Player decoding or Receiver decoding, that is the question

[Sir Terrence]

I know there has been much back and forth regarding the player doing the decoding or the receiver doing the decoding. However I would like to preface this question with this comment.

When you look at all of the myriad of issues regarding proper playback and getting the best sound, many folks have completely overlook the most important component chasing after minor benefits. Proper room acoustics play a far larger role in getting better performance than something as small as which component does the decoding. The arguement for which sounds better (if it actually does) belongs in the studio(which acoustics are tightly controlled) or in the upper 5-10% of the folks who actually have their room properly treated based on acoustical measurements. To actually answer the question of which is better, the answer is neither has any sonic benefits over the other. I will explain.

When the player does the decoding(or transcoding), the process of transcoding is lossless. In other words nothing is lost converting the bitstream to PCM to send to your receiver. All PIP audio will be mixed in along with the program audio, and the user has access to the audio of all interactive and program material. Whether you choose to do bass management and speaker alignment in the player, or the pcm audio is sent to the receiver for these functions, they are done in PCM because that is how the DSP chips function, is with PCM signals. So no matter which way you turn, the audio will have to be converted.

If the player passes the audio to the receiver in bitstream form, the receiver will have to convert that bitstream to PCM for any bass mangement or speaker alignment to take place. That process is also lossless, and is much like we have seen with legacy Dolby Digital and Dts. The drawback is that no audio from PIP or any interactive material will be heard because this process bypasses the internal mixer of the player. So no matter which direction you choose, PCM conversion will have to take place whether the player does it, or the reciever does it. In the end, there is no sonic benefit that either has over the other, and why when looked at critically, the receiver doing it becomes a marketing ploy and nothing else.

I hope this dispels the confusion between the player doing the decoding, and the receiver doing the decoding. And then, maybe not

[crackinhedz]

Thanks Terrence for giving us an Audio Insider perspective on player vs. receiver decoding.

I asked Terrence for his insight mainly to clear the air on this topic as it has become apparent that some folks out there conclude that the Receiver decoding is superior to Player decoding and vice versa, when in reality that is not the whole case.

Feel free to share experiences, make comments and/or ask any questions, however I cannot promise Sir Terrence will personally respond as he has his own Insider thread that he is currently involved with...

Thanks!

[Vlad44]

'quality' as i understand mostly depends from DAC, not from 'stream data to LPCM' decoder or its placement (in or out of player).
panny BD50 gonna show us benefits of internal decoding...

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by Vlad44

'quality' as i understand mostly depends from DAC, not from 'stream data to LPCM' decoder or its placement (in or out of player).
panny BD50 gonna show us benefits of internal decoding...

Bingo!!

[crackinhedz]

Sir T,

since audio via HDMI bitstream and LPCM is decoded with the same quality, and eventually passed through the same DAC ...what do you think the reasoning is for why people feel that one sounds better than the other? Is it all psychological or can there be some truth to it?

[Leopold BUTTERS]

can't wait to get my new Sharp BD HP50 so it can decode DTS MA HD I don't care if the thing is overpriced :P all i want is my PCM DDTHD and DTS MA HD decoded for me.

[denzil]

Gentlemen. I started off the 5:1 analogue thread because I wanted to hang on to my non HDMI Denon receiver, and of course sort the variety of BD Players available. So much great info has gushed forward since then. In particular the undependable sound and sometime vision performance of most of the players, We are all either pioneers or guinea pigs to some extent. One thing HAS become clear and that is that if one wants the ultimate, then a good receiver and an HDMI connection is the only safe way to go. Don't depend on the players to decode sound. ..and certainly NOT if you dont want to suffer the varied foibles of analogue 5:1 sound..especially the bass issue. MHO.

What think ye all?

It is weird that the main BD player manufactuers have left the only decent decoding set ups to the amp makers. ie Onkyo for instance.

...and that is where I'm now heading. firstly into the Onkyo 605 specs where I found a review which is harshly critical of that models ability to process video.

