"Official" "Why you don't need HDMI 1.3" thread - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 1694 Old 01-30-2007, 12:55 PM
Member
 
timltucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dublin, CA
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Interesting. I wonder why they wanted their own standard? On first glance, it would not seem to be in the consumer's interest.

If you have spent money on an HDMI receiver, you want HDMI connectivity from your HTPC, not some new standard.

This is just a guess, but the standard mentions that it is open and royalty free. Somehow I'd guess the last one has a lot to do with it.

The audioholics review I just edited into my original post also gives a better view of the history of how DisplayPort came about. One key aspect of DisplayPort is that it is based on PCI Express interface technology (invented by guess who...) at the physical/electrical level and not DVI physical/electrical standards like HDMI.

I agree this might not be in the consumer's interest, but I don't think HDMI 1.3 is either. As others have pointed out, there is little value in the new standard for consumers since 1920x1080i/p displays are standard for HDTV and it is very unlikely that any content sources (other than PCs/Games) will be deep color for decades to come. I wanted to bring this up because I fear consumers are being sucked into a marketing battle between these two groups (at the consumers expense).
timltucker is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 1694 Old 01-30-2007, 01:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,958
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 118
One thought I often have, is that worrying about high def audio might not be worth most people's time. Look at the DTS DD debate. I have never seen proof you can hear the difference between DTS and DD.

I would love to see some sort of double-blind or ABX test with 44/16 vs 192/24 audio. Lots of people THINK they can hear the difference

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is offline  
post #93 of 1694 Old 01-30-2007, 02:32 PM
Member
 
mjabel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

One thought I often have, is that worrying about high def audio might not be worth most people's time. Look at the DTS DD debate. I have never seen proof you can hear the difference between DTS and DD.

I would love to see some sort of double-blind or ABX test with 44/16 vs 192/24 audio. Lots of people THINK they can hear the difference

I think there is a lot of strong anecdotal evidence that DTS and DD soundtracks do sound different. However, this is primarily due to the fact that the DTS and DD soundtracks are often mixed differently. Whether the DD or DTS compression actually works better is anyone's guess and would be tough to compare unless you could actually mix your own test tracks.

Check out this interview with Bob Stewart for some interesting comments on the limiting characteristics of 16/44.

http://stereophile.com/interviews/906bob/

Interestingly, Bob feels 16 bits is usually fine, but the 44.1 kHz sample rate is audibly insufficient. He puts the audibility limit at 20/55, which probably leaves some slack in the digital chain for things to get messed and still be better than we can hear.
mjabel is offline  
post #94 of 1694 Old 01-30-2007, 02:47 PM
Member
 
rrenaldi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver Metro
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovswr View Post

Although as a "bullet" item it would be nice to have HDMI 1.3, I agree with the original poster, since I will soon (hopefully) be the proud owner of a Sony STR 5200ES. However, I think this thread should e in the HDMI area.

This probably already discussed before in different thread, but anyway, is the Sony 5200ES free from the LFE problem?
rrenaldi is offline  
post #95 of 1694 Old 01-30-2007, 03:14 PM
Super Moderator
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,466
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:


I think there is a lot of strong anecdotal evidence that DTS and DD soundtracks do sound different. However, this is primarily due to the fact that the DTS and DD soundtracks are often mixed differently. Whether the DD or DTS compression actually works better is anyone's guess and would be tough to compare unless you could actually mix your own test tracks.

Right. People have actually measured differences in LFE level between the DTS and DD versions of the same movie, and as such I am firmly in the camp that says that most, if not all, of the discernible differences between DD and DTS lie in the mix, not in the encoding abilities of the two codecs.

Which brings up an interesting point...With the new HD lossless formats, why do we need and/or want 2 competing formats (Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD MA)? Unless someone is going to mix the audio tracks differently in order to make claim that one lossless format is superior to another , then there is absolutely no reason to have 2 different methods of compression. As has been repeated over and over again, LOSSLESS IS LOSSLESS, so assuming identical mixes, once unpacked there would be ZERO differences between a Dolby lossless packed version and a DTS lossless packed one, and since it is lossless, there is no reasonable argument over which method is superior (to the listener, that is). So besides the fight over which disc format is superior (HD-DVD or Blu-ray) we must also endure a totally ridiculous war over which lossless audio format is superior, with both lossless formats making appearances on both disc formats.
Bob Sorel is offline  
post #96 of 1694 Old 01-30-2007, 03:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 183
I was just going to ask the same thing about two compweting lossless formats.

Just what control do Dolby DTS have over what they put on the discs?

I assume channel levels, but are they allowed to EQ etc. the studios mix?

