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

Bitstream or PCM? - Page 3

post #61 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

I'm pretty sure if you set your A2 to decode, you will not get 6.1 either via HDMI in PCM mode. I have the newer A3 and it does the same. Are you sure you're not mix it up with optical out?

Not sure. I did use optical for a long time. I still don't see why it would be limited this way. Make no sense to limit PCM decoded material when that is the preferred method of transmission from a blu-ray player.
post #62 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benananda View Post

Not sure. I did use optical for a long time. I still don't see why it would be limited this way. Make no sense to limit PCM decoded material when that is the preferred method of transmission from a blu-ray player.

The problem is the DTS core + extension approach. The 6.1 ES data is part of the extension. Lossless Master Audio data is also part of the extension. Most DTS decoders can do one kind of extension, but not both. The "limited" or "essential" DTS decoders in most players are designed to handle Master Audio extensions. You need to bitstream DTS-ES and DTS 96/24 tracks to the decoder in your receiver to get them properly decoded.
post #63 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post

The problem is the DTS core + extension approach. The 6.1 ES data is part of the extension. Lossless Master Audio data is also part of the extension. Most DTS decoders can do one kind of extension, but not both. The "limited" or "essential" DTS decoders in most players are designed to handle Master Audio extensions. You need to bitstream DTS-ES and DTS 96/24 tracks to the decoder in your receiver to get them properly decoded.

Great explanation! This raises another question, however, of why my receiver's decoder is full-featured while the player is not. Earlier in this thread someone argued that all decoders are the same regardless of price or product. this evidence flies in the face of that argument. It also makes it painfully apparent that neither bitstream nor LPCM will ever be the optimal choice, considering the trade offs that both have, unless there is a player that can properly decode all extensions.
post #64 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benananda View Post

This raises another question, however, of why my receiver's decoder is full-featured while the player is not. Earlier in this thread someone argued that all decoders are the same regardless of price or product. this evidence flies in the face of that argument

The Master Audio decoding identical. The "essential" decoder in the player and the fully featured decoder in the receiver will produce identical PCM outputs when decoding a dts-MA track. So, the earlier post was correct.
post #65 of 99
I am using B&W 800Ds L&R, HTM1D Center, 803Ds as surrounds and those are powered by Electrocompaniet NEMOs monomblocks/Bryston 14Bsst. My receiver is an Onkyo 905 that will be replaced by an Anthem most probably.

The reason I am describing the gear is because its not hard at all to hear differences.

Please explain to me when I play BDs through the PS3 I get worse sound than when I bitstream through my Samsung BD2500? And why when I play mkvs through my HTPC bitstreaming of DTS Core also sounds so much better than when I use the analog outs of my X-Meridian. I have an SPL and I promise to do the tests again and check level matching again.

I am beginning to believe that there is something wrong with the Onkyos (805/875/905) when they accept LPCM through HDMI since the vast majority of the cases like mine (who hear a big difference) use one of those.

Honestly, I am also trying to understand what is going on since there should not be any difference but there is and others that I put through the test confirmed it. Is there a chance that when LPCMing there is not Audyssey or any other post processing?
post #66 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by JargonGR View Post

Please explain to me when I play BDs through the PS3 I get worse sound than when I bitstream through my Samsung BD2500?

I think people will have a hard time answering you question if you don't explain what this means.
post #67 of 99
I mean what others are experiencing as well. Bitstreaming sounds clearer and channel separation is better in a way that the effects have better positioning and dialogue is louder but without me having to increase the level on the center speaker.

It is like the sounds have better timing compared to LPCM from PS3 which sounds compressed and less dynamic for sure.
post #68 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ta23 View Post

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.

You don't seem to be "listening" to what RD and others are saying. Which is that unless the listening is properly controlled, chiefly by matching the volumes of the two sources and comparing them within a short time, you end up with an "apples and oranges" situation. As has been stated (several times), this is because a very slight increase in volume results in a substantial change in the nature of the sound, and is usually considered an improvement.

You and other "subjectivists" seem to want to turn it into a philosophical, almost religious debate. - "Fancy gadgets that are really worthless", etc., versus us good old "average Joes who trust our ears." But it's not philosophy, it's science. - Some average Joes still believe the world is flat. - But it's not.

