Playstation 3 Signal-to-Noise Ratio?

[Madmick]

Does anyone know this spec? I couldn't find it via Googling. My older brother desires an HTPC. I was going to build one for him, but then I realized that the cheapest PC will reliable components I could build that would possess all the capabilities of a PS3 would cost twice as much. Nevertheless, the only spec for which he really desires high-end performance is the sound chipset. He has a very high-end audio 7.1 setup. I was hoping someone could point me to more concrete specifications for sound performance.

Thanks.

 

[darkswordsman17]

While I'd personally still recommend a PC over a PS3, especially if the focus is on media, although Blu-Ray on PC is a hassle so I could understand foregoing that.

But as to your question, it basically doesn't matter as you'd be doing digital out of the PS3 over HDMI so it'd just pass it to the, I assume receiver. I believe the PS3 can only do 2 channel (stereo) output over analog and I doubt the quality is anything special.

 

[alcoholbob]

PS3 is good for blu ray playback but its streaming capabilities leave something to be desired compared to PC, and as far as media files its compatible with, its basically just standard avi or mpeg2.

With a PC you can just go codec hunting but with a fixed system, even say a high end Oppo, its still going to be constrained compared to a PC in what it can play.

 

[Madmick]

While I'd personally still recommend a PC over a PS3, especially if the focus is on media, although Blu-Ray on PC is a hassle so I could understand foregoing that.

But as to your question, it basically doesn't matter as you'd be doing digital out of the PS3 over HDMI so it'd just pass it to the, I assume receiver. I believe the PS3 can only do 2 channel (stereo) output over analog and I doubt the quality is anything special.

The problem is that his setup is high end, but it's very aged. I texted him and he said that he sold off his old receivers. He still has a Separate Pre-Amp and Amp, but they're so old they don't support HDMI. Thus, I was hoping he could lean on the PS3, so I need to know those audio specifications.

It still does digital audio out over optical, though, correct?

 

[destrekor]

The problem is that his setup is high end, but it's very aged. I texted him and he said that he sold off his old receivers. He still has a Separate Pre-Amp and Amp, but they're so old they don't support HDMI. Thus, I was hoping he could lean on the PS3, so I need to know those audio specifications.

It still does digital audio out over optical, though, correct?

Yes, the PS3 has optical out capability.

Problem, however, is that over optical, you won't be able to do the advanced audio codecs, iirc.
I always mix up the details since I rarely dig up the relevant information anymore, but I also know the PS3 has limited compatibility with the advanced audio codecs (lossless, like DD TrueHD and DTS-MA), and can only decode internal and pass on uncompressed PCM, as opposed to bitstream output of the codecs for the receiver to decode.
Off the top of my head, I cannot recall if Optical can handle the amount of data present in a 6 channel uncompressed PCM output. Also not sure if optical can even handle the advanced codecs, assuming a receiver can.

Now that I recall, I'm pretty sure the PS3 has zero problems internally decoding and passing on (as uncompressed multichannel PCM) Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA. The only problem with the receiver only getting PCM though, is you typically lose advanced capabilities on the receiver. No choosing of various Dolby processing styles, might lose any internal EQ abilities, including night-time range compression and similar "sensitive" volume management parameters. You may retain all of those, I cannot recall, never really messed with them much. I may have learned you couldn't, as I was forced to make the PS3 decode on my last receiver.


If the receiver is so old that digital connections are minimum, I hate to say it, it's sort of time to upgrade if wishing to partake in the latest audio and video quality revolutions. Being able to handle multiple HDMI connections, decode every single possible audio codec (and TrueHD and DTS-MA are basically the only thing on Blu-ray these days - though you always have access to the standard "lossy core" of basic Dolby Digital or DTS), as well as handle every frequency and framerate combination for HD formats.

Then again, I'll admit, I refuse to be left behind and absolutely demand the latest and greatest features, to a reasonable extent.
I mostly upgraded my receiver to be able to handle 3D, but it also had the benefit of adding four 4 HDMI inputs to the 2 to which I was previously limited (though one of the six is slightly useless, being located in the front). And of course, it's fully compatible with everything in the HDMI v1.4 spec and all the audio and video formats in use today.


Unless one wants to invest in a way that plans for upgrading to 4K, buying now offers a good chance to have a capable receiver for probably another decade - especially if there is an acceptance of paying a little more now, since there is available 4K support. Might need to wait a little while for an AVR upgrade, however, if one really wants to be totally ready for 4K-3D and everything else.

