Man, am I pissed off. I buy Mariah Carey's new Blu-ray and its PCM only. The standard definition has DD and DTS 5.1. I feel cheated. I would not buy this disc, and this is a warning to others who do not have the capabilities of accessing the new surround codecs. :mad:

Man, am I pissed off. I buy Mariah Carey's new Blu-ray and its PCM only. The standard definition has DD and DTS 5.1. I feel cheated. I would not buy this disc, and this is a warning to others who do not have the capabilities of accessing the new surround codecs. :mad:

Can think of several reasons not to buy it but it having LPCM? :confused: Also LPCM is the oldest of the codecs used and is mandatory on BD. So all BD players can handle it.

Geez, now PCM is a bad thing?! :rolleyes: You should be happy a lossless audio track is included at all.

I wouldn't buy the thing at all, because I don't like Mariah Carey.

But, your reason seems pretty asinine if you like the content. I'm not the type of person who refuses to by a CD I want because it's not available on SACD or DVD-Audio. I'm not the type who refuses to buy a great film because it's not on HD.

Content is king. If the content doesn't mean that much to you, to buy it. Well, then there are plenty of other titles that will fit your codec mongering needs.

Lossless is lossless. Any of PCM, TrueHD or DTS-HD/MA is fine with me.

Man, am I pissed off. I buy Mariah Carey's new Blu-ray and its PCM only. The standard definition has DD and DTS 5.1. I feel cheated. I would not buy this disc, and this is a warning to others who do not have the capabilities of accessing the new surround codecs. :mad:It's fully uncompressed lossless 6-channel PCM instead of highly-compressed lossy DD/DTS. If you truly do own a $6000+ HDMI surround processor (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13704294#post13704294), then you're somehow complaining about the best sound on the disc. Maybe you have your player set up wrong.

Man, am I pissed off. I buy Mariah Carey's new Blu-ray and its PCM only. The standard definition has DD and DTS 5.1. I feel cheated.

Everything you know is w-r-o-n-g if you think the DVD's audio tracks are better than what 'cha got! Erase your frown or turn it upside down.....

Must not know what PCM is. :confused:

Man, am I pissed off. I buy Mariah Carey's new Blu-ray and its PCM only. The standard definition has DD and DTS 5.1. I feel cheated. I would not buy this disc, and this is a warning to others who do not have the capabilities of accessing the new surround codecs. :mad:

You bought the blu ray. You know what you were getting into....

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/7359/airplaneyr3.jpg
I say...let em crash.

Hmm...PCM (48/24) is a technically superior to DTS MA and TRUE HD... Hard to bitch about that...... Unless you don't know what multichannel Uncompressed PCM is...

With HD DVD, you would have gotten DD+.

And the 'Amazingly Puzzling Thread O' the Day' goes to...

Hmm...PCM (48/24) is a technically superior to DTS MA and TRUE HD... Hard to bitch about that...... Unless you don't know what multichannel Uncompressed PCM is...

With HD DVD, you would have gotten DD+.

Are there any music titles on HD DVD with anything less than TrueHD?


All of the Image discs I believe are TrueHD. All of the Eagle Rock ones are DTS-HD HR or MA.



Edit: Warner/Rhino ones are DD.

Man, am I pissed off. I buy Mariah Carey's new Blu-ray and its PCM only. The standard definition has DD and DTS 5.1. I feel cheated. I would not buy this disc, and this is a warning to others who do not have the capabilities of accessing the new surround codecs. :mad:

I'm with everyone else. You have a superior audio coder/decoder in your hands over the others you mentioned and you're... mad about it?

I'm with everyone else. You have a superior audio coder/decoder in your hands over the others you mentioned and you're... mad about it?

Perhaps he's thinking it's PCM stereo?

I really don't know what is going on here, but it's likely the OP is playing a joke on us.

or he is confused with what is meant by PCM?

Hmm...PCM (48/24) is a technically superior to DTS MA and TRUE HD... Hard to bitch about that...... Unless you don't know what multichannel Uncompressed PCM is...

With HD DVD, you would have gotten DD+.

"Superior?"

It seems that he is not the only one who knows nothing about lossless audio.:D

At best they are all the same, all things being equal.

Can think of several reasons not to buy it but it having LPCM? :confused: Also LPCM is the oldest of the codecs used and is mandatory on BD. So all BD players can handle it.


William, you and all of the rest of you who think you know so much need to read my post again. If you want surround (5.1, 6.1 and 7.1) and you are using a digital or coaxial output on a pre/pro, then you need either Dolby Digital or DTS. The Mariah Carey Blu-ray has these surround formats on the DVD but omitted them on Blu-ray even though lack of space is not an issue. Do my comments make sense now or are you guys too smart for your own good.

William, you and all of the rest of you who think you know so much need to read my post again. If you want surround (5.1, 6.1 and 7.1) and you are using a digital or coaxial output on a pre/pro, then you need either Dolby Digital or DTS.


no offense, but giving how you have your player set up would have alleviated some confusion and also ridicule. i know nothing about this disc but thought perhaps it has 2.0 channel PCM whereas the DVD was 5.1...:)

William, you and all of the rest of you who think you know so much need to read my post again. If you want surround (5.1, 6.1 and 7.1) and you are using a digital or coaxial output on a pre/pro, then you need either Dolby Digital or DTS.

^^^qft

I'm surprised of the 16 people to have commented so far, none of them have addressed what the OP is talking about. The issue is that the disc lacks DD/DTS, leaving us still rocking optical/digital coax without any surround sound option.

Is the stereo LPCM track at least better than CD quality?

Lossless is lossless. Any of PCM, TrueHD or DTS-HD/MA is fine with me.

+1

William, you and all of the rest of you who think you know so much need to read my post again. If you want surround (5.1, 6.1 and 7.1) and you are using a digital or coaxial output on a pre/pro, then you need either Dolby Digital or DTS. The Mariah Carey Blu-ray has these surround formats on the DVD but omitted them on Blu-ray even though lack of space is not an issue. Do my comments make sense now or are you guys too smart for your own good.

I'll address that. I hope we see more and more Blu-Rays released with only lossless audio. It's time we start to get rid of the lossy tracks.

^^^qft

I'm surprised of the 16 people to have commented so far, none of them have addressed what the OP is talking about. The issue is that the disc lacks DD/DTS, leaving us still rocking optical/digital coax without any surround sound option.

Is the stereo LPCM track at least better than CD quality?

Thanks because you see the issue. LPCM on the Mariah Carey Blueray is 2 channel through optical and coaxial inputs. Like I said, I don't have the capability to play the new codecs in surround, but I would have loved to have received 5.1 in DTS or DD with the higher bit rate on Blu-ray. These guys can't make a comment without insulting folks with their wrong answers. I guess this has become the American way.

William, you and all of the rest of you who think you know so much need to read my post again. If you want surround (5.1, 6.1 and 7.1) and you are using a digital or coaxial output on a pre/pro, then you need either Dolby Digital or DTS. The Mariah Carey Blu-ray has these surround formats on the DVD but omitted them on Blu-ray even though lack of space is not an issue. Do my comments make sense now or are you guys too smart for your own good.

So, why can't you use the 5.1/7.1 analog input of your reciever/pre and have your player decode the PCM and output it via analog? You'll end up with 5.1 PCM.

It's not a reasonable expectation to have Blu-ray always give you legacy audio formats, the ones DVD give. It's likely that mamy music BD's will only have PCM and then possibly Dolby True, and/or maybe DTS Master. Inferior music BD's may come with olde-fashioned DD or DTS....?

Your disc gave you good audio, what 'cha gonna do with it?

So, why can't you use the 5.1/7.1 analog input of your reciever/pre and have your player decode the PCM and output it via analog? You'll end up with 5.1 PCM.

Because I own a PS3 Blu-ray.

I believe the Elton 60 Blu-ray is the same thing.

Audio Formats

* English PCM 5.1 Surround (48kHz/24-Bit/6.9mbps)
* English PCM 2.0 Stereo (48kHz/24-bit/2.3mbps)

Am I the only one that actually prefers music in stereo instead of surround? Surround music always struck me as odd-sounding, because some instruments are moved to the back channels almost arbitrarily, despite the fact that you're seeing every instrument in front of you on the screen.

But I do agree with the OP that PCM-only is a bad way out for folks (like me) who don't have a HDMI receiver... my audio is running optical, and optical can't run 5.1 PCM. While the system can probably downmix it for me, I've never really trusted a computer to do that, I prefer to listen to whatever the disc creators encoded, not what my player thinks it should sound like.

D'oh!

I'll owe up to my mistake. Apologies to the OP.

Although it might help in the future if the OP could include a wee bit more information.

It was always my experience that a good PCM Stereo track on DVD actually sounded just as good or better when I used Pro-Logic II on it than a lot of Dolby Digital tracks. Anyone else have similar experiences?

