I thought it might make sense to have a stand-alone thread on questions and discussions around audio in optical formats. There are a number of such discussions going on in various threads but burried deep under other topic headings.

For now, here is a fun article on merits of compressed audio: The Deaf Audiophile (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119464399153888326.html). My favorite line is this one:

"Yet the fact remains that sitting down in your living room and throwing on a CD is simply not the same thing as going to a concert, much less playing for your own pleasure. Yes, it can be intensely meaningful, but it is still experience once removed, no matter how fancy your speakers are. Conversely, Stravinsky is still Stravinsky when you experience him through a $10 pair of earbuds. He's the point, not the earbuds."

Here is another fun thing. Play a CD on your player through S/PDIF connection to your AVR. Then replace the S/PDIF cable with the longest, cheapest, lowest quality cable you can find (e.g. an old audio cable). Then listen again. Do you hear a difference? Should you hear a difference?

Great article.

I say change everything in the article to video (The Blind Videophile) and we all go back to watching DVD or VHS. Why do we need to HD video then?

Conversely, Battlefield Earth is still Battlefield Earth when you experience it through a $100 B&W TV. It's the point, not the TV or the VHS tape. :D

I say change everything in the article to video (The Blind Videophile) and we all go back to watching DVD or VHS. Why do we need to HD video then?

Conversely, Battlefield Earth is still Battlefield Earth when you experience it through a $100 B&W TV. It's the point, not the TV or the VHS tape. :D

Indeed. I often watch movies on long internation flight and if the story is good, I enjoy it very much. And this is being fed with 8mm tape on a 7" LCD with colors that remind of you sunset, no matter what time of the day the film is shot :D.

It fails to mention how those cheap iPod earbuds will actually deafen you further, because they are open, you're turning them up to unsafe volumes to drown out outside noise. And, because they have horrible frequency response, you're turning them up to unsafe level to hear bass. They lack clarity, you turn them up to hear nuances...and so forth.

Call me chicken little, but one of the best things you can do for your hearing is get a good set of closed headphones or earbuds (unless you walk bus streets and need to hear car horns for safety).

More Here: http://realht.info/EpisodePages/EP018.html

That's sad how they're catering to MP3 players in recordings. They should cater to good home stereos and let things fall where they may. If people want to compress the dynamic range or whatever, let them do it in the equipment or with sound editing programs on their computers. Have the players mess with the audio rather than doing it for the CD, which ruins it for the rest of us.

Hey, I listen to some compressed audio too, but I sure don't want the source music to be compromised for the lowest common denominator.

It fails to mention how those cheap iPod earbuds will actually deafen you further, because they are open, you're turning them up to unsafe volumes to drown out outside noise. And, because they have horrible frequency response, you're turning them up to unsafe level to hear bass. They lack clarity, you turn them up to hear nuances...and so forth.

Call me chicken little, but one of the best things you can do for your hearing is get a good set of closed headphones or earbuds (unless you walk bus streets and need to hear car horns for safety).

More Here: http://realht.info/EpisodePages/EP018.html

Agreed, this is why I applied a lot more assets on my UE-11 Pros (http://www.ultimateears.com/_ultimateears/store/custom/ue11pro.php) to use with my iPods (only lossless gets into my iPods also).

What exactly is the point of this thread? That we need to lower our standards?

Not sure but I won't lower mine. Lossless audio (16bit TrueHD on HD DVD and 24bit LPCM on BD) and as high a video peak data rate as each format will support.;)

What exactly is the point of this thread? That we need to lower our standards?Contents matter most? Delivery methods are of secondary or tertiary importance?

What exactly is the point of this thread? That we need to lower our standards?

No, the idea is that we discuss all topics related to audio here. The article I linked to was just something on the side.

I did ask a question though that did not get answered :). That answer pushes us to the other extreme as far as the discussion is concerned.

CD, no. DVD/HDM, yes.

If better quality audio and video was not desirable, people would not spend 1000's of dollars on AVR's, almost as much on quality headphones, Blacker than black capable screens, quiet as mouse players, and speakers that can blow your socks off or shiver your spine with a whisper. You give most people a choice between quality sound and video over mediocre, or above average quality quality will win out. Yes the story is very important, but the experience is sensual only if you are immersed in it to the point that it feels real, which improves with every iteration of the technology, in the end you do want that concerto to sound as if you are in albert hall and there is no one else there but you. You can here every sutble string pull, and every annoying shoe scuffle.