I think all of us who are interested in this technology and who love music want to see the SOTA advance. - But it can't advance if we ignore the basic scientific principles involved.

Jim
post #69 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post

Aren't 2 & 3 part of the same clock issue? Now, please complete your explanation. How do the potential clocking and jitter problems produce the kinds of inferior audio outputs being described in this thread?

They are related, but not the same. What I am saying is jitter is inevitable without a master clock (and these get EXPENSIVE as any studio owner knows). An AVR must always syncronize to an external sources clock when fed a digital PCM stream because no two clocks can ever be independently syncronized. Inexpensive clocks (like the ones in our players, and even our AVRs) will always have jitter. This means that even though the samples are coming out in a sequential stream the period which should be fixed and constant is slightly variable based on clock error and errors as a result of the transition medium. Jitter can come from the pickup mechanism in the case of raw PCM stored on a disc, and it can and is introduced in the transfer (through the cable). Since the stream is coming through PCM the receiver or DAC must lock to the source clock through a Phase Loop Lock (PLL) which will also introduce the potential for jitter. Since the period of the samples get's skewed as a result the resulting analog waveform will have distortion when the samples are reassembled. Since it occurs at the sample level a loss of high frequency resolution is the most audible result.

Audio that is bitstreamed is basically contained in a wrapper or package (the bitstream itself). PCM audio is not extracted until it reaches the decoder which (if it is located within the AVR) is the first place new jitter can be introduced (jitter introduced during recording is there forever in the audio). Since this is happening in the AVR with bitstream you will eliminate the potential for jitter to be introduced by the source player, the cable or transmission medium, and the external PLL lock. Inevitable there will be jitter introduced within the AVR system, but the logic here is that it will be a couple of orders of magnitude less, and since it is accumulative the effects will be far less.

Jitter is the enemy of a digital audio system and unless you have a high quality external master clock you will always have it to some degree (and even with the master clock to be honest).

As far as the difference between bitstream and PCM on my ONkyo 805, I'd venture to say something else is happening too. Audyssey is still active during LPCM and I did another comparison today. LPCM sound compressed and cruchy by comparison to bitstream. Almost distorted. Bitstream is clearly superior and it isn't a matter of loudness.

Again, if you're wondering I suggest you try it. Too many people agree there is a difference for it to be purely the placebo effect.
post #70 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Cate View Post

You don't seem to be "listening" to what RD and others are saying. Which is that unless the listening is properly controlled, chiefly by matching the volumes of the two sources and comparing them within a short time, you end up with an "apples and oranges" situation. As has been stated (several times), this is because a very slight increase in volume results in a substantial change in the nature of the sound, and is usually considered an improvement.

You and other "subjectivists" seem to want to turn it into a philosophical, almost religious debate. - "Fancy gadgets that are really worthless", etc., versus us good old "average Joes who trust our ears." But it's not philosophy, it's science. - Some average Joes still believe the world is flat. - But it's not.

I think all of us who are interested in this technology and who love music want to see the SOTA advance. - But it can't advance if we ignore the basic scientific principles involved.

Jim

Before you judge me you might want to read all my posts in here. Once again there is tunnel vision. I said I respect the techy gadgets and the charts, I want to hear about what the super techs have to say and it does help in my understanding and I take it very to heart what anyone says, tech or no tech. Seriously, go trough and read my last post again. What I said is why do the techs seem to put down the average joe with his ears, that is all I am saying, geez. Sorry to attack any ones ego on here, I just think that everyone needs respect on here, point in case, attacks on what I have to say. The average joe says he hears something and is put down rudely with out even asking or trying to direct that person in a certain way to understand what it is they have to say. THAT IS THE DAMN POINT. I never never said that tech talk was useless all points should be looked at fairly even no techs. We non techs value your points just wish it could go both ways.