Peace!

D'oh!

I'll owe up to my mistake. Apologies to the OP.

Although it might help in the future if the OP could include a wee bit more information.

It was always my experience that a good PCM Stereo track on DVD actually sounded just as good or better when I used Pro-Logic II on it than a lot of Dolby Digital tracks. Anyone else have similar experiences?

Peace!

When I play Roger Water's In the Flesh, I use 2.0 PCM (It's Dolby Surrounded Encoded) and then apply Pro Logic. The PCM track is much better than the DD 448kbps track!
If a concert has PCM, I'll always use it over DD or DTS even if it is 2.0; concerts discs are all about audio quality.

As for OP's question, I understand your frustration. They should have simply included a DD track for those without HDMI receivers.

D'oh!

I'll owe up to my mistake. Apologies to the OP.

Peace!

Accepted.

Very few concert DVDs actually have surround audio that doesn't sound gimmicky. I tend to always prefer stereo mixes of concert DVDs.

Very few concert DVDs actually have surround audio that doesn't sound gimmicky. I tend to always prefer stereo mixes of concert DVDs.

My experience with surround concert DVDs differs from your experience. Check out Lee Rittenour's DVD, Overtime. Also Steely Dan's last DVD and Chicago and Earth Wind and Fire. These are DTS and DD 5.1 and the sound is quite awesome and engaging without sounding gimmiky. In fact they are immersive and put you smack in the middle of the live venue. I find the the sound collapes with 2 channel on concert DVDs.

Because I own a PS3 Blu-ray.

Do you mean PS3 can't re-encode LPCM to DTS for SPDIF? I thought it is the top of the line Blu Ray player.

Do you mean PS3 can't re-encode LPCM to DTS for SPDIF? I thought it is the top of the line Blu Ray player.

I would have to double check but it might only be 2.0 or 2.1.

Heh, that would give me a reason to buy it. I love PCM tracks and am totally in favor of any studio releasing a primary track in it. :D

Heh, that would give me a reason to buy it. I love PCM tracks and am totally in favor of any studio releasing a primary track in it. :D

Same here. PCM sure is awesome on majority of bd's I enjoyed. :D

Do you mean PS3 can't re-encode LPCM to DTS for SPDIF? I thought it is the top of the line Blu Ray player.

No, no it can't. It is garbage. :rolleyes:


That distinction would go to a player that only costs 4 times what the PS3 does :eek:, yet overall can do only a single digit percentage of what the PS3 can.

Because I own a PS3 Blu-ray.

so the problem isnt the Bluray its your setup, you should have been more clear in your original post because you left out a lot...you cant complain about Bluray not meeting your out of date specs

the PS3 was obviously not the right player for you, if you dont plan on changing your receiver/prepro you should have looked into a player with analog outs like the Panasonic BD10 which decodes everything internally except DTS-HD Master


I thought the Mariah Carey Bluray was horrible, couldnt wait to sell it

No, no it can't. It is garbage. :rolleyes:


That distinction would go to a player that only costs 4 times what the PS3 does :eek:, yet overall can do only a single digit percentage of what the PS3 can.

My Samsung BD-UP5000 can re-encode everything it can decode to DTS over SPDIF and only costs around $450. It plays HD DVD too. I believe LG BH200 universal player can do the same. I was under the impression that all BD players can re-encode just like HD DVD players can.

Because I own a PS3 Blu-ray.

that's the downside of the ps3 :(

Thanks because you see the issue. LPCM on the Mariah Carey Blueray is 2 channel through optical and coaxial inputs. Like I said, I don't have the capability to play the new codecs in surround, but I would have loved to have received 5.1 in DTS or DD with the higher bit rate on Blu-ray. Don't you have an HDMI surround processor? Nearly every HDMI processor, amplifier, or receiver, can play surround PCM tracks. The PS3 will decode everything if you set the audio to "Linear PCM".
These guys can't make a comment without insulting folks with their wrong answers. I guess this has become the American way.Well, quite frankly, your post was snippy, antagonistic, lacked any sort of data that could be used to help, and in the end may still possibly be ill-informed.

I have PS3 and will put up with the horrible sounding :rolleyes: DD and DTS downmixes until I go HDMI. I mean, I will sludge thrrough and survive that terrible burden of sound that, while perfectly great three years ago, is now so bad that it should be illegal. ;)

Seriosuly, folks, the sound coming from the PS3 without HDMI is quite good and I see no reason to complain. I'll be just fine until I go HDMI. Just my opinion, of course.

I have PS3 and will put up with the horrible sounding :rolleyes: DD and DTS downmixes until I go HDMI. I mean, I will sludge thrrough and survive that terrible burden of sound that, while perfectly great three years ago, is now so bad that it should be illegal. ;)

Seriosuly, folks, the sound coming from the PS3 without HDMI is quite good and I see no reason to complain. I'll be just fine until I go HDMI. Just my opinion, of course.


you really dont know what you're missing...it has nothing to do with what was good 3 years ago but rather what is even better now

when you finally upgrade the first thing you will think is why did you wait so long...right now you are only enjoying half of what Bluray has to offer, its not just about the video

I also believe the OP's original complaint was that there wasnt a DD or DTS track to downmix, it was only PCM

Looks like he's not the only one who doesn't know what he's talking about.... :rolleyes: Unless by "superior" you mean "equivalent to".

I said technically superior...which it is.. I can't educate eveeryone all the time. Now, subjectively superior is another argument..

I said technically superior...which it is.. I can't educate eveeryone all the time. Now, subjectively superior is another argument..

You're still wrong, Jeff. A losslessly compressed track is technically equivalent to an uncompressed track, not inferior.

whoodda 'f**k' is maryah carry?

You're still wrong, Jeff. A losslessly compressed track is technically equivalent to an uncompressed track, not inferior.

Exactly. On a bits-in-bits-out level, they are identical. And if storage space is an issue, then the lead goes to TrueHD and DTS-MA since they are both lossless compression schemes. I suspect that Jeff doesn't understand the difference between data compression and acoustic compression.

I know that's what DTS says.... I just choose not to buy it.

With HD DVD, you would have gotten DD+.

You just cant let go can you... :p ;)

You just cant let go can you... :p ;)

Some people cannot see the forest for the trees.

I wouldn't want to see he and his wife argue.:D

I know that's what DTS says.... I just choose not to buy it.

You might as well call Blu-ray the inferior format because majority of new releases are coming out without any PCM tracks.

You might as well call Blu-ray the inferior format because majority of new releases are coming out without any PCM tracks.

INferior to what?:D

I know that's what DTS says.... I just choose not to buy it.

How do you handle info in a Zip file?:eek:

I didn't need PCM only as a reason..

How do you handle info in a Zip file?:eek:

Basically it's that (it's more complex but..)

I mean... then should we oblitera the .Zip, .RAR and .EXE on PC because they 'Play with data'?

I mean a 14meg Excel File, zipped to 4meg, will be exactly the same after unzipping. Lossless don't remove any information, it just mathematicaly compress it.

When you do a Backup for you're computer is does the same thing.. a 20gig drive of data can be reduce to 7 gig with hard compression

Data compression have a threslhold too. Try zipping a already Zipped file. It won't do any good because it's already compressed. While with Lossy you can compress it over and over until the file (JPG for example) look like crap..

Exactly. On a bits-in-bits-out level, they are identical. And if storage space is an issue, then the lead goes to TrueHD and DTS-MA since they are both lossless compression schemes. I suspect that Jeff doesn't understand the difference between data compression and acoustic compression.

I seriously doubt that Jeff does not understand something as trivial as this.

I have PS3 and will put up with the horrible sounding :rolleyes: DD and DTS downmixes until I go HDMI. I mean, I will sludge thrrough and survive that terrible burden of sound that, while perfectly great three years ago, is now so bad that it should be illegal. ;)


IMO it was never good, in fact it was junk. I hope we are not using 448 DD as our basis of comparison.

so the problem isnt the Bluray its your setup, you should have been more clear in your original post because you left out a lot...you cant complain about Bluray not meeting your out of date specs



Please read my original post again. I indicated in it by clear implication that I did not have access to the new surround codecs, and that my warning was for others who were in a like position. Somehow, things got carried away by others thinking I did not know what I was talking about.

Seriosuly, folks, the sound coming from the PS3 without HDMI is quite good and I see no reason to complain. I'll be just fine until I go HDMI. Just my opinion, of course.

I agree with you. In fact, if you have a great pre/pro or receiver, you can acheive a sound much better than an inexpensive receiver or pre/pro that contains the new codecs. This was true also for music. A well made red book CD player always sounded better than a cheaply made SACD player. Just because you own the latest does not mean its going to sound the greatest.:cool:

As for OP's question, I understand your frustration. They should have simply included a DD track for those without HDMI receivers.


