Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Blu-Ray Players - What's the fav this holiday seas

Yeah, this is what I'm fuzzy on.

Actually, I think you were right in your post about the DTS HD-MA and DolbyTrueHD; there is a "core" in it that would be regular DD and DTS and thus it would work like a DVD (possibly slightly higher bitrates such as 640Kbps for DD and maybe DTS-Discrete).

I seem to remember reading something about the "core" being a requirement in the HD DVD spec, but not in the Blu-ray spec. Or vice versa. My brief searching isn't turning up the handy chart I saw before.

If you don't have an HDMI compatible AVR or pre-pro, all is not lost when it comes to improved sound. I happened to have the opportunity of comparing both the standard DVD and Blu-ray versions of "Iron-Man" along with "Hell-Boy" and "The Incredible Hulk" on my new Panasonic BD-55 plugged into my receiver ONLY thru a coaxial cable. The default soundtrack in Iron Man is "Dolby Tru-HD 5.1" and Hellboy and The Hulk are "DTS Master Audio 7.1".

Maybe it is my ears, but to me, even though the Blu-ray discs were downmixed to their appropriate Dolby Digital and DTS ES soundtracks, I couldn't help but notice a difference between the Standard DVD and Blu-ray versions(on the same player!). In addition to the obvious picture superiority, the sound was LOUDER and the separation was better on Blu-Ray. I don't know why this is the case but I can only assume it is because of the superiority of the original mix done in the more advanced formats. I can't wait to upgrade in order to obtain direct HDMI sound capability.

Mark,

Think of the formats as you would standard DD or DTS. (the new formats are DD+, DD-TrueHD, DTS-HD-HR (high resolution), DTS-HD-M (master). There’s no difference between the old and new, other than that the ‘new’ has more information than the old. All the formats are basically zip files that need to be unpacked (decoded). When they get unpacked, the result is an uncompressed multi channel PCM data stream. Either the source has to do the unpacking or the audio processor has to do the unpacking. The M-PCM data stream then gets converted to analogue by either the source, or the audio processor’s DAC’s (digital to analogue converter).

Assuming the source does the unpacking, it is then output to the audio processor in one of two ways, or sometimes both. One way is through the multi channel analogue outputs. The other way is through HDMI. HDMI version 1.1 is all that is required to transmit M-PCM. HMDI 1.2 is required to transmit DSD (SACD digital stream transfer). HDMI 1.3 is required to transmit the compressed formats. Some BR players have the hardware to do both, some don’t. Some players will decode only DD-HD, but no DTS-M. DTS-M takes more processing power than the others, so its decoding has been lagging with some manufactures.

In you have an audio processor that does not have HDMI, you will have to use the analogue inputs if you want to hear the uncompressed audio stored on the disks. If you don’t have that either, you will have to use either Optical or Coax. DD-TrueHD does not have a “core”, but the BR and HD disks come with an additional format; which is usually 5.1 DD. You will be able to hear the 5.1 DD track. DTS-M has a core DTS 5.1 audio stream embedded that all players will extract from the DTS-M audio stream. It is the “core” that you will hear via Coax or Optical.

The PS3 is a great little machine despite its warts. I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone that does not mind having an ugly gaming console in their EQ rack, or doesn’t mind dealing with one of the several available IR workarounds. If you play games, then that’s an additional bonus. The PS3 does not, from what I can interpret, any shortcomings than any other BR player on the market. The ONLY exception would be; that it will not output the new formats in their compressed state. There is a large following of argumentive self proclaimed audio experts that believe you sacrifice SQ if the source does the decoding. I for one do not buy into that nonsense. I have experimented with both for hours and can not detect any difference whatsoever. I have perfect hearing too.

I have not kept up on the newer PS3's, but I seam to recall reading that Sony dropped SACD support. I do not know for certain if that is true or not. I have the first generation, 20 gig PS3. It does everything, and it does it all very well. SACD sounds nothing short of spectacular through it.

Casey, if you didn't read it when it was cited here before it'd be worthwhile to study the results from the listening tests, blind and otherwise, which Home Entertainment Magazine ran on the various audio formats which may be present on Blu-ray discs. The DD and DTS tracks are in fact of a higher standard than those present on regular DVDs and the tests indicate that they have the capability at least as a format, if handled properly, to sound essentially indistinguishable from the TrueHD or Master Audio tracks.

In the cases that you describe, if the DD and DTS tracks were noticeably louder than their cousins on the regular DVDs, that alone would make them sound better apart from any format superiority, and mixing a little louder doesn't require a better format.

I thought that the article was stating that the latest Dolby and DTS codecs (TrueHD and DTS-MA) were noticeably better than the DVD versions of DD5.1 and DTS, but that you couldn't really tell a difference between those new codecs and the completely uncompressed PCM, and that the PCM is a waste of space on the disc when the other HD-audio formats sound just as good, but take up less space.

Maybe I read it wrong. I've been out partying a little tonight.

Nick, the tests of course confirmed that there was no audible difference between the TrueHD, DTS-MA and uncompressed PCM samples. Since the TrueHD and DTS-MA compression is lossless, it gives the identical data that the uncompressed PCM does, so there's not even a theoretical difference and this is the expected result. What was interesting was that the higher rate(640Kb/s)DD track was also audibly indistinguishable despite the loss of data that still resulted from its compression.

I re-read it this morning, after some sleep, and basically, it says that all of the higher audio formats (Lossless and higher rate) that are found on Blu-Ray discs are better then the "regular" DD and DTS. And to most testers, the lossless formats and the higher rate sounded the same.

Makes sense to me. Take an already good codec, and give it a little more bandwidth (640kbps vs. 448kbps), and it should sound better.

I knew I needed some sleep.

Wait.

How does all this buy me a new receiver?