And if you are going to quote someone get it right such as "Like I said I RESPECT those who know how to use the devices and read charts" huh thats odd did I say that earlier, I think I did, with alot of other things just like this. My point on gadgets being worthless is not that they are worthless but in the end of things no matter what a gadget tells you if ones ears hears something even if it contridicts what a gadget shows is that not worthless?? It was not a disrespect thing at all.
post #71 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Cate View Post

You don't seem to be "listening" to what RD and others are saying. Which is that unless the listening is properly controlled, chiefly by matching the volumes of the two sources and comparing them within a short time, you end up with an "apples and oranges" situation. As has been stated (several times), this is because a very slight increase in volume results in a substantial change in the nature of the sound, and is usually considered an improvement.

You and other "subjectivists" seem to want to turn it into a philosophical, almost religious debate. - "Fancy gadgets that are really worthless", etc., versus us good old "average Joes who trust our ears." But it's not philosophy, it's science. - Some average Joes still believe the world is flat. - But it's not.

I think all of us who are interested in this technology and who love music want to see the SOTA advance. - But it can't advance if we ignore the basic scientific principles involved.

Jim

Oh yeah in an earlier post on here think the last one to these two I even make the point that when I did my tests that the last time I did my tests I raised the volume a tad when letting the player do decoding per what a tech said to me on another post else where, I took what they said to heart about the volume and thus i had no meter to get it perfectly accurate but got it close for my ears and it did make a difference bit stream to the player decoding was alot closer to each other do to this, so you see I did listen to a techy and it made a difference, the reciver seemed a little better still as it seamed still just a hair fuller in sound and it seemed to seperate the sounds around my speakers better.
post #72 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Category 5 View Post

They are related, but not the same. What I am saying is jitter is inevitable without a master clock (and these get EXPENSIVE as any studio owner knows). An AVR must always syncronize to an external sources clock when fed a digital PCM stream because no two clocks can ever be independently syncronized. Inexpensive clocks (like the ones in our players, and even our AVRs) will always have jitter. This means that even though the samples are coming out in a sequential stream the period which should be fixed and constant is slightly variable based on clock error and errors as a result of the transition medium. Jitter can come from the pickup mechanism in the case of raw PCM stored on a disc, and it can and is introduced in the transfer (through the cable). Since the stream is coming through PCM the receiver or DAC must lock to the source clock through a Phase Loop Lock (PLL) which will also introduce the potential for jitter. Since the period of the samples get's skewed as a result the resulting analog waveform will have distortion when the samples are reassembled. Since it occurs at the sample level a loss of high frequency resolution is the most audible result.

Audio that is bitstreamed is basically contained in a wrapper or package (the bitstream itself). PCM audio is not extracted until it reaches the decoder which (if it is located within the AVR) is the first place new jitter can be introduced (jitter introduced during recording is there forever in the audio). Since this is happening in the AVR with bitstream you will eliminate the potential for jitter to be introduced by the source player, the cable or transmission medium, and the external PLL lock. Inevitable there will be jitter introduced within the AVR system, but the logic here is that it will be a couple of orders of magnitude less, and since it is accumulative the effects will be far less.

Jitter is the enemy of a digital audio system and unless you have a high quality external master clock you will always have it to some degree (and even with the master clock to be honest).

As far as the difference between bitstream and PCM on my ONkyo 805, I'd venture to say something else is happening too. Audyssey is still active during LPCM and I did another comparison today. LPCM sound compressed and cruchy by comparison to bitstream. Almost distorted. Bitstream is clearly superior and it isn't a matter of loudness.

Again, if you're wondering I suggest you try it. Too many people agree there is a difference for it to be purely the placebo effect.

Thanks. But, is there an answer to my question in there somewhere - linkage from clock issues to the inferior PCM audio you hear? As a corollary, if clock issues are the cause, why do so few people complain about PCM soundtracks? Most of the complaints are about PCM produced by player decoding.
post #73 of 99
I have an Onkyo 605, Polk audio front and center speakers, RBH surrounds, and an Elemental Designs subwoofer. I have a PS3, a Samsung 1500, and a Panasonic BD35.

On several occasions I have experimented with bitstreaming with the BD35 and Samsung 1500 vs internal decoding and have also tried listening to the exact same movie on my PS3.

Honestly? Based on my experiments bitstreaming tends to be louder. Once I increased the volume on my receiver for the PCM track, I could not distinguish any real audible differences. I have tried the experiment on my wife and she could not really hear any differences either.