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #97 of 1694 Old 01-30-2007, 10:50 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,958
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Where Dolby Digital and DTS were actual movies formats, it made sense that we needed the ability to play both. My understanding is that DVD makers were simply transferring the original movie soundtrack onto the DVD.

The new lossless formats don't seem to fall into that category. Once again making a guess, Dolby and DTS are fighting it out. I suspect TrueHD will be the more prevalent of the two formats if the early days of high def indicate a trend.

All of the above is gross guesswork, perhaps someone in the know can provide more factual data.

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is offline  
post #98 of 1694 Old 01-31-2007, 12:13 AM
Member
 
mjabel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Another interesting thing to note is that DTS, just the basic one, is a mandatory audio codec for both Blu Ray and HD DVD. So unlike the old days when you always had to have a Dolby soundtrack on your DVD and DTS might be an option, now disc authors only have to include one track, Dolby or DTS (or PCM if you really want to be complete). For example, StudioCanal, owners of the third largest film library, are using DTS exclusively for their future releases.

Not being in the business of mixing soundtracks and authoring discs, I can't comment on whether using DTS or Dolby is better from a content creator perspective. However, I would imagine that certain professionals do have a preference for one or the other. This means we will probably see a mix of both DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD soundtracks on next gen discs, which should probably follow the current software trends.
mjabel is offline  
post #99 of 1694 Old 01-31-2007, 02:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 183
"My understanding is that DVD makers were simply transferring the original movie soundtrack onto the DVD."

The difference before was that they were competing compression algorithm's with at least the possibility of one doing a better job, but there's no such distinction with lossless.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #100 of 1694 Old 01-31-2007, 06:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack Gilvey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Jersey,USA
Posts: 6,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post


Which brings up an interesting point...With the new HD lossless formats, why do we need and/or want 2 competing formats (Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD MA)? Unless someone is going to mix the audio tracks differently in order to make claim that one lossless format is superior to another , then there is absolutely no reason to have 2 different methods of compression. As has been repeated over and over again, LOSSLESS IS LOSSLESS, so assuming identical mixes, once unpacked there would be ZERO differences between a Dolby lossless packed version and a DTS lossless packed one, and since it is lossless, there is no reasonable argument over which method is superior (to the listener, that is).

I think that's another thing that's misunderstood in general, and has many people thinking that the same perceived quality differences that have existed between DD/DTS apply to their lossless counterparts. Many are assuming, from the comments I read, that DTS-HD Master is it as far as fidelity, and that only a new 1.3 receiver will give it to them. Of course, by the time such receivers are actually available, there's no telling what players will be doing.

Jack Gilvey
SVS Customer Service

Jack Gilvey is offline  
post #101 of 1694 Old 01-31-2007, 08:46 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,951
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 980
Traditional DTS on standard DVDs can be produced in either a full bit rate form or a half bit rate form at the studio's choosing. Many standard DVDs today ship with only the half bit rate form of a DTS track, which is similar to the Dolby Digital track in bit rate. This keeps the DTS track from putting higher demands on disc space and also on bit rate off the disc during playback -- both of which could require higher compression of the primary video track on the standard DVD, since both disc capacitiy and playback bit transfer rates are rather severely limited on standard DVDs. But that also means these half bit rate traditional DTS tracks have an even HARDER time distinguishing themselves compared to the Dolby Digital track *EVEN IF* any attempt was made to mix them differently to begin with prior to encoding.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Core" DTS on the other hand, either as shipped as part of a DTS-HD MA track on an HD-DVD or Blue Ray disc, or as used to send the "compatability" form of some new format, high bandwidth track over any digital cabling without copy protection, or to a receiver that can't handle the high bandwidth of the new format version, is the full bit rate form of traditional DTS. You get this core DTS version if you send digital audio from an HD-DVD or Blue Ray player via traditional optical or coax digital audio cables (due to lack of copy protection), or as a bitstream over an HDMI connection lower than V1.3 at both ends. If there is ever a receiver with HDMI V1.3 that can't decode a particular new format track, then the core DTS bitstream is what would need to be sent to it as well if you want to send a bitstream.

For a DTS-HD MA track, the core DTS is already part of the encoding of the track. The player has to be able to decode the DTS-HD MA track *AT LEAST* to the degree of extracting that core DTS "compatibility" encoding. Otherwise it can't make that track available as a "compatibility" track over optical audio cabling, for example.

For a TrueHD track, the player has to decode the track (we're back to player decoding again!), extract the reduced bandwidth subset of that track, which is easy to do given the way the track is encoded, and then RE-encode it as the full bit rate form of traditional DTS!

