PS3 vs BD50 - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 170 Old 03-11-2008, 08:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
namechamps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

You are correct as you can use them. DTS MA defaults to the DTS core track of 1.5 Mbits and sounds great. According to insiders and experts in audio in this forum say the human ear cannot detect an actual difference between when the sound quality is in the 1.5 Mbit range and above.

Some are just saying if you want the best to be able to utilize DTS MA, you will need another player that does.

This simply is not true. Show me one insider anywhere that says human perception of DTS = DTS-HD:MA. I thought this kind of "my side doesn't do X so X isn't important" thinking died when the format war is over. I guess for some it will never end.

Just add something like the following to your signature so we know where you stand:
Quote:
The PS3 is the end all of audio gear. It is not, has not, and never will be surpassed by any CE device at any price. It is a super computer rivaling the hundred million dollar super computing arrays of Cray, IBM, and world governments. It isn't SD or HD it is PSD ("playstation defenition"). It transcends the mortal concepts of pixels, bandwidth, fillrates, and colordepth. It simply creates an exact copy down to the subatomic level of anything it renders or displays. Any heretic saying otherwise should be burned at the stake. All life flows from the PS3 and without it there can be no digital reality.

namechamps is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 170 Old 03-11-2008, 09:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

The difference is very obvious between the 1.5mbs DTS and the DTS-MA audio. There is no comparison between the two. It is that good. Even my girlfriend noticed the difference and she couldn't care less if the sound from movies was only mono.

While I have not had the opportunity to compare dts-MA with a dts 1.5 mbps core track, I have done the same comparison between TrueHD and a DD 640kbps transcode. I hear a difference - mostly in clarity and detail. But, in my opinion, the improvement is not in the "no comparison" class. To me, there's a greater improvement going from the usual 448 kbps bit rate to 640 kbps. ymmv.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gruson View Post

I thought it still converted the DTS MA tracks to 1.5Mbps 5.1 DTS.

Is that not correct?

Not exactly. For the sake of accuracy, there's no conversion involved. The PS3 merely plays the dts 1.5 mbps core track instead of the dts-MA one. The same goes for TrueHD over optical. The PS3 plays the DD track, which is encoded at 640 kbps. This differs from the Toshiba HD DVD players, which transcode the TrueHD track to DD 640 kbps on the fly. The end result is the same, but the processes are different.
BIslander is online now  
post #153 of 170 Old 03-11-2008, 09:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
Steve Burke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post

The PS3 merely plays the dts 1.5 mbps core track instead of the dts-MA one.

I thought a lot of the DTS-HD/MA movies only have a 640 kbps DTS-core, even though they are suppose to have 1.5m.
Steve Burke is offline  
post #154 of 170 Old 03-11-2008, 10:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Burke View Post

I thought a lot of the DTS-HD/MA movies only have a 640 kbps DTS-core, even though they are suppose to have 1.5m.

I've never heard anything like that. Do you have a source for the information? 640 kbps is not a number normally associated with dts. In fact, dts tracks on DVD are usually encoded at 784 kbps.
BIslander is online now  
post #155 of 170 Old 03-11-2008, 11:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Hughmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by namechamps View Post

This simply is not true. Show me one insider anywhere that says human perception of DTS = DTS-HD:MA. I thought this kind of "my side doesn't do X so X isn't important" thinking died when the format war is over. I guess for some it will never end.

Just add something like the following to your signature so we know where you stand:

I was basically saying that there is a placebo affect according to some insiders on AVS. There is no my side nonsense, so please don't read into or add to what I have said when it isn't there to begin with. There was nothing implied either. This is a thread about comparing two BD players. The war is over and I have no need to argue or make points about it's merits or lack of them.

Also please don't try to think you know what I am thinking or try to tell me what should be in my signature.

^^That is the nice way to respond to your post, but I want to tell you in no uncertain terms that you don't know a damn about where I stand, what I think or how I feel.

