' with both PCM and TrueHD on the same disc. Theoretically speaking, playing the same movie's soundtrack in both lossless and uncompressed encodings should sound absolutely identical, shouldn't it? Well, yes, except that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that come into play, and indeed some listeners have tried comparing the soundtracks and claim to hear a difference between them.
So what would cause a lossless track to not be identical to an uncompressed track? To get to the bottom of this, let's first take a look at the ways in which each audio format is encoded.
Isn't All Compression Bad?
(Note: Please keep in mind that the following examples have been simplified for explanatory purposes. The actual mathematical workings of lossless compression are more complicated than I can explain here, but this should serve to illustrate the basic concept.)
Let's begin by looking at how uncompressed audio works. A PCM track is an uncompressed digital format that is 100% bit-for-bit identical to the studio master. If the studio master is:
101011100100101100010111
Then the PCM track pressed onto the disc is:
101011100100101100010111
Pretty straightforward, right? The problem when it comes to High-Def discs is that, since the PCM file is totally uncompressed, an entire movie soundtrack takes up a huge amount of disc space. With their greater storage capacity, Blu-ray discs may often have enough room for this, but space is generally more cramped on HD DVD. Even on Blu-ray, some studios prefer to use that extra space for other purposes.
On the other hand, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are "lossless" compression formats. Although they're compressed to take up less disc space than a PCM track, once decoded they're also bit-for-bit identical to the studio master. Think of this like a ZIP file that holds a PCM track. Once you unZIP the file, you get a 100% identical copy of the original PCM, without compromising any sound quality. What these formats do is drop certain data, and instead use flags to indicate that the empty spaces in the stream are meant to be filled with that data when decoded. As an example, let's pretend that we have a movie that's half sound and half complete silence. A PCM track would look like this:
101011100101000000000000
As you can see, all those 0s at the end are needlessly taking up space on the disc, literally for nothing but complete silence. To losslessly compress this audio, a TrueHD or Master Audio track would instead look like this:
1_1_111__1_1____________
By dropping the 0s, the lossless version takes up vastly less room, but when decoded those missing 0s are filled in and it looks like this again:
101011100101000000000000
Voila! A perfect reproduction of the studio master at less than half the disc space.
Standard Dolby Digital, DTS, and (to a lesser extent) Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD High Resolution are all "lossy" compression formats. In the above scenario, they'd not only drop the 0s, but also drop some of the 1s that are deemed less critical to human hearing. The decoder chips for these formats will then have to make intelligent guesses about what those missing bits were in the first place, under the belief that most people won't be able to hear the difference. The higher the bit rate, the less guessing they have to do. DD+ and DTS-HD HR are not only higher bit rate than old DD and DTS, but have smarter decoders that are better at guessing the missing bits. Still, they're not a perfect replication of the studio master the way that the PCM or TrueHD and Master Audio formats are.
Comparing Apples to Apples
Now that we've seen how lossless compression works, before we can legitimately compare a lossless track to an uncompressed track, we have to be sure that we're actually comparing the same thing. Over the past year, I've read countless discussion forum postings (and a few editorials from people who ought to know better) in which viewers have tried to compare the soundtracks of different movies to prove a point about one audio format being superior to another. The reasoning usually goes something like this: "The PCM track on 'Black Hawk Down' sounds better than the TrueHD track on 'Batman Begins', therefore PCM must be better than TrueHD."
Unfortunately, this entire argument is based on a huge logical fallacy. You can't compare the soundtracks of completely different movies and draw conclusions about the audio formats used on their video discs. Maybe 'Black Hawk Down' just has a better sound mix than 'Batman Begins'? By the same token, I could argue that the TrueHD track on 'Batman Begins' sounds a lot better than the PCM track on 'The Benchwarmers', so have I just proven that TrueHD is inherently superior to PCM, even though someone else just proved the opposite by picking different titles to compare? Of course not. The entire train of thought is hopelessly flawed.
If a person likes apples better than oranges, does that mean that the crate used to ship the apples is superior to the crate used to ship the oranges? For that matter, does this opinion really mean that apples are better than oranges, or just that this one person happens to prefer them? Likewise, is the 'Black Hawk Down' soundtrack actually superior to the one for 'Batman Begins', or is it just that someone likes that mix better?
To further complicate matters, even when you're trying to compare the same movie's soundtrack in its different formats, you may still not quite be comparing apples to apples if the two tracks aren't encoded at the same bit depth. While both Blu-ray and HD DVD are capable of utilizing lossless and/or uncompressed audio up to 24-bit resolution, studios may choose to encode at 16-bit resolution instead, depending on the bit depth of the original source or concerns about conserving bandwidth. For example, on that copy of 'Ghost Rider' with both TrueHD and PCM on the same disc, the TrueHD track is encoded at 20-bit resolution, while the PCM track is encoded at 16-bits. Even though it's the same movie soundtrack, and technically both audio formats are "bit-for-bit identical" to their respective sources, in this case the studio chose to use a downsampled source for the PCM option, which may affect the final audible outcome in TrueHD's favor.
When making conclusive claims about the technical merits of one audio format over another, it's critical to accurately take all these factors into account.
Dialogue Normalization – Benefit or Menace?
So let's say we pick a single movie with its soundtrack available at the same bit depth resolution in both uncompressed and lossless formats, like the 'Troy: Director's Cut'. Now we should finally have a case where playing the Blu-ray's PCM track and the HD DVD's TrueHD track back-to-back should sound instantly identical, right? Well, almost.