For Blue Ray discs that ship with raw PCM tracks, the player has to be able to produce a reduced bandwidth version from that raw PCM and then ENCODE it as the full bit rate form of traditional DTS.

And it's that full bit rate, traditional DTS that gets shipped out as the "compatibility" digital audio track over optical audio cable, etc.

Of course this means that folks with really old receivers that can't even decode traditional DTS are doubly screwed. They can't get the new format tracks and they can't even get this lower bandwidth, "compatibility" form of them. Their only option is to buy a player that can decode the track all the way to multi-channel analog audio outputs, and then hope their old receiver also has that style of inputs.

But for folks that DO have traditional DTS decoding in their receivers (which includes all current receivers), that means that even if they have to listen to the "compatibility" version of the new format track, at least they are getting the full bit rate DTS! And THAT means that even the compatibility tracks have a reasonably good chance of sounding better than both the Dolby Digital tracks AND the half bit rate DTS tracks on many current standard DVDs.

All of this encoding and decoding stuff is, however, hostage to the effort the studios put into mixing the tracks prior to encoding. There's nothing magical about TrueHD or DTS-HD MA that guarantees extra quality. They simply return exactly the PCM that was put into their encoders in the first place.

If the same track is shipped as raw PCM (on a Blue Ray disc) and ALSO as an encoded DTS-HD MA track, then the DTS-HD MA version can not sound any better, regardless of whether the player or receiver does the decoding. What comes out of the decode is bit for bit identical to the raw PCM that went in.

Similarly, although True HD (like DTS-HD MA) enables the studios to pack a higher bandwidth PCM track into less space on disc, most TrueHD tracks shipping today are no better bandwidth than the typical raw PCM tracks -- as found in raw form on Blue Ray discs for example. That is, up to now, studios aren't using TrueHD to do anything superior.

Whether the same holds true for DTS-HD MA tracks, and whether it will continue to be that way into the future for both TrueHD and DTS-HD MA tracks, remains to be seen.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #102 of 1694 Old 01-31-2007, 10:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,888
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1430 Post(s)
Liked: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

The difference before was that they were competing compression algorithm's with at least the possibility of one doing a better job, but there's no such distinction with lossless.

In this case "doing a better job" will mean packing more efficiently to achieve smaller storage space. I'm guessing that those differences will be small and not the main reason for a studio choosing one lossless codec over another. Sound-wise, they sound be indentical.

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #103 of 1694 Old 01-31-2007, 11:12 AM
Member
 
mjabel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Gilvey View Post

Many are assuming, from the comments I read, that DTS-HD Master is it as far as fidelity, and that only a new 1.3 receiver will give it to them. Of course, by the time such receivers are actually available, there's no telling what players will be doing.

That is the point, DTS-HD MA will be it for many discs as there is no reason to also include a Dolby TrueHD track. So your only option for a lossless codec will be DTS-HD MA on certain discs.
mjabel is offline  
post #104 of 1694 Old 01-31-2007, 11:26 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,951
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjabel View Post

That is the point, DTS-HD MA will be it for many discs as there is no reason to also include a Dolby TrueHD track. So your only option for a lossless codec will be DTS-HD MA on certain discs.

Dolby TrueHD player support is supposedly mandatory for HD-DVD.

DTS-HD MA player support is optional for both HD-DVD and Blue Ray.

Blue Ray discs typically ship with raw PCM tracks. [HD-DVD discs do not.]

If your TrueHD and DTS-HD MA tracks are encoded from the same source PCM track, then HD-DVD users are already covered. DTS-HD MA support adds nothing for them.

If your DTS-HD MA track is encoded from the same raw PCM track as is already found on your Blue Ray discs, then Blue Ray users are also already covered. The additional DTS-HD MA track adds nothing for them.

So DTS-HD MA player (or receiver) support is only valuable if you don't have an equivalent TrueHD track available *AND* if the DTS-HD MA track was encoded from a better quality source PCM track than the raw PCM track on your Blue Ray disc.

Again, it all boils down to whether the studios will expend the effort to mix a better quality (higher bandwidth) source PCM track for encoding in DTS-HD MA than what they ship as raw PCM on Blue Ray discs or encoded as TrueHD on HD-DVD discs.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #105 of 1694 Old 01-31-2007, 01:12 PM
Member
 
mjabel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Bob,

I think you're missing some subtleties of what the standards mean to the content creators versus the player manufacturers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

Dolby TrueHD player support is supposedly mandatory for HD-DVD.