I would suggest doing a bit of a search before incorrectly making a statement about something someone else has read and researched as I did in this case.



Here is the proof:

From FilmMixer an insider at AVS:


"My experience has shown me that at higher bit rates, such as 1.5mbps, a lossy encode is transparent to the master.

DTS has been telling everybody this since the inception of DTS.

Considering that uncompressed PCM at 24/48 runs at 6.9mbps, why do you think that 4:1 compression of audio cannot be transparent to the master, and that people are assuming that the lossless codecs are better without any direct, level matched comparison to either the lossy encode or the master?

My experience tells me that in a double blind test, people cannot reliably tell you with any certainty the differences between a film soundtrack with a HBR lossy encode vs. the master.

But when somebody starts a thread entitled "A Direct Comparison," which in this case it isn't, it is natural for people with opposite experiences to question their methods.

In doing so, I am not trying to discount his findings, but trying to give others who are thinking of spending their hard earned cash on new equipment both sides of the argument, so to speak.

Just trying to get a little more of the Science back into AVS."




From this link which this page gets to the point from insiders:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post12927818

He even relates that DTS has maintained for years that the 1.5 core track is virtually transparent to the master.


Amir agrees with him as does several other insiders for what that is worth. There are those that disagree as well.

The key point to note is that he works in certified labs doing sound mixes for Hollywood, so he would know and you and I would know only what we think we hear or are told.

You can do more searches and find the same insiders reitterating the same facts that they have come to experience.


*EDIT* This thread just got started tonight, so more debates about sound differences:


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1006543
Hughmc is offline  
post #156 of 170 Old 03-11-2008, 11:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Hey, guys. Pardon the interruption. But, can we please stop here on this "discussion".

This argument happens a lot and never seems to go anywhere. It's much the same as the arguments about whether there's any difference between dts and DD and whether DVD-Audio/SACD are better than CD. It's all become just a lot of noise. If something sounds better to someone, why get in their face about why it's not possible? If you insist on engaging in this topic, please try to advance the discussion with something new.

Sorry. But, I get tired of seeing this rehashed over and over again with heated words and not much else.
BIslander is online now  
post #157 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 12:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
namechamps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

As a PS3 owner and with DTSMA not currently available, don't we want more or all LPCM tracks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

Look, the PS3 with the Cell will be capable of way more than any stand alone can do no matter the cost, if Sony does what it can with it.

The "placebo effect" works both ways. While you may be immune to it often people (especially enthusiasts) will place greater value on strengths of their equipment while diminishing or downplaying others.

Your previous posts seem to suggest you feel all or more lossless in general is a good idea. You also feel it would be good for PS3 owners if more LPCM came at the expense of less DTS-MA.

So lossless is good. Regardless of the merits on a personal level you would prefer more LPCM and less DTS-HD:MA. Of the 3 forms of lossless the PS3 can't handle DTS-HD:MA which is the format that you believe DTS is a good enough substitute.

Your arugment may have had more strength if it was "all lossless is a waste of space. I think BD should stick with DD@640K and DTS@1.5Mbps". Instead it is pro LPCM and DTS is good enough. All I am saying is it is interesting. The "worthless" format just happens to be the one the PS3 can't playback. So which came first the equipment or the belief?
namechamps is offline  
post #158 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 07:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
Steve Burke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post

I've never heard anything like that. Do you have a source for the information? 640 kbps is not a number normally associated with dts. In fact, dts tracks on DVD are usually encoded at 784 kbps.

A whole bunch of titles had only 1/2 DTS-core (768 kbps). There were a few threads on it, including this one:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...t=dts+core+768

As to the merit of lossless vs lossy, I do not have the equipment to handle DTS-HD/MA so I cannot comment on this specific codec, but in general I can definitely hear the difference (TrueHD vs 640kbps DD), and lossless is consistently better after adjusting for volume. You do not need upper-tier equipment to hear that difference. On the assumption that lossless is lossless, then if you have movies with DTS-HD/MA you want to hear that and not the lossy core, even though that core is probably better than regular DVDs.
Steve Burke is offline  
post #159 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jay_Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

I have two poor choices I bought and the audio still is excellent to me.

