Player decoding or Receiver decoding, that is the question

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by axe79

Yep, totally confused, but my EARS aren't. (don't do DVD)

Point 1) What you don't take into account with this theory is the length of the signal path and timing issues, or the chip quality doing the decoding!

Chipsets that do the decoding are pretty standardized. You are not going to get a super chip for a receiver, and a lesser one for the player. It just does not work that way. Timing issues within HDMI as far as video have already been identified. I have yet to hear anyone complain about jitter through HDMI. Even if the pathway was considerably long, there are high speed HDMI cables with amps for boosting output, and handling timing issues. For testing purposes, all cable lengths should be kept to a minimum.

Point 2) Bitstream I get 5:1 sound, I watch and enjoy the film. Not bothered that the 7:1 is stripped out, or that I don't get the directors talk about how he made the film. I just want to enjoy the film and be emotionally moved by it. Give me the movie sound track and let it rip.

You can do that whether we are talking bitstream or PCM audio. It seems a little strange that you speak as a purist, but would playback a 7.1 soundtrack folded down to 5.1. With this logic, it really should not move you whether you are decoding in the player, or in the receiver.

On another note, I really enjoy my food (and wine), I mean really enjoy!
Personally can cook to a Michelin Star standard and have high end wines laid down in bond. There is a saying in chefing about customers "they can't tell the difference between shit and chocolate" meaning they can't tell good from bad. It appears the same can be said on other things.

Thinly veiled arrogance? I would offer to you that SOME people can't tell the difference between shit and chocolate. Besides what I shove in my mouth, and what I can hear with my ears are quite different. The two cannot be effectly connected to make a point. My taste buds may be damaged, but my hearing could be excellent. Some folks have this idea they can hear better than anyone else. The problem with that theory is you cannot know how well I hear, and I cannot know how well you hear. So it kind of defeats that kind of arguement.

People have Music / AV systems of various quality and what configuration sounds good on one doesn't mean it will sound as good on another. Serious upgrades (and costs) are made in getting a three dimensional sound stage having sweetness/attack/balance/texture/ foot taping involvement.
The problem is that on AV systems without having the background knowledge and doing mods you can't buy off the shelf anything that will hold a candle to really good Hi Fi.
It is a great pity that not much attention is placed on the Main supply and the noise carried on it which effects everything, or on the crossovers in speakers.
Address that and discover what a clean signal path really is like and you will be amazed. (or your Ears will be!)

You say all of this about equipment, but you make absolutely no reference to the room that system sits in. In small rooms, 70 percent of what you hear is the room, and 30 percent is the equipment itself. So without addressing the room into the equation, the talk of fine equipment is useless. Also, never believe that you equipment set the standard for high quality sound. There are more people than you think with set ups better than yours.

We are talking about sound, and I don't really care what buttons light up on the receiver, what I care about is the performance!
Just as if I went to a concert and got lifted by the music/acoustics of the theater.
Having heard a opera singer perform in the Roman amphitheater in Lucca/Itally (Puccini's home) that was one bloody good reference performance that moved my soul.

That's what matters, what moves ones soul.

It still has not been demonstrated that you get better performance via bitstreaming to the receiver over the player doing the decoding. So all of this is great speak, but it does not mean a whole lot in reality.