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.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by EWL5

I will have to do an LPCM shootout b/w my $600 PS3 and my $2000 Denon 3800. It's quite possible that the jitter from the PS3 is bad enough to be significantly different from the 3800. However, the shootout will require level matching as a minimum and I won't have time to do that until I come back from Milan. It wouldn't be so hard to believe that the PS3 has a case of the "jitters" seeing as how the PS3 is a gaming device first and foremost.

Where is your proof the PS3 suffers from jitter? I would like to see a picture of the measurements you have that support this theory. From what I understand from another insider, the PS3 has some of the most accurate decoding of the advance codecs outside of the high end. Whether the PS3 is a gaming device or not, the fact that it is makes no guarantee the audio has been compromised in any way. Besides, there is no way to really make any kind of comparison between a chip based decoder, and a software based one.

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Where is your proof the PS3 suffers from jitter? I would like to see a picture of the measurements you have that support this theory. From what I understand from another insider, the PS3 has some of the most accurate decoding of the advance codecs outside of the high end. Whether the PS3 is a gaming device or not, the fact that it is makes no guarantee the audio has been compromised in any way. Besides, there is no way to really make any kind of comparison between a chip based decoder, and a software based one.

I don't have any proof of jitter because I haven't done the shootout yet.

I only have axe79's observation and so I will try to replicate what he's experiencing on my own system. I've never compared the audio of my PS3 against the Denon 3800 because they're usually in different rooms as the respective BD player. Since they both fully decode and output PCM over HDMI, the comparison should be fair, yes?

[saprano]

Terrence when i switch to bitstream DD ( i cant compare the lossless bitstream yet, i have a ps3) my onkyo says dialognorm -27 then +4. this means the onkyo applied a 4db boost correct? or did it lower the volume?

Anyway as usual when i do these comparisons between the ps3 and AV i always end up with the same results, in my home on my system at least. i was comparing DD on POTC2 and what i found was that the onkyo had a higher volume than the ps3. all the little sound details was still there with LPCM it was just lowerd a bit. now this is only with the loud action parts, with dialog they both sound exactly the same. and this is with the ps3's volume on normal, i know people say you shouldn't change it but when i have it on +2 thats when it seems the ps3 is level matched with my onkyo, and thats when theres no difference at all. every movie i try is not the same though.

I know you dont agree with people doing any comparisons at home since its not the right environment, but it seems, as i always said, this has nothing to do with details just volume?

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

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.

I was hoping to get your views on this post from me as to why people feel they get better sound when bitstreaming vs when the player decodes. I understand your view on a purely theoretical basis but I try to explain why there is a difference on a more practical level:

Originally Posted by EWL5

This question ranks right up there with "Which BD player should I get?" and "Can I hear the new lossless audio using my current receiver?" Unfortunately, the answer is not so clear cut given the different combinations of equipment in everyone's setup. If you had the option to choose either, which would you pick? I'm hoping to unmuddy that question with this post.

On a purely theoretical basis, the decoding done in the player should be identical to the decoding done in the AVR/prepro. This makes sense because both Dolby and DTS license hardware to perform at the same specifications. The legacy DTS sound I heard 5 years ago should sound the same in the newer receivers because the chips used are conforming to the same legacy spec (everything else being equal of course).

Having said that, why are there so many claims by users that decoding in the AVR/prepro sounds audibly better than when decoding in the player? Shouldn't they sound the same given the fact that decoding is just a simple unwrapping of PCM from the original codec? Yes and No and here's why:

Yes, decoding will sound the same
When the following conditions are met
1) The crossover in the BD player is the same as the one in the AVR/prepro
2) Delay/Level settings for each speaker channel approximate the settings arrived at when calibrating for the AVR/prepro
3) For analog out, it is possible for the LFE to be boosted by +15dB in the downstream amp whenever speaker settings in the BD player are set to SMALL.
4) Identical DAC's used b/w the BD player and the AVR/prepro
5) Even more of a non-issue when a player decodes and transmits the PCM via HDMI 1.1+ as the DAC's are used in the AVR/prepro when digital transmission is involved.

How often does the above "perfect storm" happen?