Yes, HD-DVD players are required to support Dolby TrueHD with at least a stereo output. However, the disc creator is not required to include a Dolby TrueHD soundtrack or any Dolby codec for that matter, since DTS Core support is also mandatory for HD-DVD. It should also be noted that Dolby TrueHD is optional for Blu Ray.

Quote:


DTS-HD MA player support is optional for both HD-DVD and Blue Ray.

Also true, but it may be the only lossless option on your disc, since a DTS-HD MA disc is fully backward compatible with the legacy DTS standard, which is fully supported by both Blu Ray and HD-DVD. The Blu Ray versions Speed and Kingdom of Heaven are good examples of how this has been implemented in practice.

Quote:


Blue Ray discs typically ship with raw PCM tracks. [HD-DVD discs do not.]

Typically is probably too strong a word for the raw PCM Blu Ray discs. It might be better to say some Blu Ray discs have raw PCM tracks. It's also probably fair to say these will start to become less common as the ability to decode the advanced codecs becomes more common.

Quote:


If your TrueHD and DTS-HD MA tracks are encoded from the same source PCM track, then HD-DVD users are already covered. DTS-HD MA support adds nothing for them.

Not necessarily. Yes, a TrueHD and DTS-HD MA soundtrack should return the same original PCM track, but the point is that you might not have a choice, since the disc will have one or the other since both implementations are equally valid from a disc creators perspective. Granted, we haven't seen any HD-DVD with DTS-HD MA yet, but its not inconceivable that this will be the way some future discs are encoded.

Quote:


If your DTS-HD MA track is encoded from the same raw PCM track as is already found on your Blue Ray discs, then Blue Ray users are also already covered. The additional DTS-HD MA track adds nothing for them.

Chances are you won't see both PCM and DTS-HD MA together on a Blu Ray disc. It will be one or the other.

Quote:


So DTS-HD MA player (or receiver) support is only valuable if you don't have an equivalent TrueHD track available *AND* if the DTS-HD MA track was encoded from a better quality source PCM track than the raw PCM track on your Blue Ray disc.

It's not about DTS-HD MA being a better option, it's about it being the only option some of the time. This scenario is much more likely for Blu Ray users, but HD-DVD users might also have to deal with this some time in the future.
mjabel is offline  
post #106 of 1694 Old 01-31-2007, 05:14 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,951
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 980
Yes, for discs that ship with *ONLY* DTS-HD MA this is going to be a problem.

As you point out, that is likely only going to be for Blue Ray discs, and even then only for Blue Ray discs that ship without a separate raw PCM track or whose raw PCM track is lower quality than what was used to encode the DTS-HD MA track (which, by the way, is why you might find BOTH on a given disc so long as players without decoders continue to be made -- i.e., DTS-HD MA "better than" raw PCM "better than" core DTS tracks).

If people want more than the core DTS track off such a disc they will need:

1) A Blue Ray player with HDMI V1.1 (or higher) that decodes DTS-HD MA, and a receiver with HDMI V1.1 or higher that accepts high bandwidth PCM, OR

2) A Blue Ray player with HDMI V1.3 (or higher), a receiver with HDMI V1.3 or higher that decodes DTS-HD MA, and a disc title which is not authored for "advanced content".

It's that last proviso that I think is going to get people. If Blue Ray goes the "advanced content" route as expected, and people have purchased a non-decoding and non-upgradeable HDMI V1.3 player (and corresponding decoding receiver) in the expectation that this will cover them for all their future DTS-HD MA needs, they are going to be disappointed.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #107 of 1694 Old 02-02-2007, 01:50 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,951
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 980
As long as we're collecting things for people to worry about, does anyone know whether the Simplay program -- or other industry testing -- will certify backwards compatibility between HDMI V1.3 and older versions (specifically HDMI V1.1)?

Here's the type of thing I'm talking about: HDMI is supposed to be backwards compatible with DVI. But many current HDMI devices improperly clip data near Black and near Reference White when feeding video to a DVI device. This bug has cropped up even in some of the newest HDMI devices such as the Toshiba A2 HD-DVD player. [This bug is due to the use of a common, and unfortunately faulty, HDMI transmitter chip without implementing a certain workaround in software. The bug happens only when the faulty chip (in the source device) is asked to do the color space conversion from YCbCr to RGB itself, as would commonly happen when connected to a DVI destination device. The workaround is to do the conversion in software before handing the data to the chip.]

So suppose you have an HDMI V1.3 deep color device sending video to an HDMI V1.1 device. The V1.3 device has to round color samples down to "normal" size before sending them. Does Simplay attempt to verify that this works without error across the entire data range?

