For years we've sent digital audio in the form of a compressed bitstream from our disc player to our audio/video receiver for decoding. So whether we used a Toslink cable or coaxial digital cable, the Dolby Digital or DTS signal wasn't decoded by our player. But today -- thanks to HDMI -- we have the bandwidth to send uncompressed multi-channel audio from the player to the amp without having to resort to six or eight analog RCA cables -- ala the PS3. And with the latest version of HDMI 1.3, we also have the more traditional option of letting our AV/R do the heavy lifting. But of course this begs the question;
which is best? On one hand if we decode in the player we lose the ability to use all the bells and whistles we paid for in the latest receiver we bought -- assuming we bought one. But on the other, if we don't decode in the player we lose any sounds from the interactive features or maybe even a secondary audio track that may play along side the main audio. Luckily, some players give you a choice, but the most popular Blu-ray player doesn't, as
the PS3 doesn't support bitstreaming TrueHD or DTS-HD (it will bitstream Dolby Digital and DTS though). So assuming you even have a choice, which is better, decoding in the player or in your AV/R.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Shape @ Apr 11th 2008 12:57PM
The XBox 360's HD-DVD player can mix in user interface sounds with HD-DVD audio on the fly and bitstream the output. Meaning that it decoded the audio, mixed it, and then re-encoded it to either DTS Core or DD. The source audio could be DTS-MA, DD+, TrueHD, or whatever HD-DVD supported, and it could transcode that to DTS Core or DD.
I chose DTS Core because it had a superior bitrate.
I don't understand why the PS3 can't do the same thing.
I know why it can't bitstream TrueHD or DTS-MA. But surely it could transcode those tracks or even LPCM to DTS-Core and mix in the user interface audio. This would be especially useful to those of us with older receivers.
foxb @ Apr 11th 2008 2:41PM
Shape,
Transcoding advanced audio, and mix in menu and secondary audio, to a lower bitrate lossy DTS is hardly considered a feature. All HD or BR players, PS3 included can do that already. XBox 360 is actually in the bottom of this todem pole as far as audio is concerned because it can't output LPCM (5.1 or 7.1) via its HDMI interface.
What this poll is about is about passing lossless audio, i.e. DTS MA, TrueHD and PCM, to AVR.
The sound quality should be virtually same. However, to those who say LPCM and bitstream is the same for AVRs, keep in mind that some low end AVRs can not apply additional processing for LPCM, like expand 5.1 to 7.1 while they can do so for bitstreamed audio.
elvisizer @ Apr 11th 2008 2:10PM
that's exactly what the PS3 does do- it just outputs the result in LPCM instead of re-encoding it using a lossy codec like the 360. The ps 3 method is definitely preferable.
Shape @ Apr 11th 2008 4:11PM
Transcoding HD audio down to DTS Core is a great feature for people with older receivers. Transcoding TrueHD down to DTS Core on the XBox 360 sounds awesome. Not as good as TrueHD would, of course, but miles better than a standard DD track.
Very few people have HDMI 1.3 capable receivers. Most people that use receivers at all use an optical Toslink cable to hook up their audio. It would be nice to see Sony cater to the majority, here.
I will be upgrading my receiver within the next year to get LPCM output from the PS3. Until then, it would be nice to get some higher quality audio out of the Blu-Ray discs out there that have TrueHD and DD tracks, but no DTS track. There are a LOT of people in my current situation that would benefit from such a feature. A feature that the XBox 360 carries without so much as a hiccup.
ThePremierAssassin @ Apr 11th 2008 1:13PM
I have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about...
Someone please explain in laymans terms?
slarity @ Apr 11th 2008 4:19PM
Basically there are 3 audio formats that are the highest quality you can get. They are more or less identical to a studio mix. Meaning exactly how the movie maker intended. They are:
-Uncompressed audio (PCM)
-Dolby TrueHD
-DTS-HD Master
In order to get this to your speakers you have to satisfy a few requirements.
-A Blu-ray/HD-dvd player that can decode uncompressed audio and send it via LPCM OR a newer reciever that can decode them, whereas the player would send a bitstream signal.
-The connection must be HDMI, no other audio cable can do it at this time and probably wont until something better comes out.
-The "source" (the BD or HD-DVD disc) has to be encoded with one of the three named audio sources above.
So basically as this poll is asking the difference between LPCM and bitstream, its asking how you send your digital signal to get the highest quality sound. Technically they should sound identical. Of course it really is hardware dependent on your setup by which components have which features.
elvisizer @ Apr 11th 2008 1:15PM
Basically, it really doesn't matter. the only possible inherent advantage for bitstream is that since the data is still packet-ized then traveling over the HDMI cable, you have better jitter resistance. But that assumes the receiver doesn't use a data buffer and reclock on the HDMI inputs, which eliminates the jitter, and is fairly common these days.
