One-and-Only PS3 as Blu-Ray Player Thread - Page 564

IMO what we need or should I say I now want as a PS3 owner is only PCM tracks on BD's. Enough with the bitstream/codec issue when 17 of my 20 BD's are PCM and sound every bit as good as DTS MA.

WHY pay this company even if it is pennies per film or what ever the cost? We don't have to we have pcm.

Why fart around with decoding in the AVR? Same again as above, we don't have to.

Why have the logos on discs and players etc.? We don't have to.

IMO I say eliminate the middle man and go with PCM

Two main reasons in my mind:
A. Saving space: Although many people don't care for stuff like PiP director's commentary, special features, behind the scenes, etc. using these compression techniques allows for the exact same quality of sound while using less space for the above mentioned features. This is the most practical out of all the reasons.
B. Marketing: Companies of CE like Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, Sony, etc. can sell you receivers with these HD audio format decoders which can be large marketing points. Also the manufacturers of players can market the ability to bitstream/decode these HD audio formats. This also allows them to constantly upgrade their receivers and have different entry points for receivers ie. HDMI receivers from the same production line, some that can decode the HD audio format when bitstreamed from a compatible player VS. just accept PCM via HDMI.

EDIT: To a lesser extent
C. To most people if you tell 'em that this disc has uncompressed PCM sound identical to the studio master they might think "Meh..." Whereas if you tell 'em that this disc has sound identical to the studio master stored as dts-HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD, they'll think "Oh wow, this disc's audio must be crazy good then..." IMO, you don't have to look any further

TrueHD and DTS HD MA are, as you say, every bit as good as PCM, but they take up a lot less space on the disc. I seem to recall they take up about one third the space of a PCM track. (As always, someone correct me if I'm wrong.) That extra space can be used for higher bitrates for the movie itself or for more extras. Probably will be more of the latter than the former, but that's what compression of the audio track allows and that's why it's here to stay.

The space on a BD is not an issue with my 17 PCM BD's.

I understand the marketing gimmick, but that doesn't justify the unneccesary except from a business perspective. We can discuss the business and marketing all day, but this forum and what we are really here to discuss is AV science/tech.

All the justifications aren't going to change the fact that PCM IMO is what we should be striving for and eliminate the middle man codecs.

U thought I remember seeing some threads on here by the "experts" that said the extra bitrates once above a certain amount with a properly transfered codec are immaterial.?

I agree with you about eliminating the middle man.

It would make it ALOT easier to jump into Blu-ray and we could all indulge in pristine video and audio without worrying which players can decode which audio codec, or which receivers are compatible with which player to get the audio you want.
But the truth of the matter is, when you ARE able to compress audio to what chris0 said as being about 1/3 the disc space, why not??? If a studio decided not to include so many extras they might even be able to fit it a high quality encode complete with lossless audio on a BD-25.

Or with TV series, they can fit a series on say 5 discs or even 4 instead of 6, which could drive down manufacturing costs (per disc set) and thus retail costs. All in all, once the format has truly matured, and players (along with HDMI receivers) have reached a reasonable price point and there is almost no difference between players in terms of audio and video quality, this issue will be out of our minds completely.

I don't see any reason not to. Compatibility is all LPCM has, and now even DTS MA decoding is rolling out.

I understand and agree. We really do want to maximize space as it makes sense. Maybe they can come up with a better transfer compression method for BD video that requires more space and higher bitrates and makes for an even better picture. I did ask the insiders a while back and they said it was BS that if the transfer was done properly it wouldn't matter. Somehow in my green, naive susceptible to marketing mind I don't buy it and think it can get better. I agree size and space matters.

I don't completely understand that sentence. But I think you're talking about reaching a point of diminishing returns as far as the encoding of the movie goes. I'm sure there is such a point with every movie, but there may be cases where the optimal bitrate of a movie can't be achieved if an uncompressed PCM track is used because it takes up too much space. In such a case using a compressed audio track would allow for more room on the disc to try to reach that optimal bitrate. Or allow more space for director commentaries or PIP or that new fangled BD-Live functionality.