How about conversion from the new xxYCC color space to "normal" YCbCr or RGB? No unexpected side effects?

And suppose you have an HDMI V1.1 source device sending to an HDMI V1.3 destination device. The V1.1 source has to properly process the video options that the V1.3 device can handle during the handshake that establishes the connection. Some current V1.1 source devices have known bugs, even when connected to V1.1 destination devices, where they screw up if they get back more options than they can count, i.e., more than their engineers anticipated. This is one reason why some HDMI sources have problems when connected to HDMI video processors (which usually offer way more input options they'll accept than a typical TV). Does Simplay attempt to verify that all the ADDITIONAL options an HDMI V1.3 device might list won't screw up even "properly implemented" HDMI V1.1 devices that have not had their software upgraded?

That is, what are the odds the industry will simply tell people if you want it to work right you'd best upgrade THE REST of your hardware to HDMI V1.3 just as some manufacturers are already doing to current owners of DVI display devices?

----------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I know this is deliberately alarmist. My point is, if you are not going to upgrade ALL your stuff to HDMI V1.3 from the get go, the answers to such questions are important. And I don't know if Simplay, or any other industry program, attempts to cover them.

I'm hoping the answer is that, yes, such backwards compatibility will be tested and certified in a way thay buyers can identify.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #108 of 1694 Old 02-02-2007, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
drhankz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,470
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

So suppose you have an HDMI V1.3 deep color device sending video to an HDMI V1.1 device.
--Bob

Bob - I understand your question and I will not try to answer it.

But for others who might be reading this thread wondering why
we need HDMI v1.3 - I would like to put some FACTS on the
table.

Many Studios, and equipment makers have been conducting
tests with DEEP COLOR [part of HDMI v1.3]. So far the results
are HUMANS can not perceive the difference. Test equipment
can measure a difference but so far us humans FAIL.

I'm not sure there will be a big push to deep color and the
extra complexity and costs of hardware to support it if
humans can not tell the difference. Our Eyes fail us at 24
bits of color resolution per pixel.
drhankz is offline  
post #109 of 1694 Old 02-03-2007, 06:21 AM
Senior Member
 
new27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
can someone clarify the supposed lip sync feature of HDMI 1.3? I'm assuming that if you use ALL HDMI 1.3 devices then lyp syncing will be instant and automatic, is that correct?

Is this feature a benefit if your receiver already has a lip sync delay feature?
new27 is offline  
post #110 of 1694 Old 02-03-2007, 09:00 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,951
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by new27 View Post

can someone clarify the supposed lip sync feature of HDMI 1.3? I'm assuming that if you use ALL HDMI 1.3 devices then lyp syncing will be instant and automatic, is that correct?

Is this feature a benefit if your receiver already has a lip sync delay feature?

This is an optional feature. For HDMI V1.3 devices that implement it, reporting expected delay to other devices would be automatic, but acting on delays reported by other devices would be optional. Here's a simple example.

EXAMPLE: The display does video processing but doesn't handle audio. The display informs whatever device that is feeding it that its expected delay of the video due to its processing is such and so. The device feeding it processes audio. The device feeding it delays audio precisely that amount, thus compensating automatically for the delay reported by the display.

The idea is that the display couldn't handle this itself because it never sees the audio stream. And the audio processor feeding the display couldn't handle it automatically without this info since there is no other way for it to know what video delay might be happening downstream of it.

This optional feature was actually introduced in HDMI V1.2a, but has not been heavily touted until HDMI V1.3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So that's the idea.

In my opinion this is hype. The problem with lip sync is not compensating for normal and necessary delays that are "designed in" like this. Even the fancy Gennum stuff in the Anthem D2, for example, introduces less than one frame time of video delay (i.e., is perceived as "in sync" even WITHOUT any adjustment).

Rather, the lip sync problems that people REALLY want to correct arise from faulty re-transmission of content and bugs in user's devices. If DirecTV re-transmits a local station broadcast with audio 1 second out of sync with video, or if you bought one of the buggy Onkyo DVD players that randomly (and, even worse, variably) played audio well out of sync with video, AUTOMATIC LIP SYNC IN HDMI V1.3 WON'T FIX IT!

And that means that folks fighting such issues will STILL need MANUAL lip sync controls in their audio processors.

And folks who buy HDMI V1.3 devices expecting miraculous and automatic lip sync may very well still see uncorrected problems.

Folks with manual lip sync controls in their audio processors can handle, manually, everything that automatic lip sync could handle. In addition, manual controls can tackle problems that automatic lip sync CAN'T handle, such as those described above.