Perhaps I am veering off the track due to surplus information. Yank me back if I'm getting lost.

http://reviews.cnet.com/av-receivers...x-sr605-black/
4505-6466_7-32430579.html?tag=prod.txt.1

Excerpt:

n terms of video performance, we weren't too impressed. The most disappointing aspect of the TX-SR605's video performance is that it either lacks or has poor 2:3 pull-down processing. This was evident with Silicon Optix's HQV test disc, as well as on Star Trek: Insurrection and Seabiscuit. Without 2:3 pull-down processing, we found film-based movies were filled with jaggies when the TX-SR605 was responsible for deinterlacing. For example, we ran our tests from the Samsung BD-P1000 to the TX-SR605 via S-Video, and then out to the Sony KDL-46S3000 using the HDMI connection. In this configuration, the opening sequence of Seabiscuit was filled with jaggies on almost every image that the camera panned on, with artifacts that would be noticeable to even those who aren't picky about video quality. Similarly, on the introduction to Star Trek: Insurrection, the boats on the riverside clearly had jaggies instead of being represented by a smooth line.

We also noticed that the TX-SR605 was softening the resolution of images that it deinterlaced; this was confirmed on the HQV test disc as well. In areas where there should have been detail, there was just a solid color. On the other hand, the TX-SR605 did a very good job with several other tests on the HQV test suite, including tests with a rotating white line, three pivoting fingers, and footage of a waving flag.

While the video performance of the TX-SR605 was disappointing, in our experience subpar video processing by AV receivers is common. We've mentioned it in reviews of the Sony STR-DA5200ES, the Yamaha RX-V1700, and the Pioneer VSX-82TXS. The irony is that the more receivers take advantage of the single-cable HDMI convenience, the more important proper video processing becomes.

[Vlad44]

Originally Posted by denzil

,..the more important video processing becomes.

its not a secret. frankly speaking, all devices containing DCDi chip are crap. just read any review from any source. THE REAL AVR MUST contain HQV reon/realta or better video processing. period.

p.s. look at my sig.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

Sir T,

since audio via HDMI bitstream and LPCM is decoded with the same quality, and eventually passed through the same DAC ...what do you think the reasoning is for why people feel that one sounds better than the other? Is it all psychological or can there be some truth to it?

Its the placebo effect. When you do not fully understand how the process works, it is easy for you to believe that you are getting better by holding on to how it WAS done. Also people just have to justify why they just spent more money on new equipment. There is no super duper decoding chips in receivers. Generally the same decoding chipset you see in the player is the same as you see in the receiver. The conversion process in the player and the receiver is the same(conversion to PCM). Both are lossless.

I think most folks look at DVD decoding in the player as inferior(which because of useless or inadequate bass management and delay) as the same as decoding in a bluray player(which has much better bass management and speaker alignment options) in the same way. In this case. it is just not true.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by denzil

Don't depend on the players to decode sound. ..and certainly NOT if you dont want to suffer the varied foibles of analogue 5:1 sound..especially the bass issue. MHO.

What think ye all?

It is weird that the main BD player manufactuers have left the only decent decoding set ups to the amp makers. ie Onkyo for instance.

...and that is where I'm now heading. firstly into the Onkyo 605 specs where I found a review which is harshly critical of that models ability to process video.

Perhaps I am veering off the track due to surplus information. Yank me back if I'm getting lost.

Quite frankly, I think your assertions are just not correct. If you want all that is on the disc then the player MUST do the decoding. You lose all of this when the receiver does the decoding. Secondly only when you speak of decoder support can you speak to the receivers advantage. That is being quickly erased as more and more bluray players come out with ALL of the codecs supported. When that happens, what does the receiver do? What do you do with the extra decoders you paid for? I do recommend HDMI over 5.1 analog only because the analog approach makes no room for a 7.1 solution(at least in players we have seen).

[tigtat77]

I have a 60gb PS3 and the str-dg800 Sony reciever. How can can I if the PS3 is doing the decoding and not the reciever? I know this seems like a stupid question, but just want to make sure. Thanks

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by tigtat77

I have a 60gb PS3 and the str-dg800 Sony reciever. How can can I if the PS3 is doing the decoding and not the reciever? I know this seems like a stupid question, but just want to make sure. Thanks

Make sure the PS3 HDMI Audio output is Linear PCM.

[dhenry5320]

Well written.
Thank You
dhenry5320

[jcs913]

How do we know that the players do not apply anything to the track before decoding them into PCM; ie bass management or dial-norm?

[LembasBread]

Originally Posted by jcs913

How do we know that the players do not apply anything to the track before decoding them into PCM; ie bass management or dial-norm?