Exactly, and that was the only point I was trying to make. We need clear thinking people like you running the country. Will you be Obama's running mate. :)

Thanks because you see the issue. LPCM on the Mariah Carey Blueray is 2 channel through optical and coaxial inputs. Like I said, I don't have the capability to play the new codecs in surround, but I would have loved to have received 5.1 in DTS or DD with the higher bit rate on Blu-ray. These guys can't make a comment without insulting folks with their wrong answers. I guess this has become the American way.

can you use analog in?
what are you playing the disc with?

EDIT: nevermind, I see, PS3

maybe your player doesn't having great D/A but it might not be any worse than DD would have been.
And if you are using something with top notch analog or a PC with a very good analog card it'd probably be better than using digital connect anyway unless you have a really super high-end setup.

I know that's what DTS says.... I just choose not to buy it.

Okay....So if you choose "not to buy" relatively basic mathematical principles, you may as well choose "not to buy" into this whole computer/processing thing, too. Do you have any sort of quantitative proof to back up your assertion? Or do you just "feel" that it doesn't work that way, despite half a century's history of computer science that can easily prove you wrong?

All things being equal (the master recording), the simpler solution to deliver it (uncompressed) is generally best..

And if you are using something with top notch analog or a PC with a very good analog card it'd probably be better than using digital connect anyway unless you have a really super high-end setup.


I have an Arcam AV9 pre/pro and digital sounds great through it. I also like to take 5.1 DD and make it EX or IIx which sounds phenominal through my Arcam AV9.

Please read my original post again. I indicated in it by clear implication that I did not have access to the new surround codecs, and that my warning was for others who were in a like position. Somehow, things got carried away by others thinking I did not know what I was talking about.

and like I said, you cant be pissed because the Bluray doesnt meet your out of date specs

if you would have purchased the right Bluray player for your setup you wouldnt be complaining

Please read my original post again. I indicated in it by clear implication that I did not have access to the new surround codecs, and that my warning was for others who were in a like position. Somehow, things got carried away by others thinking I did not know what I was talking about.

Why do you say you have a $6000 Arcam AV9 preamp (http://www.ultimateavmag.com/firstlookprepros/706arcamfmjav9/) (which has 5 HDMI and a 8 channel analog input) but also say that you can't even get 6 channel analog inputs or use LPCM/TrueHD/DTS-MA/DD+?:confused:

Also LPCM is not a new codec. The very first commercial audio digital recording ever made in 1976 was in LPCM by Soundstream. It is the oldest of them all for consumer use.

busted? :o

Mariah on BD and Obama's running mate? This thread has gone seriously -2 for me! :D

Go'ne, there is nothing else here to see folks!

and like I said, you cant be pissed because the Bluray doesnt meet your out of date specs



Actually, I wanted 5.1 DD or DTS. Most Blu-ray have the core codecs, but not the Mariah Carey blu-ray.

Why do you say you have a $6000 Arcam AV9 preamp (http://www.ultimateavmag.com/firstlookprepros/706arcamfmjav9/) (which has 5 HDMI and a 8 channel analog input) but also say that you can't even get 6 channel analog inputs or use LPCM/TrueHD/DTS-MA/DD+?:confused:

Also LPCM is not a new codec. The very first commercial audio digital recording ever made in 1976 was in LPCM by Soundstream. It is the oldest of them all for consumer use.

Well, I purchased the PS3 primarily for its hi def and gaming features, and to take advantage of the extra bits in DTS and DD from blu-ray so I knew what I was doing. I need my analog inputs for my Arcam AV9 for my SACD.

Man, am I pissed off. I buy Mariah Carey's new Blu-ray and its PCM only. The standard definition has DD and DTS 5.1. I feel cheated. I would not buy this disc, and this is a warning to others who do not have the capabilities of accessing the new surround codecs. :mad:

Why would you buy this?

Seriously?

Well, I purchased the PS3 primarily for its hi def and gaming features, and to take advantage of the extra bits in DTS and DD from blu-ray so I knew what I was doing. I need my analog inputs for my Arcam AV9 for my SACD.

What about your 5 HDMI inputs?:confused:

Why would you buy this?

Seriously?

Seriously, I made an erroneous assumption that it contained the core codecs. There's not much happening in concerts for Blu-ray so I don't have options.

Seems you realised the problems when you brought the AV9

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681203

I'm really surprised someone with your level of equipment thinks that legacy DD and DTS sounds better the LPCM 2.0. For music I choose lossless everytime.

People are getting all pissed off at you because of your thread title and tone, the only one you really have to blame in this situation is yourself. It's one thing to warn people, it's another entirely to tell them not to buy something.

My experience with surround concert DVDs differs from your experience. Check out Lee Rittenour's DVD, Overtime. Also Steely Dan's last DVD and Chicago and Earth Wind and Fire. These are DTS and DD 5.1 and the sound is quite awesome and engaging without sounding gimmiky. In fact they are immersive and put you smack in the middle of the live venue. I find the the sound collapes with 2 channel on concert DVDs.

It really does depend on how they recorded the surround sound, whether it was processed for 5.1 or did they use a proper 5.1 mic array.

With the 2.0 channel recording you can just about guarantee that it will be recorded with 2 mics and minimal processing.

If you find the sound collapses with your 2 channel setup might I recommend you try changing your speaker positioning/listener positining/room acoustics.

I'm a big fan of ambiophonics so you could try that

What about your 5 HDMI inputs?:confused:

My pre/pro does not pass audio through HDMI.

Seems you realised the problems when you brought the AV9

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681203

I'm really surprised someone with your level of equipment thinks that legacy DD and DTS sounds better the LPCM 2.0. For music I choose lossless everytime.

People are getting all pissed off at you because of your thread title and tone, the only one you really have to blame in this situation is yourself. It's one thing to warn people, it's another entirely to tell them not to buy something.


Like I said, I wanted the legacy 5.1 DTS or DD and I assumed that it would be inclusive on the Blu-ray like 99% of them. Also, people did not get pissed off with me but assumed that I could get the new codecs. They mis-read my original post. Read it again and you will see. As far as my Arcam AV9, it takes surround sound to a new level that I've never experienced, and you'd have to hear it to appreciate it. My left and right speakers are powered by an Aleph J amp hand built by Nelson Pass. It has tube like sonic qualities and I have a turntable with plenty of vinyl so I know how 2 channel sounds. But, again, my Arcam AV9 on EX or IIx takes sound to a whole new level. Also my AV9 was purhased well before Blu-ray came on the scene. Finally, I was only giving folks a warning that the Mariah Carey Blu-ray omitted the legacy codecs, and if that makes folks mad, thats their problem. It just shows you that no good deed goes unpunished.

Seems you realised the problems when you brought the AV9

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681203

I'm really surprised someone with your level of equipment thinks that legacy DD and DTS sounds better the LPCM 2.0. For music I choose lossless everytime.

People are getting all pissed off at you because of your thread title and tone, the only one you really have to blame in this situation is yourself. It's one thing to warn people, it's another entirely to tell them not to buy something.

It really does depend on how they recorded the surround sound, whether it was processed for 5.1 or did they use a proper 5.1 mic array.

With the 2.0 channel recording you can just about guarantee that it will be recorded with 2 mics and minimal processing.

If you find the sound collapses with your 2 channel setup might I recommend you try changing your speaker positioning/listener positining/room acoustics.

I'm a big fan of ambiophonics so you could try that

I am a big fan of 2 channel audio, but once you experience surround through an Arcam AV9, its very difficult to go back to 2 channel, seriously.

Yes there is your problem, you assumed. Your AV9 can take LPCM 2.0 through optical though, why don't you try that?

Mariah Carey?:rolleyes:

All things being equal (the master recording), the simpler solution to deliver it (uncompressed) is generally best..

Well, I can talk to you via two cans and a string from 50' away or via cell phone from the other side of the world. Since the master recording (me) would be identical, do you still think the simplest solution will result in the best results?

I mean, really, if both PCM and TrueHD/DTS MA are ultimately producing the same 48/24 output, how can anyone deem PCM "technically superior?" Wouldn't the superior one at least be the one giving identical end results while using less space?

All things being equal (the master recording), the simpler solution to deliver it (uncompressed) is generally best..
Ah. Let me see:

BMW built a new engine which uses direct fuel injection. The whole point of this engine is to save fuel. Let's say for the argument's sake that engine power would be 100% identical and that the only difference is that the new engine consumes less fuel. Of course the new engine is more complicated than the old one.

So according to your line of reasoning the old BMW engine (LPCM) is "technically superior" because the power (audio quality) is exactly the same, but the solution to create (deliver) the power is simpler? Unfortunately you are forgetting why BMW (DTS/Dolby) invented the new engine (codec) in the first place: Namely to save fuel (space)! And that the new engine (codec) does. So all things are *NOT* being equal. And actually the new engine (codec) is "technically superior". Because it consumes less fuel (space) but still delivers the same power (audio quality). That the new engine (codec) is more complicated doesn't matter much, as long as it's working as expected, which it does.