No, decoding will not sound the same
1) Most BD players have a fixed crossover (~100-150Hz). CE manufacturers arrive at this number based on the need to support the popular HTIB. AVR/prepro's on the other hand, allow a multitude of crossover settings to best match your situation. If I own decent bookshelves that go down to 60Hz or lower, you better believe I'd rather have the THX recommended 80Hz crossover over the fixed crossover in the player. Analog users are at the mercy of the fixed crossover (decoding to PCM is not affected).
2) Most decent AVR/prepro's come with automatic calibration functions that attempt to correct for errant frequencies, nulls, etc. (examples include Audyssey, MCACC, etc.). Whether you go with the calibration settings or not, there's far more flexibility for equalization, delays, etc. with the AVR/prepro vs the BD player.
3) Boosting of LFE is always appropriately handled when the AVR/prepro accepts the bitstream. If you are working with multichannel analog out connections, you better have the capability to boost that LFE by +15dB whenever any speakers are set to SMALL in the BD player. Many users are discovering that their downstream AVR/prepro can boost up to +10dB but NOT +15dB and complain about a lack of bass! Easy fix is to make sure all speakers are set to LARGE but this is not very ideal for typical bookshelf or satellite speakers (ie. not true fullrange).
4) DAC's play a large part in the final output. In most cases, AVR/prepro DAC's will be superior to a BD player's (this will be more true as we become increasingly digital). Most mid-range AVR/prepro's and BD players will have very comparable DAC's.
5) Some naysayers claim that jitter from PCM transmission over HDMI audibly affects the signal. Jitter involves the BD player's clock not being in line with the AVR/prepro's clock. Can be minimized or solved using technologies like Pioneer's PQLS or Denon's DenonLink.

Here's a quick recap about the PROS/CONS of deciding where the decoding needs to be done:

Decoding in the player and output via analog out

PROS - allows for mixing of secondary audio with primary audio for use with special features like PIP commentary, allows owners to reuse existing equipment, no jitter is possible

CONS - fixed crossover, cannot use automatic calibration settings, possible void in LFE if +15dB boost is not available


Decoding in the player and output via HDMI 1.1+

PROS - allows for mixing of secondary audio with primary audio for use with special features like PIP commentary, allows owners to use older HDMI AVR/prepros, calibration and full bass management possible with a fullrange PCM signal

CONS - possibility of introducing jitter with PCM transmission


Decoding in the AVR/prepro

PROS - all tools available, including calibration, full bass management, etc., no jitter possible

CONS - no secondary audio can be heard as it lacks the BD player's mixing capability (remember that most BD players allow you to toggle b/w mixing and bitstreaming)


The only exception to this rule is if somebody owns a high end AVR/prepro that allows redigitization of the analog signal for full manipulation. Once in the digital domain, then all the PROS above for the AVR/prepro may come into play.

Hope this answers the question in a definitive manner.

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by axe79

Have found this site which is a good read on what the PS3 can bitstream.
http://whatsonhdtv.blogspot.com/2008...ray-audio.html

I just went through that guy's blog. There are a number of inaccuracies. Let me list them:

"It can internally decode DTS-HD High Resolution 7.1 as if it were DTS 5.1. This format is recorded on Blu-ray disc in two parts. The "core" part is equivalent to DTS 5.1. The "extension" part contains the extra audio channels, if present, and also additional information making the reproduced sound more full-range and realistic. The PlayStation 3 ignores the "extension" part and decodes only the "core" part to LPCM 5.1, and outputs the latter on HDMI 1.3."

This is simply not true. The PS3 decodes DTS-HD HR fully and does not revert to the "core" when outputting PCM. Before the April '08 update, my Queen BD showed 1.5Mbps DTS on the TV when I hit "Display." After the update, it showed DTS-HD HR instead of the core value. That's how you know it's being fully decoded and not downsampled to core.

"By the same token, when the PS3 is connected to a device that is not HDMI 1.3-capable, the connection cannot achieve the increased data rates possible with HDMI 1.3. At lower HDMI 1.2 rates, the LPCM output of the PS3 might be internally downsampled so as to reduce its data rate, and thus its audio quality."

