What's wrong with TrueHD?!?

[werewuf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

But any Blu-ray player that can do FULL decoding of Dolby Digital TrueHD should be producing the same results as a receiver. If it's not, there's a problem in process that we should figure out!

Neither the BDP-94 or 95 actually decode. The receiver does the decoding. The next generation of Pio BDP coming in January will have internal decoding.

On the box of the BDP-94 it stated True HD capability (and no HDMA capability), however, in the manual it states that True HD is played as PCM or DD. The Pioneer rep stated that the Dolby THD and DTS HDMA chipsets were not available at that time (and so did the Pio tech I spoke to on the phone) This is why I traded the 94 back and got the 95.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by werewuf

Neither the BDP-94 or 95 actually decode. The receiver does the decoding. The next generation of Pio BDP coming in January will have internal decoding.

On the box of the BDP-94 it stated True HD capability (and no HDMA capability), however, in the manual it states that True HD is played as PCM or DD. The Pioneer rep stated that the Dolby THD and DTS HDMA chipsets were not available at that time (and so did the Pio tech I spoke to on the phone) This is why I traded the 94 back and got the 95.

And that's where you're not making sense. Every audio stream ends up as PCM. That is just digital audio sent to the DA converter. That has nothing to do with quality. If the chip cannot truly decode the stream, that's another thing.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by werewuf

The Pioneer rep stated that the Dolby THD and DTS HDMA chipsets were not available at that time (and so did the Pio tech I spoke to on the phone) This is why I traded the 94 back and got the 95.

I highly doubt that they could sell it clearly stating Dolby THD if they don't have the chips.

[Frode]

Downmixing TrueHD to stereo is a feature that's handled by the DD decoder (it's in the spec on how to do it), while downmixing to PCM is handled by the system itself.

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech...whitepaper.pdf

What you're hearing is probably a result of that, rather than DN. This makes me wonder how many other reviewers out there are essentially using stereo setups to listen to 5.1 lossless tracks.

[DaViD Boulet]

But are you sure that this is how the PS3 is doing it?

I say this because when I set the PS3's output to PCM, it then decodes the TrueHD to PCM internally (5.1).

Then the PS3 downmixes all 5.1 PCM tracks to 2.0 for SPDIF... leaving them in 5.1 PCM for HDMI. That all seems to be down-wind of the Dolby decoder process. It would seem inconsistent for the PS3 to employ different methodologies to how/where dowmixing occurs when it's handling PCM streams from both. Though I agree a full understanding of the process should be obtained. Naturally, an HDMI receiver is in the (cash strapped) future...

What you're hearing is probably a result of that, rather than DN. This makes me wonder how many other reviewers out there are essentially using stereo setups to listen to 5.1 lossless tracks.

Well, if the volume-drop is not likely a factor of downmixing. And if it is, then Dolby has a defective downmixing process in their chip!

[werewuf]

Originally Posted by HDJK

I highly doubt that they could sell it clearly stating Dolby THD if they don't have the chips.

Ask any rep and read the manual. I was frustrated by this. I purchased the BDP-94 1st before the new receiver back in June. When I got the new receiver I expected that when I played a disc with True HD that the receiver would say so, it did not, it said PCM or DD depending on the disc. I called Pioneer and inquired, they said at the time the 94's were put on the market that they did not have the chipsets and that True HD and HDMA chipsets were not available until October, and that they would be availble in the 95 player.

[DaViD Boulet]

Ok,

but regardless of your player not originally being able to properly decode a TrueHD stream or not, this doesn't impact the issue of sonic differences on players that do proper PCM extraction from the TrueHD file.

[werewuf]

Originally Posted by HDJK

And that's where you're not making sense. Every audio stream ends up as PCM. That is just digital audio sent to the DA converter. That has nothing to do with quality. If the chip cannot truly decode the stream, that's another thing.

So the new chipsets are just to make the True HD and HDMA lights go on on the receiver? I can only repeat what I was told and what the experience in my home sound has been, that the decoding is proprietary according to the sources I have spoken to, and the sound is now different and the dynamic range superior now that I have full True HD and HDMA capability.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by werewuf

Ask any rep and read the manual. I was frustrated by this. I purchased the BDP-94 1st before the new receiver back in June. When I got the new receiver I expected that when I played a disc with True HD that the receiver would say so, it did not, it said PCM or DD depending on the disc. I called Pioneer and inquired, they said at the time the 94's were put on the market that they did not have the chipsets and that True HD and HDMA chipsets were not available until October, and that they would be availble in the 95 player.

Because the player decoded it to PCM. It could not stream the DTHD track to the reciever.

Originally Posted by werewuf

So the new chipsets are just to make the True HD and HDMA lights go on on the receiver? I can only repeat what I was told and what the experience in my home sound has been, that the decoding is proprietary according to the sources I have spoken to, and the sound is now different and the dynamic range superior now that I have full True HD and HDMA capability.