My pre/pro does not pass audio through HDMI.

A $6000 preamp that can't do the quality of audio with a simple LPCM HDMI input that a $200 receiver can?:eek: That is very sad indeed.

Mariah Carey?:rolleyes:

I feel you. She's not one of my favorites. But, I really enjoy concerts and there aren't many options on Blu-ray so I take what I can get.

Ah. Let me see:

BMW built a new engine which uses direct fuel injection. The whole point of this engine is to save fuel. Let's say for the argument's sake that engine power would be 100% identical and that the only difference is that the new engine consumes less fuel. Of course the new engine is more complicated than the old one.

So according to your line of reasoning the old BMW engine (LPCM) is "technically superior" because the power (audio quality) is exactly the same, but the solution to create (deliver) the power is simpler? Unfortunately you are forgetting why BMW (DTS/Dolby) invented the new engine (codec) in the first place: Namely to save fuel (space)! And that the new engine (codec) does. So all things are *NOT* being equal. And actually the new engine (codec) is "technically superior". Because it consumes less fuel (space) but still delivers the same power (audio quality). That the new engine (codec) is more complicated doesn't matter much, as long as it's working as expected, which it does.

it isn't about saving space it is about making space to use for something else. for example, if they just wanted to save some space it would be really easy to leave out BD+ and AACS.

also to your car analogy... i have a 1957 bmw that gets 60+ mpg. the car is really efficient because they leave out all the extra high tech baggage that comes with modern cars.

there are two ways to be efficient.... keep things as simple as possible (ie. the KISS principle) ... or add features to the hilt and use complex technologies to compensate for the other inefficiencies you just added.

it would be pretty easy for a good engineer to build an audio system with a simple lpcm data storage system that outperforms anything you can buy off the shelf.

start by throwing away all the extra junk in commercial products that doesn't do anything useful.

then you could put a hdd in the avr and install the audio from the optical disk onto the hdd.

on the hdd you are not bounded by transfer rates, capacity, etc. of the optical disc. so, you could use any distribution method you like (bd, dvd, downloads,...).

audio codecs on bd are constrained by the need to decompress the data on the fly while streaming it. there are other compression techniques that could be used that would be lossless and more efficient if that constraint is removed.

of course we will not see systems like that, except for people that create their own setups by bypassing the extra stuff that the studios add.

if they just wanted to save some space it would be really easy to leave out BD+ and AACS.
AACS and BD+ consume something like 0.0000001% (ok, I'm exaggerating) of the space on the Blu-Ray disc. Removing that would not save any space worth mentioning.

also to your car analogy... i have a 1957 bmw that gets 60+ mpg. the car is really efficient because they leave out all the extra high tech baggage that comes with modern cars.
But would you claim that the car is "technically superior" to today's cars?

i have a 1957 bmw that gets 60+ mpg. the car is really efficient because they leave out all the extra high tech baggage that comes with modern cars.

or could it be that it's because your 1957 BMW is ~8 1/2 feet long, has a 12 HP, 250cc engine and weighs about 770 pounds?

AACS and BD+ consume something like 0.0000001% (ok, I'm exaggerating) of the space on the Blu-Ray disc. Removing that would not save any space worth mentioning.


But would you claim that the car is "technically superior" to today's cars?

i was just using aacs and bd+ as an example of something that is actually totally useless when it comes to audio quality. also, they are there to reinforce keeping the data on the disc vs. putting it someplace else where other types of compression that is more efficient can be used. so, you have a double hit on efficiency.

we have arrived at the current tech. because of ancillary constraints that have nothing to do with efficiency and audio quality. eg. copy protection, bd-j, etc.

the older car gets better gas mileage. if the primary goal is getting better gas mileage then the old tech. is superior. if you look at projects where high gas mileage is the primary goal (eg. 1000+ mpg) the tech looks a lot like the old tech.

however, if i am about to be rammed by an suv then i would rather be driving the new bmw with air bags. :D

A $6000 preamp that can't do the quality of audio with a simple LPCM HDMI input that a $200 receiver can?:eek: That is very sad indeed.

Sad, not really. A $200.00 receiver will sound crappy with with the new codecs as well as the old codecs.

Sad, not really. A $200.00 receiver will sound crappy with with the new codecs as well as the old codecs.:rolleyes:
Sounds like a diehard from the high-price section of the forums.

Sad, not really. A $200.00 receiver will sound crappy with with the new codecs as well as the old codecs.

...but it will sound and some sound is better than NO sound even with an old codec like LPCM.;)

Not suggesting you buy a $200 receiver but making a point that paying $6000 for a preamp and then asking for an inferior lower quality lossy audio track to feed it is an extreme example of antithesis.

A $6000 preamp that can't do the quality of audio with a simple LPCM HDMI input that a $200 receiver can?:eek: That is very sad indeed.

Well,

There is being first out with the new stuff and then there is best (with no time constraint).

High end companies are always last as the goals of the product are far different than mass market products (e.g. a $200 receiver).....e.g. first or best.

@gbaby, why don't you connect your Blu-Ray player to your preamp through analog connection? Your preamp should have pretty good analog input handling. Probably sending LPCM through analog to your preamp will sound better than sending AC3/DTS digitally!

Well,

There is being first out with the new stuff and then there is best (with no time constraint).

High end companies are always last as the goals of the product are far different than mass market products (e.g. a $200 receiver).....e.g. first or best.

Agreed and this is why I bought an inexpensive Onkyo TX-905 receiver with HDMI 1.3 for now and will upgrade to separates sometime in the next couple of years. However his preamp has at least HDMI 1.0 and not even accepting the very basic LPCM audio seems well beyond primitive.

@gbaby, why don't you connect your Blu-Ray player to your preamp through analog connection? Your preamp should have pretty good analog input handling. Probably sending LPCM through analog to your preamp will sound better than sending AC3/DTS digitally!


bc for some reason he purchased a PS3 when he should have went with something that actually had analog outs

:rolleyes:
Sounds like a diehard from the high-price section of the forums.

Not really. The AV9 is a killer pre/pro rivaling amps costing 5 figure which I would NEVER pay. It is, however, a world class perfomer thats amazes me every day.

for half the money of an avr that supports bitstreaming, you can get a higher end older model avr that provides top notch support for lpcm over hdmi.

if somebody is going to upgrade later anyway then imo ps3 + high end older avr is the way to go.

you can just sit back and watch other people argue over the player of the week while you get free firmware updates.

you get a top of the line analog section which imo is more important than some unproven theories about jitter and bitstreaming.

edit: note i am assuming somebody with high end gear would only use the avr prepro outputs and feed the multi-channel analog inputs of their existing high end gear. so, ps3 + high end older avr = bd player with analog outs.

...but it will sound and some sound is better than NO sound even with an old codec like LPCM.;)

Not suggesting you buy a $200 receiver but making a point that paying $6000 for a preamp and then asking for an inferior lower quality lossy audio track to feed it is an extreme example of antithesis.


On your first point, I agree. But I've always skimped on pre/pros preferring mass market ones to the more expensive ones. I did not realize how really good digital (and analog for that matter) sounded until I purchase the AV9. Its never fatiguing to listen to and truly sounds phenominal which is why the critics classify it as a world class processor.

On your second point, a $200.00 receiver with HDMI, at this stage in technology will never sound better than an Arcam AV9. Its all in the execution.

Agreed and this is why I bought an inexpensive Onkyo TX-905 receiver with HDMI 1.3 for now and will upgrade to separates sometime in the next couple of years. However his preamp has at least HDMI 1.0 and not even accepting the very basic LPCM audio seems well beyond primitive.

smart.

bc for some reason he purchased a PS3 when he should have went with something that actually had analog outs


You're wrong on this one. When I purchased the PS3 there was no Blu-ray that can play SACD and with analog outs, and that had a crossover built in. There still isn't and thats what I'm waiting for. Unlike others, while I would love to be able to access the new codecs, I would not do so at the expense of throwing away a word class processor like the the AV9. The software availability for the new codecs pales in comparison to the software availability of the old codecs. In fact, I'm not sure Blu-ray will be more than a niche product like SACD and DVD-A.

The software availability for the new codecs pales in comparison to the software availability of the old codecs. In fact, I'm not sure Blu-ray will be more than a niche product like SACD and DVD-A.
And that right there is THE argument for having finalized specs with mandatory minimum codec requirements before the hardware starts rolling out....

Is this disc actually any good?

August Rush is another BD that only has English lossless (TrueHD), and no other legacy tracks. BTW it is not a good movie, I am glad we just rented it.

And that right there is THE argument for having finalized specs with mandatory minimum codec requirements before the hardware starts rolling out....Dude, the format war is over, and the format that had all that lost.