Ignore that guy. He does nothing but write post after post after post trying to convince people not to buy PS3s.
Jay_Davis is offline  
post #160 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 12:57 PM
Member
 
imarkup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by VarmintCong View Post

And won't the PS3 get a bitstream option firmware update soon for DTS MA?

Due to the "advanced Audio and Video and graphics" built into the PS3, no, we will not be getting firmware to correct this. The PS3 hardware is too limited to support current-gen audio formats (and obviously future formats as well).

I actually own a PS3 and do hope they figure out how do bitstream this (I can't understand why you need special hardware to bitstream anyway - buy Sony has already said it cannot be done).

It is just really annoying listening to Sony spout how advanced and future proof their audio/video technology is when it does not even support current audio formats
imarkup is offline  
post #161 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
VarmintCong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by imarkup View Post

Due to the "advanced Audio and Video and graphics" built into the PS3, no, we will not be getting firmware to correct this. The PS3 hardware is too limited to support current-gen audio formats (and obviously future formats as well).

Actually I meant to ask "won't the PS3 decode DTS-MA in the future, via firmware update?"
VarmintCong is offline  
post #162 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 01:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Hughmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by imarkup View Post

Due to the "advanced Audio and Video and graphics" built into the PS3, no, we will not be getting firmware to correct this. The PS3 hardware is too limited to support current-gen audio formats (and obviously future formats as well).

I actually own a PS3 and do hope they figure out how do bitstream this (I can't understand why you need special hardware to bitstream anyway - buy Sony has already said it cannot be done).

It is just really annoying listening to Sony spout how advanced and future proof their audio/video technology is when it does not even support current audio formats


Where did Sony say it couldn't be done?
Hughmc is offline  
post #163 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 01:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rdclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Philadelphia Vicinity
Posts: 4,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by VarmintCong View Post

Actually I meant to ask "won't the PS3 decode DTS-MA in the future, via firmware update?"

That's the persistent rumor. And if you have an HDMI receiver, it really shouldn't matter whether the PS3 decodes and sends multichannel LPCM or whether the receiver takes the bitstream and decodes it. As long as the AVR has the same speaker setup/bass management for both modes, it should sound the same.

Wide Awake

on the Edge

of the World

 

rdclark is offline  
post #164 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 01:38 PM
Member
 
imarkup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by VarmintCong View Post

Actually I meant to ask "won't the PS3 decode DTS-MA in the future, via firmware update?"

I hope so. I am not sure what the tehnical limitation in the the PS3 hardware prevents it from bitstreaming DTS-MA, so I am not sure if it could decode and output as multi-channel PCM over HDMI. I would think that decoding would be harder than bitstreaming, but I dont know.

If it could decode DTS-MA and pass an "equivalent" PCM stream, I think that would make a lot of people happy. As it stands, the PS3 has a huge disadvantage for many Blu-ray disks (audio-wise).
imarkup is offline  
post #165 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 01:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Hughmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by imarkup View Post

I hope so. I am not sure what the tehnical limitation in the the PS3 hardware prevents it from bitstreaming DTS-MA, so I am not sure if it could decode and output as multi-channel PCM over HDMI. I would think that decoding would be harder than bitstreaming, but I dont know.

If it could decode DTS-MA and pass an "equivalent" PCM stream, I think that would make a lot of people happy. As it stands, the PS3 has a huge disadvantage for many Blu-ray disks (audio-wise).

Not it does not have a huge disadvantage audio wise for BD discs. It has one disadvantage (audio wise) for not being able to fully resolve one audio codec. Even then it does decode the core DTS track @ 1.5 Mbits. My above post details how industry insiders who are in the know tell us their take. The same way many say the PS3 is overhyped, so is the exaggeration and hyperbole used to state the PS3 is a poor BD player.
Hughmc is offline  
post #166 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Hughmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmiddleton4 View Post

Regardless of the "this vs that" debate, I for one would like Sony to either crap or get off the pot. Discussions about dts hd ma have gone on long enough. Its time to get it done or let us know it won't be done. One way or the other.

