AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › Bitstream or PCM?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bitstream or PCM?

post #1 of 99
3/31/09 at 9:15am
Thread Starter 

Even if both the BD player and one's AVR can decode the lossless formats (Dolby TruHD, DTS Master Audio), I get the feeling--from reading various posts in various threads--that most people recommend setting the BD player to output Bitstream rather than PCM via HDMI (and I'm talking only about HDMI) even though they should technically produce identical audio.

First, is this correct? And if so, is it primarily because sending it via Bitstream allows the AVR to have full control of all audio features (e.g., base management)? TIA

Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 99
3/31/09 at 9:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Even if both the BD player and one's AVR can decode the lossless formats (Dolby TruHD, DTS Master Audio), I get the feeling--from reading various posts in various threads--that most people recommend setting the BD player to output Bitstream rather than PCM via HDMI (and I'm talking only about HDMI) even though they should technically produce identical audio.

First, is this correct?

No.

Quote:
And if so, is it primarily because sending it via Bitstream allows the AVR to have full control of all audio features (e.g., base management)? TIA

It's because people can't stand the idea that they paid all that money not to see the little "Dolby TrueHD" indicator light up on their expensive AVR. On modern AVRs, the same post-processing and speaker setup features are available with all digital sources, be they MCH LPCM from a player or the product of the AVR's own decoders.

There has never been an objective test that supports the contention that there is any difference between in-player vs in-AVR decoding, when all levels are matched and identical processing is used.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 99
3/31/09 at 9:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I get the feeling--from reading various posts in various threads--that most people recommend setting the BD player to output Bitstream rather than PCM via HDMI (and I'm talking only about HDMI) even though they should technically produce identical audio.

First, is this correct? And if so, is it primarily because sending it via Bitstream allows the AVR to have full control of all audio features (e.g., base management)?

I think some people is more accurate. Of course, there's no reason why bistreaming would produce better sound than player decoding. The encoded track has to be decoded into PCM either way and the receiver's processing is used in both cases - bass management, EQ, the application of DSPs all happen in the receiver. The player only gets involved with processing for analog transmission.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 99
3/31/09 at 9:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

No.



It's because people can't stand the idea that they paid all that money not to see the little "Dolby TrueHD" indicator light up on their expensive AVR.

C'mon, who doesn't get a little thrill out of seeing the newest whiz-bang audio codec glaring away on thier new AVR, that's not a distraction, it's part of the experience
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 99
3/31/09 at 9:48am
Thread Starter 
So, is there ANY (real) reason for choosing either way to output over HDMI? (I note that the Panny DMP-BD60 manual has Bitstream as the default choice.)
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 99
3/31/09 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

So, is there ANY (real) reason for choosing either way to output over HDMI? (I note that the Panny DMP-BD60 manual has Bitstream as the default choice.)

Not in general. Seconadry audio would be the primary reason. Secondary audio requires player decoding. Some players can mix secondary audio with lossless tracks, which means you can set the player one way and forget it. But, that's not the case with Panasonics. So, there's really no reason to choose one over the other. If your receiver has limitations with how it handles one approach or the other, that would be a reason. But, it's unrelated to audio processing in general.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 99
3/31/09 at 10:02am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post

Not in general. Seconadry audio would be the primary reason. Secondary audio requires player decoding. Some players can mix secondary audio with lossless tracks, which means you can set the player one way and forget it. But, that's not the case with Panasonics. So, there's really no reason to choose one over the other. If your receiver has limitations with how it handles one approach or the other, that would be a reason. But, it's unrelated to audio processing in general.

Thanks again. My AVR is the Onkyo 805, which I think handles both inputs OK.

I'm planning on getting a new BD player (to replace a Sammy 1200), either the Panny BD60 or Oppo 83, but I don't really need all the extra features in the Oppo. So I presume Bitstream or PCM will be equivalent; since the Panny's default is Bitstream, I would presumably just leave it there.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 99
4/1/09 at 5:25am
If I were buying a new BD player, its ability to transparently use secondary audio (ie, mix it with lossless primary tracks, send it out as LPCM over HDMI, never have to change any settings on the player) would be high on my list of requirements.

Secondary audio became important to me when I was watching the BD of "Band of Brothers," which has an astonishing PIP commentary track by the surviving soldiers of the 101st Airborne, talking about their experiences as portrayed in the series. It's a whole added dimension to the series that's inaccessible if you bitstream with a player that doesn't re-encode, as many don't.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 99
4/1/09 at 5:47am
Except on some BD players, the player will downgrade to lossy decoding of DTS, instead of decode the lossless DTS-HD MA, when it needs to mix in the secondary audio.