August Rush is another BD that only has English lossless (TrueHD), and no other legacy tracks. BTW it is not a good movie, I am glad we just rented it.

That's not possible since TrueHD is optional for BD. It probably has a "hidden" DD track that would be used by players that can't do TrueHD.

Is this disc actually any good?

The video is stunning, but the music is only good if you like Mariah Carey. I can tolerate her, but my musical taste are primarily smooth jazz, R&B and rock. This is closer to that hip hop sound;, not bad but not my favorite. The pickings are slim for blu-ray concerts.

I'll address that. I hope we see more and more Blu-Rays released with only lossless audio. It's time we start to get rid of the lossy tracks.
And to add to that--why is it that some (many?) people feel that the only thing that matters as to why one should buy a BD title is because of the improved video resolution? Or is it that these folks spent so much of their budget on a 1080p display that they had nothing left to buy/upgrade their AVR to one that can take advantage of the HD audio codecs? :rolleyes:

Like I said, I wanted the legacy 5.1 DTS or DD and I assumed that it would be inclusive on the Blu-ray like 99% of them. Also, people did not get pissed off with me but assumed that I could get the new codecs. They mis-read my original post. Read it again and you will see.
Understood, but IMHO you could have worded the title of this thread a bit more appropriately; just because it has PCM only doesn't absolutely disqualify it as a purchase. Should I not buy it even though my AVR can accept and process HD audio--including uncompressed multichannel PCM--from my Panny BD30 player...all because it is PCM only?

OP

After 4 posts, you finally clarified what you should have posted in your initial post, that you effectively can't bitstream or decode and pass via analog or HDMI any of the lossless soundtracks in surround, yet you advocate others not to buy this disc, even though that they could enjoy the 5.1 PCM track if they equipment permits it. What you should have done is explaining in your original posts what equipment you have, and what exactly is your beef, instead of the 2 line ranting that can be interpreted more then one way.

My pre/pro does not pass audio through HDMI.

It doesn't have to pass it, it needs to decode it. ;)

Well,

There is being first out with the new stuff and then there is best (with no time constraint).

High end companies are always last as the goals of the product are far different than mass market products (e.g. a $200 receiver).....e.g. first or best.

They are last because they don't have the massive R&D budget like the mass market Japanese companies have to develop new technologies fast. They are constantly reinventing the wheel so they can charge outrageous amount of money for the same thing when finally being released. You also pay extra for the fancy cases. Noone will confuse a Denon Receiver with a Classe Preamp, just by their exterior looks. ;)

Understood, but IMHO you could have worded the title of this thread a bit more appropriately; just because it has PCM only doesn't absolutely disqualify it as a purchase. Should I not buy it even though my AVR can accept and process HD audio--including uncompressed multichannel PCM--from my Panny BD30 player...all because it is PCM only?


I can't put a whole thought in a title; thats what the body of the thread is for, your explantion. The title should be succinct.

OP

After 4 posts, you finally clarified what you should have posted in your initial post, that you effectively can't bitstream or decode and pass via analog or HDMI any of the lossless soundtracks in surround, yet you advocate others not to buy this disc, even though that they could enjoy the 5.1 PCM track if they equipment permits it. What you should have done is explaining in your original posts what equipment you have, and what exactly is your beef, instead of the 2 line ranting that can be interpreted more then one way.:

If you read my original post again, you'd find out that the warning was for those who could not access the new codecs. I'm sorry that I'm so slow that I could not be explicit enough for you to understand my thought process. :rolleyes:

I feel you. She's not one of my favorites. But, I really enjoy concerts and there aren't many options on Blu-ray so I take what I can get.


I also have a habit of buying things in HD that I wouldn't think of getting in SD.
I guess I got the fever!;)

"Superior?"

It seems that he is not the only one who knows nothing about lossless audio.:D

At best they are all the same, all things being equal.

No mathematician, you. No matter how good the compression scheme is, strictly speaking, it is inferior to the PCM. Equally it only in the limit of unity compression. It may well be, that the difference is small but that does not negate the inferiorty.

we need some screenshots of Mariah. concert would be good if it focused on her first few albums. i'm still waiting for reviews on a review site on this one.

:

If you read my original post again, you'd find out that the warning was for those who could not access the new codecs. I'm sorry that I'm so slow that I could not be explicit enough for you to understand my thought process. :rolleyes:

You keep saying "new" codecs but the BD this thread is about doesn't contain TrueHD or DTS-MA (2006). It has LPCM which is much older than even DD or DTS (or any other codec in use). For the consumer LPCM was first used in the CD in 1982 (also used in LD) and was used in the recording studio starting in 1976. DD (AC-3)/DTS on the other hand didn't come to the home consumer until 1995.

Your preamp's problem is not LPCM (because it accepts LPCM through S/PDIF) but it lacks the simple HDMI circuitry to read the LPCM off of the HDMI.

we need some screenshots of Mariah. concert would be good if it focused on her first few albums. i'm still waiting for reviews on a review site on this one.

she looks better then she has but not as good as she looks in her latest video which still isnt anywhere near what she used to be

I am a big fan of her early stuff but unfortunately she doesnt perform those songs like I had hoped...most of her singing was filled in with backup singers and you never get to see her actually stand still and sing a song the way you want her to, she spends too much time walking around waving and asking the fans before every song if they remember it...so annoying

one of her best songs is Cant Let Go and she literally sang two lines of it which was just enough for her to do her high pitch thing but it doesnt even deserve to be listed as a track...the best part of the concert was when Boyz 2 Men actually came out and performed with her on the song they previously recorded together, other then that I was severely disappointed in this Bluray

the video quality was good to ok, up close shots near the stage looked good but you could see horizontal lines during the far away shots of the stage..the audio quality was ok but not as good as I was hoping for or read about

the Celine Dion Bluray blows this one away, she actually performs the way you want someone who is known for their voice to perform

she looks better then she has but not as good as she looks in her latest video which still isnt anywhere near what she used to be

I am a big fan of her early stuff but unfortunately she doesnt perform those songs like I had hoped...most of her singing was filled in with backup singers and you never get to see her actually stand still and sing a song the way you want her to, she spends too much time walking around waving and asking the fans before every song if they remember it...so annoying

one of her best songs is Cant Let Go and she literally sang two lines of it which was just enough for her to do her high pitch thing but it doesnt even deserve to be listed as a track...the best part of the concert was when Boyz 2 Men actually came out and performed with her on the song they previously recorded together, other then that I was severely disappointed in this Bluray

the video quality was good to ok, up close shots near the stage looked good but you could see horizontal lines during the far away shots of the stage..the audio quality was ok but not as good as I was hoping for or read about

the Celine Dion Bluray blows this one away, she actually performs the way you want someone who is known for their voice to perform

Tallyho! Finally, a useful post in this thread. Bravo! :)

another thing that sucks for this release is that it is region coded.Come on all Music Titles should be region free.

the Celine Dion Bluray blows this one away, she actually performs the way you want someone who is known for their voice to perform

I agree with your assessment of the Mariah Carey Blu-ray. I also agree with your assessment of Celine Dion blu-ray which I thought was awesome even on the legacy codec, and the picture was likewise. This woman truly has talent. The whole production of the Celine Dion blu-ray was spectacular.

celine dion????ohhhhhh

You keep saying "new" codecs but the BD this thread is about doesn't contain TrueHD or DTS-MA (2006). It has LPCM which is much older than even DD or DTS (or any other codec in use). For the consumer LPCM was first used in the CD in 1982 (also used in LD) and was used in the recording studio starting in 1976. DD (AC-3)/DTS on the other hand didn't come to the home consumer until 1995.

Your preamp's problem is not LPCM (because it accepts LPCM through S/PDIF) but it lacks the simple HDMI circuitry to read the LPCM off of the HDMI.

Sorry, maybe I should say my pre/pro can't play LPCM in surround. It was my impression that DTS-MA and True HD was converted to PCM. You may be correct though and I will defer to your knowledge. I can tell you this, I stopped trying to learn about all these new codecs jargon as this stuff is taking too much time from me. I use to read a lot of audio/video magazines, but they all suck now even my beloved "Absolute Sound" which simply cannot keep up with the fast changing technology. I just want to enjoy the picture and sound no matter what its call. :cool:

I can tell you this, I stopped trying to learn about all these new codecs jargon as this stuff is taking too much time from me. I use to read a lot of audio/video magazines, but they all suck now even my beloved "Absolute Sound" which simply cannot keep up with the fast changing technology. I just want to enjoy the picture and sound no matter what its call. :cool:

I agree that things have become too complicated. I am not sure if this is a positive or negative in terms of sales. Someone who is totally lost will buy anything that a salesman recommends to him. Or he may become so frustrated that he buys nothing.

she looks better then she has but not as good as she looks in her latest video which still isnt anywhere near what she used to be

I am a big fan of her early stuff but unfortunately she doesnt perform those songs like I had hoped...most of her singing was filled in with backup singers and you never get to see her actually stand still and sing a song the way you want her to, she spends too much time walking around waving and asking the fans before every song if they remember it...so annoying

one of her best songs is Cant Let Go and she literally sang two lines of it which was just enough for her to do her high pitch thing but it doesnt even deserve to be listed as a track...the best part of the concert was when Boyz 2 Men actually came out and performed with her on the song they previously recorded together, other then that I was severely disappointed in this Bluray

the video quality was good to ok, up close shots near the stage looked good but you could see horizontal lines during the far away shots of the stage..the audio quality was ok but not as good as I was hoping for or read about

the Celine Dion Bluray blows this one away, she actually performs the way you want someone who is known for their voice to perform
Thanks, that's good to know.

