Ture HD and DTS-HD MA

[CU]

My blu-ray player (BDX2500) can decode HD sound. Does it make a difference if I set it to Bitstream HD and let a newer receiver decode it, set it to PCM 7.1 over hdmi and let the player decode it, or use the 7.1 analog outs and let the player decode it while using a an older receiver? I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that they will all sound the same since either the player or receiver will decode it. I am trying to figure out if I should by a new lower-end receiver for 'x' dollars that can decode the HD sound or search craigslist for an older higher-end receiver for the same amount of money that can either play PCM 7.1 over hdmi or has 7.1 analog inputs.

Recommendations for new low ends and older mid-high ends that will do this are welcomed.

 

[poofyhairguy]

As far as Bitstreaming of HD codecs goes, I think that is the lamest and most overrated checkbox in Home Theaterland right now. Since we are talking about lossless audio one way or the other, why does it matter where the sound is decoded? It doesn't.

The only point of HD audio bitstreaming is that it provides a protected path for HD audio so that the media overlords can sleep better at night. I personally really hate DRM, so I HATE HD Audio Codecs and bitstreaming. Seriously all DTS HD and Dolby True HD is FLAC/WAV that is blessed by the same jerks that have gone out of their way to make ripping Blu Rays hard. I laugh at their damn bitstreaming protected path, just as I laugh at HDCP.

Personally, I just decode all HD audio right when I rip a Blu Ray to my computer. This saves me tons of space (as multi-channel FLAC is king of lossless codecs), and allows me to use the superior mkv container over the m2ts junk.

The only point in killing yourself to get bitstreaming HD audio is if you have a $2000 AV receiver that does some sort of crazy post processing to those codecs. Most receivers don't- they treat 8 channel PCM the same as DTS HD and Dolby True HD. In fact a lot of older Blu Rays only had LCPM audio, it is only recently with media companies going overboard with DRM do things like the super proprietary DTS HD show up on every new disk.

I HATE DRM, and I hate wasting storage space that I don't have to, so I really dislike the notion that bitstreaming HD audio is some sort "superior" setup for Blu Ray playback. I promise I get the same audio experience that the person killing themselves to bitstream HD audio gets with my multichannel FLAC passed via PCM to the receiver. HD Audio bitstreaming is more about getting the warm and fuzzys in the stomach about seeing the DTS HD light on the receiver light up over some difference your ears can actually hear....

So just use the Blu Ray player's decoder and find a good AV that can take 8 channel PCM.

 

[JAG87]

As far as Bitstreaming of HD codecs goes, I think that is the lamest and most overrated checkbox in Home Theaterland right now.

I am going to have to agree with that, but not with much else he said.

I agree because the difference between lossless audio and good lossy audio like a 1.5 Mbit DTS track is negligible, at least in my opinion. You need to have very, and I mean very high end equipment to notice the difference. We're talking like a 5K receiver/amp and speakers that go for 10K the pair.

The reason why I don't agree with the rest of what he said, is because he is pointing to all the bad things about TrueHD and MA, while forgetting the main reason why they were implemented. They we're engineered with one thing in mind primarily, providing lossless to the new user while providing lossy backward compatible tracks to the old user. poofyhairguy, you can't stream multi channel PCM over toslink, don't forget that!

Onto the OP's question. There is no difference whether you decode in the receiver, or you decode in the player and send a digital PCM signal over HDMI. But there is HUGE difference with your third option of using analog connectors. In that case, you are using performing DAC on the player, and almost certainly the DACs in your player are far more poor than the ones in your receiver. On top of that, the analog signal traveling from player to receiver is susceptible to all kinds of interference.

So that's definitely a no-no.

 

[CU]

Thanks, poofyhairguy

P.S. So how do you feel about DRM and bitstreaming again?

 

[alcoholbob]

I guess the difference between 8 channel analog outs and sending it to your receiver would entirely depend on the quality of the line-level output on the blu ray player.

If you have a nice blu ray player like the Oppo BDP-83, I would use that as I understand it uses a very high end DAC (ESS Sabre Reference 32) which is better than any receiver DAC and is only used on very high end (several $k) pre-pros.

If you have some no name entry-level blu ray player I would just use hdmi.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The reason why I don't agree with the rest of what he said, is because he is pointing to all the bad things about TrueHD and MA, while forgetting the main reason why they were implemented. They we're engineered with one thing in mind primarily, providing lossless to the new user while providing lossy backward compatible tracks to the old user. poofyhairguy, you can't stream multi channel PCM over toslink, don't forget that!