Otherwise, the choice of player or AVR decoding is purely subjective.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 99
4/1/09 at 7:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Except on some BD players, the player will downgrade to lossy decoding of DTS, instead of decode the lossless DTS-HD MA, when it needs to mix in the secondary audio.

Otherwise, the choice of player or AVR decoding is purely subjective.

Yes, apparently the ability to mix a lossless primary track with a secondary track is unusual. The PS3 does it, and I'm not sure what other players do.

Much of the time I imagine it's not a big deal -- someone's talking over the primary track anyway. Far more important is that you don't have to go into the player's menu and reconfigure the audio settings every time you want to use secondary audio. Apparently with some players (Panasonics?) you actually have to choose between having lossless audio enabled or having secondary audio enabled, as a global setting. That's ridiculous, and if it's true it would keep me from buying a Panasonic.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 99
4/1/09 at 7:41am
Yes, that is true of the Panasonic BD35/55 models. I don't know whether the design is changed on the new models.

The Sony S350/S550 can do TrueHD decoding with secondary audio. But, the S550 switches to lossy for dts-MA decoding with secondary audio.

The Samsung 2500/2550 models can do both lossless formats with secondary audio.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 99
4/1/09 at 9:26am
Try it. ON my setup there is definitely a difference. I always felt something was missing from the audio when decoded by the PS3, now that I have a standalone that will bitstream things have improved. Yes, in theory there should be no difference, but myself and others seem to hear a noticable difference at least with some AVRs. mine is Onkyo 805 and whether it's the receiver's fault or something else is going on, there is definitely a difference and bitstream is the winner.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 99
4/1/09 at 10:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Category 5 View Post

Try it. ON my setup there is definitely a difference. I always felt something was missing from the audio when decoded by the PS3, now that I have a standalone that will bitstream things have improved. Yes, in theory there should be no difference, but myself and others seem to hear a noticable difference at least with some AVRs. mine is Onkyo 805 and whether it's the receiver's fault or something else is going on, there is definitely a difference and bitstream is the winner.

You make no attempt to figure out what's going on, but confidently declare a winner. It could be (and probably is) as simple as a 1 or 2dB difference in the output level of the AVR's decoder stage. No A/B comparisons, no attempts to level match, no science, no logic.

I will say it again: subjective posts like this one are worse than useless. They're harmful. They contribute no actual data, and are based on nothing but an impression. It's like saying "I can see farther on Tuesdays than on Wednesdays," without talking about how much cloud cover there happened to be. People read these posts looking for actual information, and don't always know enough to sort the science from the superstition.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 99
4/1/09 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Except on some BD players, the player will downgrade to lossy decoding of DTS, instead of decode the lossless DTS-HD MA, when it needs to mix in the secondary audio.

Otherwise, the choice of player or AVR decoding is purely subjective.

There's more reasons than this to have the player decode first, for certain individuals. In my case, i have a THX arranged 7.1 speaker setup (where the back two speakers are together, using ASA technology). If i decode the lossless sound first, then I can have my receiver apply THX technology. However, if i were to bitstream, the receiver could only decode the lossless audio and I wouldn't be able to apply THX on the already-decoded PCM track.

Also, for whatever reason, even if someone doesn't use THX, they might want to apply another sound field on top of the native lossless audio?

For those rare 7.1 lossless audio tracks though, I just let the PCM 7.1 run native. Its the 5.1's that I like to add the extra 2 channels and ASA technology to.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 99
4/1/09 at 11:15am
Azanon,

Buy a better AVR

Seriously, if we're going to talk about individual equipment limitations, there is a long list of reasons why you should do this way vs other way.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 99
4/1/09 at 11:19am
I've seen the back and forth on this for a while. The two camps are: Those who rely on data only, that say nothing should be different. Those that have experienced a difference. I am in the latter category. I know The former camp will curse my name and tell me I don't know how to level match and all that, but I trust my ears, and, even better, I have a theory.