Seriously badly worded poll here, engadget.
elvisizer @ Apr 11th 2008 1:18PM
and what are you talking about losing the ability to use the 'bells and whistles' on your AVR with lpcm? That's so uninformed it's not even funny! Bass management, delays, matrixing- all are available on either LCPM or bitstream signals. worst engadget poll ever.
shawnmos @ Apr 11th 2008 1:25PM
LPCM. My receiver doesn't support bitstream.
shawnmos @ Apr 11th 2008 1:27PM
why aren't comments showing up?
MadMike @ Apr 11th 2008 1:30PM
The lack of audio decodings in the PS3 can easily be changed via a firmware upgrade so its not that much of a big deal as far as the PS3 concerned. 2.30 just added DTA-MA.
MadMike @ Apr 11th 2008 1:30PM
The lack of audio decodings in the PS3 can easily be changed via a firmware upgrade so its not that much of a big deal as far as the PS3 concerned. 2.30 just added DTA-MA.
MadMike @ Apr 11th 2008 1:30PM
The lack of audio decodings in the PS3 can easily be changed via a firmware upgrade so its not that much of a big deal as far as the PS3 concerned. 2.30 just added DTA-MA.
MadMike @ Apr 11th 2008 1:30PM
The lack of audio decodings in the PS3 can easily be changed via a firmware upgrade so its not that much of a big deal as far as the PS3 concerned. 2.30 just added DTA-MA.
Randy @ Apr 11th 2008 2:46PM
Ok, got it.
air12ick @ Apr 11th 2008 1:53PM
I said LPCM just due to the fact the PS3 does not bitstream TrueHD or DTS-HD. Not only that, but I believe bitstream could be affected by what AVR is decoding it. If it were a "high end" reciever...well yeah it would be better for the reciever to take the load, but low-mid end, I would let the player do it (if it had the guts).
DEEZNUTZ @ Apr 11th 2008 1:58PM
This poll is basically about preferences when the ability to do either is present, not which is better. Based on the above, I would say decoding at the player is best due to the added interactive feature sounds.
Maybe someone else could further elaborate on the reasons why decoding at the receiver would be best. If there's no difference in audio quality, then to me, it doesn't even matter... which should save me some coin when I go out and buy a new receiver.
Ben @ Apr 11th 2008 2:02PM
Some receivers won't let you use the built in level controls and delays if you are sending it LPCM. Odds are if your receiver is newer and supports HDMI 1.3, it may also support LCPM in regards to additional features.
This is so specific to each receiver, that's why I didn't mention what bells and whistles it was. I'm sure some receivers support the same features regardless of the way the signal is sent.
At the same time, others may choose bitstream just so the TrueHD light is lit on their AVR. I know, it's sill but true.
Student Driver @ Apr 11th 2008 2:38PM
One interesting article that was referenced here (maybe I'll look for it, assuming I'll care enough) indicated that flipping through soundtracks and using the director's commentary (PiP) function of BD/HD DVD would require the player to jump streams anyway. So, if it was bitstreaming the codec to the amp (assuming it had a kick ass DAC you really wanted to use) you would still drop out of bitstream and into LPCM because the player has to do all the work.
So, for example, think of an iPod attachment for a car stereo. If you could "stream" a track from it to the headunit in the car, that would work for most tracks. But, as soon as it hit a DRM track, the player now has to be involved and handle the decoding for you. Yes, this is a bad over-simplification, but in the end you still get audio that you probably wouldn't notice the difference in (assuming same bitrate) and didn't even know which way was happening.
As for me, I would rather just have the player read all of the tracks, decompress them, and then shoot them out to the amp. This way I don't have to keep upgrading the amp to deal with all the new fantastic audio codecs that I can't hear over my 4 year-old and two dogs anyway.
Kaiser @ Apr 11th 2008 2:17PM
I miss seeing DTS-HD on my receiver when it plays... :-)
ieko @ Apr 11th 2008 2:20PM
what Mike said * 4
I think the PS3 supports all the codecs now through the 2.30 update right? If that's the case it really will be the best BD player out there.
Anyway I sort of prefer LPCM because when I use bitstream the volume is always either too low or too high during a movie. But I'll try bitstream again when the update comes out next week.
Wryker @ Apr 11th 2008 2:35PM
Como what? when did the PS3 get DT-MA upgrade?!
UnnDunn @ Apr 11th 2008 3:18PM
PS3 firmware 2.3 will be able to decode DTS-HDMA to LPCM. It will be released on April 15.
mitch @ Apr 11th 2008 2:48PM
From the sounds of it; that DTS-MA support is also bitstream support. Since the press release keeps refering to "DTS-MA output" and not "internal decoding" .. I'm going to laugh so hard if it is bitstream support, as HDDVD fanatics tried everything they could to say it was impossible due to HDMI chip limitations. If it is bitstream, could TrueHD bitstream be far behind?.. I think not.
Ben @ Apr 11th 2008 2:50PM
Early PS3 did have this limitation, but the chips used more recently are only limited by the firmware.
I agree, it would be great for Sony to enable this for those with newer PS3s.
UnnDunn @ Apr 11th 2008 3:25PM
At the end of the day, it really depends on the equipment you have. Folks with older HDMI receivers that don't support the new codecs will obviously choose LPCM. Those with the latests Onkyos or Denons might go with bitstream, provided their source supports it.