However even manual lip sync can't handle everything. Most lip sync controls (manual or proposed automatic) have maximum delay limits, and thus won't be able to correct for truly ridiculous delays -- such as DirecTV has been known to introduce from time to time. And if your delay is VARIABLE due to bugs in products or faults in transmission, trying to adjust delay on the fly to compensate will continue to be too annoying for most people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

For people who want to check/adjust lip sync manually, and who are using devices that aren't buggy to begin with, the process is easy. Calibration DVDs like Avia or Digital Video Essentials (DVE) come with simple tests in the form of a moving image (like a sweeping clock hand) that issues a tone at specific points (such as each time the clock sweeps past 12). Just watch that and adjust audio delay as you feel necessary to sync with video and you are all set for the entire audio/video path through the processing in your AVR and in your TV.

But again, if the content is wrong before it gets to you (ala DirecTV's occasional problems) or if your devices are buggy and produce widely VARIABLE delay, NOTHING is going to help except to fiddle with lip sync on the fly while watching programs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has also been suggested that wide adoption of automatic lip sync delay reporting would free up designers to do more elaborate video processing-- with large amounts of video delay "designed in". Although this might happen at some point years down the road it would be market suicide for any manufacturer to do that over the next couple years since any such device would look awful when hooked up to non-V1.3 devices until users went through the trouble of manual delay compensation.

Consider for example the VERY common case of an HDMI V1.1 cable HDTV set top box connected directly to such a display (due to the well known HDMI bug in many such boxes), driving speakers via an AVR which is NOT connected to the display at all. Automatic lip sync correction can't work, and if the display introduces dramatic delays "by design", then the user is going to HAVE TO do manual correction. The net result is that such TVs wouldn't sell.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #111 of 1694 Old 02-03-2007, 11:17 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,951
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by drhankz View Post

Many Studios, and equipment makers have been conducting
tests with DEEP COLOR [part of HDMI v1.3]. So far the results
are HUMANS can not perceive the difference. Test equipment
can measure a difference but so far us humans FAIL.

I'm not sure there will be a big push to deep color and the
extra complexity and costs of hardware to support it if
humans can not tell the difference. Our Eyes fail us at 24
bits of color resolution per pixel.

drhankz,
Can you comment on whether the studies you allude to are with regard to Deep Color SOURCE content -- i.e., Deep Color captured from the camera or rendering engine all the way through to what shows up on the display -- or rather of Deep Color video processing and display technology but applied to only "normal" color source content?

That is, are they determining that viewers can't differentiate Deep Color AT ALL even if it exists from end to end, or only in the more limited case where video processing is being asked to calculate, transmit, and display the extra color bit depth on source content that was only "normal" color bit depth to begin with?
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #112 of 1694 Old 02-03-2007, 12:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
drhankz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,470
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

That is, are they determining that viewers can't differentiate Deep Color AT ALL even if it exists from end to end,--Bob

That's the BOTTOM LINE.
drhankz is offline  
post #113 of 1694 Old 02-03-2007, 12:50 PM
Senior Member
 
new27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
wow, thanks again Bob

I'm starting to think all these versions of HDMI are a huge scam
new27 is offline  
post #114 of 1694 Old 02-03-2007, 01:09 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,951
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by drhankz View Post

That's the BOTTOM LINE.

OK, so answers lead to more questions. Feel free to reply that either you can't say, or you don't know if this has been tested adequately:

1) Is the same true for the gray scale ramp? I.e., are they saying the eye can't distinguish more than 256 steps of luminance -- the "Y" component of the YCbCr 4:4:4 signal?

2) Is the same true even in the extended color gamut implemented as the new xxYCC color space?

For that question (1), in general the eye is more sensitive to gray scale information than to color information.

For that question (2), obviously the eye can see more extremes of color than is represented by the extreme limits of the HDTV color space. For example the color gamut of film stock is larger, and the eye can see that.

The xxYCC color space, included as an option in HDMI V1.3, is supposed to open that up for use by newer capture devices and new displays (with different "primaries" and more range). In the xxYCC larger color space gamut, the 256 steps represented by each of the three, 8-bit components (making up the 24 bits of each pixel) have to EACH span more range -- i.e., the step size is bigger.

So the question is whether the eye can distinguish improvement if the step size is made finer (Deep Color) but only when the data is captured, encoded, processed, and displayed in the larger xxYCC color space?
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #115 of 1694 Old 02-03-2007, 01:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack Gilvey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Jersey,USA
Posts: 6,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I think the lip-sync feature will be prove quite valuable with all the really old Godzilla movies. I can barely watch sometimes I get so distracted.