That still doesn't prove a different handling of the DTHD track by the reciever than the player.

edit: unless you have some kind of surround mode activated (THX or some other surround 'enhancer')? Some receiver can only do this to DD streams and not PCM. Maybe this is what gives you the impression that now, with THD streaming, it sounds better?

[werewuf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Ok,

but regardless of your player not originally being able to properly decode a TrueHD stream or not, this doesn't impact the issue of sonic differences on players that do proper PCM extraction from the TrueHD file.

Here's what I know and proprietary products: It's not just bit decoding. In order to sell a digital product you have to create constraints so if it's decoded in another way you are not getting the exact product. You would not have a demand for your new product without it. In sound digital recording when you use one companies software (Like Pro Tools for instance) and you record say a 24 track version of a song and and you want to add 12 more tracks because the studio your at doesn't have 32 track capability and you go to another studio that has 32 digital capabiilty, but not Pro Tools, your sound will be different (or it won't work at all) do to different decoding and different source material. This is real, I have been a professional musician for 40 years have experienced this. To me, the analogy crosses over, otherwise why would Dolby and DTS bother launching a new product? To make us buy new decks and receivers so we can enjoy the nifty new lights?

[werewuf]

Originally Posted by HDJK

Because the player decoded it to PCM. It could not stream the DTHD track to the reciever.



That still doesn't prove a different handling of the DTHD track by the reciever than the player.

edit: unless you have some kind of surround mode activated (THX or some other surround 'enhancer')? Some receiver can only do this to DD streams and not PCM. Maybe this is what gives you the impression that now, with THD streaming, it sounds better?

It's not about the surround mode. No enhancers. It's about dynamic range.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by werewuf

Here's what I know and proprietary products: It's not just bit decoding. In order to sell a digital product you have to create constraints so if it's decoded in another way you are not getting the exact product. You would not have a demand for your new product without it. In sound digital recording when you use one companies software (Like Pro Tools for instance) and you record say a 24 track version of a song and and you want to add 12 more tracks because the studio your at doesn't have 32 track capability and you go to another studio that has 32 digital capabiilty, but not Pro Tools, your sound will be different (or it won't work at all) do to different decoding and different source material. This is real, I have been a professional musician for 40 years have experiened this. To me, the analogy crosses over, otherwise why would Dolby and DTS bother launching a new product? To make us buy new decks and receivers so we can enjoy the nifty new lights?

I'm sorry, but that analogy does not hold true. Going from Protools with a HD rig to a Nuendo studio with Apogee converters, sure, there will be a difference. But in your case tha DA conversion takes place in the same receiver, no matter what. So either the player extracts the PCM from THD and sends it to the receiver or (if it can) the player sends the bitstream and lets the receiver do the unpacking and ultimately the DA conversion. There is still no evidence in your arguments that one should sound better than the other, unless there is a difference in the extracting of the DTHD streams. But you're the first person to mention something like this. This would be a serious issue if true.

[werewuf]

Originally Posted by HDJK

I'm sorry, but that analogy does not hold true. Going from Protools with a HD rig to a Nuendo studio with Apogee converters, sure, there will be a difference. But in your case tha DA conversion takes place in the same receiver, no matter what. So either the player extracts the PCM from THD and sends it to the receiver or (if it can) the player sends the bitstream and lets the receiver do the unpacking and ultimately the DA conversion. There is still no evidence in your arguments that one should sound better than the other, unless there is a difference in the extracting of the DTHD streams. But you're the first person to mention something like this. This would be a serious issue if true.

If I am wrong, then what is the purpose of Dolby and DTS creating and marketing these new products, to sell something that doesn't exist? I would not have changed my whole system this past year and taken the BDP-94 back if it did not matter. I believe that what you get from their chipsets is each companies proprietary mix of the soundtracks, which can only be received by their specific decoding.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by werewuf

If I am wrong, then what is the purpose of Dolby and DTS creating and marketing these new products, to sell something that doesn't exist? I would not have changed my whole system this past year and taken the BDP-94 back if it did not matter. I believe that what you get from their chipsets is each companies proprietary mix of the soundtracks, which can only be received by their specific decoding.

I agree 100%. But the BDP 94 was already sold as a player capable of decoding Dolby TrueHD. So unless they built the 95 with a vastly superior drive (which can make a difference in audio quality) there (in theory) should be no difference.

[TauRus]

Originally Posted by HDJK

Please do explain. It seems like the Pio rep, you or both mixed some things up (This is in no way meant as an attack, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying and maybe I can help clear some things up. If there's no need, I apologize and go back to work ).

I think this whole debate is lost in translation.