See, technically, it should be the same. So let me theorize how it might not be. It's not a matter of post-processing, since I run my receiver in Direct mode. I don't like filters of any kind. It's not even the PCM format. In fact, my favorite disk is CARS with a PCM track that is killer. But what happens is when material is decoded I think the decoder makes a difference. If my player (LG BH200) decodes, the sound is relatively flat and less dynamic with less detail (almost like it was still compressed) compared to when my receiver (Marantz sr7002) does the work. Now, here's where my knowledge breaks down, because I cannot tell you why this happens. I can only blame the player, not the process, because the process is done correctly in my receiver. I know that some software on my computer can sound different than others, even running the same video. I've also heard the PS3 decoding sounds crappy compared to a stand-alone player (how is that possible if decoding is all the same?) So I blame the product that is decoding, and that explains (perhaps) why the receiver is the best bet for proper HD sound decoding. It doesn't mean there won't be players out there that sound as good as any receiver, it just means there are some players that don't. Optimally, a superior player will decode into beautiful PCM and be able to add secondary audio such as commentary. For me, I am happy with bitstream as it gives me the best sound out of this player (I am very picky about dynamics and detail). So, I'll keep it until I'm forced to get another player to keep up with many changes in blu-ray technology.

Note: my player cannot correctly decode 6.1 or 7.1 channels. If those channels are present they are mixed into the 5.1 and sent by PCM. Bitstream of course is fine. If something like this can happen, where the purity of the original is diminished, I think it's plausible to say that the quality of sound can be lost through improper decoding as well. In fact it may be this 'mixing' of channels that adds a kind of filtering stage to what should be a pure sound, and that MIGHT be what I'm hearing. But that's just a total guess.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 99
4/1/09 at 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benananda View Post

I've seen the back and forth on this for a while. The two camps are: Those who rely on data only, that say nothing should be different. Those that have experienced a difference. I am in the latter category. I know The former camp will curse my name and tell me I don't know how to level match and all that, but I trust my ears, and, even better, I have a theory.

See, technically, it should be the same. So let me theorize how it might not be. It's not a matter of post-processing, since I run my receiver in Direct mode. I don't like filters of any kind. It's not even the PCM format. In fact, my favorite disk is CARS with a PCM track that is killer. But what happens is when material is decoded I think the decoder makes a difference. If my player (LG BH200) decodes, the sound is relatively flat and less dynamic with less detail (almost like it was still compressed) compared to when my receiver (Marantz sr7002) does the work. Now, here's where my knowledge breaks down, because I cannot tell you why this happens. I can only blame the player, not the process, because the process is done correctly in my receiver. I know that some software on my computer can sound different than others, even running the same video. I've also heard the PS3 decoding sounds crappy compared to a stand-alone player (how is that possible if decoding is all the same?) So I blame the product that is decoding, and that explains (perhaps) why the receiver is the best bet for proper HD sound decoding. It doesn't mean there won't be players out there that sound as good as any receiver, it just means there are some players that don't. Optimally, a superior player will decode into beautiful PCM and be able to add secondary audio such as commentary. For me, I am happy with bitstream as it gives me the best sound out of this player (I am very picky about dynamics and detail). So, I'll keep it until I'm forced to get another player to keep up with many changes in blu-ray technology.

Note: my player cannot correctly decode 6.1 or 7.1 channels. If those channels are present they are mixed into the 5.1 and sent by PCM. Bitstream of course is fine. If something like this can happen, where the purity of the original is diminished, I think it's plausible to say that the quality of sound can be lost through improper decoding as well. In fact it may be this 'mixing' of channels that adds a kind of filtering stage to what should be a pure sound, and that MIGHT be what I'm hearing. But that's just a total guess.

Amen brother, I totally agree with you. I am so sorry that I do not have thousands of dollars or even hundreds of dollars on equipment that can tell me for sure whether or not one is better than another. I have a PS3, Sony350 and a Pio 51FD all running to my Onkyo 805 and I have run just my own simple tests using the same source material for each player and I too can hear, yes I have that ability, to hear with my own two ears that my Onkyo just seems to have a richer fuller sound. Like the gentleman in this quote that is my opinion. Most of us out there looking for advice have no idea what any of the real tech data means any ways. We are just average joes with two ears and eyes and I get so sick and tired of being put down for it. I do not care that you have your own measurment with all the fancy gadgets and such, that is great for you and I mean that, what ever floats your boat. But I am betting just like the rest of us average joes if you just closed your eyes and listened you would see that sometimes your fancy gadgets really are worthless if you just listen and trust your ears. But what do I know I am just giving worthless info to other people just like me according to some on here. But what ever...kudos to your opinion sir and glad to hear it.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 99
4/1/09 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benananda View Post

I've seen the back and forth on this for a while. The two camps are: Those who rely on data only, that say nothing should be different. Those that have experienced a difference. I am in the latter category. I know The former camp will curse my name and tell me I don't know how to level match and all that, but I trust my ears, and, even better, I have a theory.