My neighbor has an Onkyo 805 and a Panasonic BD35 (I helped him build his dedicated HT) and we spent some time comparing bitstreaming and internal decoding, and neither of us could hear a difference after increasing the volume for PCM.

I will admit, it is cool to have your AVR light up and say "TrueHD" or "DTS Master Audio". But honestly? I have a hard time buying the theory that bitstreaming is "richer and fuller", etc. For me? It is simply louder. But maybe others have "golden ears"....

And I think BIslander nailed it earlier. If receivers had superior decoding vs decoding in the player you would see the CE's marketing and shouting about their advantage from the rooftops. It would be a major marketing and selling point for CE's... The fact that we don't see this being marketed or even talked about by the CE's tells me all I really need to know..
post #74 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post

Thanks. But, is there an answer to my question in there somewhere - linkage from clock issues to the inferior PCM audio you hear? As a corollary, if clock issues are the cause, why do so few people complain about PCM soundtracks? Most of the complaints are about PCM produced by player decoding.

I suppose since there's nothing to compare a PCM track to there's no way of telling that it sounds "worse" for being PCM. Yeah, I thought I put an answer to your question in there. Well, at least a suggestion as to what could be contributing. Jitter causes increased waveform distortion. A PCM signal from an external player will be more susceptible to jitter and therefore the resulting analog reconstruction will contain more distortion, particularly in the higher frequencies.

PCM = More distortion than bitstream, as a result of increased jitter.

Also, I said at the end of my post I still think there is more going on here. I did raise the output on the PS3 two notches (in the ps3 menu) as per someone elses suggestion but the increased loudness does not equate to better fidelity. MPCM still sounds compressed or distorted (blurry?) comparitively.

The jury is not out as far as I'm concerned. Bitstreamed audio sounds better on my setup. I understand many of you will argue this until the end of the earth, or at least until you come up with a machine that prints out a notarized certificate that states one is superior to the other. I have at least offered a suggestion as to why you simply can't say player decoding and AVR decoding are identical. They aren't. Even your "difference in volume thory" suggests that. A volume difference would indicate a difference in processing since the stream gets converted by the same DA stage and then enters the same preamplifier and amplifier stages.

If you're trying to say bitstreamed audio gets further boosted in the analog domain I'll have to say you're really reaching on that one. Well, maybe the AVR makers are behind a bitstream conspiracy, but I don't think so.
post #75 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

I have an Onkyo 605, Polk audio front and center speakers, RBH surrounds, and an Elemental Designs subwoofer. I have a PS3, a Samsung 1500, and a Panasonic BD35.

On several occasions I have experimented with bitstreaming with the BD35 and Samsung 1500 vs internal decoding and have also tried listening to the exact same movie on my PS3.

Honestly? Based on my experiments bitstreaming tends to be louder. Once I increased the volume on my receiver for the PCM track, I could not distinguish any real audible differences. I have tried the experiment on my wife and she could not really hear any differences either.

My neighbor has an Onkyo 805 and a Panasonic BD35 (I helped him build his dedicated HT) and we spent some time comparing bitstreaming and internal decoding, and neither of us could hear a difference after increasing the volume for PCM.

I will admit, it is cool to have your AVR light up and say "TrueHD" or "DTS Master Audio". But honestly? I have a hard time buying the theory that bitstreaming is "richer and fuller", etc. For me? It is simply louder. But maybe others have "golden ears"....

And I think BIslander nailed it earlier. If receivers had superior decoding vs decoding in the player you would see the CE's marketing and shouting about their advantage from the rooftops. It would be a major marketing and selling point for CE's... The fact that we don't see this being marketed or even talked about by the CE's tells me all I really need to know..