Now there's a new wrinkle to consider. Many Dolby audio tracks are encoded with a function called Dialnorm, which is short for Dialogue Normalization, a feature Dolby offers to set the default playback levels. The idea is to avoid having some discs start very loudly and others start very quietly when a receiver is set for the exact same volume. To do this, Dialnorm sets a default center of the soundtrack at a common average, using dialogue as a baseline. Therefore, the relative loudness of movie dialogue should be the same from one Dialnorm-encoded disc to another without a viewer needing to change the receiver volume from normal preferences.
There's been a certain level of hysteria about Dialnorm from members of the audiophile community, who misunderstand its purpose and functioning, and believe that it fundamentally alters the soundtracks encoded with it. In actuality, Dialnorm does not affect a movie soundtrack any more than raising or lowering the Volume setting on your receiver does. Contrary to common misconception, Dialnorm does not "boost" the dialogue relative to the rest of the sound mix, or in any way alter the track's dynamic range. A Dialnorm-encoded soundtrack has the exact same peaks and valleys as a soundtrack without Dialnorm; it's just that the Dialnorm track will contain an extra flag in the metadata telling the receiver to either increase or decrease its entire volume scale globally before playback, so that all movies start on the same scale. And it only does this once at the start of the movie; it does not cause fluctuations after the movie begins.
At any given volume setting on your receiver, a movie like 'Gosford Park' will deliver dialogue crisply and clearly, but the soundtrack won't get much louder, because that film is practically all dialogue. Switching to 'Jurassic Park' at the same setting, dialogue will come through just the same as it did for the last picture, until the dinosaur roars shake your house to pieces, because that movie has a lot of sound effects that are much louder relative to the dialogue. Dialnorm will not make 'Gosford Park' a house-shaking experience, or make 'Jurassic Park' any less of an auditory powerhouse. It just sets them both so that their dialogue is at the same loudness as one another.
This is relevant to our discussion because a Dolby TrueHD track encoded with Dialnorm may begin at a higher or lower starting volume than a PCM track without this feature, even though it's the same movie's soundtrack and the receiver is left at the same setting. There's a well-known principle in auditory research that has shown that listeners typically perceive a recording played back at a louder volume as better in quality than the same recording at a lower volume. That's because the louder the playback, the more pressure generated by its sound waves. At a difference of just a few decibels, the listener may not necessarily be able to tell that one track is being played louder than the other, but subtle sounds in the recording will suddenly start to vibrate their eardrums more forcefully. The result will be that the louder track seems to have more clarity, breadth, and "impact," when in fact the only real difference is that it's being played a little louder.
In order to properly compare the same soundtrack on two different audio formats, they must first be matched to the exact same volume, and this will require a sound level meter to measure precisely. Once that's been accomplished, the audible differences between an uncompressed encoding and a lossless one vanish. Being set for different starting volumes doesn't make one track better or worse in actual quality than another; they just need different volume settings on your receiver.
Does the Hardware Affect the Results?
One last factor to take into consideration: A lossless audio track is really only bit-for-bit identical to its source if it's been decoded and processed correctly. In my review of the Toshiba HD-XA2 HD DVD player, I noted a bug in its audio section that causes bass management for the multi-channel analog outputs to be applied inaccurately when the "Digital Out SPDIF" control is set for Bitstream rather than PCM. That player also seems to apply Dynamic Range Compression whether you want it or not unless all speakers are set to a Small size. Without the required workaround settings (SPDIF at "PCM" and all speakers Small) all movie soundtracks seem to be lacking bass over those audio connections.
If a viewer weren't aware of this problem, a first inclination might be to assume that the Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD audio formats used on HD DVD were poor quality. However, this is actually just a defect in one specific player, and not at all indicative of the audio formats themselves.
Similarly, although Fox Home Entertainment prefers to use DTS-HD Master Audio on its Blu-ray releases, at the present time there isn't much hardware that can decode the full lossless extension to the codec. Most currently-available Blu-ray disc players and A/V receivers instead extract the lossy DTS "core," so the majority of listeners aren't hearing the format to its fullest potential. That's not a knock against Master Audio, but rather a limitation imposed by the playback hardware.
What It Boils Down To
The number of new audio formats on Blu-ray and HD DVD have caused a great deal of consumer confusion, especially with three separate formats (PCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD Master Audio) all designed to accomplish the exact same goal -- a perfect replication of the movie's audio master. Apprehensions about lossless compression being inferior to an uncompressed version of the same soundtrack are not borne out by the facts. One methodology may have technical advantages over the other in terms of space savings, but the end result is the same whether the disc you buy has an uncompressed soundtrack or a lossless one. They're both equally good, so sit back and enjoy.
Source (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/High-Def_FAQ:_Uncompressed_vs._Lossless_Audio/1233)
-
"Will you hear the difference?" (thus I echoed his question here in my first reply in this thread)
Now, I think I can tentatively answer this question of whether or not you can hear the difference between normal DD or DTS vs. Dolby TruHD and DTS-MA. Kasi, I got a Tosh HD-A35 and Panasonic BD-30, sending high-def bitstream audio to a Denon AVR-2808.
Yes, you can hear a difference but it is subtle. More detail, clearer harmonics. Things like the fingers sliding through the frets of the guitar.
It seems that the surround effect is also enhanced. You feel yourself more inside the movie.
I think I still need to do a lot more listening to come up with something more definitive. One complaint of mine, though, is that there are not many titles with TruHD and DTS-MA.
A lot of other guys here have similar player and AVR combinations - e.g., Munskie, Mouldingo, Alvin. It would be nice to hear what their views are.