TRUE HD audio is a must have for all bluray owners!

TrueHD is utter garbage. DTS HD-MA is where it's at.

/thread

agreed thats what i do

TrueHD=DTS-MA=*LPCM after decoding all starting with the same Master and DN set to 0 on TrueHD/DTS-MA.

So the OP has it wrong (or incomplete) since TrueHD, DTS-MA and LPCM are all must haves for a BD owner.

*you can argue that LPCM (or player decoded TrueHD/DTS-MA) can introduce clock judder.

You are speaking of the mixing I assume since TrueHD and DTS-MA codecs are mathematically identical. DTS seems to put more effort into their mixes.

If you want to see an example of stunning TrueHD, check out the Japanese Ghost in the Shell 2.0 Blu-ray Disc. Amazing.

I have an HD audio receiver but I "PCM from the PS3".

Also, I don't see how listening to Dolby Digital (presumably at 448 kb/s) is comparable to using built-in TV speakers...

I just upgraded a couple of days ago. The trusty old, pre-HDMI Pioneer 816 bit the dust as the center channel crackled into oblivion.

I ran down to the big box electronics store and picked an HDMI receiver and I've got my PS3 hooked up with an HDMI cable. I'm lovin' it.

Option 1 is true if option 2 is true, so what's the point of option 2?

I think that option 1 is supposed to refer to receivers that decode Dolby TrueHD. (With the player set to bitstream) Option 2 is for people who use a PS3 to decode the Dolby TrueHD audio and send it as PCM to the receiver.

To clear this up yet again...

DTS and Dolby don't have anything to do with putting "effort into their mixes.."

TureHD and DTS-HD MA are codecs, and neither Dolby or DTS mix or produce soundtracks, nor do they encode commercial titles.. they supply technology to the studios and authoring companies that produce content...

In their ability to faithfully reproduce what goes into the encoder, they are identical..

I was wondering when you where going to step in

I love FilmMixer.

He certainly has a better understanding than most

Whatever track that is lossless and more than 16-bit will do.

Not sure why you are specifying more than 16 bit audio. 16 bit audio is as good as it gets for human hearing, it doesn't matter whether you are an audiophile or not.

Yeah, I agree but if a 24-bit soundtrack exists there's no real reason why it shouldn't be on the disc.

...and that's the reason I chose the option "I use my tv speakers and thats good enough".

Not trying to argue here... but perhaps it should be reworded to say
1) Listen to HD Audio via bitstream from player to HDMI receiver
2) Listen to HD Audio decoded in player (PS3, etc) to HDMI receiver

I still think it's a moot point as both require an HDMI audio receiver.... the real difference is in the player's capabilities.

There is no difference that would require two different choices in a poll like this. The HD audio that comes out of the speakers is the same whether it's decoded in the AVR or in the player, unless your AVR applies different post-processing or they are not the same volume (nether of which are a function of the audio encoding).

Singling out the PS3 is especially irrelevant. Many players internally decode all codecs, and this is the best choice for any player that can do it. Bitstreaming is inferior, because it disables Blu-ray's secondary audio feature.

From an overall interactivity standpoint (if the enthusiast is even interested in it, and many here have said they are not)...yes. From a technological and audible result, saying bitstreaming is inferior is rather disingenuous.

When properly implemented, yes. However, with most current players, enabling secondary audio means the player switches to a lossy track for the main feature. So, as a practical matter, bitstream is currently superior much of the time for people who want lossless audio. Of course, if secondary audio is not engaged, there's no difference between bitstream and player decoding.

What is "HD Audio"? What is "reg 5.1"? I haven't heard of these codecs.

Should have been a multiple option poll. How do those with two or three (or more) systems even vote?

Exactly.
I believe the OP was referring to lossless in general.

Just because many players are poorly designed doesn't void the principle. And I'd emphasize that when you say "most current players" you mean "most current models," because most current players are still PS3s, which implement secondary audio correctly and transparently to the user, the way it should be.