You see, now here is a guy who ran his own experiment and tested this theory here. He came to the same conclusion alot of tech guys did just by using his ears. I too have heard that bitstream is louder and would agree with all his statements. I believe him when he says he did not hear much difference between PCM and Bitstream once he adjusted volume level for PCM. He even went to the neighbors with an Onkyo 805 a better reciver than what he has and heard the exact same thing. I have no reason to doubt this at all. I too have an Onkyo 805, I beleive my reciever does a very minor better job than PCM from my player. Could this all be in my head, yes it could, do I like my AVR to say DTS HD MA yes I do...lol. I guess at the end of the day though and let's see what everyone thinks, either way you go they both produce great sound, they are so close to each other if not the same that it really does not matter which way you go, would this be a correct statement???
post #76 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ta23 View Post

You see, now here is a guy who ran his own experiment and tested this theory here. He came to the same conclusion alot of tech guys did just by using his ears. I too have heard that bitstream is louder and would agree with all his statements. I believe him when he says he did not hear much difference between PCM and Bitstream once he adjusted volume level for PCM. He even went to the neighbors with an Onkyo 805 a better reciver than what he has and heard the exact same thing. I have no reason to doubt this at all. I too have an Onkyo 805, I beleive my reciever does a very minor better job than PCM from my player. Could this all be in my head, yes it could, do I like my AVR to say DTS HD MA yes I do...lol. I guess at the end of the day though and let's see what everyone thinks, either way you go they both produce great sound, they are so close to each other if not the same that it really does not matter which way you go, would this be a correct statement???

Sounds reasonable. So, with your Onk 805, do you have full audio control features--i.e., base management, Audyssey, etc.--when using either Bitstream or PCM output to it from the player?
post #77 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Sounds reasonable. So, with your Onk 805, do you have full audio control features--i.e., base management, Audyssey, etc.--when using either Bitstream or PCM output to it from the player?

I know I have the Audyssey Setup feature which I just reran do to moving my speakers around a bit, if that is what you mean, I just let the auto setup do its thing per the manual and I have to say it did a real good job at least from what I can tell. I know when I checked the distances from speaker to the sitting location Audyssey was dead on, that is really amazing. I have tried to read the Audessey set up post but it gets so technical for me it makes it hard to read, I tried to follow as much advise as I could discern from that post. I have JBL Northridge E-80 3 way fronts and an EC-35 3 way center channel. I know Audessey set my fronts to full and my center to full which I question but it does sound good and the center is a big center channel. Is that what you were looking for???
post #78 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ta23 View Post

I know I have the Audyssey Setup feature which I just reran do to moving my speakers around a bit, if that is what you mean, I just let the auto setup do its thing per the manual and I have to say it did a real good job at least from what I can tell. I know when I checked the distances from speaker to the sitting location Audyssey was dead on, that is really amazing. I have tried to read the Audessey set up post but it gets so technical for me it makes it hard to read, I tried to follow as much advise as I could discern from that post. I have JBL Northridge E-80 3 way fronts and an EC-35 3 way center channel. I know Audessey set my fronts to full and my center to full which I question but it does sound good and the center is a big center channel. Is that what you were looking for???

I was just wanting to know if the 805 applied Audyssey correctly if you send Bitstream or PCM to it from the BD player.
post #79 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I was just wanting to know if the 805 applied Audyssey correctly if you send Bitstream or PCM to it from the BD player.

Yes it does. Either way Audyssey is enabled.
post #80 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Category 5 View Post

Yes it does. Either way Audyssey is enabled.

Very good to know... thank you.
post #81 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ta23 View Post

You see, now here is a guy who ran his own experiment and tested this theory here. He came to the same conclusion alot of tech guys did just by using his ears. I too have heard that bitstream is louder and would agree with all his statements. I believe him when he says he did not hear much difference between PCM and Bitstream once he adjusted volume level for PCM. He even went to the neighbors with an Onkyo 805 a better reciver than what he has and heard the exact same thing. I have no reason to doubt this at all. I too have an Onkyo 805, I beleive my reciever does a very minor better job than PCM from my player. Could this all be in my head, yes it could, do I like my AVR to say DTS HD MA yes I do...lol. I guess at the end of the day though and let's see what everyone thinks, either way you go they both produce great sound, they are so close to each other if not the same that it really does not matter which way you go, would this be a correct statement???