Here is another fun thing. Play a CD on your player through S/PDIF connection to your AVR. Then replace the S/PDIF cable with the longest, cheapest, lowest quality cable you can find (e.g. an old audio cable). Then listen again. Do you hear a difference? Should you hear a difference?
You're kidding, right?

Here's a fun example...

I bought an H/K 5-disc changer from some, discount catalog about 15 years ago. Already had a Sony 5-disc. Don't remember why I upgraded. Probably had money to burn as a swingin' bachelor.

A year or two later I won my Nakamichi AV-8 off of U-Bid. Remember U-Bid?

After then learning about digital cables, I bought one for my H/K, since it had the capability. How disappointed I was in the resulting sound.

It wasn't until then that I learned about DACs and the influence their quality or lack of it could have. Further research turned up the respected status of that ol' H/K. Ran it with RCAs for years after. Alas, she passed away during the move to Oregon.

Bottom line, the difference between that H/K set up digitally vs. analog was stark! Not even close. My old Sony has now taken back its place, but only because my budget is limited and my priorities have shifted. But also I am much happier with the DACs in my H/K AVR-635 over the AV-8.

Point is, as you well know, there are numerous variables in the average, home-audio chain. If you're not equipped, perhaps none of the links would affect you. If that's the case, my advice is to keep it that way. Ignorance is, of course bliss!

You're kidding, right?

Here's a fun example...

I bought an H/K 5-disc changer from some, discount catalog about 15 years ago. Already had a Sony 5-disc. Don't remember why I upgraded. Probably had money to burn as a swingin' bachelor.

A year or two later I won my Nakamichi AV-8 off of U-Bid. Remember U-Bid?

After then learning about digital cables, I bought one for my H/K, since it had the capability. How disappointed I was in the resulting sound.

It wasn't until then that I learned about DACs and the influence their quality or lack of it could have. Further research turned up the respected status of that ol' H/K. Ran it with RCAs for years after. Alas, she passed away during the move to Oregon.

Bottom line, the difference between that H/K set up digitally vs. analog was stark! Not even close. My old Sony has now taken back its place, but only because my budget is limited and my priorities have shifted. But also I am much happier with the DACs in my H/K AVR-635 over the AV-8.

Point is, as you well know, there are numerous variables in the average, home-audio chain. If you're not equipped, perhaps none of the links would affect you. If that's the case, my advice is to keep it that way. Ignorance is, of course bliss!
Oops. I guess I was not very clear on the exercise. Sorry about that.

What I meant to do was to use an audio cable but still play using the S/DIF connection. That is, the test is digital over S/PDIF only and want to see if using a high quality and low quality cable over that connection changes the sound. You know, is "digital digital" or not :).

Oops. I guess I was not very clear on the exercise. Sorry about that.

What I meant to do was to use an audio cable but still play using the S/DIF connection. That is, the test is digital over S/PDIF only and want to see if using a high quality and low quality cable over that connection changes the sound. You know, is "digital digital" or not :).
Gotcha.

Now THAT does sound interesting. I would guess there would be no difference. I'm an audio snob, but not to the degree that I claim to hear those kinds of differences. That's for the Coax v. optical cats; dither, judder, jitter and sutch (though I have heard jitter degradation before.)

So we are going back to DVD?

When did we leave DVD?

...Here is another fun thing. Play a CD on your player through S/PDIF connection to your AVR. Then replace the S/PDIF cable with the longest, cheapest, lowest quality cable you can find (e.g. an old audio cable). Then listen again. Do you hear a difference? Should you hear a difference?

It might make a difference. It depends on how old, low-quality, and long the low-quality cable is.

Ron Wilson wrote a great article for EDN magazine (http://www.edn.com/article/CA6418209.html?text=measuring+audio) in March detailing how difficult it is to characterize high-resolution audio. Even with state-of-the-art test instruments, ears still rule.