As I and others have already pointed out, the full benefits of lossless sound can be enjoyed by anyone who owns an AVR/prepro that is at least HDMI 1.1+ and is capable of receiving multichannel PCM over HDMI. There is no downsampling whatsoever!

"Many PS3 aficionados have asked whether Sony might one day issue a System Software upgrade which will allow the PS3 to pass the various compressed audio formats through as bitstreams to be decoded by external gear. In particular, they'd like the lossless codecs, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, to be optionally treated as bitstreams for external decoding. Of these two lossless codecs, DTS-HD Master Audio is the one most asked about, since Dolby TrueHD is, after all, able to be decoded internally by the PS3 with no loss of information. (Now, as of April 2008, DTS-HD Master Audio can also be decoded by the PS3, but not passed through as a bitstream.)"

Nothing wrong here but I'd like to point out a dirty secret that not too many know about. When the PS3 came out in early Nov 2006, many assumed that any and all devices that were blessed to have the designation "HDMI 1.3" would automatically decode the new lossless codecs and be able to bitstream as a bare minimum. Here's the dirty secret: at the time of introduction, the transmitter chip required for bitstreaming was not even available yet! Google "Silicon Image Vastlane" and you'll get all the gory details. That's why the PS3 will never bitstream but the CELL processor is able to pull off internal decoding in software.

I've followed the PS3 since inception and have owned the 60gb PS3 since Jan 07. Needless to say, I know way more about the PS3 than the average owner.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by EWL5

I'd like to point out a dirty secret that not too many know about. When the PS3 came out in early Nov 2006, many assumed that any and all devices that were blessed to have the designation "HDMI 1.3" would automatically decode the new lossless codecs and be able to bitstream as a bare minimum. Here's the dirty secret: at the time of introduction, the transmitter chip required for bitstreaming was not even available yet! Google "Silicon Image Vastlane" and you'll get all the gory details. That's why the PS3 will never bitstream but the CELL processor is able to pull off internal decoding in software.

I've followed the PS3 since inception and have owned the 60gb PS3 since Jan 07. Needless to say, I know way more about the PS3 than the average owner.

lol wow sorry to take you off your high horse but its no secret why the ps3 cant bitstream the HD formats. alot of people already knew the ps3 didn't have the right HDMI chipset, and didn't get it at the time.

Needless to say, I know way more about the PS3 than the average owner.

LOL ^^^^^ this guy.

[axe79]

Originally Posted by CraigW

wow? sounds like an induction into the world of audiophile snobery...

Have you ever heard of law of diminishing returns? A $100,000 system is not necesarily 10x better than one costing $10,000.

Just because you spend more does not make it better, there are way too many factors involved to audio reproduction that can colorize the final sound. Sounds to me like you like to look at the fancy nameplates you overpaid for.

There's a lot of snake oil in the audiophile world, I have some purple markers that will reduce the jitter with your BDs if you would like?

I didn't mean it to sound like snobbery, but trying to get near to a good live performance is very hard to achieve.
I agree cost isn't the overriding issue, but well specified and designed equipment is. Even then when you open the lid and take a look inside at the various components used there is still massive gains to be made by replacing some in key areas with better quality ones.
Snake oil, yep plenty of that. I work on the view that you start at the beginning of the chain and work down the line till you get to the end!
All the best

PS, I will sit down today and look at what the Amp display reads, I think it is THX DD.

[axe79]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

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.



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.



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.



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.



It still has not been demonstrated that you get better performance via bit streaming 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.

Morning Terrrence
Note your points made, and whilst I do understand technicalities up to a point, being an electronics engineer with test equipment I am not.
However I do understand timing issues and some cause and effects on them.

In theory you are right, it shouldn't make any difference if the processing is done in the PS3 or the AV amp. Also with chips being chips (which they are not, better ones are fitted in the higher ranges of AV), expensive amps or a cheap ones both should do the job equally.
So much for that, in reality many other things effect the chips job accurately, things like a stable rail power feed, corruption on the signal paths, effective de-coupling, dealing with bit error rates, impedance, stable clock speed to name a few.
I find that my Onkyo 875 does the job better than my PS3 (60gb) July07. Both are fed from separate MTU's so have a Totally clean mains fed with no stray voltage on the Neutral leg. All cables/wires are optimised over the shortest/non interference (with each other) lengths.