Fallback was taken care of on older Blu Ray disks with LPCM and an AC3 track as backup for negligible extra space.

With that said I do want to make a distinction between the two. I much prefer Dolby True HD over DTS HD. True HD has open source decoders, and is more open about the standard. I can appreciate the True HD standard, but its dying out to the more locked down DTS HD.

Honestly Steve was right that the entire Blu Ray standard is a "bag of hurt" and it seems the best option is to have a nice enough Blu Ray player that you have options in the future.

 

[darkswordsman17]

As far as Bitstreaming of HD codecs goes, I think that is the lamest and most overrated checkbox in Home Theaterland right now. Since we are talking about lossless audio one way or the other, why does it matter where the sound is decoded? It doesn't.

The only point of HD audio bitstreaming is that it provides a protected path for HD audio so that the media overlords can sleep better at night. I personally really hate DRM, so I HATE HD Audio Codecs and bitstreaming. Seriously all DTS HD and Dolby True HD is FLAC/WAV that is blessed by the same jerks that have gone out of their way to make ripping Blu Rays hard. I laugh at their damn bitstreaming protected path, just as I laugh at HDCP.

Personally, I just decode all HD audio right when I rip a Blu Ray to my computer. This saves me tons of space (as multi-channel FLAC is king of lossless codecs), and allows me to use the superior mkv container over the m2ts junk.

The only point in killing yourself to get bitstreaming HD audio is if you have a $2000 AV receiver that does some sort of crazy post processing to those codecs. Most receivers don't- they treat 8 channel PCM the same as DTS HD and Dolby True HD. In fact a lot of older Blu Rays only had LCPM audio, it is only recently with media companies going overboard with DRM do things like the super proprietary DTS HD show up on every new disk.

I HATE DRM, and I hate wasting storage space that I don't have to, so I really dislike the notion that bitstreaming HD audio is some sort "superior" setup for Blu Ray playback. I promise I get the same audio experience that the person killing themselves to bitstream HD audio gets with my multichannel FLAC passed via PCM to the receiver. HD Audio bitstreaming is more about getting the warm and fuzzys in the stomach about seeing the DTS HD light on the receiver light up over some difference your ears can actually hear....

So just use the Blu Ray player's decoder and find a good AV that can take 8 channel PCM.

You forgot that they're pushing lossless audio as the audio industry is basically making it not matter by the horrible compression and other aspects of modern audio mixing. Movies haven't been hit as hard, but they're definitely moving in that direction. The saddest part is, its actually being done partly due to consumer criticism (dynamic range too much to handle, as they have to crank it for soft conversation and then any loud noise, or just the boosted music and they have to constantly adjust the volume), but instead of just letting people manage it with their own equipment (most receivers and even plenty of players have dynamic range handling in the form of night settings), its starting to be handled in the mixing of the audio tracks so that we don't have the option or control of it.

I guess the difference between 8 channel analog outs and sending it to your receiver would entirely depend on the quality of the line-level output on the blu ray player.

If you have a nice blu ray player like the Oppo BDP-83, I would use that as I understand it uses a very high end DAC (ESS Sabre Reference 32) which is better than any receiver DAC and is only used on very high end (several $k) pre-pros.

If you have some no name entry-level blu ray player I would just use hdmi.

Yeah, it will depend on the equipment specifically. Chances are though, you'll want your Blu-Ray player to pass it digitally and not analog. Few players have good analog out (and likewise, I'd say receivers analog in isn't always great either, as its lost out to digital handling). There are some that are good though (like the Oppo, and I'm sure there's other good ones as well).

 

[alcoholbob]

Yeah, it will depend on the equipment specifically. Chances are though, you'll want your Blu-Ray player to pass it digitally and not analog. Few players have good analog out (and likewise, I'd say receivers analog in isn't always great either, as its lost out to digital handling). There are some that are good though (like the Oppo, and I'm sure there's other good ones as well).

As long as the receiver has multichannel inputs you will avoid any processing as it is wired straight to the pre-amp.

 

[JAG87]

Fallback was taken care of on older Blu Ray disks with LPCM and an AC3 track as backup for negligible extra space.

With that said I do want to make a distinction between the two. I much prefer Dolby True HD over DTS HD. True HD has open source decoders, and is more open about the standard. I can appreciate the True HD standard, but its dying out to the more locked down DTS HD.