Agreed. I think everyone should decide for themselves and do what they think sounds best. But I would never recommend somebody ditch a perfectly good PS3 if they were happy with BD playback just to get a player that bitstreams. Personally, I think it would be a waste of money unless they just wanted a dedicated BD player.
post #82 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

Agreed. I think everyone should decide for themselves and do what they think sounds best. But I would never recommend somebody ditch a perfectly good PS3 if they were happy with BD playback just to get a player that bitstreams. Personally, I think it would be a waste of money unless they just wanted a dedicated BD player.

I would agree with that as well, the PS3 is a great player, I only got my 51FD because I wanted a dedicated player, easier for the rest of the family to use plus I was looking for better PQ on DVD Upconversion which the Pio is much better than the PS3 but the PS3 rocks on everything else. Man I love Call of Duty 4 and World at War.
post #83 of 99
I am currently using a PS3 at my BD player and I am having the same dilemma between using LPCM and Bitstream (I currently have it set to LPCM) but I can't find a conclusive answer anywhere.

My question is if there is not noticeable difference between the two why is it even an option on many players and receivers (including when you are running HDMI)?

Also, if the processing of my PS3 is sub-par compared to higher end BD-players like an OPPO is it better to let the receiver do the decoding?
post #84 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmd68 View Post

My question is if there is not noticeable difference between the two why is it even an option on many players and receivers (including when you are running HDMI)?

Also, if the processing of my PS3 is sub-par compared to higher end BD-players like an OPPO is it better to let the receiver do the decoding?

Why is it an option? Some players can't bitstream all codecs. Some receivers can't post-process MCH LPCM. Most players can't implement lossless audio and secondary audio at the same time, and no player can do so via bitstream. Being able to do both assures compatibility.

The PS3's decoding is the same as every other player and AVR. But there can be differences in what the receiver does with the output of its own decoders vs the output of its HDMI audio circuitry. Since these differences are introduced by the receiver, it's necessary to understand what they are, and what must be done to compensate, before judging if LPCM sounds different, better, or worse than bitstreaming. Much of the time the only difference is in volume, which is not a difference in "quality."
post #85 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

Why is it an option? Some players can't bitstream all codecs. Some receivers can't post-process MCH LPCM. Most players can't implement lossless audio and secondary audio at the same time, and no player can do so via PCM. Being able to do both assures compatibility.

The PS3's decoding is the same as every other player and AVR. But there can be differences in what the receiver does with the output of its own decoders vs the output of its HDMI audio circuitry. Since these differences are introduced by the receiver, it's necessary to understand what they are, and what must be done to compensate, before judging if LPCM sounds different, better, or worse than bitstreaming. Much of the time the only difference is in volume, which is not a difference in "quality."

Is this true? The only way I can get secondary audio and retain lossless is to let the player do the decoding and send it to the AVR as multichannel PCM (via HDMI in my case).

When sending from the player as bitstream and letting the AVR decode via bitstream the secondary audio is lost.

At least this has been my experience. But lossless audio is so confusing with Blu-ray I could be wrong.
post #86 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by nextoo View Post

Is this true?

No, I meant to say exactly the opposite. Brain fart. Thanks for the catch; fixed.
post #87 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

No, I meant to say exactly the opposite. Brain fart. Thanks for the catch; fixed.

Thought so....
post #88 of 99

Bitstream or PCM?

People tend to send bitstream audio data to their receiver so they can see whether it's DTS or Dolby tracks that they are playing. My question is that I've tried sending multi-channel PCM to the same receiver and can't tell the sonic difference whether the conversion is done by the BD player or by the receiver.

At least in theory, if we do the conversion on the player, the CPU/GPU on the receiver will not have to work as hard and have the possibility of producing better sound quality.

Am I right, am I wrong?

Kindly discuss your views here.
post #89 of 99
Are you thinking of what the DSP does to digital audio because DACs which are separate from DSPs now have their own processor to oversample, some to 384kHz or even in the MHz range? I'm intrigued why some high-end pre-amp processors (Meridian and Bryston) only work with 96kHz audio and not higher.
post #90 of 99
My thoughts are actually simpler than that.

Separate the processing burden from the receiver, there will be potential of better AQ and lower audio latency (delay) too. Please note that say 'potential', not definite.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Players
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Players › Bitstream or PCM?