Purist? Well I appreciate getting things performing as good as I can get them for the room, and I agree with you regarding the room as to system matching to it and tuning the room for sound. If you can't get the room acoustics right you are better off with headphones IMHO.

7:1 and 5:1, well the room is not suited to a 7:1 set up and with my system being well tuned in the lounge there's no holes in the musical/sound-stage performance with 5:1 which is what is on most Blue ray discs anyway.

Thinly veiled arrogance?
I recalled a friend saying this to me years ago, he happened to be the Head Chef of the Royal Hotel in Bath. It really is a point about many people not having cultivated palates. 'Appears the same can be said on other things.' was simply directing the point on other senses.
Yes it is subjective. It is so easy to be sucked into things and think more is better (for instance), but in fact in many cases 'less is more'. It certainly applies with combinations of flavours on the pallet, Classical music (note perfect) Miniaturized signal paths in Hi Fi.

Personally I have a good sounding set up, on both films and music which gives our family and friends many an enjoyable evening. That's what it is about, and I am sure many of us have similar experiences. Whether it is better than somebodies else's system is not important is it?

"It still has not been demonstrated that you get better performance via bit streaming to the receiver over the player doing the decoding."

Er, yes it has, to my ears on my system. Whether you believe me or not is another matter. I was aware of the Chip in the PS3 not being able to Bitstream like newer players can so that made it more puzzling!

Looking at the variables on my set up, I question if the mods I have done, which now makes the amp sound like a 'Full Class A Stereo Amp' with openness, cleanness and the re built crossovers in the MA RS's opening up the mid-range. If the differences would be as distinct as I now find them.

[axe79]

Thanks EWL5 for your take on his web blog.

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by saprano

lol wow sorry to take you off your high horse but its no secret why the ps3 cant bitstream the HD formats. alot of people already knew the ps3 didn't have the right HDMI chipset, and didn't get it at the time.

LOL ^^^^^ this guy.

Yeah, it's so well known that a blog started in March 2008 and still being updated doesn't have a clue and was able to confuse members like axe79 with PS3 misinformation.

If you can show me someone who came up with the "Vastlane Sil9132 PS3 limited implementation" theory before May '07, I'd like to see it:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post10490211

In some ways, I'd like to think people wouldn't give others so much grief for being helpful. I know you guys don't know me as well as the AVS members do but cut me some slack if I get on a high horse every once in a while.

Edit: I just noticed your first post in that same PS3 thread on AVS was 10-19-08. My last post on the same thread was 12-25-07. Looks like we never got a chance to meet, saprano.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by EWL5

I don't have any proof of jitter because I haven't done the shootout yet.

I only have axe79's observation and so I will try to replicate what he's experiencing on my own system. I've never compared the audio of my PS3 against the Denon 3800 because they're usually in different rooms as the respective BD player. Since they both fully decode and output PCM over HDMI, the comparison should be fair, yes?

I don't think it is fair. If you want to do these tests properly, you have to eliminate all differences. You would probably need two identical players hook to your receiver, both using a chip based decoding solution. The PS3 uses a software decoding engine, which makes it so unique it cannot be used in a comparison with other players

A word of advice, never listen to anyone telling you that a product is flawed unless they have evidence that supports that notion. I have seen nothing from axe79's that supports the notion that the PS3 has jitter issues. I know what jitter effects are on the audio signal, and I do not hear those effects from the PS3 when I play my audio discs on it. axe79 has not shown any scope pictures of the PS3 outputting anything, so his word is suspect until he does.

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

I don't think it is fair. If you want to do these tests properly, you have to eliminate all differences. You would probably need two identical players hook to your receiver, both using a chip based decoding solution. The PS3 uses a software decoding engine, which makes it so unique it cannot be used in a comparison with other players

A word of advice, never listen to anyone telling you that a product is flawed unless they have evidence that supports that notion. I have seen nothing from axe79's that supports the notion that the PS3 has jitter issues. I know what jitter effects are on the audio signal, and I do not hear those effects from the PS3 when I play my audio discs on it. axe79 has not shown any scope pictures of the PS3 outputting anything, so his word is suspect until he does.