Quite frankly, I think this poll is flawed.
Ben @ Apr 11th 2008 4:25PM
Some people do have a choice of how to do it, plus since some players or AVRs don't support both options, others -- including myself -- wonder if they are truly losing anything because their hardware doesn't support a certain configuration.
Jazper @ Apr 11th 2008 3:50PM
ALWAYS give me the option of having the raw bitstream. Sure, a particular player may provide everything I need now or it may not. My AVR may or may not do a better job. What I want (and this directly impacts my buying decisions) is the CHOICE to arrange things as I desire. A player that will not or cannot pass along the raw bitstream drops down my priority list quickly.
Yes, I have a kickin AVR and very good players. At the moment this argument is largely moot for me but the principle remains the same. Let ME decide, thank you very much, not some marketing wonk that knows jack ****.
Mr. E @ Apr 11th 2008 4:23PM
It's amazing how much misinformation and confusion is out there over this issue. I place the blame for that squarely on all the CE companies involved, right along with Dolby and DTS. From my perspective, processing of the advanced codecs (Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD and DTS-HD Master Audio) should NEVER have been licensed for inclusion in audio processing equipment. Instead, all decoding of them should have been left to Blu-ray (and formerly HD DVD) players, for output over HDMI or analog outputs.
With the way the audio is handled in Blu-ray, LPCM output over HDMI will always be superior, from the standpoint of getting the best, most complete soundtrack out of the player. There is no arguing this point, and there is absolutely no downside to using player decoding and output over HDMI.
There are only two cases I can think of where an individual *might* be better off using bitstream, and they both involve limitations of their hardware. (1) The player can't decode advanced audio, but the receiver can, or (2) The receiver can't do bass management or other needed surround processing of audio input via LPCM format. Any receiver company that would put out a model today without full support of LPCM signals over HDMI deserves to go out of business, immediately. Again, however, these should be the rare exceptions. If your player can internally decode all advanced audio formats, as the PS3 will soon do, do yourself a favor and start using the uncompressed LPCM output to your receiver. You will likely avoid a lot of headaches in the future, with Blu-ray extras that depend on player mixing of audio.
slarity @ Apr 11th 2008 4:23PM
My Harman Kardon doesn't have HDMI, just waiting on that new Onkyo 606 to come out. MMmmm such a nice reciever for a great price.
James @ Apr 11th 2008 5:37PM
Ben or someone who can help,
How do you know if your PS3 has the "other" chip that is limited as far as audio?
Mr. E @ Apr 11th 2008 7:23PM
The "other" chip you are talking about only limits you in the sense that you can't send the advanced codecs to your receiver via bitstream (i.e. still encoded). But as I explained above, this is not the best way to send your audio from the PS3. If your receiver has HDMI inputs, you should really be letting the PS3 do the decoding (and mixing, if necessary), and sending LPCM to the receiver. ALL PS3s are capable of doing this.
Bruzer @ Apr 11th 2008 7:45PM
I just bought a Receiver that can handle the bitstream and decode all audio there, so I'd prefer that. That said though, after hearing that the PS3 now can decode all the new audio formats. I finally caved and bought a PS3 to be my Blu-ray player (first and only) I was going to wait for a Profile 2 player to come out and drop in price by Christmas time. Just couldn't wait. PS3 is on the way.
NNTPgrip @ Apr 11th 2008 10:02PM
The PS3 is now a "Profile 2" or BD-Live capable player as of 2.20 firmware. The yet to be released 2.30 is going to add the bitstream capability of passing the audio to the reciever without decoding it. The PS3 has always been able to decode all formats and pass them LPCM through HDMI. I think the PS3 may be the only Profile 2, BD-Live player available now.
Definitely the best player. My only gripes are no LCD display on the unit, and the remote is bluetooth, which no universal remotes support (even Sony's best touchscreen models).
Ben @ Apr 11th 2008 10:06PM
Who ever said anything about 2.3 brining bitstream TrueHD or DTS-HD to the PS3?
The only thing I saw was that with 2.3 it was going to add DTS-HD support. Making the assumption that this means bitstream seems like a jump to me.
Philip @ Apr 11th 2008 8:42PM
The only time I would prefer to have bitstream is when a special feature is in Dolby 2.0 since the player sends that out using all 5.1 channels even though there is only content in 2 of them. And my Yamaha receiver can't do matrix processing on a Multichannel PCM stream to get the dialogue into the center channel.
eric f. @ Apr 12th 2008 10:20AM
Ha ha, the most indecisive victory from a poll ever!
Paul @ Apr 12th 2008 10:22AM
I had to vote LPCM simply on the convenience. Streaming the already-converted audio gave me a much greater choice of receivers, which helped me save some money.
HDintheblood @ Apr 17th 2008 4:15PM
there is also a new Panasonic Blu-Ray player coming out that is "Profile 2" it is the DMP Bd50. I wish I new the release date I want it, I have right now the DMP Bd10A which I like but the 7.1 analogue output still does not work right on 7.1 audio, it works on everything else like 5.1 to 6.1.