Honestly Steve was right that the entire Blu Ray standard is a "bag of hurt" and it seems the best option is to have a nice enough Blu Ray player that you have options in the future.

LPCM is possibly the lamest thing they have done with home audio, and that's why it's hardly used. While it is true that the AC3 backup is negligible in space, the LPCM track is not. It is huge, it affects space on the disk so much that it is less likely to include more language tracks, which is something that is appealing to many people, and even if we don't want more languages the space would be much more wisely spent on video bitrate. Since there is no difference in quality with TrueHD, MA, and FLAC, it's lame.

I'd also comment on your preference for TrueHD, which I think is again in the wrong direction. DTSMA is a much better format, because it begins with a better baseline lossy track of 1.5M and then adds a small residual (the difference between the lossy and the lossless signals). This means that most of the total bitrate is spent on the lossy track, where it should be.

With TrueHD, you start with a baseline of 640K and then build the residual. Most of the bitrate is spent on that. If you do not have support for the new formats, DTSMA provides better audio quality.

I agree with you about the open source decoder issue, but DTSMA is the better format

 

[CU]

Would you rather have DTS over spdif decoded on a receiver or TrueHD/DTSMA over analog from a player?

 

[JAG87]

Would you rather have DTS over spdif decoded on a receiver or TrueHD/DTSMA over analog from a player?

In my opinion, 1.5M DTS over SPDIF decoded by receiver hands down.

If you are using analog out from your player, you better be using ultra shielded premium cables and make absolutely sure that those cables are laid in an EMI free area, otherwise your entering a world of hurt. Have you ever heard power line hum? It happens to subwoofers because they are active (they amp their own signal), so the subwoofer out from the receiver is a coaxial cable that carries a pre-signal. The subwoofer amplifies that signal along with all the noise picked up in the coax cable. You can hear it when your subwoofer is on and nothing is playing. The longer the cable the worse the hum is. It doesn't happen to speakers, because the signal in speaker wire is already amplified, so any noise picked up is and remains low in amplitude and is easily covered up by the main signal, and also because speakers in general are less sensitive to 60Hz power line EMI. But imagine all the other high and low frequencies entering your pre-cables between your player and your receiver and then amping all that noise. Eww.

 

[moonboy403]

In my opinion, 1.5M DTS over SPDIF decoded by receiver hands down.

If you are using analog out from your player, you better be using ultra shielded premium cables and make absolutely sure that those cables are laid in an EMI free area, otherwise your entering a world of hurt.

I disagree. The hum and interference issues are overblown IMO. I'm using analog out and I'm not hearing any hum or interference. I'm not even using any expensive interconnects ($3 interconnects from Monoprice for my subwoofer and Bluejeans RCAs for my mains.)

On the other hand, if there is indeed interference affecting your analog signals, you would need to use an optical cable as coaxial would still be affected by these interference.

 

[JAG87]

I disagree. The hum and interference issues are overblown IMO. I'm using analog out and I'm not hearing any hum or interference. I'm not even using any expensive interconnects ($3 interconnects from Monoprice for my subwoofer and Bluejeans RCAs for my mains.)

On the other hand, if there is indeed interference affecting your analog signals, you would need to use an optical cable as coaxial would still be affected by these interference.

It all depends, there aren't two places on earth where you have the exact same EMI. There is a lot of wireless crap floating around where I live, so that is my view on it.

 

[moonboy403]

Also JAG87, perhaps I misunderstood one of your post, but why do you prefer DTS-MA over TrueHD given that both are lossless codecs which means both are the same after they're decoded (same as studio masters)?

The only reason I would think one would prefer DTS-MA over TrueHD is because of the fact that the underlying core of the DTS-MA is DTS which I agree is better than Dolby Digital, the core of TrueHD.

 

[JAG87]

Also JAG87, perhaps I misunderstood one of your post, but why do you prefer DTS-MA over TrueHD given that both are lossless codecs which means both are the same after they're decoded (same as studio masters)?

The only reason I would think one would prefer DTS-MA over TrueHD is because of the fact that the underlying core of the DTS-MA is DTS which I agree is better than Dolby Digital, the core of TrueHD.

lol. I don't think you misunderstood at all.

 

[moonboy403]

lol. I don't think you misunderstood at all.

I see. I was under the impression that you preferred DTS-MA because it's of better quality than TrueHD in their lossless format. Glad I got that cleared up.