Since the PS3 decodes in software, does that mean the Denon 3800 will have the audio advantage or does that remain to be seen (or in this case, heard)?

I guess the only fair comparison for a PS3 would be something like a HTPC that decodes the codecs in software as well.

Darn, it'll be 2 weeks before I get to do this shootout.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by axe79

Morning Terrrence
Note your points made, and whilst I do understand technicalities up to a point, being an electronics engineer with test equipment I am not.
However I do understand timing issues and some cause and effects on them.

Almost all references to jitter I have read about come from SDPIF based connections, and comments on jitter from HDMI have not been supported with visual accompaniment, so are just theories until visual representations show up.

In theory you are right, it shouldn't make any difference if the processing is done in the PS3 or the AV amp. Also with chips being chips (which they are not, better ones are fitted in the higher ranges of AV), expensive amps or a cheap ones both should do the job equally.

I think you have some things quite confused. A chip may be better than another, but the programming on that chip is standardized, which means it will not sound any better on the expensive chip than it does on a cheaper one. Dolby nor Dts offer separate programming for one chip, and a different programming for another better one. It is just standard programming. You are not separating the programming from the chip, and are just assuming that a better chip must make everything sound better, when that is just not the case.

So much for that, in reality many other things effect the chips job accurately, things like a stable rail power feed, corruption on the signal paths, effective de-coupling, dealing with bit error rates, impedance, stable clock speed to name a few.

This is pretty standard knowledge, but you still haven't been able to associate any of these with the notion that receiver decoding is better than player decoding.

I find that my Onkyo 875 does the job better than my PS3 (60gb) July07. Both are fed from separate MTU's so have a Totally clean mains fed with no stray voltage on the Neutral leg. All cables/wires are optimised over the shortest/non interference (with each other) lengths.

This is just your opinion though, and apples and oranges at that. You are comparing a chip based solution with a software based one. In this case you moved any differences from your signal paths to differences in how the player or receiver decodes the signals. The only way to prove if one is better than the other, is to use two identical players. There must be NO differences in signal amplitude, and the only way you can accomplish that is will more sophisticated instruments than a level meter. Even .5 a difference between the two can tilt the results to the louder source. This is why I have serious doubts that such a test can be conducted in somebody home, especially if that person wants to come here and propagate it as a definitive answer. The PS3 has been updated quite a bit since July of 07, so what you found in 07, may not be the case in 09.

Purist? Well I appreciate getting things performing as good as I can get them for the room, and I agree with you regarding the room as to system matching to it and tuning the room for sound. If you can't get the room acoustics right you are better off with headphones IMHO.

So far you emphasis has been solely on the accuracy of your equipment, and you have not mentioned what you have done to the room at all. To me this would invalidate any testing you have done with your system in that room. So far I have not seen or heard any room that has the acoustical control of a studio, the only place I think this kinds of listening tests can accurately be done.

7:1 and 5:1, well the room is not suited to a 7:1 set up and with my system being well tuned in the lounge there's no holes in the musical/sound-stage performance with 5:1 which is what is on most Blue ray discs anyway.

I think it is irrelevant that most movies are 5.1 at this point, the fact is 7.1 mixed movies are out there, and when played back through a system that discards two channels, I can hardly call that accurate playback. Keep in mind, DD EX and Dts ES where designed to fill in holes across the back wall. However discrete 7.1 mixes are not created for fill in, but to offer actual discrete signals to two new positions in the sound field. There is a difference.

Thinly veiled arrogance?
I recalled a friend saying this to me years ago, he happened to be the Head Chef of the Royal Hotel in Bath. It really is a point about many people not having cultivated palates. 'Appears the same can be said on other things.' was simply directing the point on other senses.
Yes it is subjective. It is so easy to be sucked into things and think more is better (for instance), but in fact in many cases 'less is more'. It certainly applies with combinations of flavours on the pallet, Classical music (note perfect) Miniaturized signal paths in Hi Fi.

