Originally Posted by John Haghighi
Think you misunderstood, for me, the Pioneer Elite receivers apply THX post processing, speaker eq, and room correction on LPCM just fine, so I don't mind not getting all the benefits of TrueHD 5.1 dialog normalization or dynamic range control. I don't see why you think receivers won't be supporting this in the future, this is a highly desired feature, just take a look at this Amp/Receiver forum thread
. TrueHD is pointless anyhow on the 360 today as we can't transport the decoded TrueHD (any plans on changing that!?).
I think you're conflating the issue of codec and transport (which is pretty common - HD DVD and BD have a very different high-end audio mode than DVD).
The output of a player is going to be identical between a PCM and a TrueHD track - they both get decoded to the exact same bits in the player, and (ideally) transported out via PCM, or if if there isn't HDMI, through what the player does support.
BD has the space for uncompressed PCM, so why should they encode with TrueHD or DTS MA, regardless if it is bit for bit the same (I get that, been listening to MLP audio for years)? What other reasons are there besides space?
BD uses PCM because it doesn't have a mandatory lossless audio codec, not because there's an actual difference in audio output between lossless and PCM. Lots of BD titles have had compromised video quality due to space constraints.
There is an audible difference with the same DD track@640kpbs and uncompressed PCM at 4+ Mbps. Even a non enthusiast can tell the difference at the same SPL levels.
Well, yes, but there's a wide range of options on HD DVD between DD @ 640 and PCM. You have TrueHD, of course. And DD+ @ 1.5 Mbps is extremely high quality, supporting >16-bit for example. There are certainly scenarios where DD+ will provide a more accurate version of a high-bit master than PCM @ 16-bit would.
In general I think audio was poorly planned for the new formats with the CE manufacturers. Having to mix software menu audio (and whatever else BD-J or iHD features) in the player creates this limitation of having to decode in the player.
It's a paradigm shift, not a limitation
. We decode audio in the player for the same reason we decode video in the player - no-latency compositing. It's the simplest, offers the most flexibility, and the most predictible quality.
This was not the industry standard for DVD except early on. I see a similar trend with the new HD formats, but what you are suggesting, and what has been reported thus far is that if you want all audio options, decoding in the player will continue to be the case as these format matures. I don't like having that limitation forced on me.
Can you proivde some more clarity on what limitations you're getting on that?
And can you contrast that to the limitations having the video decoded in the player doesn't cause?
But it seems the industry believes most people actually watch all the extras today, and will buy the same titles with interactive features tomorrow that requiring mixing in the player.
I agree, I would not want a receiver decompressing video but I wouldn't put video in the same category as audio, as most receivers are built primarily for audio decoding and video switching. Furthermore, if my receivers components where better than the players, wouldn't you want to decompress in the receiver?
decompression is decompression - there's really only one correct way to do it. Now, audio processing (like room correction) - that's the domain of the receiver, and that's where it ought remain. But there's no problem applying it to the muxed audio output from the player.