Yes Chris sorry for my crappy wording you understood anyway. I thought some insiders said bitrates of 18and above are good enough.

Some insiders coincidentally on one side of the format war said 18 Mbps was good enough for transparency, another insider on the other side of the format war said above 25 Mbps was approaching the level of diminishing returns.

Brandon

Yeah, what do they know. j/k they just work at this for a living all day long where as we, wait, we know nothing more than they tell us. If they come out with enough DTS MA BDs we might actually get to spend some time away from discussing DTS. Imagine that. IN the mean time, I will be watching yet another standard DVD tonight.

I have Queen Live Montreal/Live Aid Bluray disc. encoded at the DTS HD 96/24

Yep! Oh the magic of marketing. Although, even this time the purist would be happy.



Although, I'm seeing that more people are understanding that "UNCOMPRESSED = GOOD STUFF" or at least equal to the pure master. But you are right. PCM (PULSE CODE MODULATION) just gets blank stares from the average joe. But the term "Dolby" or to a lesser extern "DTS" gets "Ooohs and ahhs" from the crowd.

There's an "former" insider who decided today to post his findings in an audio thread here that there's a chance that bitstreaming is better than in player decoding. It may be innocent, but I found the timing a bit odd.

Earlier today I saw someone post in the FW 2.3 thread that he finally gets to "enjoy the #1 codec in the world" or something like that. That thread's moving too fast and too few people are reading before they post to try and explain that Uncompressed PCM=TrueHD=DTS HD MA.

We all need to start wearing shirts with PCM on them.

and the best part is we aren't really doing free advertising for some corp., but rather a technology.

I do get kind of wired and scattered when there is a topic or new tech we discuss as threads move fast.

Didn't you know that DTS-HD MA *adds* magic fairy dust to the PCM master?

Thanks. I'll get it.

Brandon

IMO, it all depends on your equipment and how it deals with the digital data streams.

Agreed. That thread is getting overrun with so many "Dude, the difference is like night and day..." or "it's like hearing a totally different movie...!!!" comments it's becoming unbearable. Especially when the comments are about an DTS-HD MA soundtrack whose variable bit rates are between 2.5 to 3.5 Mbps comparted to the "crappy" 1.5 fixed bit rate core. A lot of guys simply watching the bit rate meter fluctuating up and down as well, as if that's really any indication of the quality of the soundtrack. Oh well, it's entertaining to read through at least.

I agree. Also, timing errors from PCM transmission over HDMI should be the least of anyone's worries in terms of achieving great audio fidelity. For instance, anyone who worries about a small increase in jitter, yet listens to audio in a room with poor acoustics, needs to take their priorities elsewhere. It's weird how some people have issues with PCM transmission over HDMI with HDM, but PCM transmission over HDMI for DVD-Audio is perfectly fine for them.

Bottom line is to just enjoy the lossless audio in any way you can get it, and expect your gear and room to be the true limiting factor in audio reproduction.

I have the 60g PS3 with an Integrea DTR-8.8 and I find myself lost on the proper settings. I have my PS3 hooked up to my 8.8 with an HDMI 1.3 cable.
So is there a list of codec's that tell you whether to have the PS3 on "PCM or Bitstream"?

In Saw IV (7.1), the bit rate went up to 8.3 Mbps with others reporting higher values on other 7.1 tracks.

So are the higher bitrate levels of DTS MA the new penis envy equivalent of the vette?

http://manuals.playstation.net/docum...ings.html#1470

I have a Denon Avr -5805 receiver (first version, not MKII), so this receiver will accept 5.1 LPCM input via HDMI, but I have the receiver outputting it as 9.1 to my speakers.

I am using a PS3 as a Blu-Ray player and it is outputting as DTS-MA as 5.1 and TRUE HD as 5.1 (according to PS3 on screen display) as well.

So here is the questions

Why bother wasting the money on a new receiver or spending $1000 for the AVR-5805 upgrade? (upgrade allows receiver to accept 7.1 LPCM), if my receiver is taking the 5.1 and changing it to 9.1 anyways?

As it is right now the setup I have sounds awsome, will changing my receiver to a 7.1 input and continuing to output it to 9.1 make that big of a difference?