Who decides how miniaturized the signal path must be to sound better than another longer signal path? What guarantees a shorter signal path will necessarily be cleaner than a longer one? You have to quantify that will visible results(measurements), not just your word. I have had far too many of these kinds of conversations with so called golden ear "audiophiles" who put more emphasis on minutia, and not enough on the things that really matter, such as room acoustics. They can tell you all day and all night how they have modified their equipment to produce superior results than the masses can achieve, but stick this in rooms filled with flutter echo, insufficient diffusion or absorption, too much absorption or not enough of it, or have a room full of resonances they are trying to fix through equipment alterations.

Personally I have a good sounding set up, on both films and music which gives our family and friends many an enjoyable evening. That's what it is about, and I am sure many of us have similar experiences. Whether it is better than somebodies else's system is not important is it?

I agree with this. However you seem to be holding your system up as a benchmark that nobody else can achieve. Not to beat a dead horse, but unless you have paid as much attention to making your room as neutral as you have done to your equipment, you are wasting your time.

"It still has not been demonstrated that you get better performance via bit streaming to the receiver over the player doing the decoding."

Er, yes it has, to my ears on my system. Whether you believe me or not is another matter. I was aware of the Chip in the PS3 not being able to Bitstream like newer players can so that made it more puzzling!

I know some folks who believe to their ears Bose is the best speaker on the market, so appeasing yourself doesn't mean its true for everyone. Its not whether I believe you or not, its that I think your testing procedure is flawed in many ways. Did you have your hearing tested? You don't mention this and it is apart of any DBT procedure. I do not think you have the necessary testing equipment to ensure all variables have been address. Besides, I have heard others conduct their own testing, and they have heard no differences once the volume of the sources has been perfectly matched. You make no mention of your testing equipment you used to set up the test, or how you have achieved perfect volume matching.

Looking at the variables on my set up, I question if the mods I have done, which now makes the amp sound like a 'Full Class A Stereo Amp' with openness, cleanness and the re built crossovers in the MA RS's opening up the mid-range. If the differences would be as distinct as I now find them.

Alot of folks have done mods to their amps to achieve better results than before the mods, I've done that myself. My speakers are a complete custom upgrade to a previous design(only the cabinet is left from the original design), and my amps(which are class A/B) are also have major modification to improve their sound quality. My room has only a 3db variation from 20-40khz that it imparts on the output from my speakers which vary only 1.5db from 20-40khz in a anechoic chamber, are time aligned and phase correct, and I have had my hearing tested and still cannot hear a difference from bitstreaming and player decoding. I even have the ability to precisely volume match all of my sources via my HD digital switcher/processor, and still cannot hear a difference. The point I am trying to make is that I have done this test removing far more variables than you have(and still do not think it is scientific enough), used better equipment than a Onkyo receiver and still cannot come to the same conclusion you have.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by EWL5

Since the PS3 decodes in software, does that mean the Denon 3800 will have the audio advantage or does that remain to be seen (or in this case, heard)?

I guess the only fair comparison for a PS3 would be something like a HTPC that decodes the codecs in software as well.

Darn, it'll be 2 weeks before I get to do this shootout.

I cannot say the Denon will have any advantages, but it does eliminate one variable in your testing structure.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by EWL5

Yeah, it's so well known that a blog started in March 2008 and still being updated doesn't have a clue and was able to confuse members like axe79 with PS3 misinformation.

If you can show me someone who came up with the "Vastlane Sil9132 PS3 limited implementation" theory before May '07, I'd like to see it:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post10490211

In some ways, I'd like to think people wouldn't give others so much grief for being helpful. I know you guys don't know me as well as the AVS members do but cut me some slack if I get on a high horse every once in a while.

Edit: I just noticed your first post in that same PS3 thread on AVS was 10-19-08. My last post on the same thread was 12-25-07. Looks like we never got a chance to meet, saprano.

Well i wasn't trying to be mean, i was just saying it was well known for a long time

lol yea we passed each other by.

[axe79]

Well this afternoon I put on 'Never back down' on Blue ray.