You must even respect the implausible listening-room result. This area is particularly sensitive, because, according to many engineers, some listeners claim to hear things that are neither reproducible nor real. But it is imprudent to dismiss a listening result just because it sounds wacky.

Morten Lave, chief executive officer of TC Applied Technologies, offers the following example: A listening test compared the audio quality of a CD player, amplifier, and speaker combination using an analog-through-RCA-plug interconnection scheme and an S/PDIF (Sony/Philips-digital-interface)-through-optical-fiber scheme. Listeners reported that the analog connection produced better sound. The report on the test concluded that this finding was yet another proof of the superiority of good old analog over digital. Lave initially ignored the result.

But looking further, he found that the investigators had conducted a blind test in which the listeners didn’t know which system they were hearing on which passages, and the results were consistent. So, engineers dug further and found that measurable differences existed between the rise and fall times of the optical transducers in the S/PDIF optical link. This difference caused data-dependent jitter, which, on the other side of the DAC, had an audible component. “I believe in blind tests,” Lave says, “but not always in the explanations.”

Well with audio I always thought that DVD had good enough sound that it didnt distract my viewing experience.

I usually use the Wine metamorf for movies.

That the wine tastes best when you can drink it from a wine glass. Its still wine but it dont taste the same if you drink it from an ironcup.

What I meant to do was to use an audio cable but still play using the S/DIF connection. That is, the test is digital over S/PDIF only and want to see if using a high quality and low quality cable over that connection changes the sound. You know, is "digital digital" or not.A simple non-digital, audio only, (not matched to 75 ohm impedance) cable that is extra long (lets say 8 feet or so) may make the clock recovery a problem. Slow & ringing leading/falling edge risetimes along with reflections could make the "jitter" worse for streaming PCM. Versus a nice 75 ohm matched cable that gives nice clean square signal edges. A very good test to see how robust is the AVR's S/PDIF input clock recovery circuitry :cool:.

Same issue with low quality optical Toslink cables & transducers versus reasonably good ones.

You picked on a sensitive area for the Toslink versus coax S/PDIF debate amoung audiophiles. :p

...You picked on a sensitive area for the Toslink versus coax S/PDIF debate amoung audiophiles. :p

So this whole thread has what to do with HDM?:confused: How many people listen to 2.0 LPCM through S/PDIF while watching HDM?

So this whole thread has what to do with HDM?:confused: How many people listen to 2.0 LPCM through S/PDIF while watching HDM?

I do, sometimes. Two channel stereo sounds really good. In fact, I watched Live Free Or Die Hard yesterday that very same way.

So this whole thread has what to do with HDM?:confused: How many people listen to 2.0 LPCM through S/PDIF while watching HDM?Hey, it does help to point out problem areas with streaming PCM over S/PDIF. Just another reason to move to using HDMI for audio transfer or revert down to analog 5.1 player outputs.

I think the best solution is sending native raw bitstream over HDMI 1.3 to the AVR/Pre-Pro for decoding there. Just can't do that now with PiP director commentary audio. But in that case is über audio quality still important?

I do, sometimes. Two channel stereo sounds really good. In fact, I watched Live Free Or Die Hard yesterday that very same way.

So how do you know what is being said without dialog (center channel)? Does DTS down-mix to 2.0 are is there a DD track?

So how do you know what is being said without dialog (center channel)? Does DTS down-mix to 2.0 are is there a DD track?

If I watch an HD DVD over SPDIF and I watch it in 2 channel, it's downmixed to PCM which is lossless for 2 channels only. I also have to correct my earlier post, I did not watch Die Hard in 2 channel lossless, it was only a SD DVD. Somehow I was thinking it was an HD DVD. Brain fart.

What exactly is the point of this thread? That we need to lower our standards?

How about: standards don't exist in a vacuum. Perhaps setting appropriate standards that allow the rest of the chain to most easily deliver?

As an example, my standard for audio is "Can I personally hear a difference or objetionable artifact?"

For me, I typically cannot on lossy encodes at 1.5Mbs (and even lower). And tests seem to inidicate that this holds true for the vast majprity of people.

So I'd much rather have more content at those rates, than less without.

