640 kbps versus 1.5 mpbs and Energy Encore Speakers...??

[andsoitgoes]

Okay - So I've got some ancient Energy Encore speakers that have done me well for going on about 8 years now. I like them, they're great -and I don't have the money to change/upgrade

I have a non-HDMI (audio) receiver and can only do optical out.

I'm picky, but I'm financially strapped. Is it worth buying a new HDMI audio capable receiver to push 1.5 mpbs sound to my 8 year old speakers?

Or would the difference be marginal in comparison to the cost increase? I like good sound, don't get me wrong - but I'm interested in knowing if there is a HUGE difference.

I hope I posted this in the right forum. I just want to do the best to get the MOST out of what I already have.

And I'm assuming there's no way that I could convert the HDMI to send the audio portion into the 7.1 analog signals, is there? ( I have inputs for that on my receiver )

Nick

[reiella]

Hmm, just going to ask something to get clear, not that I can really offer sound advice .

You're referencing a PS3 as your player correct? Hence the choice between HDMI and Optical?

[andsoitgoes]

Ah, yes That and my HD-A2, both are my HD optical out machines.

Sorry for not clarifying.

And was the "Sound advice" comment a pun? Because if it was, then

[reiella]

Originally Posted by andsoitgoes

Ah, yes That and my HD-A2, both are my HD optical out machines.

Sorry for not clarifying.

And was the "Sound advice" comment a pun? Because if it was, then

It works as one, at least .

My opinion, which isn't too meaningful, is that you can prolly find a good HDMI reciever for your speakers, and more than the increased bandwidth on some titles [the 1.5 jump], you'll be able to benefit from the lossless audio; and that audio should be a noticable difference over the 5.1 Dolby/DTS you have now through the optical. Even without new speakers .

[andsoitgoes]

Did you hear that?

That was the sound of my wallet crying.

I should know better than to post "Would this sound better if..." on a audiophile site!

Thanks, and maybe someone else will be there to tell me that it simply won't be audible.

Right.

RIGHT?

[jeff92k7]

Originally Posted by andsoitgoes

Thanks, and maybe someone else will be there to tell me that it simply won't be audible.

Right.

RIGHT?

I'll be that guy. It may not be an audible difference. Most people can't tell the difference between lossless sound and compressed sound. If they could, MP3's would never have become an accepted format. I believe that there are probably only about 1% of people that could tell a difference, and probably even fewer who even care.

That said, you are going to find those people on this forum. I am one who can hear the subtle differences and does care but I also have to balance that against my budget and my wife.

The DTS core supports up to a 1.5Mbps audio rate so if your "old school" receiver is capable of decoding DTS via the optical input, you will still get a higher quality audio signal from Blu-Ray than you would over traditional DVD. The only thing you would need an HDMI equipped receiver for is if you want lossless audio decoded in the receiver. The high bandwidth required (up to 18Mbps for Dolby TrueHD) simply cannot be delivered via an optical connection (short of the ADAT standard but that's only in Pro audio equipment and not consumer home theater equipment). The optical connection will handle the 1.5Mbps compressed rate just fine.

You can still do lossless sound on your current receiver with an external decoder feeding it into the 7.1 analog inputs of your receiver. However, you would likely need a new BD player for this as the PS3 doesn't have 7.1 analog outputs.

I also have an "old school" receiver and, though I can hear the differences between compressed and lossless tracks, I still use the compressed DTS via optical because of the additional EQ and delay processing that my receiver can do for optical signals that it can not do for analog 7.1 signals. The benefits of that extra processing outweighs the quality improvements of a lossless source. Plus, it still sounds better than traditional DVD since it is a higher DTS core data rate than what DVD's used - especially when compared to the data rate of a traditional DVD that only uses Dolby Digital.

Also, good speakers need to be replaced FAR less often than other equipment. There have been few technology changes in speakers in decades. They all still work the same way, unless you want to get new ribbon speakers.

Proper acoustic treatment in your room would make larger improvements in your sound quality than any upgrade to lossless sound would. Lossless sound is pointless if you are listening in a room with poor acoustics.

Hope this doesn't confuse you too much.

[Yog-Sothoth]

I have a six-year-old Energy Take 5.2 set...a friend bought me POTC: Curse of the Black Pearl on BD. The difference between the 5.1 DD track I was used to on the DVD and the PCM 5.1 (6.9 Mbps) track on the BD is pretty astounding (got the Onkyo 705 as a Christmas gift for myself).

In other words, yes, I recommend the receiver upgrade.

[Rob J in WNY]

I have an "old school" receiver as well (Sony STR-DE845 - see my gallery). It accepts digital audio through optical and coaxial inputs (I have always used optical).

As someone who does have a "critical ear," I can tell you that you must first have a listen to uncompressed audio found on BDs, either through a proper demonstration at at finer store, or perhaps a friend's home theater - with at least mid-grade to high-end speakers (not necessarily HTIB, although a few sound better than others).

You can find a good CD recording and carefully listen on your own system. Your CD produces a standard, uncompressed 44.1KHz/16 Bit stereo audio stream. Again, carefully listen to the instruments. Imagine even better sound quality and clarity through all your speakers.

As previously referenced, "core" streams from the lossless audio compressed formats (such as Dolby Digital TrueHD and DTS HD-Master Audio) will contain superior bandwidth than your DVD counterparts. They should sound better, even from the core, than standard DD and DTS. If you have a "critical ear," then you will be able to hear detail and nuances that were otherwise "lost" in the higher compression of the standard DVD audio formats.

FWIW, I have always believed that DTS on DVDs is, as claimed, a superior sounding format.

Just take the time to listen carefully! I'll bet you'll be craving totally free and uncompressed audio just as I do!

- Rob J

[DavidAg02]

Originally Posted by jeff92k7

Most people can't tell the difference between lossless sound and compressed sound. If they could, MP3's would never have become an accepted format. I believe that there are probably only about 1% of people that could tell a difference, and probably even fewer who even care.

The MP3 format was developed mainly for people who listen to music through headphones and computer speakers... both of which have limited capabilities when it comes to producing the high and low ends of the sound spectrum. There have been many tests which show that people actually prefer the compressed audio tracks in those types of listening situations because the sound fits the range that those speakers are most capable of reproducing. It is a format that works great for casual listening... that is why it has been so widely accepted.

I think there are a lot of people that can tell the difference... but I do agree with you that there are very few who actually care. I really didn't mean to get this far off topic so in response to the original poster...

It really depends on what kind of listening you do the most. If you are a big movie fan, then I think you will definitely appreciate the audio quality that Blu-Ray and a capable receiver have to offer. You are the only one that can determine if it's worth the money or not.