For all you guys interested in watching really good Mariah Carey live recordings, I can very much recommend the DVD "Mariah Carey (2006)" (available e.g. on Amazon).

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GLpH717LL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

Unfortunately it's only available on DVD. But it covers her "early" songs and she really performs *extremely* well on this one. If you remember the music video "Without You", it was directly taken from these live recordings. All other songs are performed just like that. Some I like better in this live performance than on her CDs.

Too bad I don't like her newer stuff that much... :(

I just mucked around with the STR510 Amp settings to increase the rear's volume. Celine in surround sound is so nice. Then I put in the Mariah one, damn, no surround. Currently waiting for 606 reviews for the upgrade to HD.

Then perhaps you wanna educate yourself before you vent on something you know nothing about it seems by your own admission. ?

What do you mean? I know that the disc did not contain the legacy formats and that was my issue with that blu-ray.

Technology is always moving forward. This is no different than when I had to replace my stereo amp with an amp compatible with Dolby Digital. New technology often requires some type of new gear, in your case, it's an HDMI receiver.

Not trying to sound harsh or anything, but we all deal with this type of stuff at one time or another. Get yourself a new pre/pro compatible with HDMI.

-Brad

Not trying to sound harsh or anything, but we all deal with this type of stuff at one time or another. Get yourself a new pre/pro compatible with HDMI.

-Brad


Thanks for your suggestion, but I'm not interested in a new pre/pro that handles audio over HDMI. The reason is that there is tremendous amount of jitter in sound over HDMI and it affects the sound of audio even though the new codecs may sound fine. There also still exist compatibility problems with HDMI Maybe this problem will be solved one day, but I don't want to be one of the guinea pigs until this matter is cleared.

Thanks for your suggestion, but I'm not interested in a new pre/pro that handles audio over HDMI. The reason is that there is tremendous amount of jitter in sound over HDMI and it affects the sound of audio even though the new codecs may sound fine. There also still exist compatibility problems with HDMI Maybe this problem will be solved one day, but I don't want to be one of the guinea pigs until this matter is cleared.

I disagree... What type of audio are you running? Elger, Wilson, Theta, Halcro?

HDMI is the way to get the best sound from your player and post process the audio in the digital domain in your receiver / pre pro. Jitter or not, it is the best way to experience lossless.

Thanks for your suggestion, but I'm not interested in a new pre/pro that handles audio over HDMI. The reason is that there is tremendous amount of jitter in sound over HDMI and it affects the sound of audio even though the new codecs may sound fine. There also still exist compatibility problems with HDMI Maybe this problem will be solved one day, but I don't want to be one of the guinea pigs until this matter is cleared.

There is absolutely 0% jitter (jitter is impossible in packeted data) in TrueHD/DTS-MA passed in bitstream over HDMI and decoded in the preamp/receiver (how is that for a reason to upgrade;) ). Also HDMI 1.3 has a better clock system than S/PDIF so even with LPCM, jitter will be minimal and inaudible at worst. Any theoretical/measurable (not audible) jitter will pale in comparison to audible problems that can and do happen with multiple analog connections.

I disagree... What type of audio are you running? Elger, Wilson, Theta, Halcro?

HDMI is the way to get the best sound from your player and post process the audio in the digital domain in your receiver / pre pro. Jitter or not, it is the best way to experience lossless.

The only companies you name that make a pre/pro are Theta and Halcro. While you never state the basis of your disagreement, I can tell you now that between Theta and Halcro, I believe only Halcro has audio over HDMI, and it is quite buggy. The high end companies have not been successful in executing high end audio over HDMI. Many describe regular audio over HDMI as "thin sounding." I believe Denon is closest, but I'm not sure. I am sure, however, that problems still exist, and audio over HDMI has not been embraced by Arcam. Yes, you can get sound over HDMI, but I would not want a sound that is compromised and less than I am accustomed. As a matter of fact, Blu-ray is still a work in progress.

There is absolutely 0% jitter (jitter is impossible in packeted data) in TrueHD/DTS-MA passed in bitstream over HDMI and decoded in the preamp/receiver (how is that for a reason to upgrade;) ).
I don't think that's correct. The TrueHD/DTS-MA packets will not come with perfect timings. Some of them will be slightly too late, others will be slightly too early. This is "jitter", as far as I know. Now the question is what the TrueHD/DTS-MA decoder in the preamp/receiver does with this problem. If it has a little cache and then decodes the data with its own internal clock there should be no jitter in the final output of the decoder. But what happens if the internal clock doesn't fully match the clock of the source device? I see no big differences between jitter in LPCM vs. bitstream transport over HDMI...

Shakira is the best.

Yeah, I went there.

I don't think that's correct. The TrueHD/DTS-MA packets will not come with perfect timings. Some of them will be slightly too late, others will be slightly too early. This is "jitter", as far as I know. Now the question is what the TrueHD/DTS-MA decoder in the preamp/receiver does with this problem. If it has a little cache and then decodes the data with its own internal clock there should be no jitter in the final output of the decoder. But what happens if the internal clock doesn't fully match the clock of the source device? I see no big differences between jitter in LPCM vs. bitstream transport over HDMI...

The packets are buffered and reassembled before decoding so there is no jitter. I believe the timing info is contained within the packets and doesn't depend on a streaming master clock info.

The packets are buffered and reassembled before decoding so there is no jitter. I believe the timing info is contained within the packets and doesn't depend on a streaming master clock info.
So which clock is used for decoding? And why is the process you described not possible for LPCM audio? Buffering and reassembling should work just fine for LPCM, too...

So which clock is used for decoding? And why is the process you described not possible for LPCM audio? Buffering and reassembling should work just fine for LPCM, too...

LPCM is a serial stream like running water through a pipe. Packet data is like putting the water in bottles with labels on them that have the address and time info stamped on the bottle.

LPCM is a serial stream like running water through a pipe. Packet data is like putting the water in bottles with labels on them that have the address and time info stamped on the bottle.
I know exactly how the TrueHD and DTS-HD bitstream is structured inside and I can tell you that there's no time info in the DTS-HD bitstream at least. Maybe there's time info transported in addition to the DTS-HD bitstream, but if that's the case I don't see why that couldn't be used for LPCM, too.

There is absolutely 0% jitter (jitter is impossible in packeted data) in TrueHD/DTS-MA passed in bitstream over HDMI and decoded in the preamp/receiver (how is that for a reason to upgrade;) ). Also HDMI 1.3 has a better clock system than S/PDIF so even with LPCM, jitter will be minimal and inaudible at worst. Any theoretical/measurable (not audible) jitter will pale in comparison to audible problems that can and do happen with multiple analog connections.


Nope - not true. You need to reconstruct the master clock at the receiver end and without special attention this can result in very high (and audible) levels of jitter over HDMI, often much worse than SPDIF.

John Dawson
(Arcam)

@John, it's great to have your feedback here... :)

Would you mind commenting on whether there's any difference in jitter between (a) multichannel PCM and (b) TrueHD/DTS-HD bitstream transport over HDMI?

Thanks!!

Link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12620910#post12620910) to post by Amirm


...We have a secondary line of defense here. As soon as you compress audio or video, they also become immune to jitter. Reason is that once you compress the signal, it loses any sense of timing it had. Sending Dolby Digital stream for example, over even the worst S/PDIF connection does not suffer one bit from jitter. If you hear it, it is perfect! Why? Because once the source becomes compressed, it becomes like computer data. The destination only needs to extract their digital values. It does not matter when they came because we are not trying to play them right then and then. Instead, we just need the correct sequence of bytes to feed the decoder for Dolby Digital so that it can recreate the PCM values its encoder means to be reproduced by the DD encoder.

Here is another way to look at it. Take TrueHD. We know that on the average it compresses the source by a factor near 3:1. So for every three PCM samples, you get one TrueHD “sample.” Therefore, it goes without saying that if I transmit such a signal from one side or the other, I am in essence sending three bytes for every one byte of the source. In other words, it is working “faster than real-time.” Because of this, the receiver must have a “buffer” (memory) where it stores the decoded data as often, it may get ahead of the time when we need to play it. And as soon as we buffer things, then jitter goes out the window as a consideration.