Jack Gilvey
SVS Customer Service

Jack Gilvey is offline  
post #116 of 1694 Old 02-03-2007, 01:18 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,951
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Gilvey View Post

I think the lip-sync feature will be prove quite valuable with all the really old Godzilla movies. I can barely watch sometimes I get so distracted.

They did that deliberately so that you could practice lip reading the Japanese and then listen to the English dub to see how well you did. (grin!)
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #117 of 1694 Old 02-03-2007, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
drhankz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,470
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

OK, so answers lead to more questions. Feel free to reply that either you can't say, or you don't know if this has been tested adequately:
--Bob

The only answer I can provide is my sources who work with some
leading studios and equipment makers have said:

Testing of the new HDMI v1.3 DEEP COLOR capability has failed
to find humans who can see the difference.

I DO NOT KNOW MORE DETAIL THAN THAT.

In my book it is YET another Marketing Hype issue. Think about
the EXTRA Storage needed on HD DVDs and Blu-Ray DVDs.

I don't see studios supplying content with DEEP COLOR - If
no one can tell the difference.
drhankz is offline  
post #118 of 1694 Old 02-04-2007, 07:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Digital_View's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

Yes, for discs that ship with *ONLY* DTS-HD MA this is going to be a problem.

As you point out, that is likely only going to be for Blue Ray discs, and even then only for Blue Ray discs that ship without a separate raw PCM track or whose raw PCM track is lower quality than what was used to encode the DTS-HD MA track (which, by the way, is why you might find BOTH on a given disc so long as players without decoders continue to be made -- i.e., DTS-HD MA "better than" raw PCM "better than" core DTS tracks).

If people want more than the core DTS track off such a disc they will need:

1) A Blue Ray player with HDMI V1.1 (or higher) that decodes DTS-HD MA, and a receiver with HDMI V1.1 or higher that accepts high bandwidth PCM, OR

2) A Blue Ray player with HDMI V1.3 (or higher), a receiver with HDMI V1.3 or higher that decodes DTS-HD MA, and a disc title which is not authored for "advanced content".

It's that last proviso that I think is going to get people. If Blue Ray goes the "advanced content" route as expected, and people have purchased a non-decoding and non-upgradeable HDMI V1.3 player (and corresponding decoding receiver) in the expectation that this will cover them for all their future DTS-HD MA needs, they are going to be disappointed.
--Bob

Bob, I have a few questions...

How can you say, "discs that ship with *ONLY* DTS-HD MA this is going to be a PROBLEM" and then follow it up with "...which, by the way, is why you might find BOTH on a given disc SO LONG AS players without decoders CONTINUE TO BE MADE?"

Do you think that receiver companies will just stop making Receivers that can decode multiple encoding types (DTS, Neo:6, Dolby 5.1, PCM, DTS HD MA, TrueHD....) OVERNIGHT? I mean, it's not like the manufactures are going to just pull the floor out from under the consumer tomorrow. I can see this happening gradually.

For example, lets say that some average Joe walks into Best Buy and gets a Blu-ray disc that *ONLY* has DTS HD MA. He takes it home and tries to play it on his Blu-ray player. Guess what? It WORKS! Why? Because my hypothetical example is in the year: 2012. By then, there will be a lot more DTS HD MA receivers (and TrueHD) that can decode content of this sort. I'm not sure how he would be stranded.

DTS HD MA or TrueHD (PCM, or better, or 6.1 or 7.1 -- 24-bit/192 kHz) are all luxuries now. But don't you think we'll be seeing inexpensive run-of-the-mill Onkyo receiver that can decode this stuff five years from now at your local Walmart?

So, tell me again how this is going to be a "PROBLEM?"

Oh, as far as the HDMI 1.3 and "DEEP COLOR." I agree that if the eyes can't see it then, it's negligible and will just depend on the consumer choice. In the end, it's all about choice (placebo effect or not). Even if only 2% of the population can see a difference (true or not). You can't stop progress and you can't stop the gadget aficionado. In five-ten years there will be something else that comes along that trumps "DEEP COLOR" and is noticeable (SED or OLED?). Who knows?

Maybe someone can shed some light (pun not intended) on whether SED or OLED could help display current source material better than LDC/Plasma or LCoS? Or have we reached the limitation of the human eye?

By the, way. The word "limitation" should be inflammatory to us a/v enthusiast. Grrrrrr....How you expect us to get that Holographic Replicator Entertainment Cinema 50 years from now?
Digital_View is offline  
post #119 of 1694 Old 02-04-2007, 08:19 PM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,951
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 980
Digital_View,
MJABEL made the point that some new format discs ship only with DTS-HD MA for top end audio. They don't have TrueHD and they don't have raw PCM. This is a problem for folks who don't have DTS-HD MA decoding, as they can only access the lesser quality Core DTS track.