See, technically, it should be the same. So let me theorize how it might not be. It's not a matter of post-processing, since I run my receiver in Direct mode. I don't like filters of any kind. It's not even the PCM format. In fact, my favorite disk is CARS with a PCM track that is killer. But what happens is when material is decoded I think the decoder makes a difference. If my player (LG BH200) decodes, the sound is relatively flat and less dynamic with less detail (almost like it was still compressed) compared to when my receiver (Marantz sr7002) does the work. Now, here's where my knowledge breaks down, because I cannot tell you why this happens. I can only blame the player, not the process, because the process is done correctly in my receiver. I know that some software on my computer can sound different than others, even running the same video. I've also heard the PS3 decoding sounds crappy compared to a stand-alone player (how is that possible if decoding is all the same?) So I blame the product that is decoding, and that explains (perhaps) why the receiver is the best bet for proper HD sound decoding. It doesn't mean there won't be players out there that sound as good as any receiver, it just means there are some players that don't. Optimally, a superior player will decode into beautiful PCM and be able to add secondary audio such as commentary. For me, I am happy with bitstream as it gives me the best sound out of this player (I am very picky about dynamics and detail). So, I'll keep it until I'm forced to get another player to keep up with many changes in blu-ray technology.

Note: my player cannot correctly decode 6.1 or 7.1 channels. If those channels are present they are mixed into the 5.1 and sent by PCM. Bitstream of course is fine. If something like this can happen, where the purity of the original is diminished, I think it's plausible to say that the quality of sound can be lost through improper decoding as well. In fact it may be this 'mixing' of channels that adds a kind of filtering stage to what should be a pure sound, and that MIGHT be what I'm hearing. But that's just a total guess.

The decoder shouldn't do squat to your audio if those track are encoded lossless. If it does that you wouldn't get lossless you would get something else. So unless your player is borked, in which case you can't judge the difference between the two, or your avr is doing some voodoo without you knowing even if you selected "direct".

That is like saying that if I unzip this word document and send it to you decoded it will have more typos that if you unzip it yourself.

Post-processing (remixing) is another matters. It is done after the unzipping. It has nothing to do with the decoder.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 99
4/1/09 at 12:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benananda View Post

I've seen the back and forth on this for a while. The two camps are: Those who rely on data only, that say nothing should be different. Those that have experienced a difference. I am in the latter category. I know The former camp will curse my name and tell me I don't know how to level match and all that, but I trust my ears, and, even better, I have a theory.

See, technically, it should be the same. So let me theorize how it might not be. It's not a matter of post-processing, since I run my receiver in Direct mode. I don't like filters of any kind. It's not even the PCM format. In fact, my favorite disk is CARS with a PCM track that is killer. But what happens is when material is decoded I think the decoder makes a difference. If my player (LG BH200) decodes, the sound is relatively flat and less dynamic with less detail (almost like it was still compressed) compared to when my receiver (Marantz sr7002) does the work. Now, here's where my knowledge breaks down, because I cannot tell you why this happens. I can only blame the player, not the process, because the process is done correctly in my receiver. I know that some software on my computer can sound different than others, even running the same video. I've also heard the PS3 decoding sounds crappy compared to a stand-alone player (how is that possible if decoding is all the same?) So I blame the product that is decoding, and that explains (perhaps) why the receiver is the best bet for proper HD sound decoding. It doesn't mean there won't be players out there that sound as good as any receiver, it just means there are some players that don't. Optimally, a superior player will decode into beautiful PCM and be able to add secondary audio such as commentary. For me, I am happy with bitstream as it gives me the best sound out of this player (I am very picky about dynamics and detail). So, I'll keep it until I'm forced to get another player to keep up with many changes in blu-ray technology.

Note: my player cannot correctly decode 6.1 or 7.1 channels. If those channels are present they are mixed into the 5.1 and sent by PCM. Bitstream of course is fine. If something like this can happen, where the purity of the original is diminished, I think it's plausible to say that the quality of sound can be lost through improper decoding as well. In fact it may be this 'mixing' of channels that adds a kind of filtering stage to what should be a pure sound, and that MIGHT be what I'm hearing. But that's just a total guess.