Same is of course true of video compression. All codecs require some amount of buffering to operate....

...If you send out the bitstream of the codec (i.e. prior to decoding in the player) over HDMI then you eliminate jitter on the link since we go back to data transmission, not time sensitive PCM....

Hi Madshi - I can't comment on individual manufacturers' implementations but, in principle, I wouldn't expect there to be any difference as the master clock is likely to be reconstructed in the same manner.

William, on this occasion I think Amir is mistaken as the links (both SPDIF and HDMI) do not carry the audio master clock signal explicitly so it has to be reconstructed at the receiver end. This is usually done imperfectly in CE equipment, and it its this clock that drives the DACs, which is the whole point.

HTH.

John Dawson
(Arcam)

Hi Madshi - I can't comment on individual manufacturers' implementations but, in principle, I wouldn't expect there to be any difference as the master clock is likely to be reconstructed in the same manner.

William, on this occasion I think Amir is mistaken as the links (both SPDIF and HDMI) do not carry the audio master clock signal explicitly so it has to be reconstructed at the receiver end. This is usually done imperfectly in CE equipment, and it its this clock that drives the DACs, which is the whole point.
Thank you so much! :) You're finally putting to rest this jitter topic which was never satisfactorily answered for me until now.

One final question, if you don't mind: Do you see any other audio quality related reasons why bitstream might be better (or worse!) than LPCM? Or would you say that there should be no difference in audio quality as long as source device and receiver do a reasonably good job?

I think this thread is germane to this specific subject matter:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=908665
Posted by Michael Grant
“Data is data is data, whether it is compressed or not. Even with LPCM you're transferring packets of computer data. Timing is not stored mysteriously inside the bits of data themselves; it is a separate component of the information being delivered. The "location" of that timing information is in the physical HDMI or S/PDIF signal---and that location identical with bitstream data than it is with LPCM data."

Posted by omnicronx
“Could not agree with you more Michael Grant. There is so much mis information online about how bitstreaming over HDMI eliminates jitter, I am glad to see that someone else has picked up on the fact that the audio is stored in the blanking interval of the video stream, and that if jitter is infact occuring, it would be happening to audio stream (the entire stream i general including the video) before it even reached the receiver for processing.”

Nope - not true. You need to reconstruct the master clock at the receiver end and without special attention this can result in very high (and audible) levels of jitter over HDMI, often much worse than SPDIF.

John Dawson
(Arcam)

THE MAN! This is my point of reference when I mentioned the problem with audio over HDMI. This man is CEO of a company that builds world class audio products with world class sound for a fraction of the cost of your Halcro, Theta or Meridian. I own a couple of Arcam products, and when the source is good, the euipment will put a smile on your face. In any event, thank you for your comments on this issue.

Boy did this thread get sidetracked or what? ;)

Boy did this thread get sidetracked or what? ;)


Thats alright. It evolved to this and a few learned something they did not know. :D

To the OP, I have to admit i was confused with your original post. I didn't understand what you said. Now I see that the problem is the blu-ray disc only includes 2-channel PCM and surround sound PCM, and does not include Dolby Digital or DTS.

I thought it was mandatory for blu-ray to have a PCM track and a Dolby Digital track. Is that only for movie discs?

To the OP, I have to admit i was confused with your original post. I didn't understand what you said. Now I see that the problem is the blu-ray disc only includes 2-channel PCM and surround sound PCM, and does not include Dolby Digital or DTS.


BINGO! But, to your credit and a few others, at least you did not post demeaning remarks in your rebuttal. :)

BINGO! But, to your credit and a few others, at least you did not post demeaning remarks in your rebuttal. :)

I didn't read this thread until half an hour ago, so I didn't post anything demeaning you ever in this thread (ie, in the first page), so please don't lump me in with everybody else. I'm just trying to find an honest answer. I found your original post confusing though. It just wasn't that clear with explaining the audio track situation.

I'm still confused. I thought DD @640 kbps was mandatory for blu-ray discs.

I'm still confused. I thought DD @640 kbps was mandatory for blu-ray discs.Standard DD is only mandatory for TrueHD backwards compatibility.

I didn't read this thread until half an hour ago, so I didn't post anything demeaning you ever in this thread (ie, in the first page), so please don't lump me in with everybody else. I'm just trying to find an honest answer. I found your original post confusing though. It just wasn't that clear with explaining the audio track situation.

I'm still confused. I thought DD @640 kbps was mandatory for blu-ray discs.


I was just complimenting you for being civil even if what I stated was ambiguous or confusing. :) On the standard defintion of Mariah Carey's latest DVD, there is 5.1 Dolby digital and DTS. You can choose either. But, in the Blu-ray they omitted the "core" surround modes so you only get PCM 2 channel or PCM 5.1. However, the 5.1 PCM can only be accessed through HDMI. I don't have the capability of playing 5.1 PCM; I'm limited to 2 channel because my processor does not play sound through it HDMI. I can get 5.1 PCM through a blu-ray player with analog outs, but I'm not interested in that at this time because there are so many bugs with players like the Denon 3800 (which cost 2k) and other blu-ray players and the specs for blu-ray are still being written and developed. But, I purchased this blu-ray disc by Mariah Carey off the net, and because I already heard this disc in standard definition, I assumed that at the very least it would contain the core 5.1 contained on the standard DVD whether it was DTS or DD. My Arcam AV9 does a splendid job in playing back core 5.1 DD, DTS and can play in 6.1 EX and ES or 7.1 D. Prologic IIx. I have heard 2 channel PCM through my Arcam, and while it sounds great, that sound pales in comparison to the 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 sound I get from the "core" or legacy surround on standard DVD. This sound is even better when blu-ray contains the core surround because the blu-ray, most times, contains more bits and you get more information. I don't know if DD @640 kbs is mandatory on Blu-ray, but it sure is a lot better sounding than 448 or less kbs, and I was expecting it (DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1) on the Mariah Carey blu-ray. My original post was simply a warning for those in a simular situation with me, and would be expecting the same core surround sound of DD 5.1 or DTS. Best regards.

I wouldn't take this BD even if it was free.

I wouldn't take this BD even if it was free.


I was desperate.:o

Well, I can talk to you via two cans and a string from 50' away or via cell phone from the other side of the world. Since the master recording (me) would be identical, do you still think the simplest solution will result in the best results?

I mean, really, if both PCM and TrueHD/DTS MA are ultimately producing the same 48/24 output, how can anyone deem PCM "technically superior?" Wouldn't the superior one at least be the one giving identical end results while using less space?
Are you saying that DTS MA, TruHD and LPCM are all the same when uncompressed? Then whats the point in having DTS-MA when TruHD already does the exact same thing(Compressed lossless, bit for bit the same as LPCM)?

Why was everyone clamoring for DTS MA... if they already had TruHD, which does the exact same thing?

LPCM is technically superior to DTS-MA and TruHD, because it is not reliant on compression/decompression. As an example, look at the Onkyo/Integra/Yamaha problems with DTS-MA. If DTS-MA is bit for bit the same as LPCM... then those problems shouldnt have existed.

Are you saying that DTS MA, TruHD and LPCM are all the same when uncompressed? Then whats the point in having DTS-MA when TruHD already does the exact same thing(Compressed lossless, bit for bit the same as LPCM)?....

Charmin and Angle Soft both wipe your but so what is the point in having both on the grocery shelf?

Charmin and Angle Soft both wipe your but so what is the point in having both on the grocery shelf?

Would you say that Charmin and Angel Soft are the exact same product?

Would you say that Charmin and Angel Soft are the exact same product?

No and neither are TrueHD and DTS-MA. Just like Charmin and Angle soft offer different features and are competing products TrueHD and DTS-MA offer different features and are competing products.

Are you saying that DTS MA, TruHD and LPCM are all the same when uncompressed? Then whats the point in having DTS-MA when TruHD already does the exact same thing(Compressed lossless, bit for bit the same as LPCM)?

Why was everyone clamoring for DTS MA... if they already had TruHD, which does the exact same thing?

LPCM is technically superior to DTS-MA and TruHD, because it is not reliant on compression/decompression. As an example, look at the Onkyo/Integra/Yamaha problems with DTS-MA. If DTS-MA is bit for bit the same as LPCM... then those problems shouldnt have existed.

If you unzip a digital file, the result is the same as a digital file that was never zipped. DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD are just different ways of doing the zipping. The end results are exactly the same. People are clamoring for DTS-HD MA over DTS and Dolby Digital. They are not clamoring for DTS-HD MA over Dolby TrueHD. (Well, the knowledgeable ones aren't.)