My guess is what the Pio rep told Wuf was that IF his player does not have a DolbyTHD decoder, then the core Dolby signal will be exrtacted from a DolbyTHD track and sent out as a PCM signal. Which is true and nothing new.
I think the impression we got was that in Wuf's interpretation this sounded like even if you DO have DolbyTHD decoder built into your player you are still getting an inferior signal since it is not processed by a receiver.
There should be no difference whatsoever in how the player or receiver DolbyTHD decoder extracts full THD info from a DolbyTHD audio track. Correct?

[TauRus]

Werewuf, I just wanted to make sure we agree on the following basics of this audio conversion:
1) Both DolbyTHD and DTS-HDMA are simply compressing the original master PCM audio track with the purpose of decreasing the file size. When decoded (regardless by player of by a receiver) the output signal is again in PCM format.
2) DolbyTHD or DTS-HDMA do not "improve" PCM signal, they only "losslessly" compress the PCM signal. Therefore, any improvement of a DolbyTHD or DTS-HDMA over a PCM track I can only attribute to one factor: the original master PCM file was of a higher resolution that the PCM track recorded on the disc.

[werewuf]

Originally Posted by TauRus

Werewuf, I just wanted to make sure we agree on the following basics of this audio conversion:
1) Both DolbyTHD and DTS-HDMA are simply compressing the original master PCM audio track with the purpose of decreasing the file size. When decoded (regardless by player of by a receiver) the output signal is again in PCM format.
2) DolbyTHD or DTS-HDMA do not "improve" PCM signal, they only "losslessly" compress the PCM signal. Therefore, any improvement of a DolbyTHD or DTS-HDMA over a PCM track I can only attribute to one factor: the original master PCM file was of a higher resolution that the PCM track recorded on the disc.

Okay here is the word: I just spoke to the local South San Francisco Bay Pioneer rep on the phone. Dolby THD and DTS HDMA are proprietary. What you get by decoding with their chips are their mixes, and it's different than when it's PCM. In his words "Then it wouldn't be Dolby or DTS" and he said keep trying to get your point across because the mix is their product not just the bitstream" PCM, Dolby THD and DTS HDMA are different from each other.

The difference I heard from THD converted to PCM or DD with my old player was noticeable. When THD was played as DD (on some sountracks) it did not have the dynamic range of full THD. THD played as PCM is also different than THD as THD because what I hear is a different mix and dynamic range.

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

At home I have a PS3 and a B&K AVR 212 that lacks HDMI. So I set my PS3 to "PCM output" which causes it to decoded the TrueHD into PCM (in theory, bit-for-bit matching the PCM original). Then the PS3 folks the 5.1 into 2.0 for both the decoded trueHD streat and the linear PCM sountrack for transmission over SPDIF.

Naturally, downmixing to 2.0 isn't ideal in regards to the original 5.1 mix. However, let me stress that this wouldn't affect a comparison between the TrueHD and LPCM soundtrack as the same 2.0 downmixing is being applied to both. If they were bit-for-bit mirrors of each other in 5.1 PCM mode (after decoding the TrueHD to PCM), they'd sound 100% idential to each other even when downmixed to 2.0.

They don't. The PCM still sounds louder, more robutst, and more nuanced/revealing with considerably more "air" and atmosphere.

Sounds like the classic case of DN applied to the DD tracks. Anyone have equipment to confirm??? Paidgeek, what do your audio engineers have to say? Are they still convinced they applied no DN? Are they aware that their Dolby encoder applied DN to EVERY signal it encodes by default unless it is manually overridden each time? Why is the playback level so much softer than the PCM track? Digital audio signals just don't reduce amplitude on their own.

David,

I will do some research on how the PS3 manages downmixes that are PCM or decoded Dolby, but this will take a while. I strongly suspect that there are differences in how the two file types are handled and this is what you are hearing. Can I ask that you try repeating your test with a borrowed HDMI reciever or on a friends trusted system in full 5.1?

[quetzalcoatl]

Originally Posted by werewuf

Okay here is the word: I just spoke to the local South San Francisco Bay Pioneer rep on the phone. Dolby THD and DTS HDMA are proprietary. What you get by decoding with their chips are their mixes, and it's different than when it's PCM. In his words "Then it wouldn't be Dolby or DTS" and he said keep trying to get your point across because the mix is their product not just the bitstream" PCM, Dolby THD and DTS HDMA are different from each other.

On this board you might just need to have a flame retardant computer with a statement like this.

[werewuf]

Originally Posted by HDJK

I agree 100%. But the BDP 94 was already sold as a player capable of decoding Dolby TrueHD. So unless they built the 95 with a vastly superior drive (which can make a difference in audio quality) there (in theory) should be no difference.

It was not capable of decoding True HD,at least not as True HD, only passing on the basic core, that is why differing soundtracks came through as PCM or most of the time DD. Very few came through as PCM (maybe one in my collection of BD's)