1) Played it first on Bitstream THX cinema, DTS @720p/60 up-scaled (by 875) to 1080p/60. Vol -18db (loud and detailed)

2) Then switched to LPMC THX cinema 720p/60 to 1080p.60

3) Then switched to LPMC THX cinema 1080p - through.

Whilst I had impressions of these settings I didn't start to note them until I had heard them all. I started from the last and worked back.

What stuck me on 3 was the brittle sound on music and dialogue and the exaggeration of effects which was tiresome.

2) Was an improvement, picture quality was sharper, better definition, sound wise had too wide a separation, vocals (Mid-range) were too low and unbalanced. An improvement on (3) but was still hearing unbalance rather enjoying the movie.

1) Picture quality the best of all the settings, sounded natural, smooth, wasn't in your face, neither too lazy. Had the presence, attack, balance which I wasn't getting on the other settings. Oh and it played the directors
talk through that I wasn't expecting. So what's going on there then?
I thought it couldn't stream it!

My conclusion is that the 875 does a better job with its Reon processor of upscaling to 1080P. Sending Bitstream to the Amp gives the same tonal effect as Music sources, LPMC doesn't.

Now I am not out to prove one thing over another, I have just found the perfect settings for me on my fault free modified system housed in a large room with carpets, curtains, leather furniture, paintings on the walls etc.

At the end of the day it's all about the Music and Films, just find the best settings, enjoy and relax.

PS Have had a lovely Valentines day, Strolled round Harrogate, made dinner washed down with champagne followed by a nice white. Hope you all had a nice one too.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by axe79

Well this afternoon I put on 'Never back down' on Blue ray.

1) Played it first on Bitstream THX cinema, DTS @720p/60 up-scaled (by 875) to 1080p/60. Vol -18db (loud and detailed)

2) Then switched to LPMC THX cinema 720p/60 to 1080p.60

3) Then switched to LPMC THX cinema 1080p - through.

Whilst I had impressions of these settings I didn't start to note them until I had heard them all. I started from the last and worked back.

What stuck me on 3 was the brittle sound on music and dialogue and the exaggeration of effects which was tiresome.

2) Was an improvement, picture quality was sharper, better definition, sound wise had too wide a separation, vocals (Mid-range) were too low and unbalanced. An improvement on (3) but was still hearing unbalance rather enjoying the movie.

1) Picture quality the best of all the settings, sounded natural, smooth, wasn't in your face, neither too lazy. Had the presence, attack, balance which I wasn't getting on the other settings. Oh and it played the directors
talk through that I wasn't expecting. So what's going on there then?
I thought it couldn't stream it!

My conclusion is that the 875 does a better job with its Reon processor of upscaling to 1080P. Sending Bitstream to the Amp gives the same tonal effect as Music sources, LPMC doesn't.

Now I am not out to prove one thing over another, I have just found the perfect settings for me on my fault free modified system housed in a large room with carpets, curtains, leather furniture, paintings on the walls etc.

At the end of the day it's all about the Music and Films, just find the best settings, enjoy and relax.

PS Have had a lovely Valentines day, Strolled round Harrogate, made dinner washed down with champagne followed by a nice white. Hope you all had a nice one too.

You made the conclusion that bitstream sounds better than LPCM with THX processing on? You have got to be kidding me Try no audio processing whatsover, level matched precisely, under controlled acoustical conditions in a very quiet room.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Try no audio processing whatsover, level matched precisely, under controlled acoustical conditions in a very quiet room.

...and blind folded.

[axe79]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

You made the conclusion that bitstream sounds better than LPCM with THX processing on? You have got to be kidding me Try no audio processing whatsover, level matched precisely, under controlled acoustical conditions in a very quiet room.

Level matched precisely, under controlled acoustical conditions in a very quiet room, of course.
But why not THX, what format would you process?

No other settings sound better on my 875 given its supply.
But if you haven't addressed a very clean Mains supply to your separates the noise off your power rails will be greatly effecting the Burr Brown DAC's on the signal path.
The number of toroidal transformers in your system along with 2 independent audio and video transformers do demand a totally clean feed or the interaction is terrible. No mention of you addressing this.