How do we know the receivers aren't guilty of post-processing, too? I know the Onkyo TX-SR605 I was listening to boosts all Dolby audio tracks by +3dB than when decoded by the PS3 or my Denon DVD player.

The only thing the PS3 seems to have in the signal flow is an overall gain stage (the Volume option from the pop-up display). When you leave it at "Normal", it's at Unity or 0dB meaning it neither adds nor subtracts from the amplitude of signal.

Receivers (esp. entry level) are what you should be worried about since they have far more DSP's that could potentially alter the final audio signal than having been decoded in the player and spit out as PCM.

True, some players have bass management that can be bypassed and dial-norm is an encoding feature not decoding. You may be thinking about Dolby's Dynamic Range Compression.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by LembasBread

How do we know the receivers aren't guilty of post-processing, too? I know the Onkyo TX-SR605 I was listening to boosts all Dolby audio tracks by +3dB than when decoded by the PS3 or my Denon DVD player.

The only thing the PS3 seems to have in the signal flow is an overall gain stage (the Volume option from the pop-up display). When you leave it at "Normal", it's at Unity or 0dB meaning it neither adds nor subtracts from the amplitude of signal.

Receivers (esp. entry level) are what you should be worried about since they have far more DSP's that could potentially alter the final audio signal than having been decoded in the player and spit out as PCM.

The receivers do apply dial-norm to the tracks, but no one has commented on the players applying anything. This whole argument goes up in smoke with that variable introduced. Who knows what is coming out of the player or receiver. People believe that their receivers sound better, because maybe what is being applied sounds 'actually' better. Maybe the players do not apply enough to the track to make it sound better, who knows? That argument may be a placebo effect, but it still is an actual occurence in the receiver. What can be said about the applications in the player?

[Bruuce]

Great OP. Thanks for clearing that up for us, Sir Terrence.

[XSilentCobraX]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

I know there has been much back and forth regarding the player doing the decoding or the receiver doing the decoding. However I would like to preface this question with this comment.

When you look at all of the myriad of issues regarding proper playback and getting the best sound, many folks have completely overlook the most important component chasing after minor benefits. Proper room acoustics play a far larger role in getting better performance than something as small as which component does the decoding. The arguement for which sounds better (if it actually does) belongs in the studio(which acoustics are tightly controlled) or in the upper 5-10% of the folks who actually have their room properly treated based on acoustical measurements. To actually answer the question of which is better, the answer is neither has any sonic benefits over the other. I will explain.

When the player does the decoding(or transcoding), the process of transcoding is lossless. In other words nothing is lost converting the bitstream to PCM to send to your receiver. All PIP audio will be mixed in along with the program audio, and the user has access to the audio of all interactive and program material. Whether you choose to do bass management and speaker alignment in the player, or the pcm audio is sent to the receiver for these functions, they are done in PCM because that is how the DSP chips function, is with PCM signals. So no matter which way you turn, the audio will have to be converted.

If the player passes the audio to the receiver in bitstream form, the receiver will have to convert that bitstream to PCM for any bass mangement or speaker alignment to take place. That process is also lossless, and is much like we have seen with legacy Dolby Digital and Dts. The drawback is that no audio from PIP or any interactive material will be heard because this process bypasses the internal mixer of the player. So no matter which direction you choose, PCM conversion will have to take place whether the player does it, or the reciever does it. In the end, there is no sonic benefit that either has over the other, and why when looked at critically, the receiver doing it becomes a marketing ploy and nothing else.

I hope this dispels the confusion between the player doing the decoding, and the receiver doing the decoding. And then, maybe not

This is great info, thanks alot, really did help me alot

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by jcs913

How do we know that the players do not apply anything to the track before decoding them into PCM; ie bass management or dial-norm?

You would have to engage that feature, its not automatic. As far as dialog norm, that we cannot do anything about that but compensate for it. If the metadata instructions are there, there is no way to strip them out of the mix.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

You would have to engage that feature, its not automatic. As far as dialog norm, that we cannot do anything about that but compensate for it. If the metadata instructions are there, there is no way to strip them out of the mix.

Correct, but on a receiver we can see what needs to be adjusted as the display will tell us what is being applied. How do we know what the player is applying?