Your theory falls apart when you didn't realize that your player (LG BH200) can't decode lossless DTS-HD MA (or TrueHD if you are still using old firmware). That's why you can't get 6.1 or 7.1 channels.

So basically, you're comparing lossy decoding (in player) to lossless decoding (in AVR), or like they said apples to oranges.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 99
4/1/09 at 12:34pm
I've seen the back and forth on this for a while. The two camps are: Those who rely on data only, that say nothing should be different. Those that have experienced a difference. I am in the latter category. I know The former camp will curse my name and tell me I don't know how to level match and all that, but I trust my ears, and, even better, I have a theory.

See, technically, it should be the same. So let me theorize how it might not be. It's not a matter of post-processing, since I run my receiver in Direct mode. I don't like filters of any kind. It's not even the PCM format. In fact, my favorite disk is CARS with a PCM track that is killer. But what happens is when material is decoded I think the decoder makes a difference. If my player (LG BH200) decodes, the sound is relatively flat and less dynamic with less detail (almost like it was still compressed) compared to when my receiver (Marantz sr7002) does the work. Now, here's where my knowledge breaks down, because I cannot tell you why this happens. I can only blame the player, not the process, because the process is done correctly in my receiver. I know that some software on my computer can sound different than others, even running the same video. I've also heard the PS3 decoding sounds crappy compared to a stand-alone player (how is that possible if decoding is all the same?) So I blame the product that is decoding, and that explains (perhaps) why the receiver is the best bet for proper HD sound decoding. It doesn't mean there won't be players out there that sound as good as any receiver, it just means there are some players that don't. Optimally, a superior player will decode into beautiful PCM and be able to add secondary audio such as commentary. For me, I am happy with bitstream as it gives me the best sound out of this player (I am very picky about dynamics and detail). So, I'll keep it until I'm forced to get another player to keep up with many changes in blu-ray technology.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 99
4/1/09 at 12:44pm
CES 2009 press coverage reported that DTS demo'd a DTS-HDMA 7.1 decoder with steering+upmix to 11.1 at CES which they are shopping to CE companies for inclusion in late 2009/early 2010 receivers. I didn't see anything that suggested it could also be used to [just] post process PCM from in-player decoding...
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 99
4/1/09 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Your theory falls apart when you didn't realize that your player (LG BH200) can't decode lossless DTS-HD MA (or TrueHD if you are still using old firmware). That's why you can't get 6.1 or 7.1 channels.

So basically, you're comparing lossy decoding (in player) to lossless decoding (in AVR), or like they said apples to oranges.

I'm quite aware of this. I do not use DTS HD as a basis. I only use TrueHD. Why did you assume I must be using DTS or an old firmware? Is it so hard to believe that I might have a case? BTW, I can't get 6.1 on my LOTR:FOTR disk either with regular DTS. This is because it is a known hardware issue. The PS3 also has this issue I believe.

People presume that if we hear something it must be user error. These people were born to be customer service reps.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 99
4/1/09 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Your theory falls apart when you didn't realize that your player (LG BH200) can't decode lossless DTS-HD MA (or TrueHD if you are still using old firmware). That's why you can't get 6.1 or 7.1 channels.

So basically, you're comparing lossy decoding (in player) to lossless decoding (in AVR), or like they said apples to oranges.

Not only that, but he's saying that the difference applies even to a PCM track. This clearly indicates that the AVR is doing something different to incoming bitstreams than it does to incoming LPCM. He should be devoting his efforts to figuring out what's causing that, because it's probably distorting everything he hears. (I use the word "distortion" in the pure sense: Not all distortion necessarily sounds disagreeable. Anything that changes the sound is distortion.)
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 99
4/1/09 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benananda View Post

I'm quite aware of this. I do not use DTS HD as a basis. I only use TrueHD. Why did you assume I must be using DTS or an old firmware? Is it so hard to believe that I might have a case? BTW, I can't get 6.1 on my LOTR:FOTR disk either with regular DTS. This is because it is a known hardware issue. The PS3 also has this issue I believe.

People presume that if we hear something it must be user error. These people were born to be customer service reps.

LMAO so true. Yeah you caught us, were just lying about what we hear. My bad so sorry. I guess at the end of the day we all have an opinion why are you super tech guys so threatened by those of us who do not need high tech equipment to hear a difference.