I agree that they should at least let us know their plans. You can call CS and all you get is we don't know. How the F do they not know what it can do! I do feel like Sony is stalling.
Hughmc is offline  
post #167 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 03:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
GoodSonics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gruson View Post

I don't think you can say the PS3 cannot use them....

I thought it still converted the DTS MA tracks to 1.5Mbps 5.1 DTS.

Is that not correct?

Curious, how what is the data rate on some of these MA tracks?

The data rate on the TrueHD tracks I have average between 7.5 - 9 Mbps. That is 5-6 times the standard DTS rate. DTSMA and TrueHD should have similar rates.

Personally, I am about to sell off the PS3, and get a standalone machine that has DTS-MA, and a quieter fan. I'm not a gamer, so this a good course for me.

If Sony were to quickly release the DTS-MA firmware upgrade, I would probably hold off as the only big issue remaining would be the fan noise. I have about given up on the upgrade though.
GoodSonics is offline  
post #168 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 04:37 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 21,485
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 719
The upgrade is coming in the future.

39TB unRAID1--53TB unRAID2--36TB unRAID3

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme

aaronwt is offline  
post #169 of 170 Old 03-12-2008, 07:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jostenmeat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Last I heard, Paidgeek, THE Sony rep here, said that there were not any imminent plans to implement MA. Future... who knows... I swapped out my ol' refurbed NAD pre/pro, and really wanted to stick with the same brand. I emailed them about their T-175, and the response I received was similar.... "No imminent plans for MA"... refurbed and very-warm Onkyo as a pre now.

Anyways... who cares about arguing over $500 bd players. The info is here, just make a good choice, that's all. They are different, and different strokes for different folks.

Regarding audio, I honestly think that many of us here, maybe even a great proportion, may not even have a quality audio setup to make the "hassle" of obtaining MA worthwhile. I could be wrong.... but, one of the main benefits to the new formats is supposedly increased dynamic range. If you don't have the headroom, or amps that can crank, or speakers/sub that can crank...

Hey, Ive met a number of folks who own BOTH the panny AND the ps3. HAH!

 

 

jostenmeat is offline  
post #170 of 170 Old 07-08-2008, 12:23 AM
Senior Member
 
sahmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
BD50 or PS3 40gb?

What are the real benefits of getting this unit rather than the PS3 40gb? I ask with the $300 price difference in mind of course, but I'm also a stickler for PQ so if the PQ on this unit is decidedly better than the one produced by the PS3, I'll definitely consider that a big plus!

But here's the real question: I already have the BD30 and 1 PS3 80gb console. However, I need another BD player for my other home where the wife and kids are, and that is why I'm wondering whether to get the BD50 or a 2nd PS3... I do not have an hdmi receiver, so I'm attracted by the bd50's ability to decode Dolby True hd and the other new hd audio formats... On the other hand, something is telling me that getting the PS3 for $300 less implies $300 worth of savings that I could redeploy toward the purchase of a denon or onkyo hdmi receiver...When all is said and done, though, I personally tend to like standalones better ( a prejudice I have), and were it not for my kids who like their video games, I would consider the possibility of owning 2 ps3 consoles something of an overkill, but I do not experience the same misgivings when I think of having both the BD30 and the BD50

The short of it all is that I'm driving myself crazy flip-flopping between the two choices (BD50 or PS3 40gb) and will need your help in directing myself toward a firmer decision I can live with....

Maybe what you guys can do for me is to tell me why you consider the BD50 to be a better choice in spite of the price difference... Of course you could also convince me that the PS3 is the better choice, provided I can also invest in the new hdmi receiver to take advantage of the new audio formats... Any help would be highly appreciated... P
sahmen is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Players

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off