Hey, it does help to point out problem areas with streaming PCM over S/PDIF.
Exactly. In another thread, there is a lot of discussion around jitter and how it can impact audio quality in HD playback (and some say recording but let that be for now). I suggest conducting the exercise I mentioned on your own system and your own ears. If you don't hear any differences, you can safely ignore anyone who says jitter makes a difference and anyone can here the effect :).

For the record, I do hear the difference but didn't for a while.

And this was what I was hoping this thread becomes. The estoric aspect of audio reproduction. Folks are demanding lossless this, 24-bit that. Point and counterpoints have been made in other threads long forgotten and burried. Trying to save research time in the future and have it all be in one place :).

So let's see if we can drive the above point to conclusion than we can branch into other topics like 24-bit audio, higher sampling rates, etc.

How about: standards don't exist in a vacuum. Perhaps setting appropriate standards that allow the rest of the chain to most easily deliver?

As an example, my standard for audio is "Can I personally hear a difference or objetionable artifact?"

For me, I typically cannot on lossy encodes at 1.5Mbs (and even lower). And tests seem to inidicate that this holds true for the vast majprity of people.

So I'd much rather have more content at those rates, than less without.

Slippery slope you want to head down. Why not make it 756kbps since you may not can tell that either. Also lower the video bitrate a couple of Mbps because you probably can't tell that. Even if you claim you can tell the difference you may be only 1 in a 100 so why not go even lower for the masses. Then you can add tons of fluff so J6P will be getting the most out of it. Pretty soon we could have cable quality on HD DVD/BD but plenty of extra "more" content at even lower rates, than less without.

Slippery slope you want to head down.Yes, as happens a lot in engineering. When does the law of diminishing returns hit the "good enough" versus cost threshold? If lossless does not break the allocated budget then it retires the concerns about using less. But if there is a tradeoff and a perceptably transparent alternative -- then maybe it gets used.

Shades of gray and not black & white. Seems to be one of the reasons for the OP.

Slippery slope you want to head down. Why not make it 756kbps since you may not can tell that either. Also lower the video bitrate a couple of Mbps because you probably can't tell that. Even if you claim you can tell the difference you may be only 1 in a 100 so why not go even lower for the masses. Then you can add tons of fluff so J6P will be getting the most out of it. Pretty soon we could have cable quality on HD DVD/BD but plenty of extra "more" content at even lower rates, than less without.

Sure, but you can't ignore the continuum of reality.

Ease/cost of producing content is typically at the other ond of the scale from no-holds-barred technical capability.

Adjusting the compromise is the real world we live in.

I am glad you are not deciding for the rest of us then. There is absolutely no reason why every release can't have lossless or uncompressed audio. Fox, Disney and Sony do it. If you can't hear the difference then so be it. But it is not hurting anything by being there. And those that CAN hear the difference will benefit.

Certainly I'm all for it if it doesn't have any other negative implications.

And quite frankly I suspect we could have all of the above even on 30GB discs for the majority of releaeses.

But there is significant evidence that DL BR discs are more expensive to manufacture. And should any possible subsidies end such that my choice may end up being 1.5Mbps audio on HD DVD or less movies in total, want to guess what choice I'll make in that real market situation?

Here is another fun thing. Play a CD on your player through S/PDIF connection to your AVR. Then replace the S/PDIF cable with the longest, cheapest, lowest quality cable you can find (e.g. an old audio cable). Then listen again. Do you hear a difference? Should you hear a difference?

Since all my players are HTPC's, should I try this test on my XP box or Vista box? :)

Since all my players are HTPC's, should I try this test on my XP box or Vista box? :)

I suggest Vista. It has a much higher fidelity pipeline so you hear more of the distortion I am talking about.

Amir,

Since we are talking about real-time playback from optical media..

What do you consider to be the pro's and con's and how would you rank them in order of your personal preference of the available methods for audio output (assume highest-end HD DVD / BD standalone player):

1. decode in player, analog out to amplifier
2. decode in player, analog out to AVR
3. decode(re-encode) in player, spdif/coax/optical to AVR
4. decode in player, lpcm over hdmi to AVR
5. lossless codec over hdmi to AVR, decode in AVR

And would you suspect jitter, due to real-time optical playback, to be audible in which of these scenarios?

[edit: I left out PC playback since we can't get full res even to the analog outputs..]