It is like when I got my 5020 calibrated, the calibrator showed me everything he was doing. Showed me what all his high tech gadgets were reading and everything which was very interesting to me. I could see that what he was doing was making a difference to his computer screen could see we were getting closer to what he said was a target range for my TV but at the end of the day all that mattered was that I saw the difference and it was a great difference. I also get the sense that the techy guys constantly say what did you use to measure this and that but have never offered any proof to contridict us either have they done the tests themselves to show that there really is no difference or we are wrong? No they just tell us we are dumb and do not know what we are talking about etc etc...blah blah blah
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 99
4/1/09 at 1:11pm
I know this post will probably deleted by mod as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benananda View Post

I'm quite aware of this. I do not use DTS HD as a basis. I only use TrueHD. Why did you assume I must be using DTS or an old firmware?

Because you didn't specify any specifics in your post. In the mean time you mentioned you can't decode 6.1/7.1 from player. There is about one TrueHD disc that contains 7.1 track which most ppl don't own. But there are a lot of 7.1 DTS-HD MA tracks out there.

Quote:
Is it so hard to believe that I might have a case?

Yes, it is hard to believe.

Quote:
BTW, I can't get 6.1 on my LOTR:FOTR disk either with regular DTS. This is because it is a known hardware issue. The PS3 also has this issue I believe.

Almost all HD players can't decode DD EX or DTS ES 6.1 track. It's a limitation of software offered by Dolby or DTS, not hardware.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 99
4/1/09 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

I know this post will probably deleted by mod as well.



Because you didn't specify any specifics in your post. In the mean time you mentioned you can't decode 6.1/7.1 from player. There is about one TrueHD disc that contains 7.1 track which most ppl don't own. But there are a lot of 7.1 DTS-HD MA tracks out there.



Yes, it is hard to believe.


Almost all HD players can't decode DD EX or DTS ES 6.1 track. It's a limitation of software offered by Dolby or DTS, not hardware.


I would like to know why it is so hard to believe, do you have all the high tech equipment to prove him wrong? Or are you just going to repeate what some one else has written. if you remember at one time in history folks thought the world was flat...
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 99
4/1/09 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ta23 View Post

I would like to know why it is so hard to believe, do you have all the high tech equipment to prove him wrong? Or are you just going to repeate what some one else has written. if you remember at one time in history folks thought the world was flat...

Sitting here trying to prove someone else is wrong isn't getting you anywhere. Try proving you're right. Don't give us anecdotal B/S. You haven't properly countered one bit of the information presented to you. Instead, you make snide remarks and put little smiles or eyerolls at the end of your statements. I don't think you have anything valid to add. Next!
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 99
4/1/09 at 1:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

Not only that, but he's saying that the difference applies even to a PCM track. This clearly indicates that the AVR is doing something different to incoming bitstreams than it does to incoming LPCM. He should be devoting his efforts to figuring out what's causing that, because it's probably distorting everything he hears. (I use the word "distortion" in the pure sense: Not all distortion necessarily sounds disagreeable. Anything that changes the sound is distortion.)


Nope. I know it's asking a lot to carefully read my post, but I specifically said that PCM is FINE. In fact I mentioned that CARS with a PCM track is my favorite disk to listen to. I said this so you'd know that LPCM is NOT the issue, but that it is the decoding that suffers. For some reason you guys keep hearing (reading) what you want instead of what I'm saying. You really should apply for a Customer Service position. You're perfect!
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 99
4/1/09 at 1:39pm
My 2 cents on this one:

so far, I haven't noted any difference whatsoever between bitstreaming and/or PCM mode though, as they're pretty much the same thing, IMO.

I do have a Denon 2809 AVR + a Panny BD-30 player and I always use the PCM mode for one single reason: with PCM on, I got the benefit of having the AL 24 chipsets engaged, whereas with bitstream I don't.

Maybe this is not a big deal, but that's the way I prefer to setup my stuff.

Regards, Chuck
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 99
4/1/09 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

Almost all HD players can't decode DD EX or DTS ES 6.1 track. It's a limitation of software offered by Dolby or DTS, not hardware.

My old Toshiba A2 HD-DVD (RIP) did this just fine. In fact, now that I think about it, it probably sounded as good decoded (which it had to do) as it does now bitstreamed by my LG superblu combo player. I think I'll have to test that. And why would software limit this DD EX and DTS ES anyway? That makes no sense.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › Bitstream or PCM?