Can HDMI v1.4 handle 4K 3D? I doubt there is much in the way of 4K-3D content, and not even sure of the 3D capability of the current 4K sets. I have a feeling 4K 3D isn't standardized yet. Heck, can't really even say 4K is standardized yet. :\ There seems to be a few resolutions that fall under the 4K banner, though maybe I haven't been paying enough attention in the past year to 4K. I've seen a few absurdly priced sets, but I know I'm not ready for one. I can't afford the size that would allow, based on where I sit, to actually discern the difference in detail between HD and UltraHD. And then there's the total lack of content today. I'll wait for maturity of the UltraHD market and content market before I even think of jumping.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Optical cannot reproduce lossless audio. When playing back Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, the PS3 will play back the Dolby Digital or standard DTS streams encoded within the lossless stream unless you are running HDMI to a receiver. The PS3 can bitstream Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA over HDMI but only the slim models. The old fat one cannot. Also note that when playing 3D back from the PS3 you cannot get TrueHD, but you can get the DTS-HD MA.

The audio quality between bitstreaming and allowing the receiver to decompress it and letting the PS3 decode it is the same. The audio is unmolested in both instances unless you allow your receiver to use any THX cinema or other DSP modes when decoding the audio to add extra effects. That said, the actual information sent over the HDMI cables is the same both ways. One is decompressed and sent over and the other is sent over and decompressed later.

 

[destrekor]

Optical cannot reproduce lossless audio. When playing back Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, the PS3 will play back the Dolby Digital or standard DTS streams encoded within the lossless stream unless you are running HDMI to a receiver. The PS3 can bitstream Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA over HDMI but only the slim models. The old fat one cannot. Also note that when playing 3D back from the PS3 you cannot get TrueHD, but you can get the DTS-HD MA.

The audio quality between bitstreaming and allowing the receiver to decompress it and letting the PS3 decode it is the same. The audio is unmolested in both instances unless you allow your receiver to use any THX cinema or other DSP modes when decoding the audio to add extra effects. That said, the actual information sent over the HDMI cables is the same both ways. One is decompressed and sent over and the other is sent over and decompressed later.

Well yes, it is the same audio on the front of it. My point was more in line with what you said about the inability to add what one might refer to as "post-processing". Not generally a deal-breaker, but some such audio features may be useful or needed for certain users, based on specific content or living situations.

I forgot about the Slim models getting that ability.

Were any of the Slim models able to do 3D and TrueHD? I only have real experience with the original launch 60gb fatty... which is still kickin just fine - she's been giving a slightly new lease on life, here toward the end of the generation, now that I do have a separate Blu-ray player. Also used Netflix a little, but have since come to the conclusion that the Roku 3 is worlds better for streaming, due to far more options AND power consumption is like licking condensation compared to the PS3's keg stand power chugging ability. Major win on that front. Kind of funny - at this point, almost my entire media setup is "smart" - including a full-blown HTPC with recording duties. I actually would use it for streaming, but so far Windows 8 still hasn't got many good streaming apps. Hopefully Microsoft encourages cross-pollination here, as app development for the Xbox One is supposedly almost exactly the same as developing for the WinRT/Metro world (which itself is cross-platform).
Microsoft dropped the ball on that one - I realize core OS differences, necessary to make full use of hardware on a console with minimal overhead, probably prevented some things... but that could have a HUGE win for Microsoft to allow apps developed on Xbox One to be immediately compatible and available on the Windows Store. Probably a smart idea to not create true 100% compatibility of all platforms - some apps developed for Windows RT and Windows 8 won't really do well at all in the Xbox One user experience category.

So many streaming apps I want from the Xbox One, that's all I really care about here. Microsoft's success for the Windows 8 family/shared ecosystem approach would definitely benefit me in so many ways.

So many ways my desktop, htpc, and Surface Pro could work together.
The biggest thing is, they think of the business world first, and really don't put a big focus on how to not only win the consumer dollar, but actually PLEASE the consumer so that they simply WANT to stay in your ecosystem. Microsoft never had to worry about this "ecosystem" of platforms, and got cocky - they seem to be addressing this failure, ever so slowly, I just hope it doesn't take too long.


Woooo, I digress, my apologies.