But this is only a problem so long as the players don't have their own DTS-HD MA decoders. Once players start shipping with DTS-HD MA decoders, there is no longer a need for a raw PCM track on the disc as well. Once it becomes commonplace for players to ship with DTS-HD MA decoders, studios who prefer to use DTS-HD MA need no longer be bothered to include raw PCM tracks on discs as well. And studios that never included PCM tracks to begin with can pat themselves on the back for their prescience.

Now MJABEL is worried that player manufacturers may continue to make players that don't decode DTS-HD MA, and thus folks will need to depend upon RECEIVERS to do this decoding.

And I'm worried that studios will start releasing "advanced content" Blu-Ray discs, just as they are now doing with HD-DVD discs, that will PRECLUDE such decoding in the receivers. Audio codecs for "advanced content" discs HAVE TO BE decoded IN THE PLAYER for things to work properly.

Understand that this "advanced content" stuff has changed the rules of the game -- but only for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs. Other sources such as standard DVD and broadcast TV will still ship bitstreams to the receiver to do the decoding just as they do today. But, again, audio on "advanced content" HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs HAS TO BE decoded to PCM in the player to work right.

------------------------------------------------------------

And thus my point -- if player manufacturers decide to continue making players without DTS-HD MA decoding built-in, then studios may very well have to counter by making new titles that include a raw PCM track as well as a DTS-HD MA track.

[Studios that only ship DTS-HD MA will be OK only so long as they continue to ship "basic" discs instead of "advanced" discs -- assuming of course that people are willing to buy new, HDMI V1.3 receivers with new DTS-HD MA decoding. Buyers are not likely to be satisfied with only Core DTS tracks from "advanced" discs for long.]

And indeed it would make sense in that case to include both raw PCM and DTS-HD MA ***IF*** the PCM mix that was encoded into the DTS-HD MA track was a higher bandwidth sound track than the raw PCM track also found on the disc. I.e., there would be some point in taking up the space to include a DTS-HD MA track even if there was ALSO a raw PCM track on the disc.

[The alternative would be to stop shipping DTS-HD MA tracks and just ship the raw PCM because the DTS-HD MA would just take up space to no good purpose -- since the DTS-HD MA would just decode into the *IDENTICAL* PCM as the raw PCM track also on the disc.]

It would still be the case, in that event, that to get the VERY BEST audio folks would need to buy a DTS-HD MA decoding solution. And if the disc was authored for "advanced content" that decoder would have to be in THE PLAYER.

But for folks whose player couldn't do that decode, the slightly less ambitious raw PCM track would be there for them to enjoy audio designed to be better in quality than the mere Core DTS track. The Core DTS track would still be required on disc AS WELL for compatibility with older or less capable receivers that couldn't even handle the raw PCM, perhaps because they have no HDMI audio inputs. If it didn't ship as part of a DTS-HD MA track it would have to be created on the fly by the player.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The only decoders at issue here then are the new format lossless decoders for HD-DVD and Blue Ray -- specificaly TrueHD and DTS-HD MA at this point. Those are the only ones where it makes a difference whether or not THE PLAYER does the decoding.

Other decoding (i.e., standard Dolby Digital and DTS) and post processing (PLIIx and NEO:6 and THX) would continue to be the purview of the receivers or pre/pros.

-----------------------------------------------------------

As for Deep Color, sure, many folks will want to buy into it even if it is proven to them that it provides no benefit. Marketing guys are paid big bucks to make that happen. It becomes a "check off" item -- something that people demand even if they know they don't understand it.

The marketing bucks are spent to do this because once someone buys into Deep Color with ONE device, they will also want it in their other devices. Every customer who buys a Deep Color device becomes an easier sell for other Deep Color devices, even to the extent of replacing existing equipment sooner than they otherwise would. Marketing guys dote on such stuff.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #120 of 1694 Old 02-05-2007, 12:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,777
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Bob,

"Other sources such as standard DVD and broadcast TV will still ship bitstreams to the receiver to do the decoding just as they do today. But, again, audio on "advanced content" HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs HAS TO BE decoded to PCM in the player to work right."

You say this regularly (which is fine, it bears repeating), but I've never seen any elaboration on this point.

Just what does HAS TO mean? Can a person not just do w/o the commentary tracks etc and just watch/listen to the movie, or will there be no audio at all?

Why is an "advanced" disc format less capable in this regard than a lowly DVD player?

Thanks

Noah
noah katz is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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