LPCM is technically what? :rolleyes: It's too late for April Fool's Day. Do you not understand lossless compression? It is the same thing.

Those problems were due to buggy DSP's correctable with firmware updates. Other receiver pre-pro manufacturers didn't have that problem.

This is AVS not Blu-ray.com. Where are you getting this misinformation?

If you unzip a digital file, the result is the same as a digital file that was never zipped. DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD are just different ways of doing the zipping. The end results are exactly the same. People are clamoring for DTS-HD MA over DTS and Dolby Digital. They are not clamoring for DTS-HD MA over Dolby TrueHD. (Well, the knowledgeable ones aren't.)

LPCM is technically what? :rolleyes: It's too late for April Fool's Day. Do you not understand lossless compression? It is the same thing.

Those problems were due to buggy DSP's correctable with firmware updates. Other receiver pre-pro manufacturers didn't have that problem.

This is AVS not Blu-ray.com. Where are you getting this misinformation?

Hmmm, you really should learn to read a full sentence before you come back with snyde remarks. "Technically what?" you ask? I already answered that in the post you are questioning. LPCM is TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR because it is not reliant on proper compression and decommpression.

Why does that make it better you ask?.... you answered that in your own post.

Well, admittedly one of the advantages of DTS-HD MA over Dolby TrueHD is that the DTS version allows for the inclusion of a 1.5Mbps "core" DTS stream for legacy purposes (but it's not actually required). Note that when reconstructing the full MA track, the decoder will discard the pieces of the core track that don't help it rebuild the bit-for-bit master (I think some people get hung up on the "how can it be lossless if it uses lossy information?" thing).

... "Technically what?" you ask? I already answered that in the post you are questioning. LPCM is TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR because it is not reliant on proper compression and decommpression...

Actually that doesn't make it technically superior (in fact one could argue that since it is simpler and less technical that it is technically inferior*) but you could argue it makes it practically superior (although space, data rate (bandwidth), and/or additional soundtracks loss could be considered impractical).;)


*An ax will cop a tree the down and is simpler than a chain saw but is NOT technically superior.

I was just complimenting you for being civil even if what I stated was ambiguous or confusing. :) On the standard defintion of Mariah Carey's latest DVD, there is 5.1 Dolby digital and DTS. You can choose either. But, in the Blu-ray they omitted the "core" surround modes so you only get PCM 2 channel or PCM 5.1. However, the 5.1 PCM can only be accessed through HDMI. I don't have the capability of playing 5.1 PCM; I'm limited to 2 channel because my processor does not play sound through it HDMI. I can get 5.1 PCM through a blu-ray player with analog outs, but I'm not interested in that at this time because there are so many bugs with players like the Denon 3800 (which cost 2k) and other blu-ray players and the specs for blu-ray are still being written and developed. But, I purchased this blu-ray disc by Mariah Carey off the net, and because I already heard this disc in standard definition, I assumed that at the very least it would contain the core 5.1 contained on the standard DVD whether it was DTS or DD. My Arcam AV9 does a splendid job in playing back core 5.1 DD, DTS and can play in 6.1 EX and ES or 7.1 D. Prologic IIx. I have heard 2 channel PCM through my Arcam, and while it sounds great, that sound pales in comparison to the 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 sound I get from the "core" or legacy surround on standard DVD. This sound is even better when blu-ray contains the core surround because the blu-ray, most times, contains more bits and you get more information. I don't know if DD @640 kbs is mandatory on Blu-ray, but it sure is a lot better sounding than 448 or less kbs, and I was expecting it (DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1) on the Mariah Carey blu-ray. My original post was simply a warning for those in a simular situation with me, and would be expecting the same core surround sound of DD 5.1 or DTS. Best regards.

Ah okay. Sorry for being a little harsh then. Yeah I'm really surprised there is no DD@640kbps. Space should not be an issue for that.

I was thinking about this when I thought DD was mandatory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

But I misread it the first time. Apparently only one of the mandatory codecs must be on each disc. All mandatory codecs don't have to be on each disc. Still... It's Blu-ray. The size of a DD@640 really isn't that big. Oh well :(

Hmm...PCM (48/24) is technically superior to DTS MA and TRUE HD

Not true IF all of them use the same 48/24 resolution.

I have seen discs with both 48/16 PCM and 48/24 TrueHD tracks. Guess which is superior ?

In any case ... the mother of all audio is ANALOG !!!!!! Its 4800/2400 ... just kidding.

Look at the Denon and Panasonic threads... DTS MA is causing a myriad of issues not associated with UNcompressed..

But all things being equal, there is no compression of any sort in Uncompressed. Perhaps, uncompressed should be better described as 'unadulterated' and lossless compression as 'adulterated'....;)

DTS version allows for the inclusion of a 1.5Mbps "core" DTS stream for legacy purposes (but it's not actually required). ).This tops my personal list of elegant (compatibility) design.

[QUOTE=fanerman;13823351]Ah okay. Sorry ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats[/URL]
QUOTE]

This was good info attached to your thread. I read once that DTS states that there is no audible sonic difference in playing back DTS @1550 Kbs and the source material. If this is true, than on some material the new codecs may be surplusage or irrelavant. Thats one of the reasons why I'm not busting my butt thinking about a new pre/pro to receive the new codecs over HDMI. It would be interesting for an expert like Robert Harley from "The Absolute Sound" to do a comparison between the two using the world class pre/pro AV9. I tested a blu-ray, Flyboys, on DTS @1550kbs, and what I heard was the same kind of sound I've heard others describe as LPCM or PCM; very open, much depth, impact, resolution greater separation and dynamic range.

Am I missing something? I thought PCM was a good thing.:confused:

This tops my personal list of elegant (compatibility) design.


You may have a very valid point.

Look at the Denon and Panasonic threads... DTS MA is causing a myriad of issues not associated with UNcompressed..



This is a strong and compelling reason to not worry about sound over HDMI. Why buy buggy equipment for an exhorbitant amount that only gives you headaches and prevent you from enjoying what you already own? Maybe for bragging rights that you own it, but thats not worth it to me. I remember when I purchased a new model 5 series BMW, and it was a terrible ownership experience because I spent too much time at the dealer where they fixed minor, irritating bugs in the vehicle. They called the fixes "campaign" but I call it a pain. This same problem manifested itself with the newer 5 series. Most times its a hassle being the first on the block with new technology.

This is a strong and compelling reason to not worry about sound over HDMI. Why buy buggy equipment for an exhorbitant....

You have a PS3 which can only send decoded LPCM over HDMI so the DTS-MA bug could not effect you.;)

You have a PS3 which can only send decoded LPCM over HDMI so the DTS-MA bug could not effect you.;)

I'm concerned about any sound over HDMI, PCM, LPCM, DTS-MA or True HD. I'm not sold that sound over HDMI is ready for prime time.

I'm concerned about any sound over HDMI, PCM, LPCM, DTS-MA or True HD. I'm not sold that sound over HDMI is ready for prime time.

I understand but threads like this shouldn't be started since it is your choice not to enjoy lossless audio and not a reflection on the BD.;)

Because I own a PS3 Blu-ray.

wow, so you just realized the PS3 has no 7.1 channel out now?

Maybe you should spend the $$ to buy a hdmi receiver or a BD player with 7.1 out.

Or maybe you should read the disc specs before you buy it. You do have the option to NOT BUY it you know.

Of course you took the option of buying a disc that can't be fully utilized by your setup, and ranting and bitching on an internet forum....very classy.

PCM does have one other advantage over the other 2 lossless formats, it's a constant bit rate format. Technically superior doesn't neccessary mean technologically superior.

PCM does have one other advantage over the other 2 lossless formats, it's a constant bit rate format...

That's makes it different but how is CBR an advantage?:confused: Since CBR uses more bits over all for the same data set than CVR I would say that was a disadvantage.:D

Read Filmmixer's comments

I think this thread perhaps more than any other proves people have far too much free time. Including myself. :)

^^^qft

I'm surprised of the 16 people to have commented so far, none of them have addressed what the OP is talking about. The issue is that the disc lacks DD/DTS, leaving us still rocking optical/digital coax without any surround sound option.

Is the stereo LPCM track at least better than CD quality?Sony did a similar thing with the Celine Deon BD. It's TrueHD 5.1 and 2 channel PCM, No DD or DTS.

Read Filmmixer's comments

Please post a link to where FilmMixer stated that LPCM was better than TrueHD/DTS-HD because it had a CBR.

Sony did a similar thing with the Celine Deon BD. It's TrueHD 5.1 and 2 channel PCM, No DD or DTS.

The TrueHD track is accompanied by a hidden DD track for legacy support. Whenever there's a DTHD track on a BD, there will always be a DD track. It may or may not be visible on the menu, depending on how the disc was authored.

Mariah deserves better than this thread and Nick Cannon.