Even then, the contention that bitstreaming is superior because most people don't understand how their players work is, as someone upthread accused me of being, somewhat disingenuous.

I have an older Kenwood 5.1 AV Receiver and I placed my vote in the '5.1 is good enough' column. Now, My brother some time ago got a new Onkyo receiver, and went entry level because it was the second one he'd gotten in a year. He gave away his Sony receiver that was a true piece of garbage. Now, the new Onkyo has HDMI video switching but no audio switching. Unfortunately, he got it as a new model and didn't have reviews to go by and didn't know this until just recently. Short of buying a third one, he's pretty much stuck with it. He just has to run Optical to the receiver and switch the video. It just defeats the purpose of having 3 hdmi in's on the receiver. Now who would make such a thing? I know I will NOT buy anything from Onkyo for that reason alone. There's one brand off the shopping list for me. If they do something that stupid, what else is there on the other models.

I had looked at receivers and new speakers, but just can't justify doing it when you just don't know what land mines the manufacturers will leave for you. I don't see anything rated with 5 stars anywhere. No matter what you get, someone is highly disappointed with some missing feature. Then too, the cost of receivers has gone up considerably in the last few months. Wow, I can't believe how some have risen.

I will admit this. With a good movie audio track, his 7.1 setup sounds quite noticeably better than my 5.1, and he didn't replace the speakers. So for those thinking that a new 7.1 receiver won't sound different or better, that's not the case. I'd also say that on the 7.1 setup, getting a center channel level that's acceptable is much easier and more natural sounding. On a 5.1 system, center channel can be hard to get where you're happy with it, and changes from movie to movie too much. jmho.

What does bit depth have to do with human auditory perception limits?

Too often people confuse dynamic range with loudness or level... 24 bit recordings get no louder than 16 bit ones.. most digital audio systems still have 20db of headroom per channel from their reference 0db calibration point.

Raising or lowering the bit depth doesn't change that, even with the dramatic increase in dynamic range. Remember from Audio 101 that dynamic range is the measured difference in db between the loudest and quietest sound a given system can reproduce.. it doesn't have anything to do with raising the max amplitude that a digital word can represent...

The decrease in the noise floor, and the resulting resolution increase obtained when doing so, should be audible to most serious anyone serious about audio, "audiophile or not."

It would have been, had that "someone upthread" actually claimed bitstreaming was superior. Which they clearly didn't.

It's just one more test I'd like to see performed. People saying the receiver should do the decoding vs people saying the player should be doing the decoding (although this is the first time I've ever heard someone saying bitstreaming was actually inferior....usually it's the people who've spent all their money on a new receiver using entertaining hyperbole trying to justify their purchase, claiming bitstreaming is "night and day" better than player decoding). Have the same few minutes of audio from the same title, sent to the same receiver...complete with volume leveling...one sent to the receiver from a player that did the decoding, and one from a player that sent it out bitstream.

Hyperbole and placebo, two great tastes, that taste great together.

Two sources sound exactly the same, but one is full featured and one has an important feature disabled.

Which one's inferior?

No worries, I understand both positions.

For the longest time, and in many heated threads, PCM judder was exhaustively debated as though it were some massive ding against player decoding...not to mention all the "but mah purdy new-fangled HDMI receiver-thingy's TrueHD lights ain't lightin' up, dang nab it!" posts.

You've been one of the few to argue in the other direction, although many people have acknowledged that they're really theoretically and audibly the same when all is said and done. But I see your point as far as interactivity goes, and in that instance, it could be viewed as functionally inferior.

I guess I just got so accustomed to the "I don't want extras, just give me the damn movie" argument. (probably because for so long, and in many cases STILL, BD couldn't provide the interactivity that HD DVD could from day 1 )

Player decoding...?
Receiver decoding...?
Noodles...?
Don't noodles...?

I say.....whatever floats-your-HD-audio-boat.